# Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?



## Bullgrit

Do you think AD&D1 was designed with game balance? Do you think EGG and his cohorts intended the AD&D1 game to be a balanced system?

I'm not asking if it _was/is_ balanced, just if it was _intended_ to be balanced.

Bullgrit


----------



## ExploderWizard

I voted yes. The DMG is filled with references about game balance being a primary consideration in a DM's rulings.

Remember that the game balance in AD&D is something to be achieved through a combination of rules and good judgement, not dictated by the rules alone.


----------



## pdiddy

I voted other.
I believe that there was some intended balance but it was not based on a point in time.

Instead the balance has to be viewed in terms of Dissimilar Assets and Resource Management. Magic-users are very different from Fighters who are very different from Clerics who are very different from Thieves. At any point in time (for example when everyone has around 8,000 XP), there are very different strengths and weaknesses between classes. These relative strengths and weaknesses change over time.

However, another important thing to remember was that the game was designed to challenge the player instead of the character - how do you balance that?


----------



## Mallus

Absolutely.

The ways in which game balance is considered and methods used to addresses balance issues have changed a good deal, but 'balance', and more specifically 'balance between character classes/races' has always been a design concern in D&D. Like EW says, this is plainly evident in the rules. 

The idea that older editions didn't care a whit about balance is ridiculous.


----------



## Treebore

Yes, agreed, looking at the rules, magic items allowed, spells allowed at which level, etc... its obvious game "balance" was desired. It worked fairly well, as I recall.

In fact I have been giving thought to trying to put together a campaign again, because the couple of short games I have played over the last year worked far better than I would have thought based on the opinions of many I have read on the internet. It confirmed my memories of a very playable and fun game.

So I would like to see how a full campaign runs, modifying it with house rules based on my additional 20 years of gaming since last running a 1E campaign.


----------



## jgbrowning

I voted other. It was designed for game balance, but a concept of balance different than what is now termed as game balance.

joe b.


----------



## Bullgrit

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> a concept of balance different than what is now termed as game balance.



Can you elaborate on this idea?

Bullgrit


----------



## DaveyJones

it was designed for fun.

balance was one of the elements. but clearly it is not the same balance bantered about in newer editions.


----------



## jgbrowning

Bullgrit said:


> Can you elaborate on this idea?
> 
> Bullgrit




Modern rpg game balance theory is mostly centered around the idea of making each "class" as equal to each other in combat as possible. Balance is focused on the mechanical aspects of adjudication. AD&D balance is more along the line of "meta-balance" - balance in the sense of the role's ability placed within the context of the game world's pretend environment.

joe b.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Yes, by arbitrary rules. When people decided that playing by those arbitrary rules (blunt weapons for Clerics, no armor for Magic-users, racial level limits, etc.) wasn't desirable anymore it took a new form of balance to "straighten things out."



jgbrowning said:


> Modern rpg game balance theory is mostly centered around the idea of making each "class" as equal to each other in combat as possible.




I would prefer to call the new kind of balance "equally able to contribute to the team's success in a challenge."

Saying "as equal to each other in combat as possible" IMO infers that a Fighter should be able to go one-on-one with a Ranger and have an equal chance of winning the combat. This is not the case.


----------



## Stoat

I would suggest that AD&D is balanced around two concepts:

1) The players will generate and play many different PC's in a relatively short span of time.  Thus the paladin and ranger are balanced against the fighter because they have higher ability score requirements and will be generated less often.

2) A given campaign will continue for a fairly long time.  Thus demi-humans are balanced against humans by the level cap.  Wizards are balanced against other classes by the fact that they begin play very weak and end play fairly strong.


----------



## Janx

The current crop of D&D tends to balance the classes with a focus on equality in combat.

Such that for any given level and any pair of classes, they do roughly the same amount of damage within a 6 round combat

Loosely put, nobody sucks at any level during combat compared to another PC.  Since most of D&D is combat, that's the balancing point.

In prior editions, having less combat skill meant you had greater skill in other areas for other enounter types.  Thus it was justifiable for the Bard to suck during combat, because he could do cool things outside of combat.


Compare this to 1e.  A first level wizard is so worthless, that if you were recruiting for a 1st level mission, you'd be better off taking a 1st level fighter.

Later, at 15th level, you'd be better off taking the wizard than the fighter.

While the 1e designers saw this as a long term balance (life is harder at low level for a wizard, in trade for more power at high level), it didn't necessarily make for fair and fun game play on a per session basis.

Sure 1e had balance goals in mind.  But they were 1970s idea of balance.

The 21st century idea of balance is that each PC in the current game session is able to contribute and add value in a fairly equal fashion.  If there is a class that a min/maxer would say "only an idiot would pick that class, it sucks" or "I always play this class, its the best" then that class is out of balance.

Why does this form of balance matter?

For a GM, it matters because it makes measuring encounter difficulty a more consistent process.  Each PC is balanced, so they are interchangeable, to an extent.  This in turn means all you need to know is how many levels there are.  Sure, the GM could tweak set up special encounters to challenge or spotlight a class, but on the average, it's all the same.

For a player, balance matters because nobody likes their character concept to suck so badly that they feel like the tagalong sidekick to the heroes.  Sure the guy with the uber-class is happy with the imbalance.  Deep down, nobody else is.

In 4e, it seems like the focus is combat functionality.  Some classes may do better in direct combat, but all the classes have features to make sure they are actively participating in a fun and useful fashion.  Thus, the guy playing the "least fighty" class can still feel like he kicked butt, because he actively contributed in a meaningul way.

That's the new balance.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

I voted "other" and wait eagerly for the sister poll "was the Complete Book of Elves the best-balanced product for D&D ever?"


