Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?

[Garmorn]

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


RC

Actually after thinking a while I think trying and failing (but coming real close) is the most likely. Why? Simple he had no model or data to work with except what he learned at the games he and his friends played. There was very little feed back. He took the closest model he could find (see below) and worked a great system out of it. If he had waited until he had a game with out flaws it might never have been published.

The best of the old military board games never went for a the moment balance because it would prevent a good and realistic game. It was balanced over the length of the game. This is the model of most early RPG's. It fits the war game bias of 1/2e and the loose concept that it is the player that makes the game. Characters are just tools.

This is very different where later versions and games changed to the character is the center of the game and balance between characters is important in the short and medium range, not the long haul. (A major shift in the style of play for the majority).

Even if he had tried for a 4e approach he had no feed back or information to get a tight balance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

t is the player that makes the game.

I believe that Mr. Gygax held onto this philosophy even until the end, although his later systems might demonstrate otherwise? I am not overly familiar with them, and am going by posts only.

In which case, the balance sought was the balance achieved (or, if not, then very nearly achieved).


RC

 

[Garmorn]

I believe that Mr. Gygax held onto this philosophy even until the end, although his later systems might demonstrate otherwise? I am not overly familiar with them, and am going by posts only.

In which case, the balance sought was the balance achieved (or, if not, then very nearly achieved).


RC

I would not presume to say what is style was beyond 1e (where he wrote a lot of statements, articles, ect on or about his view about gaming.

I not sure how close he actually came. I don't think he achieved it to his satisfaction but I can argue that as that is more of an impression then any thing.

He put a lot of weight on the new DM most who had no experience and no knowledge of how to run a game. This does not lead to balance when the balance is controlled by the DM. In the early 80 most DM did not have more then 1 or 2 years of playing if that much. Not a good design decission.

 

[Hussar]

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!/snip

But, isn't "what balance looks like to the design team" the definition of "designed for balance"?

I suppose you could argue that dumping everything into the lap of the GM is designing for balance, but, to me, it's not. It's solving the problem by passing the buck.

Not that that's a bad thing. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with passing responsibility for game balance off to the GM. That's fine. I've got no problem with that.

But, don't then turn around and pretend that the mechanics are designed for balance. They aren't really. They're designed around what worked at a small number of very specific tables and around some pretty specific play styles.

Whether it should be or not is, quite frankly, not the question.

---------------

On character stats.

Ok, I know people are offering up annecdotes for why it's not much of a difference with stats. But, come on, really? Take a fighter with an 18/51 Strength (+2 to hit +3 to damage) and a 16 Con.

By 3rd level, he's averaging 21 hit points. Better than the average for a 4th level fighter and he's attacking 1 better. A pretty clear 1 level advantage. By 7th level, he's averaging 49 hit points, 1 shy of a TENTH level fighter, and his attacks are only 1 point of THACO less. At least a two level advantage, and almost three.

Or a cleric with an 18 wis and 16 con. By 7th level, he's got 1 extra 4th, and 3rd level spell, and two extra 1st and 2nd levels spells. He's averaging 42 hit points, two points better than a tenth level cleric. The only way he's not a 9th level cleric is because he's missing a 5th level spell.

Way back when this sidebar on character stats started, I posited two groups, one with no stat over 15 and the other with 1 18 and 1 16 stat. There is a HUGE difference between these two groups. Group B is operating at least 1 level, if not two or three above what it says on their character sheet. Plus, group B now has access to all of the classes, including the more powerful ones like Ranger or Paladin. Plus they have access to multiclassing quite easily.

Now, how is the DM supposed to design adventures? The random dungeon generators, and the charts for stocking the dungeons don't take any of this into consideration. IIRC, there isn't even guidelines for how many characters there are assumed to be.

All of these are elements you need to consider if you are designing for balance. I don't believe 1e was though. I believe that 1e placed the responsibility for balance in the DM's lap and pretty much washed its hands of it.

That is not designed for balance. Which is not to say it's poor design or badly designed or anything else. It's just not designed with balance as a major consideration.

 

[billd91]

But, isn't "what balance looks like to the design team" the definition of "designed for balance"?

I suppose you could argue that dumping everything into the lap of the GM is designing for balance, but, to me, it's not. It's solving the problem by passing the buck.

