NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5060279" data-attributes="member: 22779">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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification