Hussar said:
But, this has always been the holy grail of game design - making a level based system where everyone is roughly equal in effectiveness at all points in the game. 1e and 2e failed miserably at this. The M/U was a dagger throwing peasant for 4 levels and then par for about two levels, then totally dominating after that. 3e managed to spread that out over more levels.
Hopefully, 4e will succeed at spreading it out over 30 levels and the entire campaign.
So, let me repeat, two points of imbalance =/= a balanced system. It just means that the system is broken at two different points.
The holy grail for whom? See, here's the thing:
-- wait, let me throw in a caveat: I am no longer a 4E hater; I own 2 PHBs, for goodness sake, and am going to give it an honest try. this does not, however, mean that I am blind to, if not its flaws, its differences --
Anyway, here's the thing: whether or not a game is "balanced" depends entirely upon the point of the game, the playspace. 4E's balance, or more accurately its focus on PC parity, is built around a combat centric model. Now, D&D has always featured combat (and I am talking rules here, not necessarily how any given group plays the game), but it has never focused so specifically on it before. 4E has delved so deeply into balance and parity in encounters that, in order to do so, the designers were forced to leave things out that disrupted that balance or were to far awy from the "let's fight" model to include -- things that have always been a part of D&D (perhaps less OD&D -- I have never played it). The obvious ones include: summoning, followers and henchmen, long term resource management. the whole "economy of action", the foundation on which play in 4E is built, precludes these fundamental aspects of D&D as we've known it.
Now, none of this is to say that 4E isn't designed well for its intended purpose, but it narrows the focus of play to a very specific playstyle, one that while perhaps WotC's market research says is the most popular playstyle certainly is not the only playstyle. So, you are right in a way: D&D was never balanced the way 4E was balanced, but it was never intended to be, because decriers aside, D&D is not, in fact, about killing things and taking stuff any more or les than it is about epic storytelling or simulating Lord of the Rings style fantasy or allowing players to rule nations. It is all of those things.
4E narrows the field considerably, though, using the excuse that all that non combat stuff doesn't need to be statted anyway. Well, 1) some people want it to be statted, and 2) it is a temporary argument until they decide to start putting out Dominion and War Machine rules.
Again, 4E isn't bad or wrong and I assume it is fun (my first session as a player is Sunday), but to argue that it is as broad and as permissive in its design as pervious editions is a case of either deliberate obtuseness or a failure to see underlying playstyle in the game design.