Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Remathilis]

From the Old-School Demon's (Type VII) Dictionary:

CHALLENGE (Noun) The state of affairs in which the game is calibrated so that any move that is not painstakingly planned, meticulously detailed, utterly paranoid, ruthless and amoral, and rigorously focused on the purposes of survival and gain over drama or characterization will result in a character's swift, brutal and traumatic demise.



Many thanks to several folks on this thread for driving me even farther away from 'true' D&D and old-school gaming. I'll see how it goes if a local gamer gets a BECM game up and running, but the self-conscious old school is looking less and less appealing.

"You must spread some XP around before giving to Mathew L Martin again."

Some people love Tomb of Horrors-style play where every and any miscalculation is fatal. Where 11-foot poles aren't long enough. Where every 8-hour rest includes a nightly ambush. Where every dragon's breath weapon is "Highest PCs Hp+10" damage. Where every paladin MUST fall. I am not one of those people. If I was interested in seeing elaborate death-traps with no reasonable means of escape, I'd watch the SAW movies.

I don't want easy fights, I want feasible fights. To put it another way, the best way to learn to box is to go to a gym and box people of your same skill and weight, not to go call Mike Tyson a sissy.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Many thanks to several folks on this thread for driving me even farther away from 'true' D&D and old-school gaming.

My little sister has an opening in her Candyland group. Should I tell her you're interested?

In all seriousness, in D&D, not every seeming "combat encounter" is meant to be resolved through combat. If your low level party attacks the ancient wyrm and dies a swift, horrible death, it is neither the game nor the DM's fault for bringing an "unbalanced" encounter to completion.

As RC remarked, part of the challenge of the game is tempting players into making "unbalanced" choices; "superior play" is recognizing and avoiding/mitigating the potential "unbalanced" circumstances for their characters.

Part of "old school" talk is DMs acting like mock drill instructors: they don't really want to kill you, just extol you to play your best. That quote from Gary is an example.

Here's a follow-up, from Gary again:

[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.​

 

[Garmorn]

In all seriousness, in D&D, not every seeming "combat encounter" is meant to be resolved through combat. If your low level party attacks the ancient wyrm and dies a swift, horrible death, it is neither the game nor the DM's fault for bringing an "unbalanced" encounter to completion.

As RC remarked, part of the challenge of the game is tempting players into making "unbalanced" choices; "superior play" is recognizing and avoiding/mitigating the potential "unbalanced" circumstances for their characters.

Part of "old school" talk is DMs acting like mock drill instructors: they don't really want to kill you, just extol you to play your best. That quote from Gary is an example.

Here's a follow-up, from Gary again:

[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.​

Do really play this way? Can the PC with any warning stumble into a lair of a monster or NPC that so powerful that even if they run they are dead? You sound alot more experenced than that. Or we miss communicating? See my remakes below to my approach to things.

From the Old-School Demon's (Type VII) Dictionary:

CHALLENGE (Noun) The state of affairs in which the game is calibrated so that any move that is not painstakingly planned, meticulously detailed, utterly paranoid, ruthless and amoral, and rigorously focused on the purposes of survival and gain over drama or characterization will result in a character's swift, brutal and traumatic demise.

I don't know where he got this from but if this is old school the I glad I never played it this way. First this means every players character should die the first instant they do one suboptimal action. Real life is not this way, sure if a combat soldier makes mistakes on a continuing bases it will get him killed but not every time like that says.

For an experienced group that is playing sandbox there should be clues. For an inexperienced group or one playing a very narrow story arch then the encounters should be some thing the can hanlde even if it means by running a way.

 

[Remathilis]

In all seriousness, in D&D, not every seeming "combat encounter" is meant to be resolved through combat. If your low level party attacks the ancient wyrm and dies a swift, horrible death, it is neither the game nor the DM's fault for bringing an "unbalanced" encounter to completion.

See, this type of play places all the "fault" of such an encounter on the PCs while absolving the DM of any guilt. If negotiations go poorly, if the PCs misjudge the power of the beast, or if they feel the best route is to "get the drop" on the monster, well, that's THEIR fault their characters died. Hope your smarter next time.

(assuming of course the dragon wants to chat, rather than just sending flaming hot breath down the corridor to incinerate the would-be treasure hunters.)

Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration? Can't the same effect come from a dragon closer to the PC's relative power? Perhaps maybe a few levels higher, rather than multiple? Is it a requirement the encounter be a TPK on legs?

Part of "old school" talk is DMs acting like mock drill instructors: they don't really want to kill you, just extol you to play your best. That quote from Gary is an example.

The first DM who treats me like a green-recruit in an army is the first DM a walk-out on. D&D is supposed to be a fun past time, not boot camp. Any DM who thinks constant beatings will improve player morale is going to find themselves short of players.

 

[Fifth Element]

The first DM who treats me like a green-recruit in an army is the first DM a walk-out on. D&D is supposed to be a fun past time, not boot camp. Any DM who thinks constant beatings will improve player morale is going to find themselves short of players.

It can definitely be seen as a paternalistic or patronizing attitude. "You guys just think you want balanced encounters. You just think they're what you find fun. I know better."

 

[Gentlegamer]

See, this type of play places all the "fault" of such an encounter on the PCs while absolving the DM of any guilt.