----------



## Dice4Hire

I find it hard to believe a game system would be madethat was purposely unbalanced. If so, I would avoid such system like the plague.

Most systems fall short of that goal, of course.


----------



## the Jester

Of course it was. Game balance is probably one of the most common 2-word terms in the 1e DMG.


----------



## Umbran

I expect that the authors intended some form of balance.  However, the industry as a whole was still new then, so they didn't do a very good job of it.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

I voted "other" for essentially the same reason as jgbrowning.  The early ideas of balance stemmed from how OD&D treated "balance".  For the most part there just wasn't a lot of power to balance in the first place.  But it seems apparant that "balance" was to be established by enforcing _rarity_.  If a PC class was deemed powerful it was made slower to advance.  In 1E powerful classes were made harder to qualify for.  The idea being that it was okay for a player to have a powerful class if A) the class levelled up more slowly and B) the qualifications made it infrequent or even rare to actually SEE the class in play.   Rarity=balance.  This approach persisted through 2nd Edition.  Also, level limits came in with 1E for demihumans and persisted through 2E and while not furthering the idea of rarity it attempted to discourage play of the more powerful demihuman multiclassed characters by simply placing an arbitrary hard limit on their advancement.

Of course, it's complete bunk, not least because the factors that were supposed to ensure a given level of rarity or discouragement were simply _wildly_ circumvented if not outright ignored.  People developed and used all manner of character generation methods that overcame the high qualifying stats or just allowed players to meet them if they wanted to play the class.  They houseruled or ignored demihuman level limits.  Not until 3E came along were these "quaint" ideas about balance abandoned in favor of actually attempting to make the classes and races of a more equal degree of balance in the first place.  Their success or failure even through 4E is no less debatable but at least they were finally _approaching_ the problem in a sensible manner.


----------



## Lancelot

Intended to be balanced? Sure (...so I voted Yes).

There are too many nods to balance to ignore it. For example, wizards have poor attack rolls, can't wear armor, have low hp... but can cast spells. The Vancian magic system. The more powerful magic items are harder to find. Artifacts can "break the rules" in many ways, but have serious drawbacks.

Was it balanced? Absolutely not.

I think one of the biggest problems with 1e balance was the assumption that low probabilities helps to correct major benefits. An 18/00 Strength is a huge advantage for a fighter, but few fighters will ever have that. Psionics are awesome, but very few PCs will qualify due to the random roll. Your chances of rolling a _vorpal blade_ or _hammer of thunderbolts_ are miniscule.

Similarly, I believe there were a few weird areas where balance was thrown out the window to achieve some semblence of historical accuracy. Take the weapons and armors, for example. Gygax seemed to really love this stuff (...check out the Appendix in _Unearthed Arcana_ on pole-arm nomenclature, for example). Hence, I don't think there was the same effort to balance the equipment tables. The classic longsword was almost always the superior option (gotta love that one-handed d8/d12 damage), and this was reflected in the probabilities of acquiring magical weapons. Using a horseman's mace or a hook-fauchard (or 80% of the weapons listed) was an exercise in futility.


----------



## Desdichado

That's not really the kind of question that needs a poll attached, is it?  I mean, the truth of it one way or another isn't really a question for public opinion.


----------



## Ourph

I voted yes. The balance isn't the kind that focuses on each class being equal in power to every other class at every level and in every playstyle. However, I do think the authors intended that it be balanced in the sense that every class has something to contribute to the success of the group for the majority of playstyles in the majority of sessions.


----------



## Jhaelen

It wasn't balanced. It also wasn't intended to be balanced (in the way that most people think of today). Janx summary is pretty much spot on. 

The idea that a class that was starting strong and would be over-shadowed later in their career by a class that started out weak seemed to be one early idea about 'balancing'. From a modern viewpoint that is everything 'except' balanced. 
However, back in the days nobody cared about the modern concept of (class) balance.


----------



## Garmorn

Deleted

I not sure what I was thinking when I posted that.


----------



## El Mahdi

deleted


----------



## Dausuul

The game was absolutely supposed to be balanced (and I agree with the earlier poster who said this isn't really the sort of thing you should need a poll for - just read the 1E rulebooks!).

I also don't entirely agree with the claim that it was "a different kind of balance." The core concept was the same - everybody should get a fair share of the spotlight, without the rules intrinsically favoring one set of PC choices (class, race, et cetera) over another. The tools and techniques used to achieve balance have changed, and some ideas about balance which were held then are no longer widely held today, but the goal remains as it was and so does the purpose behind it.


----------



## Ariosto

Yes -- but it is _a different game_ than WotC-D&D. It's like comparing Baseball and Cricket. There are different _dynamics_ in different balances, in a different context of time, informed by an ethos with different priorities.

A fairly simple example: In WotC-D&D, character levels are key to any comparison of "power"; in TSR-D&D, experience point totals play a similar (but not precisely the same) role. Further, there was no expectation that there should be a time "when everyone has around 8,000 XP". That goes back to the fundamentally different framework.

The centrally important balance is between risk and reward _prior to_ application of player skill. That skill consists primarily in assessing and _choosing from_ the many possibilities.

Halflings originally were limited to 4th level, which makes sense in terms of the source material. Hobbits running around outside the Shire on adventures were reckoned uncommon, and Halfling Superheroes able to go toe to toe (if not eye to eye) with Thongor and Conan --  well, that seemed a bit silly.

Nobody was forced to play 'em, but some people did. It was not as if they were especially "weak" -- they just had a limit to how high they could rise. A human magic-user was potentially among the most powerful figures in the game ... but stood a lesser chance of simply surviving as long, and was not so mighty -- or at most was mighty in a different, less frequent way -- in the meantime.

