Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garthanos]

I truly believe that the InterWeb skews communication. Five minutes in a pub clears up more problems -- and gets more across clearly -- than 500 posts. On average, anyway!

Acknowledged... cant distinguish dismissive tone of voice versus something else so easily. I probably should have assumed more positively.

 

[Ariosto]

Any argument from particulars of fiction, that AD&D ought therefore to be thus and so, is to miss the goal of design and contradict the designer's own statements. The game was most definitely not intended as a "Tolkien simulation" or "Moorcock model". What Arneson and Gygax borrowed from those sources were ingredients to add to a stew, the flavor of which was distinctively its own but that pretty clearly emphasized players taking the initiative and pursuing ambitions.

Per Gygax, "the most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL and A. Merritt." It is in the areas of overlap among those, I think, that one might most fruitfully expect to find themes given prominent expression.

On the other hand, although AD&D was very clearly Gygaxian it was not solely that. Much by other hands had been woven into the fabric of D&D, and the Advanced books included some things more on the merits that others saw in them. The basic structure was still the same modular one, more a trimming of what had "organically grown" than a truly systematic "design" (along the lines of Hussar's observation). The influence of Tolkien and Moorcock on the market for the game was due a tip of the hat, as were the interests of other parties (such as those enjoying the various weapon factors, or psionics). It was easy enough to dispense with whatever one happened not to find indispensable!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obvious?

Given that he refers to them in the section of the DMG under discussion, I would have to say "Yes, obvious".

The Treasure Type tables debuted in the original release of D&D, where there was no advice given as to their use - thus, the vorpal swords for 1st level characters and such.

He talks about this too.

So, again, yes.....obvious. Very, very, blindingly obvious.

Acknowledged... cant distinguish dismissive tone of voice versus something else so easily. I probably should have assumed more positively.

RC

 

[Ariosto]

Garthanos, all I see from you are objections on the basis either of

* "Realistic" grounds -- which I don't think are nearly so sensible by the alleged standards, and in any case were very specifically "in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!"

* "Simulation" of this or that fiction, especially of fictions other than those high on the list of influences. "It does little to attempt to simulate anything either."

As Gygax wrote, "A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires."

* Misrepresentation -- perhaps really founded in misunderstanding of what real wealth means. Money in the game -- as in real life -- is just a symbolic token. You can award x.p. without the token of g.p., but then in what terms (if any) will you conduct the dialog of the game? If you come up with a satisfactory (for you) answer, then go ahead and implement it.

* Wrong Game -- pretty much what every argument seems to boil down to. "D&D sucks, I'd rather play T&T ... or C&S ... or Runequest ... or Champions ... or Milton Bradley Hero Quest". That's fruitful dissatisfaction, a creative dynamic that enriches the hobby/industry, when it is in fact applied in a way that diversifies the offerings. Playing Monopoly, "One Rule to Ring Them All", is something else.

 

[Hairfoot]

The game was most definitely not intended as a "Tolkien simulation" or "Moorcock model".

I don't think early D&Ds cater too well to high-fantasy sagas of epic hero-ness. They start from a pulp ideal in which the PCs are presumed to be money-grubbing mercenaries whose contribution to the greater good is largely coincidental or the product of later character development (which I think covers the cast of The Hobbit, but not LotR).

In that case, the experience-for-gold mechanic is reliable, but the player preference for princess-saving good-guy characters that emerged later may have driven the kill-villains-for-advancement model that reigns today.

 

[Ariosto]

Why use "x.p. for g.p."? Why not? A serious answer, consistently pursued, is likely to raise other questions. Why "experience points" in the first place; why "character classes" and "levels"?

I am not surprised that so many thoughtful designers -- including those at WotC -- who set out to do "D&D, but better" actually end up with something radically different in much more than that one fundamental. They have different goals, and so quite sensibly pursue them with different means.

Nor am I dismayed that the designers of RuneQuest -- very much concerned with "realism" and "simulation" -- cut out the whole business of x.p. and went to converting treasure directly into bonuses to fighting, magic, and other abilities!

 

[Ariosto]

What does the "x.p. for slaughter" crowd make of Frodo and Samwise, I wonder? Or of The Lord of the Rings, really, as a model for D&D? (See the "DM of the Rings" Web-comic, please!)

The Hobbit, on the other hand, has always seemed to me as natural a source of inspiration as Swords Against Wizardry and The Swords of Lankhmar.

Smaug the magic dragon lived on the heath,
And in the Lonely Mountain lay with treasure underneath.
Little Bilbo Baggins set off one summer day
With Gandalf and a bunch of dwarves to steal that gold away.

[ ... ]

The Mountain King Returned, the river flowed with gold,
And Mr. Baggins turned at last back toward his hobbit hole.
Returning from adventure, from war and dragon's lair,
He found Lobelia walking off with all his silverware.

 

[M.L. Martin]

What does the "x.p. for slaughter" crowd make of Frodo and Samwise, I wonder? Or of The Lord of the Rings, really, as a model for D&D? (See the "DM of the Rings" Web-comic, please!)

This Tolkien fan sees it as 'proof D&D isn't really well-suited to Tolkien-style fantasy, despite superficial elements of the rules and trends in that direction during 2E (including an article by Eric Noah himself in DRAGON #212)."
If one adopts the 'XP for challenges/goals' model, or the more abstract advancement of non-D&D systems a la SAGA or True20, they make more sense for that model of fantasy. But then, I prefer abstract wealth systems, too (at least in theory).
On a side note, does anyone know how to get the attention of some of the late 2E-era designers? Thirty Years of Adventure makes some references that suggest there was a push in some quarters for a more story-focused 3E until management decided to go Super-Advanced, and I'd love to know what it was going to look like, as a curiosity if nothing else.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, has always seemed to me as natural a source of inspiration as Swords Against Wizardry and The Swords of Lankhmar.

OTOH, if Bilbo had been an old-school D&D hero, he would have taken the Arkenstone, put on the Ring, and hightailed it back to the Shire, letting everyone else get slaughtered in the Battle of Five Armies. Bonus XP if he sells the corpses to the Necromancer, lets him slaughter the remnants, and then loots the rest of the Lonely Mountain. He also backstabs Lobelia and steals back his spoons.

 

[Garthanos]

Why use "x.p. for g.p."? Why not? A serious answer, consistently pursued, is likely to raise other questions!

And questions are bad apparently? I saw some very interesting ideas about how spending the gold / distributing the wealth could be seen to result in experience(s).

Why not? hmmm because it pressures a motivation on the characters that I find distasteful and which doesn't conform to a lot of the fantasy heroes I find interesting (wow somebody doesn't want to play Conan). Encouraging a broader variety of character motivations seems to be "a good thing". Does it need to be a bloody different game for that?

And yes we certainly could diverge... if its about gaining fame and fortune... track fame and fortune separately isn't that closer to form?

 

[Hairfoot]

Why not? hmmm because it pressures a motivation on the characters that I find distasteful and which doesn't conform to a lot of the fantasy heroes I find interesting (wow somebody doesn't want to play Conan).

Conversely, the pressure is now to slaughter everything in sight, and players who want to be Conan the thief rather than Conan the killer aren't catered to.