Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garmorn]

So, in AD&D playing intelligently rewards individuals with greater ability to affect the gameworld. This is a good thing IMO. If it doesn't matter what you choose to do because you will always receive the same reward regardless, or worse, no rewards or penalties are every received, then the game is making choices meaningless.

This is a false statement. Your ability to affect the game world is directly controlled by the DM. As far as having one character for an entire campaign, that to is not unwavering. I allow an encourage a character stable. How you create your character and how you use your resources during the campaign will also affect the your characters abilities. This is true of all RPGs

 

[Beginning of the End]

Take a second example. A basic system that all players must use: Character generation.

System 1 in AD&D is 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste. Ok, fine. Now, take two hypothetical groups. The first one gets average results - a couple of 15's between the characters, nothing below 9, most of the rolls between 10 and 14. Group B gets a lot luckier. Each PC has one 18 and one 16 and the rest of the rolls tail off from there.

Now, the power disparity between these two groups is pretty significant. In a system designed for balance, how can you get two groups with such a massive disparity of power?

I'm picking this example because it's the easiest demonstration of the false set of principles you're working from.

Let's take a simple game: Shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Each player draws one. High card wins.

This is game is, prime facie, balanced: Assuming proper randomization of the cards, everyone has an equal chance to win the game.

Player 1 draws a Queen. Player 2 draws a Three.

This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!

Balance is about having an even playing field. The paradigm shift, howver, is about where the even playing field starts and ends:

(1) AD&D1 says that the even playing field starts before character creation even begins. And, as far as character power is concerned, ends as soon as your first stat is rolled.

(2) You're saying that the playing field should be even after character creation ends. In fact, you're going even further in your other examples: The playing field should remain even forever.

Take this far enough and you end up with, "The playing field should be even forever, no matter what choices the players make." (Which is basically the ideal the designers of 4th Edition say they were aiming for.)

You may not see that as a problem, so let's take a moment and push the paradigm even further: The playing field should be even at all moments of the game. So even after 20 rounds of combat, the PCs and their opponents should still be exactly evenly matched.

AD&D1 was designed for balance. It just wasn't designed for balance using the paradigms you (apparently) prefer.

Sadly, I think one of the features now called balance is an equal ability to affect the game at any given time.

That's so not true.

4E certainly reduces the variance in how much you can affect the situation

It's not true because it's certainly true? Intriguing debate tactic.

 

[Fifth Element]

This is game is, prime facie, balanced: Assuming proper randomization of the cards, everyone has an equal chance to win the game.

Player 1 draws a Queen. Player 2 draws a Three.

This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!

This is a false analogy. It is analogous to individual d20 rolls in a game of D&D, but not to something with as wide-reaching implications as the ability score disparity mentioned before.

What if the player who drew the three was only subsequently allowed to draw from a deck without face cards? This gives the player who drew the Queen a significant advantage in future draws.

 

[MerricB]

It's not true because it's certainly true? Intriguing debate tactic.

Intriguing lack of comprehension.

4E has pretty much removed the "you can't affect this combat at all" feature of 1E, but it hasn't removed the "you might not affect this combat as much as your friends" feature.

 

[Garmorn]

I'm picking this example because it's the easiest demonstration of the false set of principles you're working from.

Let's take a simple game: Shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Each player draws one. High card wins.

This is game is, prime facie, balanced: Assuming proper randomization of the cards, everyone has an equal chance to win the game.

Player 1 draws a Queen. Player 2 draws a Three.

This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!

Balance is about having an even playing field. The paradigm shift, howver, is about where the even playing field starts and ends:

(1) AD&D1 says that the even playing field starts before character creation even begins. And, as far as character power is concerned, ends as soon as your first stat is rolled.

(2) You're saying that the playing field should be even after character creation ends. In fact, you're going even further in your other examples: The playing field should remain even forever.