There was no reason a player could not have _both_ -- and, say, a cleric as well -- in his "stable" of characters of various kinds, alignments, levels and locations in the campaign's fields of space and time. Plenty would perish before attaining second level, while after a few years others were likely to have retired at least from the usual sort of expedition, being more concerned with politics and grand strategy. The x.p. returns for high-level characters tended to be paltry except for undertakings versus comparably powerful beings, which could be dangerous indeed if those were played with a modicum of good sense.


----------



## Janx

Dausuul said:


> The game was absolutely supposed to be balanced (and I agree with the earlier poster who said this isn't really the sort of thing you should need a poll for - just read the 1E rulebooks!).
> 
> I also don't entirely agree with the claim that it was "a different kind of balance." The core concept was the same - everybody should get a fair share of the spotlight, without the rules intrinsically favoring one set of PC choices (class, race, et cetera) over another. The tools and techniques used to achieve balance have changed, and some ideas about balance which were held then are no longer widely held today, but the goal remains as it was and so does the purpose behind it.




Here is my proof that 1E did not see balance as the same thing as it is considered today:

Open up a 1E PH.  Look at the fighter class.  Look at the wizard class.
In 6 encounters of varying types, 3 of them combat, the fighter is more useful more of the time.

The wizard gets like 1 spell.  That's it.  That's the only cool thing he can do that a fighter in 1E can't.

He has 1d4 hit points, he can't wear armor.  His THAC0 (or equivalent in 1e) is 20, compared to the fighter's 19.  So he can't fight better and he won't live longer.

Neither PC has any skills, because those weren't invented yet.  So they are technically the same in that they both have no skills.

It has long ago been observed that 1E wizards start out weak, and are the most powerfull class in the game.  Whereas the fighter starts out as strong, but becomes average at high levels.

This is not balanced between classes.  This lack of balance defines a type of balance.    Therefore, it is a type of balance that 1E is lacking.


----------



## bardolph

Yes, it was intended to be balanced, but the standard has definitely shifted over the years.

In 1e, it was considered "balanced" to have different characters be more useful at different points in their careers. The usefulness of low-level fighters was "balanced" against the omnipotence of magic-users at higher levels. The extra abilities of races like Elves were "balanced" with level caps.

There was also the cosmological significance of balance. Good was balanced against Evil, and Law with Chaos. This was developed to absurd proportions, as "True Neutral" druids were expected to help spread Chaos and Evil whenever the "balance" of the world shifted too much toward Law and Goodness.


----------



## bardolph

Gygax also applied the concept of "balance" to module design. Notice that _The Keep on the Borderlands_ was not called _The Caves of Chaos,_ and that full stats were listed for every guard and citizen in the Keep, just in case the characters decided to take them on instead of exploring the Caves. The scenario was designed as a perfectly balanced stalemate between Law and Chaos, into which the player characters would enter and upset the balance one way or the other.

As a DM, I actually found this kind of design to be really awesome, and probably the most compelling adventures I ever ran were based on The Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Hommlet, precisely for this reason.

I miss these kinds of scenarios.


----------



## FireLance

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.


----------



## Ariosto

Janx said:
			
		

> The 21st century idea of balance is that each PC in the current game session is able to contribute and add value in a fairly equal fashion.



Taking "fairly equal" a bit more flexibly, it was usually the same a few years ago, in the 20th century, Janx! The key difference was that we considered the matter _as players_, in deciding which characters would join a given expedition in the first place.

Now, sometimes a higher-level party might take along a notably lower-level character specifically for "seasoning". Equality of contribution is clearly not expected -- but neither is it expected of henchmen, and they get x.p. (albeit at half rate). It can be a pretty quick way to advance a character, provided it survives (which is far from assured, for all the protection the more powerful patrons can provide).

The assumed context of, at the least, "the party" as basically a constant -- usually including all members' survival and success as a normative expectation if not (as plainly recommended in 4e) an entitlement -- radically changes the nature of the game.

A Fighter Lord when fresh might have more than 50 hit points, and a High Priest his peer might be able to "tank up" two such comrades in a day. But suppose the Cleric is otherwise disposed, and Lord Lazy-Not when at half his strength has an opportunity to go on an adventure with a lower-level band? The haul won't be much, but certainly more than he'll get by staying in bed.

High-level spell-casters run into the problem of not having enough hours in a day -- or, eventually, in a week -- to replenish their stocks of spells.

And of course the fellows off on a wilderness adventure that's already a week into the "future" can't teleport back to town in time to join today's expedition into the underworld beneath the ruins of the Cursed Chateau.


----------



## jdrakeh

Other. I believe that there were several efforts directed at maintaining balance in AD&D/BD&D, but that there were also areas of those games completely _un_balanced when compared to later editions of D&D.


----------



## Ariosto

Lancelot said:
			
		

> I think one of the biggest problems with 1e balance was the assumption that low probabilities helps to correct major benefits.



It depends, naturally, on the particulars of those low probabilities and major benefits.


> An 18/00 Strength is a huge advantage for a fighter, but few fighters will ever have that.



The x.p. bonus is the same 10% as for a score of 16, pretty minor before "name" level. The +3 to hit is like being 3 levels higher -- versus, what, _eight_ levels for a straight 18 in 4e? The +6 to damage, though, is really hot stuff; even a magic sword is unlikely to match that.

Muscle Man still has a 50% chance of rolling 5 or fewer hit points if he has no constitution bonus. An m-u with a constitution bonus has a 25% chance of getting 5 or maybe 6.

