Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Piratecat]

Woo, simul-mod!

 

[Hussar]

I don't. I base my assumptions on that I'll still be running the campaign ten years from now, and that while some of the players may be the same as those who start out, some or all of them may not.
I suspect Gygax's assumptions were similar to my own: that the campaign will be fluid enough and robust enough to handle some player turnover during its lifespan, and will go on long enough that said turnover is pretty much inevitable.

My last long campaign went almost 12 years and had a total of 21 players involved at some point or other. One of those players went from start to finish. Several others - maybe 10 - were in for 5 or more years (some of whom I'd never even met when the campaign started!). The rest were in for varying lengths of time ranging from a few sessions to a few years.

And, coming back to topic, this does affect the balance of the game. Long-term players are likelier (though not guaranteed) to have long-term characters, who have had much more opportunity to amass wealth etc. than a rookie. And this is one balance issue I have yet to find a good means of addressing, other than by the most undesireable method of giving new characters loads of wealth coming in.

Lanefan

But, Lanefan, sure, that's fine for you. But would you consider yourself to be representative of the majority of gamers out there? Would you consider a 12 year campaign to be the norm?

I certainly wouldn't. WOTC's market research also wouldn't. It was made pretty clear that the average group and campaign lasts about two years tops. Sure, if you are in a situation where you can think that long term, that's great. But, I really don't want to play a game that presumes that as a starting point.

What's the point of designing a game with assumptions that you know to be untrue most of the time?

And this gets back to the whole design question in my mind. I agree with you actually. I think Gygax and co. did design the game for what they played at THEIR table. This is how it worked for them. I don't think that "balance" was a real consideration beyond what worked at their table. They didn't sit down and work from the position that the game should work at most tables.

If you play the way Gygax played, then probably 1e works great for you and it will likely be balanced to a pretty decent degree. Not because balance was a design priority, but because it worked at their table, so it probably will work at yours (not you specifically Lanefan, just the general you this time. ) As soon as you started deviating from those baseline assumptions, balance goes straight out the window.

Ariosto claims that there is a large window for PC wealth, for example. He's right, the 1e DMG gives little to no guidance on how much wealth a PC should have at a particular level. Thus, we see groups where 5th level characters have Vorpal swords and groups where 10th level characters are lucky to have a +1 Spoon.

I would argue that neither group is particularly well balanced. It's only balanced because the DM massages the system so that challenges match up - either bumping up the difficulty by using nastier monsters, or using weaker monsters. Thus we achieve Raven Crowkings "Balance in Play" model. In the end, the game leaves it up to the DM to achieve balance, thus, I would argue, that balance is not a design goal of the game.

 

[Hussar]

Gonna try to avoid the wall of text this time.

Let me rephrase. If a game is designed such that it presumes that the GM will achieve balance, can we really say that game balance was a design goal?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It is also true that the instructions for a skill challenge in 4e start a priori with the DM specifying the overwhelmingly decisive factors: The DCs and numbers of rolls.

The DM also determines which skills apply. Given the standard, that is relatively trivial in terms of probability variation. "Give some thought to which skills you select here, keeping in mind the goal of involving all the players in the action." Note that it is DM selection of factors -- not awaiting a player plan -- that takes priority, and that "the action" is defined as making those dice-rolls.

Might a DM allow a player plan to "spoil" a challenge? Perhaps, but if there is any mention of the possibility of aborting the procedure then it is well buried. What is suggested is that, "if a player wants to use a skill you didn't identify as a primary skill in the challenge, however, then the DC for using that secondary skill is hard. ... In addition, a secondary skill can never be used by a single character more than once in a challenge."

Love it or not, the character of the undertaking is very hard to mistake. The clear methodology is not surprisingly in keeping with the explicitly stated ends. The 4e DMG is no anthology of abstruse High Gygaxian!

I will readily admit that the advice on skill challenges as presented in the 4E DMG was underwhelming. Better advice surfaced before 4E hit the shelves and better advice has emerged since the release of the 4E DMG. Much discussion here has occurred on improving the use of the skill challenge tool. Picking out the bad advice from the DMG doesn't make the skill challenge tool flawed. In fact, much of the advice takes the methods of "High Gygaxian" and overlays it onto the framework the skill challenge mechanic provides.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Some are just confusing, as they are at odds with more widely accepted usage.

Then there's "Vanilla". What might one think to call the Not-Vanilla? Take a guess.

Take at least 30 more guesses.

[SBLOCK]"Pervy"[/SBLOCK]

I only needed one guess, but that's because I have friends who lead "alternative lifestyles." I didn't know that Forgies were swingers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would argue that neither group is particularly well balanced. It's only balanced because the DM massages the system so that challenges match up - either bumping up the difficulty by using nastier monsters, or using weaker monsters. Thus we achieve Raven Crowkings "Balance in Play" model. In the end, the game leaves it up to the DM to achieve balance, thus, I would argue, that balance is not a design goal of the game.

No, no, no, no.

That is a misreading of what I am saying.

In 1e, it is explicitly up to the players to seek the level of challenge they are comfortable with -- and, if they are successful, reap the rewards thereof.