Not that that's a bad thing. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with passing responsibility for game balance off to the GM. That's fine. I've got no problem with that.

But, don't then turn around and pretend that the mechanics are designed for balance. They aren't really. They're designed around what worked at a small number of very specific tables and around some pretty specific play styles.

Whether it should be or not is, quite frankly, not the question.

It's not simply passing the buck. It's recognizing that the designers can't design for all contingencies. It's recognizing that every game table will be a little different, have different emphases in their play. If anything, it's sharing the buck with a responsible game master, which as I've alluded to before, is the way I think it should be.

The mechanics are designed for balance, just not to the degree you prefer. There's a lot more give in the gears, on the other hand, there's a lot more tolerance as well. That's why 1e games run a heck of a lot better with significantly mixed levels than more tightly "balanced" games like 3e and 4e do. Big differences in combat or save bonuses mean a lot less when the ACs and saves never spread more than about 20 points and when most PC classes advance in combat or save abilities in staged jumps on the table rather than level-by-level. Big Constitution bonus differences mean a lot less when you run out of hit dice (and thus Con bonuses) in 9-11 levels compared to gaining a hit die every level. Big differences in damage mean a lot less when monsters don't have their own Constitution bonuses (driven up by their size) adding to their hit points, or multipliers to their hit points. All your arguments about the differences between PCs who get hot on their stat rolling dice are a lot less significant in 1e/2e than in either 3e or 4e.

 

[Votan]

Or a cleric with an 18 wis and 16 con. By 7th level, he's got 1 extra 4th, and 3rd level spell, and two extra 1st and 2nd levels spells. He's averaging 42 hit points, two points better than a tenth level cleric. The only way he's not a 9th level cleric is because he's missing a 5th level spell.

I think the argument here is not that stats did not make a big difference but that they make a much bigger difference in 3E.

Take a comparison of a 7th level cleric in 3E who started with a 12 wisdom versus one who started with an 18. The character with a 12 wisdom (who bumped wisdom up by one at 4th) cannot even cast 4th level spells without a magic item. The spells she does cast have a DC 3 points lower (equal to a spell slot three levels higher). They still have one fewer 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 3 fewer 4th -- mthe base spell, the domain spell and the bonus spell) compared to the wisdom 18 character. The uncapped nature of stats means that the 18 always has a +3 DC advantage with equal gear.

Meanwhile, the 16 CON now gives +3 hp/level compared with a 10 CON. At 7th level that's an even bigger hit point advantage.

Fighter exceptional strength is, admittedly, the weakest point in this argument but it's not convincing worse in 1/2E than 3E.

4E looks to be similar and is clearly tightly balanced around a stat purchase level. So many powers feed off the bonus that very weak stats are a serious handicap.

In contrast, Castles and Crusades or BECMI seems to make stats slightly less important than 1/2E.

I think that the less influential stats are for everything, the easier is to to decide to roll them. The more influential they are then the less appealing rolling is. I liked AD&D because it seemed to balance well with rolled stats but that could jsut be my personal view.

 

[Hussar]

It's not simply passing the buck. It's recognizing that the designers can't design for all contingencies. It's recognizing that every game table will be a little different, have different emphases in their play. If anything, it's sharing the buck with a responsible game master, which as I've alluded to before, is the way I think it should be.

The mechanics are designed for balance, just not to the degree you prefer. There's a lot more give in the gears, on the other hand, there's a lot more tolerance as well. That's why 1e games run a heck of a lot better with significantly mixed levels than more tightly "balanced" games like 3e and 4e do. Big differences in combat or save bonuses mean a lot less when the ACs and saves never spread more than about 20 points and when most PC classes advance in combat or save abilities in staged jumps on the table rather than level-by-level. Big Constitution bonus differences mean a lot less when you run out of hit dice (and thus Con bonuses) in 9-11 levels compared to gaining a hit die every level. Big differences in damage mean a lot less when monsters don't have their own Constitution bonuses (driven up by their size) adding to their hit points, or multipliers to their hit points. All your arguments about the differences between PCs who get hot on their stat rolling dice are a lot less significant in 1e/2e than in either 3e or 4e.

But, where is the sharing? What work is the mechanics doing in order to achieve balance when, if I use the mechanics, I get unbalanced results and have to over rule those results as the DM? Again, I do not believe that multiple points of imbalance=balance. All that means is you have multiple points where the game is out of balance and needs to be adjusted by the GM.