Depending on method, your chance of rolling one or more notable bonuses varies -- but a fighter with a strength score of 8 (9 actually minimum to join the class) hacks and slashes as well as one with a 15. Either, with enough levels worth of hit points, can pretty much count on beating Muscle Man without magic and without breaking too much of a sweat. Of course, they are likely to acquire magic and henchmen and contacts along the way, and will certainly get better saving throws (as well as more than +3 over a 1st-level fighter's chance to hit).

That 18/00 really does not increase the chances of attaining even 2nd level by very much; damage dealt per round is not the chief factor! The odds are that Muscle Man, unless very well played, will meet an early end and the campaign -- much less the player's stable -- will not feature his ilk again for a long time.



> Psionics are awesome, but very few PCs will qualify due to the random roll.



Few of those will survive the moment of their first meeting with a psionic monster ... which comes closer with each use of psychic powers (or certain related spells, one might note).


----------



## Lanefan

Firelance has, once again, neatly summed things up, 3 or 4 posts above:







FireLance said:


> 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. ...
> 
> 2E's primary point of reference is the campaign. ...
> 
> 3E's primary point of reference is the adventuring day. ...
> 
> 4E's primary point of reference is the (usually combat) encounter. ...



In short, the intended balance has shifted from a macro level to a micro level; hand in hand with the general theme of the games' design becoming more and more about micro-management as time has gone on.  

I won't be at all surprised if 5e uses the single combat round as its point of reference for balance.

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, balance in 1e works vastly differently when looking at a 1-year 5-adventure low-level blast-through or a 10-year 50-adventure low-mid-high campaign - the longer and bigger the campaign, the more balanced the whole thing becomes...when looked at overall.  Day-to-day balance?  Who cares? 

Lan-"still unbalanced after all these years"-efan


----------



## billd91

I voted yes because balance was clearly an element of 1e design. But if I were to make that decision again, I might focus more on the wording of the question and answered no. 1e wasn't designed *for* game balance. It was designed to provide a fantasy/swords and sorcery feel *with* game balance.

By comparison, 4e comes much closer to a game designed *for* game balance since that's the primary point of departure from previous editions.

And, yes, awesome post Firelance.


----------



## Janx

Lanefan said:


> And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, balance in 1e works vastly differently when looking at a 1-year 5-adventure low-level blast-through or a 10-year 50-adventure low-mid-high campaign - the longer and bigger the campaign, the more balanced the whole thing becomes...when looked at overall.  Day-to-day balance?  Who cares?




except the problem is, some players did care.  WotC cared.  Which is why in 2000 when 3e came out (close enough to the 21st century) they focused on character balance.

In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight.  THey don't remember that at 1st level they rocked compared to the other PCs.  They only notice that now, they're PC is not in the spotlight, because the wizard is so much better and more important.  And the elf fighter's the worst whiner, ever since he stopped leveling....


----------



## Lanefan

Janx said:


> except the problem is, some players did care.  WotC cared.  Which is why in 2000 when 3e came out (close enough to the 21st century) they focused on character balance.
> 
> In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight.  ....



Which to me defines the problem: many players today are unwilling (or, less willing) to accept that there will be times they will be the star, and other times they'll have to suck it up and let someone else be the star; and that over the long run these things will - or at least should - vaguely average out.  And I'll stop there, for fear of this turning into a full-ride rant.

Lanefan


----------



## Janx

Lanefan said:


> Which to me defines the problem: many players today are unwilling (or, less willing) to accept that there will be times they will be the star, and other times they'll have to suck it up and let someone else be the star; and that over the long run these things will - or at least should - vaguely average out.  And I'll stop there, for fear of this turning into a full-ride rant.
> 
> Lanefan




These players were dissatisfied because for many, that time to shine never came.  The campaign didn't last long enough.  Or if it did, once your class passed the cool point, it meant you were second fiddle forever.

long term campaigns were the exception, not the rule.  Thus, it didn't reach its full effectiveness.

Plus, obviously, I'm a fan of character balance.  It pays off in nearly every session.


----------



## Hussar

jgbrowning said:


> Modern rpg game balance theory is mostly centered around the idea of making each "class" as equal to each other in combat as possible. Balance is focused on the mechanical aspects of adjudication. AD&D balance is more along the line of "meta-balance" - balance in the sense of the role's ability placed within the context of the game world's pretend environment.
> 
> joe b.




I would point out that this form of game balance is perhaps a D&D version of the idea.  Other games are not so combat centric in their conception and thus have less focus on mechanical adjudication.


----------



## MerricB

Ariosto said:


> or a score of 16, pretty minor before "name" level. The +3 to hit is like being 3 levels higher -- versus, what, _eight_ levels for a straight 18 in 4e?




Erm - what 4e fighter will have a 10 Strength? The difference in 4E is likely to be 1 or 2 points at most.

AD&D has a lot of features that were thought a good idea at the time, but were never properly developed. What you really have is Gary (primarily) working on the balance of the game from a gut feeling of how it should work informed by all the sessions he'd run. Of course, how he was running it was quite different to how a lot of people actually ran the game.

Consider his chapter on "Time" in the DMG. All of that is terribly important if you're playing on a near daily basis with different groups of players in the same campaign (and sometimes with multiple PCs as well!) However, time management is rather less important for games that run 1/week with the same players and DM each session - which was far more common in my experience (early 80s onwards).

Was AD&D designed with balance in mind? Absolutely it was. Was it designed around balance in combat? Well, not entirely, but it's there. The 1st level magic-user will win a combat _on his own_ using sleep, but otherwise be a lesser combatant using daggers, darts or oil. (The thief is the one class that isn't really designed around balance in combat).

