Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garthanos]

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

Poor DMing by poor communication and using a poor game mechanic like ... but I rolled it up on the random encounter chart... are the poor play I seen result in TPK's

 

[Gimby]

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

...

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

This is all fine, but its the kind of thing that has traditionally lead to accusations of pixel-bitching and overly cautious behaviour. This is particularly not aided by "Gotcha" monsters and traps seemingly deliberately designed to confound information gathering techniques. If you spend the time to evade the Ear Seekers and so on, you run the risk of running into wandering monsters.

Poor play may indeed be poor a certain amount of the time, but other times it may simply be not reading the DM's mind. Particularly if the PCs are caught by something the DM neglected to mention, not through malice but simply by being human.

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."

See, he'res a good example. Three tunnels with engravings on. They have to trust that their interpretation is correct and they weren't, say, a Gas Spore, a Pseudodragon and a Storm Giant. They also have to trust that this actually pertains as to what is up ahead and not a trap of some sort. The players can only make choices to demonstrate good play if the DM is actually providing enough and accurate enough information for them to make informed decisions.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

Like I said, there should be clues, strong clues even, such as listening to the NPC wizard:

"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting."
or
"Fly! Swords are no more use here! This foe is beyond any of you!"

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.

If combat is always the "safe fallback" option for an encounter, once discovered, the players will almost always choose it as the easiest option, human nature being what it is.

Challenges are often constructed by getting someone out of his comfort zone. Games are no different.

In terms of "hopeless" combat encounters, the two players whom the Tomb of Horrors was designed to challenge, neither Ernie Gygax nor Rob Kuntz actually defeated the demi-lich; each grabbed as much treasure as possible and beat a swift retreat rather than "test" their characters against the thing in the vault. So they "beat" the tomb without fighting the "boss" at the end. On the other hand, a group playing it in a tournament came up with an unanticipated method (unanticipated by Gary even) of destroying the demi-lich (involving the crown and scepter for those who know the module): they were awarded first place.

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.

You don't need a DM for that type of game; Candyland is ready to play out of the box.

 

[Garthanos]

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

Way too trivial to deceive and maniplulate.. I know my players goals and what they are after in play. I tempt them with perfectly reasonable heroic goals.. like evidence the dragon is evil and imminent threat. And since I am eyes and ears and the better part of memories.... its easy I can give them fairy tales about dragon slayers or whatever I might need to set the stage... and if I want them to bite off more than they can chew give em a taste .. a baby dragon that isnt known by the people it is harassing to be just a baby... they kill it maybe not even easily. Then the next dragon is my tpk tool... wow what a toolbox... oh yeah... must be fun to kill player characters. Next time they play with me they will know better. I can teach them being a heros is an idiots task ... its there job to cower in fear.... like all the rest of the peasants.

Players may seek out additional information before taking almost every action.

May becomes "must" way easily and you have characters listening for 10 minutes behind every door and searching for traps and tapping ahead with 11 foot poles and searching for secret doors in every room and intersection... I saw people write down a sequence of horribly boring activities both out of paranoia and because (hearing about those things became uninteresting) ... they tap the list when the dm asks them what they are doing...

Make your world one giant deception... one giant death trap and I for one wouldnt want to watch, play or interact with it. I haven't watched many movies or read any books where this was the case.

 

[Garthanos]

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

I got it covered.

 

[Garthanos]

You don't need a DM for that type of game; Candyland is ready to play out of the box.

You seem to use it like a verbal club are you meaning it that way?

Gygax had issues like all of us.... propagate and glorify if you like, but not all his words qualified as words of wisdom some really were just unfortunate and insulting to people who might consider different forms of play interesting... if you are passionate about something that can happen even to heroes.

 

[billd91]

You seem to use it like a verbal club are you meaning it that way?

Gygax had issues like all of us.... propagate and glorify if you like, but not all his words qualified as words of wisdom some really were just unfortunate and insulting to people who might consider different forms of play interesting... if you are passionate about something that can happen even to heroes.

I think you're making too much of the Candyland quote... and yet not enough.

Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge. No player decision, other than playing in the first place, matters a whit to how the game is resolved. It's pure chance.

By contrast, Gygax is talking about playing a game in which player decisions matter and either contribute or detract from the success of the players, sometimes in substantial ways. And it's up to the DM to actually make those decisions challenging enough that bad decisions, good decisions, worse decisions, and better decisions lead to appropriate results for the players.

In the case of players not wanting to risk the poison needle in the lock traps, death from goblin ambushes, etc, then perhaps the decision they should make is to not adventure. If the game adheres to a guideline that all encounters should be level-appropriate, then what or whose decisions are we concerned with? If all encounters are expected to be successfully fought, then the only decisions are in tactically how, not strategically whether or not the fight should be fought at all. That may not constrain the decisions as tightly as Candyland, but I would argue that it's not as broad as it should be either. It also means a degree of challenge in the game is lost, the challenge of understanding when to throw down the gauntlet and when to not and even of assessing when to disengage if the decision to fight turns out rash.

 

[Gimby]

If the game adheres to a guideline that all encounters should be level-appropriate, then what or whose decisions are we concerned with?

Its worth noting at this point that this is a guideline thats not presented in any edition of the DMG.

-edit To expand on that a little further, there are still strategic considerations even if it were - avoiding a patrol you may be able to destroy might mean that they are less likely to be missed. Chasing a level appropriate encounter through rough terrain may delay or distract you from your main objective. Killing an ambushing street gang will have repercussions with your relationships with other factions in a city, and so on. All this is also true of encounters that bear no relationship to party level (as far as such a thing is a valid metric) but is meant to demonstrate there is more than just will we/won't we win as a strategic consideration.

-edit edit

To give an example of this, in the current 24th level game I'm in, we were confronted with a portal maze containing a Phane. This was very much a level appropriate encounter. We decided to avoid the fight and negotiate with the creature to attack the demons who were chasing us instead.

 

[Tistur]

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.

Hmmm. I did not read this as saying there is a right way to handle it, just that there is a wrong way. Any way that is not that wrong way could be considered the "right" way.

Anyway, that interpretation is the one that makes sense to me.

 

[Lanefan]

Make your world one giant deception... one giant death trap and I for one wouldnt want to watch, play or interact with it.

Doesn't have to all be "one giant death trap", but the thought of a campaign world being all "one giant deception" is giving me some interesting ideas...

Lan-"this is not the world you think it is, and it never was"-efan