Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garmorn]

Are there elements of balance in the AD&D system? Sure. I won't deny that. But, was it designed for balance? IMO, no it wasn't. I cannot see how a system can be designed for balance when it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) KNOW it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) WARN the players that it will give unbalanced results and cannot provide examples of balanced results.

sniped

To me, the facts speak for themselves. Gygax can make all the claims he wants in the books, but, the mechanics speak much louder. The mechanics are, for the most part, imbalanced. Using these mechanics will give me unbalanced results. And, most telling, there is no example given of what actually consitutes a balanced result.

While reading this a third possibility accrued to me. Gygax could have tired to design for balance but knew that he had not achieved his goal. He came as close as he could or as close as he wanted. He might have wanted a close but not fully balance to allow for other playing styles. Personally I believe he came as close as he could.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem I'm seeing here is the presumption that your PC's would die frequently. Why is that a presumption? Where in the guidelines does it state that you should be switching out PC's every two or three levels?

And, doesn't that balance go out the window anyway? A higher stat character is more survivable than a lower stat one. The higher the stats, the longer the character will survive, and the less it will be switched out. Thus, you still lack balance, because your presumed method of balance - character death - isn't occuring.

A few months ago, out of a chat amongst our crew, I ran some numbers on just this. I dug up lots and lots of old dusty character sheets and checked the starting stats (after racial adjust), then checked how long their careers were (measured by number of adventures appeared in). I did not cross-correlate deaths whether revived or not.

To avoid getting into too much number-crunching, I just used the average of the 6 starting stats. We've always used 5d6 drop lowest 2, so our stats are on the high side; but within that the data is very consistent. An average of 11 is awful, an average of 16 is spectacular.

At the time, we'd had something like 72 characters appear in 10 or more adventures (remember, this is over almost 30 years) - amazingly, I was able to find character sheets for 69 of them. I then pulled a control group of 70-odd random characters from various of the same campaigns, whose careers had been less than 10 adventures.

The difference was surprisingly small. And, among the control group, the only real difference was between those of 3 or more adventures and those of less than 3; the stat average for the very short-lived was about .6 lower. The stat average for the 3-9 group and for the 10+ group was essentially the same. Individually, there was wide variance in all groups.

So, while the rest of the system may or may not have been designed for balance, random stat generation plays little if any role in unbalancing things at least from the data I've seen.

The DMG tells me, in no uncertain terms, if I use the treasure guidelines, I will get unbalanced results. But, they don't tell me what is actually considered a balanced result. Is a +3 Frost Brand reasonable for a 3rd level character? How about 7th? 9th? What about Gauntlets of Ogre Power? What level adventure should I put those in?

One oft-forgotten balancing mechanism here over the long term is that magic items were much easier to break in 1e than in 3-4e. I can chuck a +3 Frost Brand into a low-level dungeon in the safe knowledge that sooner or later the chances are high that it'll break, or melt, or blow up; and in the meantime someone's gonna have a rockin' weapon! (that said, you're right about not much guidelines; I think many DMs just used the published modules as a rough guide)

Which reflects the general system-wide idea of short-term imbalance, long-term balance.

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Conversely, a system can be designed without balance as a consideration, yet the DM can achieve balance, probably through experience and trial and error.

Or the GM can achieve balance through design.

For some reason, no one seems to want to touch this. The systems TELLS you that it will give you unbalanced results. How can you consider the system to be designed for balance?

I would enjoy reading the sections you refer to. Could you quote or give references, please?

The implication of RC's post is that I'm some huge hater of 1e and all things AD&D.

Definitely not my intent.

I just think that the approach you are taking narrows the range of your vision. Not so different from the way that the approach I take sometimes narrows the range of my vision on other topics (example, some parts of 4e). Just as I do better if I try to view things from the point of view of folks who enjoy something I do not, you might do better to try to understand the viewpoint of folks who see something you do not.

Because I know that you are a smart individual. And I know that trying to defend your POV sometimes blinds you, as trying to defend my POV sometimes blinds me.

While reading this a third possibility accrued to me. Gygax could have tired to design for balance but knew that he had not achieved his goal. He came as close as he could or as close as he wanted. He might have wanted a close but not fully balance to allow for other playing styles. Personally I believe he came as close as he could.

Also, this remains a possibility that is worthy of consideration?


RC

 

[Hussar]

/snippage

To address the OP directly ('Do you think AD&D1 was designed with game balance? Do you think EGG and his cohorts intended the AD&D1 game to be a balanced system?

I'm not asking if it was/is balanced, just if it was intended to be balanced.') - well, the answer is clearly and evidently, 'yes'. But not to the nth degree. That is, game balance (in the commonly used modern RPG sense) wasn't the primary concern, IMO. But sure, it was there. Undeniably.

And beyond that, I guess I don't quite get all the angst. Maybe I don't even want to. . .

This says what I want to say better than I've managed to get it across. Yes, game balance was there, it had to be. But was the system "designed for balance"? IMO, no.