However, those 1st level experiences aren't meant to drag on. The speed of combat as well as XP for treasure will mean that the 1st level magic-user reaches 2nd and 3rd level fairly rapidly. (AD&D games that have PCs stay at 1st level for years are terribly outside the pale).

Cheers!


----------



## Ariosto

> In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight. THey don't remember that at 1st level they rocked compared to the other PCs. They only notice that now, they're PC is not in the spotlight, because the wizard is so much better and more important. And the elf fighter's the worst whiner, ever since he stopped leveling....



If the adventure is really so terribly much better suited to magicians, then perhaps one would have sense enough to join it in a magician's persona instead? For that matter, why is the first magician sharing the glory and plunder with a fighter who can't pull his weight? And why did the elf leave home, if lack of leveling is such a big deal to him -- unless the treasure he seeks is an answer to that problem? (Better he should have multi-classed as a thief to start with, but perhaps such flighty lack of foresight explains his faring yet among men.)

Really, I don't recall any such situation of a 20th-level Lord being less fun to play than an 18th-level Wizard -- although past 9th-11th level, D&D characters in general become increasingly less my cup of tea.

If it _were_ a problem, then the whole business of ensuring that your magician advances in lockstep with my fighter would exacerbate it. It is certainly obscure to me how 3e's "give away the store" program for spell-casters was supposed to make things better!


----------



## Ariosto

> The difference in 4E is likely to be 1 or 2 points at most.



Or 2 or 4 levels, averaging to the same 3 as for an 18/00 in 1E.



> Erm - what 4e fighter will have a 10 Strength?



Good point! In 4E, you had darned well _better_ put your highest roll there, eh? After all, a 14 or 15 gives you a +2 to hit and on damage -- versus no bonus to either in 1E.


----------



## ggroy

MerricB said:


> However, those 1st level experiences aren't meant to drag on. The speed of combat as well as XP for treasure will mean that the 1st level magic-user reaches 2nd and 3rd level fairly rapidly. (AD&D games that have PCs stay at 1st level for years are terribly outside the pale).




I knew of one DM who really dragged things on in his 1E AD&D games.  Basically it took 3 or 4 years of playing every week to level up even a single level.  The game was a total revolving door of players who were really bored out of their skulls most of the time, with the DM completely oblivious to it.

At most games, the players ending up doing other things like watching TV, playing video games, falling asleep, reading a book, etc ... while the DM was going through minutiae in excruciating detail.  Stuff like spending an entire 5 hour game session going through the player characters setting up camp for an evening.  Then the next 5 hour game session would be spent going through the minutiae of walking through the forest to the destination.  (Ad nauseum).

I think this DM was a high functioning autistic, who was completely clueless about pacing.


----------



## The Little Raven

Janx said:


> In 1e, balancing the wizard versus the fighter over 20 levels doesn't matter to a player in THIS adventure tonight.




My experience with 1e is as follows.

Low levels - The wizard blows his small pool of spells, then proceeds to play on his Game Boy, since he has no chance of being effective in any other regard.

High levels - The fighter and thief play on their Game Boys while the wizard mops up whatever challenge is presented.

In order to avoid these problems, I've found DMs have had to spend more time doing game design than adventure/world/setting design. So, they bought a game they had to fix before they could play it in a way that made it fun for everyone involved.

Basically, it was balanced on the assumption that you'd do it Gygax's way (which is nebulous, since it's known that he ignored vast swathes of his own rules).


----------



## Thunderfoot

I voted no - but for many of the reasons that some folks voted yes.

The term "balance" is a modern paradigm word that means everyone is equal - which is total horse puckey!  The world isn't equal, it takes some people longer to get there than others and once some of those folks are there, they just aren't going to get any further while others are just gonna keep going.

Did the system play in a balance with itself - yes, did the rules lay out what balance was - no, but it was stated in the DMG that this was the DM's job, something the newer rules are slowly squeezing out of the system.  A good DM used to be the one that had the awesome game because even if things went wrong for the party and a TPK ensued, it was because of decisions made by the party, not some power hungry control freak.  Now the term TPK is synonymous to _hyperbolic stuff_.

This doesn't mean the new is better or worse or that 1AD&D is archaic in thought, just that balance was a thought of in a different light between then and now.


----------



## ggroy

The Little Raven said:


> My experience with 1e is as follows.
> 
> Low levels - The wizard blows his small pool of spells, then proceeds to play on his Game Boy, since he has no chance of being effective in any other regard.
> 
> High levels - The fighter and thief play on their Game Boys while the wizard mops up whatever challenge is presented.
> 
> In order to avoid these problems, I've found DMs have had to spend more time doing game design than adventure/world/setting design. So, they bought a game they had to fix before they could play it in a way that made it fun for everyone involved.




This is what I did when I use to DM 1E AD&D games back in the day.  I thought it was pointless in playing AD&D strictly by the rules as written, where several players were largely bored out of the their skulls.


----------



## The Little Raven

ggroy said:


> This is what I did when I use to DM 1E AD&D games back in the day.  I thought it was pointless in playing AD&D strictly by the rules as written, where several players were largely bored out of the their skulls.




Word.

I like games that *inspire* me to bust out my game designer cap and wrench on them for a bit. I despise games that *require* me to do so.


----------



## ggroy

The Little Raven said:


> I like games that *inspire* me to bust out my game designer cap and wrench on them for a bit. I despise games that *require* me to do so.




The problem I found back in the day was that 1E AD&D was the only rpg game that many of the players and I had in common.  Suggesting other games with a similar theme was literally a non-starter (such as Runequest, DragonQuest, etc ...).  In the end, we were largely stuck with playing AD&D with all kinds of changes to the rules.