Take this far enough and you end up with, "The playing field should be even forever, no matter what choices the players make." (Which is basically the ideal the designers of 4th Edition say they were aiming for.)

You may not see that as a problem, so let's take a moment and push the paradigm even further: The playing field should be even at all moments of the game. So even after 20 rounds of combat, the PCs and their opponents should still be exactly evenly matched.

AD&D1 was designed for balance. It just wasn't designed for balance using the paradigms you (apparently) prefer.



It's not true because it's certainly true? Intriguing debate tactic.

When was gaming become about being more powerful then the other players? When did it change from a cooperative game to a competitive one? I first thought you meant the world out side of the party. Instead you are wanting to make it a competition between players.

The way I learned to play D&D is more like player one draws a Queen and Player two draws a 3. The total is nor 15 points for the group. Not player one crushes player 2.

 

[MerricB]

This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!

I assume you have a point? Because you're not making one. Currently you're saying that "if you flip a coin, sometimes it comes down heads and sometimes it comes down tails". Such is completely obvious, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Perhaps you meant: Each player draws a card, then for every game from then on, whoever drew the higher card in that first draw wins.

 

[Lanefan]

When was gaming become about being more powerful then the other players? When did it change from a cooperative game to a competitive one? I first thought you meant the world out side of the party. Instead you are wanting to make it a competition between players.

The way I learned to play D&D is more like player one draws a Queen and Player two draws a 3. The total is nor 15 points for the group. Not player one crushes player 2.

While the way I learned (using the same analogy) is that player 1 draws a queen and player 2 draws a three, but both die; so then player 1 draws a 5 and player 2 pulls an 8. The 5 goes on to a long career, while the 8 soon dies only to be replaced by an equally short-lived jack and then a 7, which lasts a while....and so on...

Result: overall approximate balance.

And, balancing the characters *is* a stated goal of 4e design; one assumes to reduce the "competition between players" you refer to above, whether such reduction is really needed or not.

Lan-"a three dressed up as a nine"-efan

 

[Garmorn]

While the way I learned (using the same analogy) is that player 1 draws a queen and player 2 draws a three, but both die; so then player 1 draws a 5 and player 2 pulls an 8. The 5 goes on to a long career, while the 8 soon dies only to be replaced by an equally short-lived jack and then a 7, which lasts a while....and so on...

Result: overall approximate balance.

And, balancing the characters *is* a stated goal of 4e design; one assumes to reduce the "competition between players" you refer to above, whether such reduction is really needed or not.

Lan-"a three dressed up as a nine"-efan

Yes, but he is not talking about balance of that type. He is complaining about the complete inability of one character to become stronger than another. He, it seems to me saying because 4e does not allow him to be better than other players, is not D&D at all. For him it seems being more powerful than other characters is very important.

I understand the 1/2e approach. I just don't think it works as well as the new approaches across a large number of styles. While the most common style of those that like 1/2e fits the every changing balance there a lots of styles that don't. Neither are better.

It is like the difference in how treasure is handed out in the different editions. Further you go back more you had to rely on DM' call. As a DM, I hated this. Others loved it. I don't like the current system as it stands. I prefer some random treasure creation so I house ruled it.

 

[MerricB]

While the way I learned (using the same analogy) is that player 1 draws a queen and player 2 draws a three, but both die; so then player 1 draws a 5 and player 2 pulls an 8. The 5 goes on to a long career, while the 8 soon dies only to be replaced by an equally short-lived jack and then a 7, which lasts a while....and so on...

Result: overall approximate balance.

There's something missing in that analogy.

And, balancing the characters *is* a stated goal of 4e design;

Is there someone saying it isn't? Just curious.

Mind you, there's a difference between balancing the characters and making them identical, as I've tried to demonstrate above. Gary was certainly engaged in it in AD&D, even if emphases were in different places.

Cheers!

 

[enw320]

I preffer to voted other.
Because I also believe that there was some intended balance but it was not based on a point in time.