Obviously our hypothetical encounter is lacking important context and detail. A good DM gives clues that can be picked up on by the players; part of "superior play" is interpreting and reacting to these clues appropriately.

There is no real game in placing the characters in no-chance, insta-kill situations; however, I would suggest that many times if the situation seems that way it is because the players missed some clues or didn't consider other alternatives for "resolving" the matter, at least in regard to their characters' lives.

As an aside, isn't there a rather powerful surprise encounter with a comparatively powerful dragon at the moathouse in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil?

(assuming of course the dragon wants to chat, rather than just sending flaming hot breath down the corridor to incinerate the would-be treasure hunters.)

Well, for example, if you're a 5th level party exploring the 15th dungeon level, you ought to be kicking yourself for ignoring the advice your meta-game knowledge suggests be followed.

I don't know what levels Bilbo and Smaug were, but their encounter suggests alternatives to instant TPK for player characters and a dragon of disparate power level.

Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration? Can't the same effect come from a dragon closer to the PC's relative power? Perhaps maybe a few levels higher, rather than multiple? Is it a requirement the encounter be a TPK on legs?

As noted, our hypothetical encounter with a powerful dragon is lacking in greater context, but if the party knows they are going on an expedition against one, perhaps (for example) they should first embark on a side quest to obtain an arrow of dragon slaying first. Just in case.

The first DM who treats me like a green-recruit in an army is the first DM a walk-out on. D&D is supposed to be a fun past time, not boot camp. Any DM who thinks constant beatings will improve player morale is going to find themselves short of players.

Players who have fun being challenged will flock to the "tough" DM. The others will schedule games of Candyland, at least until their skill improves at keeping the game "balanced" to their taste, regardless of potential bait the DM dangles out there.

If negotiations go poorly, if the PCs misjudge the power of the beast, or if they feel the best route is to "get the drop" on the monster, well, that's THEIR fault their characters died. Hope your smarter next time.

I'm glad you see my point.

Do you want a game where victory through combat is always the "reasonably safe" fallback option? Why or why not?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration? Can't the same effect come from a dragon closer to the PC's relative power? Perhaps maybe a few levels higher, rather than multiple? Is it a requirement the encounter be a TPK on legs?

I like a static game. If there is an ancient wyrm in the Dragonspine mountains, he remains an ancient wyrm, regardless if the pcs are level 1 or 80. If the first level pcs decide to tackle him, he will not spontaneously lose 79 levels just because they walked into his lair.

 

[Garthanos]

There is no real game in placing the characters in no-chance, insta-kill situations; however, I would suggest that many times if the situation seems that way it is because the players missed some clues or didn't consider other alternatives for "resolving" the matter, at least in regard to their characters' lives.

Feh prejudice in favor of the DM on your part... the DM obviously had NPC's laughing at the players behind there back snickering at the cowardly heros.. and similar ways to "tempt" the players in to biting off more than they can chew...isnt that the word you used? tempting. It sounds like you consider it a DM goal...

DM's are the sole source of information for the players so it seems to me jumping to the conclusion and calling the players attempting to battle something beyond there characters capacity inferior is a real sign of prejudice. And an utter cop out.

My assumption is that TPK's are generally a miscommunication in any version of the game.

 

[Fifth Element]

A good DM gives clues that can be picked up on by the players; part of "superior play" is interpreting and reacting to these clues appropriately.

My problem with this is that it means there is a "right answer." The players are supposed to know they can't defeat the thing in combat, which to me is just as bad as making combat the only possible result of any encounter.

If there is a right way to react to these hypothetical clues, that hampers roleplaying. That's one serious advantage of balanced encounters - the PCs can approach them in a variety of ways, rather than having some ways be instant death.

Players who have fun being challenged will flock to the "tough" DM. The others will schedule games of Candyland, at least until their skill improves at keeping the game "balanced" to their taste, regardless of potential bait the DM dangles out there.

Or, they may schedule games of D&D with a DM they don't feel is out to get them, or out to "teach" them how to play the "right" way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Feh prejudice in favor of the DM on your part... the DM obviously had NPC's laughing at the players behind there back snickering at the cowardly heros.. and similar ways to "tempt" the players in to biting off more than they can chew...isnt that the word you used? tempting. It sounds like you consider it a DM goal...

Yes. Tempting the players is one challenge that can be considered in the DM's toolbox.

DM's are the sole source of information for the players so it seems to me jumping to the conclusion and calling the players attempting to battle something beyond there characters capacity inferior is a real sign of prejudice. And an utter cop out.

Players may seek out additional information before taking almost every action. Skilled players will use all "informational abilities" (sensory info, scouting, magical scrying, interrogation of NPCs, etc) at their disposal to this end. DMs should reward these efforts with reasonably accurate information for the players to base decisions on.

My assumption is that TPK's are generally a miscommunication in any version of the game.

They can be, but more common I think is the TPK created by poor play.

I remember in my own campaign, the players (about 5th level) were in an dungeon area faced with three passages (transported there by a being similar to the mad-wizard Zagyg), each with an engraving suggesting what might be encountered beyond: beholder, dragon, and giant. The players chose the giant passage. As Galadriel might have said, "They passed the test."