----------



## Stormonu

I very much believe 1E was balanced, but it was designed for long term, over-the-course-of-the-campaign balancing vs. 4E's instant gratification balancing act.

Furthermore, I don't think 1E ever really put much effort into sustaining the game past 9th-11th level.  The higher levels were there for "what could be obtained" or for statting out NPCs abilities.  One only need look at the modules of 1E to see where the end-game was believed to be.  Other than the (tongue-in-cheek) H1-H4, I do not remember seeing a 1E module for above about 12th or 14th level.


----------



## ggroy

Stormonu said:


> Furthermore, I don't think 1E ever really put much effort into sustaining the game past 9th-11th level.  The higher levels were there for "what could be obtained" or for statting out NPCs abilities.  One only need look at the modules of 1E to see where the end-game was believed to be.  Other than the (tongue-in-cheek) H1-H4, I do not remember seeing a 1E module for above about 12th or 14th level.




There was WG6 "Isle of the Ape" which was level 18 and above.


----------



## MerricB

Stormonu said:


> I very much believe 1E was balanced, but it was designed for long term, over-the-course-of-the-campaign balancing vs. 4E's instant gratification balancing act.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't think 1E ever really put much effort into sustaining the game past 9th-11th level.  The higher levels were there for "what could be obtained" or for statting out NPCs abilities.  One only need look at the modules of 1E to see where the end-game was believed to be.  Other than the (tongue-in-cheek) H1-H4, I do not remember seeing a 1E module for above about 12th or 14th level.




Isle of the Ape, by Gary Gygax, which began exploring the higher level rules (and added in a few new ones, such as negative to hit numbers representing additional damage).

18th+ level characters, plus pregens.

Cheers!


----------



## ggroy

Looking through

List of Dungeons & Dragons modules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there's a few other high level modules, such as "A Paladin in Hell" for levels 15-20.


----------



## radferth

Slightly OT, but reminded of this by TLR's comment on 1e magic users.  When I played 1e, low-level wizards would just stand around after using their spells.  Once in a while, I would play one who would throw darts or daggers, and he would actually have some effect doing this.  In 3e, just about all sorcerers and wizards I have seem played carry crossbows or somesuch for when they are out of spells, and they are generally ineffective because they lack a good Dex score.  (The exception being some sorcerers I have seen designed specifically around using a crossbow).  I don't think that really says anything about balance, just an aside about how the game has evolved.

As for the poll: sure, they tried for balance.  Many were unhappy with the result, but it worked well enough for me when I played.  I think Unearthed Arcana was not so well balanced.


----------



## MerricB

ggroy said:


> Looking through
> 
> List of Dungeons & Dragons modules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> there's a few other high level modules, such as "A Paladin in Hell" for levels 15-20.




That was 2nd edition AD&D.

Cheers!


----------



## Celebrim

When the DMG talks of game balance, it doesn't mean anything at all like the term 'game balance' is used today.  The idea of parity between the classes or even characters wasn't even a consideration.  

When 1st edition AD&D talked about balance, what it had in mind was that the game attained an appropriate degree of challenge and reward so that it was always still a struggle to attain further success but never so much of a struggle that success felt arbitrary or forever out of reach.  When 1st edition AD&D talks about balance, it has in mind the idea of 'fairness', but it doesn't remotely care about 'equality of results'.  It only means that each player has equal oppurtunity to succeed.  That his character may be inherently weaker than another player's character at the table is not really a consideration.  Over time it is assumed he will have a chance to play many characters, some of which will obtain great power and some of which may become favored and successful despite the early odds stacked against them.  

Balance as we would use the term today is barely considered.

This manifest in everything in the game.

Players rolled for their stats randomly.  This was intended to be fair.  It was never intended to be balanced.  

You might get better than a 16 in your prime requisite, and so advance in levels faster.  This was intended to be fair in as much as the player was playing a character with natural advantages and so should do so.  It was never intended to be balanced.

You might have such bad stats that you could only qualify to be a rogue or perhaps a M-U that lacked the potential for much advancement, or you might have such good stats that you could play a Ranger or a Paladin.  This was considered to be fair, in as much as any one might someday get a character of this sort and would then qualify for the benefits, but it was never considered to be balanced as we would use the term.

Someone criticized this philosophy as an attempt to balance things as a result of 'rarity' and mocked the effort as stupid.  And it would be, if to Gygax balance meant what the mocker means.  But it clearly doesn't.  Gygax believed the game balanced if superior advantages were rare because he wasn't meaning a balance between players as if the central idea of the game was a spirit of envy and competition between the players.  This was not even really considered and would only have been considered if the focus of the game was combat between the players.  Had this been the focus of the game, Gygax, with his war gaming background could certainly have produced rules that granted an equal likelihood of victory to both sides, but it was never the point of the game.  Rarity balanced the game precisely because the presence of one more powerful player did not itself it the balance between challenge and reward such that the campaign became imbalanced.  And, if it happened that the players managed to all acquire rare and powerful abilities through fair play, then that was their just reward for long and diligent play.

How can you complain that the system was broken because people circumvented the system (or to be more clear, they cheated) even when they had been expressedly adviced not to do so.

So to answer the question, "Yes, the system was designed to be balanced.", but for the most part, that didn't mean then what it meant now.

Actually, Gygax probably succeeded at his goal of 'balance' far better than any modern designer has succeeded in theirs.


----------



## Stormonu

MerricB said:


> Isle of the Ape, by Gary Gygax, which began exploring the higher level rules (and added in a few new ones, such as negative to hit numbers representing additional damage).
> 
> 18th+ level characters, plus pregens.
> 
> Cheers!




I think I'd have to call that an aberration, it's both right at the tail of 1E and reading the intro, it seems to specifically be catering to "those who have been demanding high-level adventures".  It seems to be the first (only?) venture into play of that level in 1E.  I'd be more likely to compare it against...

D1-D3 - 10-14th level
Q1 - 10-14th level
EX1 - 10-12th
S1 - 10th-14th

Even the mighty DragonLance epic (DL14) ends with characters no higher than 13th, most being 11th-13th.


----------



## Ariosto

> As for the poll: sure, they tried for balance. Many were unhappy with the result, but it worked well enough for me when I played. I think Unearthed Arcana was not so well balanced.



I think the Druid could do with some adjustment, generally in the direction of slower advancement (but 2e -- at a cursory look -- seemed to me to "Nerf" it too much). I think there are a number of good reasons Gygax planned to change the Bard to a regular class for _his_ projected 2nd Edition.

The Barbarian, balance-wise, probably gets a worse rap than deserved ... but all otherwise considered, don't hold your breath waiting to see a second one in my campaign.

Cavaliers? Ha! Drow Cavaliers? Ha, ha, ho, ho, hee hee! -- Next, you'll be suggesting Deep Gnome PCs ...

Make that singular, as in probably _unique_, and maybe -- if you're the right player -- we can talk about it.

Keep the non-lethal combat rules, though; easy to separate 'em after the pages fall out of that cheap-ass binding, eh?


----------



## MerricB

Ariosto said:


> Keep the non-lethal combat rules, though; easy to separate 'em after the pages fall out of that cheap-ass binding, eh?




I had mine rebound. Urgh.

I didn't realise for years that there was substantial errata (like a list of what multiclass characters were legal!)


----------



## MerricB

Ariosto said:


> I think the Druid could do with some adjustment, generally in the direction of slower advancement (but 2e -- at a cursory look -- seemed to me to "Nerf" it too much).




2e didn't nerf the druid: they completely destroyed the Cleric and Magic-User classes and subclasses. The introduction of spheres and schools as more than just descriptive text completely ruined the balance of those classes, as well as destroying the uniqueness of the Illusionist and the Druid. The Druid sort of maintained some uniqueness, the Illusionist was gutted and left to rot.

There are many things that 2e clearly did better than 1e. The redesign of the Cleric, Druid, Magic-User and Illusionist was not one of those things.

Cheers!


----------



## ggroy

Stormonu said:


> I think I'd have to call that an aberration, it's both right at the tail of 1E and reading the intro, it seems to specifically be catering to "those who have been demanding high-level adventures".




Back in the day whenever we wanted to do really high level adventures (ie. greater than level 15 or 20), we usually ended up having the campaigns set in other planes where the players were mostly fighting demons, nerfed gods, and other deities.  It kinda got silly after awhile, of fighting deity and after deity.


----------



## cattoy

The title of the thread assumes that AD&D1 was 'designed'.

I'm not so sure I can buy into that, as AD&D1 is more of a conglomeration of mismatched and occasionally contradictory game mechanics than a cohesive design. If AD&D was a car, I'm pretty sure it would be that car Homer made in the Simpsons.

It's more like they took D&D and added random stuff to it. So you get 18/XX STR scores for fighters, but nothing like it for any other class or statistic. 

Would the 'designers' of AD&D1 know what game design was? Who can say? All we are left with is the document they produced. I can see evidence of attempts to implement game balance. But as a whole, is it balanced?

Not so much.


----------



## Orius

jgbrowning said:


> I voted other. It was designed for game balance, but a concept of balance different than what is now termed as game balance.




That's why I voted yes.  The game was intended to be balanced in the 1e days, but the problem is that the game changed from rules being added and dropped, and from people playing differently.  So what was balanced in 1980 in the early days of 1e wasn't balanced in 2000 when 3e was released and 2e had a lot of baggage from legacy rules.  

This is something that affects all editions.  Over the course of time 1e got changed from UA, the survival guides and OA, 2e got changed from the Complete handbooks, Player's Option, and the settings, and 3e got changed from all the various splats, the 3.5 revision, and even the OGL.  In 10 years, we'll likely be talking about how the things that developed during 4e changed those rules too.



Man in the Funny Hat said:


> The early ideas of balance stemmed from how OD&D treated "balance".  For the most part there just wasn't a lot of power to balance in the first place.  But it seems apparant that "balance" was to be established by enforcing _rarity_.  If a PC class was deemed powerful it was made slower to advance.  In 1E powerful classes were made harder to qualify for.
> 
> ...
> 
> Of course, it's complete bunk, not least because the factors that were supposed to ensure a given level of rarity or discouragement were simply _wildly_ circumvented if not outright ignored.  People developed and used all manner of character generation methods that overcame the high qualifying stats or just allowed players to meet them if they wanted to play the class.  They houseruled or ignored demihuman level limits.




That's one of the ways 1e was balanced.  Rarity does kind of balance things out if you just roll 3d6 in order.  Over the long run, there will be the high-powered ranger or paladin every so often,  but as others have said, everyone's playing several different characters, so overall it balances out because the one powerful character isn't being played all the time.  

The real problem I think existed outside the game, and perhaps revolves around Gary's departure from TSR.  As has been noted in this thread, much of the rules were shaped based on how he and his group played the game.  He mentioned here once that he didn't use straight 3d6 for character generation in his games, since players were more satified playing a character they wanted to play rather than one the dice forced them to play, so perhaps any 2e that he would have designed had he stayed with TSR would have taken that into account with class balance.  But that's not what happened, and 2e took a somewhat conservative approach to the game, consolidating rules without making any big major changes to the stsurcture, perhaps out of fear of alienating players.