Depends entirely on what you consider balanced. But ultimately, your standards are a fool's errand at best. Game mechanics alone cannot achieve "balance" in actual play. A 4e game could be unbalanced if, for example, one player manages to browbeat or manipulate the rest into letting him have all the decent magic items.
The two games offer different tools toward achieving balance because they're looking at fundamentally different emphases on the whole idea of mechanical balance.

But, you're talking about something else entirely, which is how successful are the mechanics at maintaining balance? I haven't really touched on that at all. Sure, you could unbalance 4e pretty easily. All PC's start with 30 in all stats. There, unbalanced.

But, I have to actually over rule the suggested mechanics in order to achieve that imbalance. In 4e, I KNOW what balance should look like. Whether or not I choose to go there is up to me as the DM. In 1e, I have no real idea what balance should look like.

Or the GM can achieve balance through design.



I would enjoy reading the sections you refer to. Could you quote or give references, please?

You quoted it. The treasure mechanics flat out state that if used, they will give you unbalanced results. Sorry if that wasn't clear from the three or four times I've repeated myself.

:
Originally Posted by Garmorn View Post
While reading this a third possibility accrued to me. Gygax could have tired to design for balance but knew that he had not achieved his goal. He came as close as he could or as close as he wanted. He might have wanted a close but not fully balance to allow for other playing styles. Personally I believe he came as close as he could.

Also, this remains a possibility that is worthy of consideration?

Sure. But, is "well it's close" enough to consider a system designed for balance?

Look, any system you make pretty much needs some balance in order to be playable. Without any balance, you cannot really have any sort of a game. Or at least not a game most people are going to want to play. So, yes, like Aus Snow said, there is balance to be found in the 1e system. I just think that, by the question asked by the OP, that game balance was not a particularly major consideration. Much of the balance found in 1e relies so heavily on the GM that it cannot be considered part of the mechanics.

Although, I suppose, in a certain way, "Well, you fix it" is a design approach.

 

[howandwhy99]

4e is right to balance magic items by level. I think they balance all things by level which is also a good thing. AD&D does not balance between classes because it is not a simulation game, so items can be distributed across the full spectrum of a level without worry. I do agree they should have been listed more accurately according to the spectrum of class level they were in, but that would also require a breakdown by every class and then every subclass TSR decided to publish. This is for every item published.

AD&D is balanced by cooperation and class. The game is intentionally unbalanced in the DM's favor so the players are rewarded for working together to succeed. Classes are not balanced against each other but according to the challenges each can be expected to face by class level and dungeon level. Every resource including equipment and magic items are also balanced by class, class level, and dungeon level. Niche protection (balance) by class is built into the rules, but I don't think AD&D balanced these very well. This is simply something indicative to Mr. Gygax. I think he really liked magic-users. A DM does not have to use these rules anyways as they are merely guidelines. AD&D does do okay with this on reflection as it also includes differing XP requirements by class too. While magic-users had the largest offering in terms of rules in the book they also had the highest XP requirements. Fighters a had a little less with combat rules, clerics even less, and thieves had the least. Thieves leveled earliest, but they also had fewer opportunities and fewer rules in their niche with which to engage.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You quoted it. The treasure mechanics flat out state that if used, they will give you unbalanced results.

Not "if used", only without judicious and intelligent useage. There is a difference.


RC

 

[billd91]

But, I have to actually over rule the suggested mechanics in order to achieve that imbalance. In 4e, I KNOW what balance should look like. Whether or not I choose to go there is up to me as the DM. In 1e, I have no real idea what balance should look like.

You know what balance looks like to the 4e design team. How does it look to you? That's one difference between 1e's concept of balance and 4e's when it comes to treasure distribution and challenges. There are a good many of us who, when we read you writing "I have no real idea what balance should look like" in contrast to your knowing what it should look like in 4e, say YES! That's the way it should be!

If this were music, 1e more like jazz or musical exploration compared to 4e's more strictly constrained musical form. It's not to everyone's taste. Not everyone "gets" it. But there are musicians and afficionados who prefer that sort of personal artistic license even when certain musical avenues the artist explores don't pan out. To use an example, I love Pink Floyd's The Wall, but by the time that album came out the Floyd had mastered the form of classic rock, producing an album with a lot more tracks playable by the fairly reactionary radio stations that dominate the landscape even today. The Floyd albums I prefer to play more often are Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Saucerful of Secrets, albums with tracks based more on experimentation with musical avenues and jams than on classic rock forms and radio playability (even if I'm playing them from more recent equipment like my CDs).
And that's the way I kind of look at D&D as well. I prefer the openness of 1e's sensibilities and approach even if I'm using 3e, and now PF, rules.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So, while the rest of the system may or may not have been designed for balance, random stat generation plays little if any role in unbalancing things at least from the data I've seen.

I don't have all the old character sheets, but I can offer up my anecdotal memories. Player savvy had much more bearing on a character's survivability than the character's stats.