Sure, you can dress it up nicely and say it has more "give" or is more "tolerant" and that's fine. You prefer it this way. I can totally get behind that. No problems at all. But, don't pretend that it's something that it's not. There's no shared responsibility here. Everything is on you the GM to make sure it works and the mechanics give you little or no guidance whatsoever.

I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:

1. How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?
2. What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
3. What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
4. How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?

These are all basic game balance issues. These aren't bizarre corner case questions, but questions that pretty much every DM has to answer at some point. Now, can you point to me where, in the 1e AD&D DMG or PHB that I can find the answer to these questions?

I think the argument here is not that stats did not make a big difference but that they make a much bigger difference in 3E.

Take a comparison of a 7th level cleric in 3E who started with a 12 wisdom versus one who started with an 18. The character with a 12 wisdom (who bumped wisdom up by one at 4th) cannot even cast 4th level spells without a magic item. The spells she does cast have a DC 3 points lower (equal to a spell slot three levels higher). They still have one fewer 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 3 fewer 4th -- mthe base spell, the domain spell and the bonus spell) compared to the wisdom 18 character. The uncapped nature of stats means that the 18 always has a +3 DC advantage with equal gear.

Meanwhile, the 16 CON now gives +3 hp/level compared with a 10 CON. At 7th level that's an even bigger hit point advantage.

Fighter exceptional strength is, admittedly, the weakest point in this argument but it's not convincing worse in 1/2E than 3E.

4E looks to be similar and is clearly tightly balanced around a stat purchase level. So many powers feed off the bonus that very weak stats are a serious handicap.

In contrast, Castles and Crusades or BECMI seems to make stats slightly less important than 1/2E.

I think that the less influential stats are for everything, the easier is to to decide to roll them. The more influential they are then the less appealing rolling is. I liked AD&D because it seemed to balance well with rolled stats but that could jsut be my personal view.

But, how stats effected characters in other editions or other games is also irrelavent. It could have MASSIVE effects in 3e but it does't matter. The claim on the table is that high stats had little effect on characters, which I've shown to be pretty false.

For example, I would point out that a 1e cleric with a 12 wis has very limited spell casting abilities, to the point where he has no bonus spells and actually has a chance (albeit a small one - 1%) of spell failure every time he casts. A wizard with a 12 Int gets a max of 7 spells per level, and only has a 45% chance of actually learning a new spell.

Low ability scores in AD&D were just as crippling as any other edition.

 

[billd91]

I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:

1. How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?
2. What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
3. What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
4. How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?

These are all basic game balance issues. These aren't bizarre corner case questions, but questions that pretty much every DM has to answer at some point. Now, can you point to me where, in the 1e AD&D DMG or PHB that I can find the answer to these questions?

You think they're basic game balancing questions. I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, for example, there's no particular level that a PC should have a +2 sword in a balanced game. The character's level is pretty irrelevant (a mistake that both 3e and 4e make by assuming there's an appropriate answer). But in 1e/2e, if I want to include +2 weapons in treasures, I certainly can and should if I expect to make a lot of monsters that can only be hit by +2 or better weapons.

 

[MerricB]

AD&D does not balance between classes because it is not a simulation game

Emphasis mine.

How does being a simulation game or not relate to balance between classes?

I've seen the use of "Gamist", "Simulationist" and "Narrativist" as part of the GNS theory of RPG design - I might not agree with all implications of the theory, but the terms seem to have little relation to what you're using them for.

Could you explain what you mean by "simulation game"?

 

[MerricB]

You think they're basic game balancing questions. I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, for example, there's no particular level that a PC should have a +2 sword to in a balanced game. The character's level is pretty irrelevant (a mistake that both 3e and 4e make by assuming there's an appropriate answer). But in 1e/2e, if I want to include +2 weapons in treasures, I certainly can and should if I expect to make a lot of monsters that can only be hit by +2 or better weapons.

It's pretty clear that Gygax disagreed with you with regard to AD&D - his notes on Monty Haulism make that clear. Not that Gary would have said "this level, you should get a +2 weapon", but that he certainly saw that too many or too powerful magic items would break the system, making monsters pushovers and causing the party to spiral out of control.