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="Hussar" data-source="post: 5047000" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>But, Lanefan, sure, that's fine for you. But would you consider yourself to be representative of the majority of gamers out there? Would you consider a 12 year campaign to be the norm?</p><p></p><p>I certainly wouldn't. WOTC's market research also wouldn't. It was made pretty clear that the average group and campaign lasts about two years tops. Sure, if you are in a situation where you can think that long term, that's great. But, I really don't want to play a game that presumes that as a starting point.</p><p></p><p>What's the point of designing a game with assumptions that you know to be untrue most of the time?</p><p></p><p>And this gets back to the whole design question in my mind. I agree with you actually. I think Gygax and co. did design the game for what they played at THEIR table. This is how it worked for them. I don't think that "balance" was a real consideration beyond what worked at their table. They didn't sit down and work from the position that the game should work at most tables. </p><p></p><p>If you play the way Gygax played, then probably 1e works great for you and it will likely be balanced to a pretty decent degree. Not because balance was a design priority, but because it worked at their table, so it probably will work at yours (not you specifically Lanefan, just the general you this time. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ) As soon as you started deviating from those baseline assumptions, balance goes straight out the window. </p><p></p><p>Ariosto claims that there is a large window for PC wealth, for example. He's right, the 1e DMG gives little to no guidance on how much wealth a PC should have at a particular level. Thus, we see groups where 5th level characters have Vorpal swords and groups where 10th level characters are lucky to have a +1 Spoon.</p><p></p><p>I would argue that neither group is particularly well balanced. It's only balanced because the DM massages the system so that challenges match up - either bumping up the difficulty by using nastier monsters, or using weaker monsters. Thus we achieve Raven Crowkings "Balance in Play" model. In the end, the game leaves it up to the DM to achieve balance, thus, I would argue, that balance is not a design goal of the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5047000, member: 22779"] But, Lanefan, sure, that's fine for you. But would you consider yourself to be representative of the majority of gamers out there? Would you consider a 12 year campaign to be the norm? I certainly wouldn't. WOTC's market research also wouldn't. It was made pretty clear that the average group and campaign lasts about two years tops. Sure, if you are in a situation where you can think that long term, that's great. But, I really don't want to play a game that presumes that as a starting point. What's the point of designing a game with assumptions that you know to be untrue most of the time? And this gets back to the whole design question in my mind. I agree with you actually. I think Gygax and co. did design the game for what they played at THEIR table. This is how it worked for them. I don't think that "balance" was a real consideration beyond what worked at their table. They didn't sit down and work from the position that the game should work at most tables. If you play the way Gygax played, then probably 1e works great for you and it will likely be balanced to a pretty decent degree. Not because balance was a design priority, but because it worked at their table, so it probably will work at yours (not you specifically Lanefan, just the general you this time. :) ) As soon as you started deviating from those baseline assumptions, balance goes straight out the window. Ariosto claims that there is a large window for PC wealth, for example. He's right, the 1e DMG gives little to no guidance on how much wealth a PC should have at a particular level. Thus, we see groups where 5th level characters have Vorpal swords and groups where 10th level characters are lucky to have a +1 Spoon. I would argue that neither group is particularly well balanced. It's only balanced because the DM massages the system so that challenges match up - either bumping up the difficulty by using nastier monsters, or using weaker monsters. Thus we achieve Raven Crowkings "Balance in Play" model. In the end, the game leaves it up to the DM to achieve balance, thus, I would argue, that balance is not a design goal of the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?
Top