Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Maggan]

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...

Check out the rpg Kult if you can find it. The premise is that the world is an illusion.

/M

 

[ExploderWizard]

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?

The PC's are negotiating with a dragon because they cannot just kill it, take its stuff, and move on. Once players sense that a situation is winnable in combat there is little to motivate them to act otherwise unless the rewards for doing so are immediate and obvious.

Part of the balance for the game comes from being able to make decisions that pay off in a huge way and sometimes having the chance to step in a big enough mess to bring about total ruin.

If everything is kept on an even keel and within the "beatable" range then the game can become less exciting.

In the last session of my 4E campaign, the PC's discovered evidence of an underground tunneling creature in the area. On thier next foray out, they decided to bring along a goat as an early warning system and sacrificial bait for the beastie if it came to that.

A little while later, the party (mostly 2nd level), was attacked by a hungry bulette (a level 9 monster). The PC's got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster. Thier attacks prove ineffectual, so they left the goat and fled across the river while the monster munched on the goat.

The "challenge" of the encounter was for the players and was not one of comparative combat statistics. The players recognized the danger and took appropriate action. They did not plan thier expedition to fight a rampaging underground monster. Now that they have knowledge of the threat, they can choose to make plans for removing it. Depending on the plan and the skill of implementation, they might overcome the beast through methods outside of standard combat.

These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.

 

[Fifth Element]

These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.

There's some truth there, and it does illustrate how silly the cries that 4E is so gamist are. 1E is extremely gamist - it challenged the players rather than the characters.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The PC's are negotiating with a dragon because they cannot just kill it, take its stuff, and move on. Once players sense that a situation is winnable in combat there is little to motivate them to act otherwise unless the rewards for doing so are immediate and obvious.

Part of the balance for the game comes from being able to make decisions that pay off in a huge way and sometimes having the chance to step in a big enough mess to bring about total ruin.

If everything is kept on an even keel and within the "beatable" range then the game can become less exciting.

In the last session of my 4E campaign, the PC's discovered evidence of an underground tunneling creature in the area. On thier next foray out, they decided to bring along a goat as an early warning system and sacrificial bait for the beastie if it came to that.

A little while later, the party (mostly 2nd level), was attacked by a hungry bulette (a level 9 monster). The PC's got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster. Thier attacks prove ineffectual, so they left the goat and fled across the river while the monster munched on the goat.

The "challenge" of the encounter was for the players and was not one of comparative combat statistics. The players recognized the danger and took appropriate action. They did not plan thier expedition to fight a rampaging underground monster. Now that they have knowledge of the threat, they can choose to make plans for removing it. Depending on the plan and the skill of implementation, they might overcome the beast through methods outside of standard combat.

These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.

What I was trying to say, only said better.

 

[Gimby]

The PC's are negotiating with a dragon because they cannot just kill it, take its stuff, and move on. Once players sense that a situation is winnable in combat there is little to motivate them to act otherwise unless the rewards for doing so are immediate and obvious.

Part of the balance for the game comes from being able to make decisions that pay off in a huge way and sometimes having the chance to step in a big enough mess to bring about total ruin.

If everything is kept on an even keel and within the "beatable" range then the game can become less exciting.

In the last session of my 4E campaign, the PC's discovered evidence of an underground tunneling creature in the area. On thier next foray out, they decided to bring along a goat as an early warning system and sacrificial bait for the beastie if it came to that.

A little while later, the party (mostly 2nd level), was attacked by a hungry bulette (a level 9 monster). The PC's got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster. Thier attacks prove ineffectual, so they left the goat and fled across the river while the monster munched on the goat.

The "challenge" of the encounter was for the players and was not one of comparative combat statistics. The players recognized the danger and took appropriate action. They did not plan thier expedition to fight a rampaging underground monster. Now that they have knowledge of the threat, they can choose to make plans for removing it. Depending on the plan and the skill of implementation, they might overcome the beast through methods outside of standard combat.

These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.

I think this is actually part of what Remathallis was looking for - the enemy monster is out of (easily) beatable range, but not massively so. Part of the challenge is letting people step in a huge mess *but realise they have done so and make corrective action*.

If your tunneling monster had instead been, I dunno, a level 30 Remorhaz then we get "The party got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster, at which point they were wiped out in one round by its flaming aura. The End." Its about getting that balance (ah-ha!) between threat and instant lethality.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

In games where its the only form of conflict with a well defined methodology it seems like it is an encouraged fall back whether safe or not ... if trickery and deciept and divine bonded oaths were well defined mechanically they might be higher on the list.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I note that, in the classic D&D format, danger levels tend to increase incrementally, so that players can (or should) be able to guage where they are on the scale if they are paying attention.

Moreover, the flatter the level curve, the easier it is to engage in situations where combat is not the best option, but characters can survive. Only 3e, with its very steep level curve, makes this difficult -- in 1e, 2e, or (from what I understand) 4e, this shouldn't be a problem.



RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

In games where its the only form of conflict with a well defined methodology it seems like it is an encouraged fall back whether safe or not ... if trickery and deciept and divine bonded oaths were well defined mechanically they might be higher on the list.

So the reason to approach a problem in a given manner relies more heavily on resolution mechanics than common sense or logic?

If one is playing with a DM who cannot or will not judge the game based on the merits of a given course of action instead relying on rote mechanical resolution formulae then I can see your point.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

Oh! I like how you think!

I'm a rat bastard, but not that rat of a bastard, though, and my veteran players knew that. The party in question was 6 PCs with assorted henchmen and hirelings (total of about 12 characters), a mix of veteran players of my campaign and n00bs.

 

[Gimby]

Oh! I like how you think!

I'm a rat bastard, but not that rat of a bastard, though, and my veteran players knew that. The party in question was 6 PCs with assorted henchmen and hirelings (total of about 12 characters), a mix of veteran players of my campaign and n00bs.

Yeah, thats pretty much my point about reading the DM's mind (or knowing their style, if you prefer). In your game, good play is deciphering the engravings and following the clues, in my game, good play is ignoring the engravings and using other information gathering methods. A player going from my table to yours or vice versa will result in what was previously good play becoming poor play.

In short, "good play" or "poor play" aren't absolute player skills except where the players have full control over their situation. There are certainly aspects that carry over from one table to another, but I don't think its a simple player skill issue.