Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 5024564" data-attributes="member: 4720">Different xp necessary for level advancementNo idea.  They're pretty strange.  I always assumed the weirdness of MU table was meant to show a slow apprenticeship, followed by a faster progression as magical fluency is achieved, and then another slow patch as mastery is accrued.  You can argue that the different rates are there for "balance," but there's no "balance" reason for the non-linearity (or non-log-linearity, iirc).Demihuman level limitsTo maintain an otherwise nonsensical humanocentric world.Armor and weapon restrictionsThis one might actually be balance.  But given how badly it achieves that, it's really more easily explained as flavor maintenance.  Wizards are supposed to be frail guys in robes.  Priests are supposed to not shed blood, etc.Ability score requirementsThis is entirely the anti-balance, even by the standard of the time.  If I roll awesome, I am not merely rewarded by that inherent benefit.  No no.  In addition, I just get even more awesome!!!  "Look all these 18s!!!  Say Hello to Paladin Sir Awesome McKickaZZ!!!"I now flashback to old AD&D CRPGs where you were rewarded infinitely if you just spent lots of time re-rolling stats when you built your character until awesomeness occurred "organically."  Ah... wasted youth.The only thing I can assume is that they were talking about something very different than the modern term "game balance."  As others have already pointed out, "fairness" might be a better way to describe the term they were using.This discussion has been illuminating, especially in combination with the Tomb of Horrors discussion that was around the other day.  When this poll went up, I really did honestly believe there was zero attempt at balance in early editions of D&D.  However, since some of y'all actually are experienced DMs (a rare species I have never met IRL), you have opened my eyes somewhat.  If you played the game as written, with tons of character deaths, these mechanisms probably did supply some degree of balance.  "Paladin Sir Awesome McKickaZZ" is still going to die relatively suddenly at some point, and when his player re-rolls, he'll roll some 3s and end up with "Farmer Bill the (sorta) Fighting Man" who is the equivalent of a speed bump for the monsters.  (Don't put your lucky character rolling dice away too quick.  You'll need them again soon)That's Kool and the Gang if it's your cup of tea.  But man... I think my middle school DM was smart to roll a different way.  If some of the kids at the table lost their characters even a tenth as often as necessary to maintain that kind of balance, the game would have broken up in tears and vitriol in about 3 sessions.  Character death proved to be the Yoko factor for every group I was ever in as a kid.</blockquote>

Verification