While I was running my 1E campaign at the LFGS I allowed, per the owner's request, anyone to join my game. One person that I wouldn't normally tolerate was a rampant cheater. He constantly showed up with stat arrays full of 18's. My other regular players asked why I kept allowing him to cheat. I told them that while I appreciated the ability to trust them not to cheat, this person did so due to a lack of common sense. This lacking proved itself out over many months and repeated character deaths.

[sblock]The ones I remember are:
1. Taking off his armor and sneaking off by himself in the dark of night to scout groups of orcs involved in a siege of the keep the characters were protecting. His character was an elf and very successfully made his rounds to see spread out groups of half a dozen orcs each camping fireside. That was until he decided to attack a group of orcs all by himself. The first of the 6 ors was very surprised and ended up very dead. The other 5 5 smiled wickedly at the unarmored lone elf before they hacked him to pieces.
2. While the group stayed at a roadside inn, attacks started to occur during the night leaving patrons of the inn dead, drained of all their blood. After getting bored searching, he decided his character would go sleep alone away from the rest of the party and the patrons who had all holed up together.
3. After the Driz'zt phenomenon began, he really wanted to play a drow. He was even able to convince me of a good disguise so he could hide his true race from the rest of the party. Another player had written a strong hatred of drow into his character's background story. This player's character confronted the disguised drow when he pulled out a drow crossbow. The drow player lied, saying that he had found it. The drow-hating character calmed down and was ready to continue, apologizing for her outburst. Then, for reasons still unbeknownst to all involved, he decided to remove his disguise in front of the drow-hater. She became incensed and cast sleep?!? Everybody laughed until the drow player rolled a 99 on his 90% chance to resist sleep. The elven wizard then proceeded to leap upon the sleeping drow, intending to kill him before the party pulled her off him and calmed her down.

I never had to do anything to get him killed or in trouble. Not only was I impartial to the cheater, I went along with some of his craziness.[/sblock]

 

[Aurumvorax]

I really don't understand the scramble to achieve "balance" in a system is. We're talking about an RPG here, not a player-vs-player game. If D&D were indeed a board game like Monopoly then certainly I expect balance. I'd be pretty pissed if the car got to roll 4d6 every turn but the thimble could skip squares he didn't like etc.

Perhaps I have a different conception of what balanced means but when I hear people discussing it it's usually in relation to the player characters, races, and classes. Frankly, I couldn't care less about power differences among my fellow players. So what so-and-so rolled high so he got to be a paladin. The fact is, early D&D was deadly enough that no character was assured to survive even to level 2. The power difference between characters and monsters was also less profound compared to 3E so an average character (10s across the board, level 1 fighter) was capable enough to contribute and not twiddle his thumbs.

I guess the point of this is that "No" I don't think early editions were "balanced" and I really couldn't care any less. We were facing the DMs challenges, not each other. Some times challenges were way over our head, which was uncommon, but in situations like that there was usually an avenue of escape and escape we did.

A lot.

I don't have all the old character sheets, but I can offer up my anecdotal memories. Player savvy had much more bearing on a character's survivability than the character's stats.

While I was running my 1E campaign at the LFGS I allowed, per the owner's request, anyone to join my game. One person that I wouldn't normally tolerate was a rampant cheater. He constantly showed up with stat arrays full of 18's. My other regular players asked why I kept allowing him to cheat. I told them that while I appreciated the ability to trust them not to cheat, this person did so due to a lack of common sense. This lacking proved itself out over many months and repeated character deaths.

This, this, and more of this. Attributes and dice rolls had their place but the beauty of AD&D was that you were encouraged to improvise. A simple pot of lantern oil was cheap, easily portable, and could be turned into a deadly weapon that was effective from level 1 to level 20.

 

[Votan]

A distinction surely, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful one. Your question addresses the intent of the designer, which we cannot have first-hand knowledge of, and so long as Mr. Gygax claimed that he designed the game with balance in mind, there's no discussion to be had. The more interesting question, to my mind, is if the game actually is balanced.

I also think that the nature of balance is worth thinking about. Using a purely modern sense of balance (which seems based around individual character effectiveness and tight comparability between characters) it isn't. But that wasn't the only option to balance characters. Strong niche building and class restrictions can do an enormous amount to make a game functionally engaging for all players.

In my opinion, unified mechanics usually undermine this because they ask obvious questions that lead to erosion of this sort of game balance. Once you decide that you can string together enough things (without forced restrictions) then balance goes away. If the pixie rogue/wizard is more effective than the rest of the party put together (at all tasks) then it becomes less fun to play in that sort of game. These issues are not exclusive to D&D -- find old world of darkness had a lot of the same balance issues which made it important to start all characters off dead even (allowing one to play a 5th generation Assasmite did poor things to game balance).

But a 1E rogue can do things that can (at best) be duplicated by a rare (and requiring a planned in advance) spell slot. A party of all wizards would be lucky to ever get a spell off. This is the same sort of balance that Shadowrun tries to have between Deckers, Street Samurai and Mages. It's a valid approach to design and balance.