Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5021295" data-attributes="member: 3424"><p>Yes, it was intended to be balanced, but the point of reference for balance has shifted.</p><p></p><p>The primary point of reference for 1E and earlier editions appears to be the ongoing game. Players are expected to have multiple characters, and/or characters are expected to die or retire and be replaced in the course of the game, so even if you are lucky (or unlucky) enoiugh to get a really good (or bad) character now, there is no guarantee that your next character will be the same. The game thus emphasizes equality of opportunity during character creation because there are assumed to be many opportunities to create characters. This paradigm can break down if the players are expected to create a single character and then play it over the course of an extended campaign.</p><p></p><p>2E's primary point of reference is the campaign. Certain races and classes were more effective at low levels and others were better at high levels, and certain classes were more effective in certain situations and less so in others, but this was expected to even out over the course of an entire campaign spanning many levels and incorporating many different types of challenges. However, this paradigm can break down if the campaign ends after only a few levels, or if the DM does not include challenges that enable all the characters to shine.</p><p></p><p>3E's primary point of reference is the adventuring day. Characters with daily abilities are expected to manage their resources carefully, and at low levels, when they have fewer uses of their abilities, this means that they will use few or none of them in certain fights. Even at higher levels, when they had access to more uses, it meant that they would have to go through some fights using only lower-level abilities. However, this paradigm can break down if the PCs fight only one or two encounters per day.</p><p></p><p>4E's primary point of reference is the (usually combat) encounter. Character abilities are designed so that characters will be able to contribute more or less equally to the party's success over the course of an encounter. This does not mean that they deal equal amounts of damage - Leaders buff and heal, Defenders draw attacks and Controllers shape the battlefield and inflict conditions on the enemies. This paradigm doesn't seem to have broken down yet, but it has been criticized for being dull, boring and repetitive.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 5021295, member: 3424"] Yes, it was intended to be balanced, but the point of reference for balance has shifted. The primary point of reference for 1E and earlier editions appears to be the ongoing game. Players are expected to have multiple characters, and/or characters are expected to die or retire and be replaced in the course of the game, so even if you are lucky (or unlucky) enoiugh to get a really good (or bad) character now, there is no guarantee that your next character will be the same. The game thus emphasizes equality of opportunity during character creation because there are assumed to be many opportunities to create characters. This paradigm can break down if the players are expected to create a single character and then play it over the course of an extended campaign. 2E's primary point of reference is the campaign. Certain races and classes were more effective at low levels and others were better at high levels, and certain classes were more effective in certain situations and less so in others, but this was expected to even out over the course of an entire campaign spanning many levels and incorporating many different types of challenges. However, this paradigm can break down if the campaign ends after only a few levels, or if the DM does not include challenges that enable all the characters to shine. 3E's primary point of reference is the adventuring day. Characters with daily abilities are expected to manage their resources carefully, and at low levels, when they have fewer uses of their abilities, this means that they will use few or none of them in certain fights. Even at higher levels, when they had access to more uses, it meant that they would have to go through some fights using only lower-level abilities. However, this paradigm can break down if the PCs fight only one or two encounters per day. 4E's primary point of reference is the (usually combat) encounter. Character abilities are designed so that characters will be able to contribute more or less equally to the party's success over the course of an encounter. This does not mean that they deal equal amounts of damage - Leaders buff and heal, Defenders draw attacks and Controllers shape the battlefield and inflict conditions on the enemies. This paradigm doesn't seem to have broken down yet, but it has been criticized for being dull, boring and repetitive. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?
Top