In the Gygaxian model if a group of 5th level characters has a vorpal sword, it is because they earned it. If a group of 10th level characters has little more than a +1 spoon, it is because they did not. Both groups might be active within the same campaign milieu, playing under the same GM. They may have had the same opportunities. They might mix-n-match in some game sessions. In fact, in the Gygaxian model, it is likely that their careers will intersect from time to time.

The GM does not, and should not, "bump" challenges up or down, or perform any changes in situ to make things easier, harder, more rewarding, or less rewarding for the players. The only admonishment Gygax makes in this regard is that the GM consider what the players are attempting, and how well they going about it, when making various die rolls. Moving quietly and quickly toward your objective, therefore, should result in fewer wandering monsters (as a specific example from the DMG 1e). Likewise, combats and loud arguing can and should call for an extra roll to see if wandering monsters come to investigate.

It is not incumbent upon the GM to balance character against character, characters against encounter, etc., etc., except in broad terms over the course of the entire campaign. Thus, the GM balances the total sum of opportunities, and balances how the rules are applied. No other balance is needed, and (in Gygaxian D&D) no other balance is desireable.

I will certainly agree that even 1e was not always played in the Gygaxian mode....the advent and sale of modules, tournaments, etc., prevented this to some degree. DragonLance was about as anti-Gygaxian as one can get within the 1e framework.

But it is the Gygaxian model that 1e is balanced for, and for that model it is balanced well.


RC

 

[Hussar]

In the Gygaxian model if a group of 5th level characters has a vorpal sword, it is because they earned it. If a group of 10th level characters has little more than a +1 spoon, it is because they did not.

How is random treasure generation "earning" anything? If I kill monster X, it should have treasure type Y (well maybe not Y specifically, but, Y as a variable... ah hell. ;p) That gives me a certain percentage chance of various types of rewards. A single lucky roll nets me a vorpal sword. Since the GM should never "perform any changes in situ to make things easier, harder, more rewarding, or less rewarding for the players", my rewards are entirely random.

It is quite possible that with a couple of lucky die rolls, I wind up with an artifact. Now, since the GM should never make any changes, how does that work with "Gygaxian" balance?

And, hang on. How can a GM possibly maintain balance if he is not allowed to make any changes? If the system requires GM intervention to achieve balance, which you have repeatedly argued, then how can the GM then be barred from interfering?

If the GM never needs to intervene, then the system is designed for balance before play. But, you argued that the opposite is true - that 1e is designed for balance IN play.

So, which is it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

How is random treasure generation "earning" anything? If I kill monster X, it should have treasure type Y (well maybe not Y specifically, but, Y as a variable... ah hell. ;p) That gives me a certain percentage chance of various types of rewards.

Reread the book.....it gives an opportunity to earn that treasure, but it does not mean that you do so. A single lucky roll does not net you a vorpal sword, because when the GM set up the encounter, either the vorpal sword was used against you (in which case, you needed to be lucky!) or it is well hidden/guarded/trapped.

Your rewards are not random. That

the GM should never "perform any changes in situ to make things easier, harder, more rewarding, or less rewarding for the players"

means that the GM should be prepping these things, not changing them on the fly. Nor are your rewards entirely random, as Gygax repeatedly admonished the GM to not use what is rolled if it makes no sense, or is something that the GM does not wish in the game.

It is quite possible that with a couple of lucky die rolls, I wind up with an artifact. Now, since the GM should never make any changes, how does that work with "Gygaxian" balance?

It says that you did not understand what was meant by "in situ". It is meant to refer to "in game play", not "when prepping the game".

And, hang on. How can a GM possibly maintain balance if he is not allowed to make any changes?

"Unask the question."

Hopefully, what I wrote above will help you to see the answer. The line of reasoning you are following here, though, is counterproductive. The GM should make changes in prep, not in play. The GM should balance the game on the macro level, the players on the micro.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Ok, so, basically, it's perfectly okay for the GM to fudge die rolls in prep, but not during play in order to maintain balance.

See, to me, the books say if I kill a given monster, it should have a particular treasure. That treasure gives a certain percentage chance of various coinage and magic items. It does not say anything about burying 25% (an arbitrary number I picked out of the air) of the value in some out of the way vault that the PC's are expected never to find.

So, despite the fact that I'm given no guidance as to how much wealth is actually a "reasonable amount", I'm just supposed to know, somehow, how much treasure I should make unavailable for the players.

Because:

A single lucky roll does not net you a vorpal sword, because when the GM set up the encounter, either the vorpal sword was used against you (in which case, you needed to be lucky!) or it is well hidden/guarded/trapped.

appears no where in the description of the vorpal sword. I'm not exactly sure how that wyvern is supposed to be using the vorpal sword, or why the wyvern has a very well hidden vault. I guess if I roll a particular treasure for my wyvern, I'm supposed to have magically inherited the ability to know how much treasure is the right amount to make available.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok, so, basically, it's perfectly okay for the GM to fudge die rolls in prep, but not during play in order to maintain balance.

It is not "perfectly okay" in the Gygaxian system; it is the GM's job.

See, to me, the books say if I kill a given monster, it should have a particular treasure.

Which books are those? When was the last time you read the 1e DMG? I am guessing it is a long, long time ago (if ever). Because if, after reading the 1e DMG, you still come to that conclusion, there is nothing I can do to help you.

If I had the book here at work with me, I could quote the relevant sections. But it would be a very long post.


RC