Lancelot said:


> Your chances of rolling a _vorpal blade_ or _hammer of thunderbolts_ are miniscule.




WRT this, maybe things were different in 1e, but in 2e, an experienced DM was encourged to place treasure as he saw fit.  So if he felt a party needed or deserved a _vorpal blade_ or _hammer of thunderbolts_, he'd deliberately place it.  Random rolling was for doing things on the fly or inspriation.  The downside is that a novice DM might give the party stuff that makes them too powerful too quickly, or doesn't give them enough.  Then of course there's the cheapass DMs who think more than one +1 sword is too damn strong and that those gps must be constantly siphoned off for balance.  The organization of magic items in 3e into power levels and 4e's system of treasure parcels goes a long way towards helping novice DMs give PCs stuff that is suitable for their level, while more experienced DMs should know how to tweak this stuff.



Thunderfoot said:


> Did the system play in a balance with itself - yes, did the rules lay out what balance was - no, but it was stated in the DMG that this was the DM's job, something the newer rules are slowly squeezing out of the system.  A good DM used to be the one that had the awesome game because even if things went wrong for the party and a TPK ensued, it was because of decisions made by the party, not some power hungry control freak.  Now the term TPK is synonymous to unfair Nazi Communist baby-killing father rapers.




That's another significant change, sort of related to the point I made on magic items above.  The game wasn't balanced for just the dice, but with the idea that the DM would be making fair and impartial decisions (originally the DM was called the referee after all).  Some people complain that the newer rules particularly 3e and 4e empower the players while stripping power from the DM, but I think some of those design decisions reflect that fact that not all DMs know what they're doing as soon as they pick up a DMG.  There's a lot about DMing that requires experience, and I think the newer rules are like they are to make things easier for a novice DM, and to ensure that he doesn't destroy the party outright because he underestimated the power of a spell, monster, or trap.  TPKs should be the result of player carelessness, not DM carelessness.


----------



## Ariosto

> He mentioned here once that he didn't use straight 3d6 for character generation ...



Neither did he offer it among the options in the DMG.



> The organization of magic items in 3e into power levels and 4e's system of treasure parcels goes a long way towards helping novice DMs give PCs stuff that is suitable for their level ...



 ... which is great under the predicate assumption that the DM's job is to *give PCs stuff* in the first place. Different game.



> TPKs should be the result of player carelessness, not DM carelessness.




"Gosh, I didn't realize that anyone coming within 1,000 miles of Azathoth must save versus spells at -6 or go permanently mad."

And you may ask yourself, 'Well, how did I get here?'

Wardrobe malfunction? "Where's the Lamp Post?"


----------



## DracoSuave

Janx said:


> The current crop of D&D tends to balance the classes with a focus on equality in combat.
> 
> Such that for any given level and any pair of classes, they do roughly the same amount of damage within a 6 round combat
> 
> Loosely put, nobody sucks at any level during combat compared to another PC.  Since most of D&D is combat, that's the balancing point.
> 
> In prior editions, having less combat skill meant you had greater skill in other areas for other enounter types.  Thus it was justifiable for the Bard to suck during combat, because he could do cool things outside of combat.
> 
> 
> Compare this to 1e.  A first level wizard is so worthless, that if you were recruiting for a 1st level mission, you'd be better off taking a 1st level fighter.
> 
> Later, at 15th level, you'd be better off taking the wizard than the fighter.
> 
> While the 1e designers saw this as a long term balance (life is harder at low level for a wizard, in trade for more power at high level), it didn't necessarily make for fair and fun game play on a per session basis.
> 
> Sure 1e had balance goals in mind.  But they were 1970s idea of balance.
> 
> The 21st century idea of balance is that each PC in the current game session is able to contribute and add value in a fairly equal fashion.  If there is a class that a min/maxer would say "only an idiot would pick that class, it sucks" or "I always play this class, its the best" then that class is out of balance.
> 
> Why does this form of balance matter?
> 
> For a GM, it matters because it makes measuring encounter difficulty a more consistent process.  Each PC is balanced, so they are interchangeable, to an extent.  This in turn means all you need to know is how many levels there are.  Sure, the GM could tweak set up special encounters to challenge or spotlight a class, but on the average, it's all the same.
> 
> For a player, balance matters because nobody likes their character concept to suck so badly that they feel like the tagalong sidekick to the heroes.  Sure the guy with the uber-class is happy with the imbalance.  Deep down, nobody else is.
> 
> In 4e, it seems like the focus is combat functionality.  Some classes may do better in direct combat, but all the classes have features to make sure they are actively participating in a fun and useful fashion.  Thus, the guy playing the "least fighty" class can still feel like he kicked butt, because he actively contributed in a meaningul way.
> 
> That's the new balance.




More accurately, I think that the designers of 4e realized that instead of balancing combat -with- non-combat between classes, like most games have done before, they decided to give characters the best of both worlds by balancing combat between classes, and non-combat between classes, and abandoning the concept that a character who has good utility outside combat must be balanced by having bad utility inside combat... or that a good combattant must be good at that, and less capable outside combat.

Instead, they found it's easier to just balance combat between the classes, and non-combat, and lo and behold, it works better for a lot less work.


----------



## S'mon

Balance between threat and reward, yes.

Balance between PCs, no.  AD&D has lots of positive feedback loops - eg the better you roll, the more attribute bonuses you get, the better class you can play, and the higher your XP bonus.  The higher your XP bonus the quicker you advance, the tougher you get, the more XP you earn.


----------



## Ariosto

“Jesus saves!!!  The rest of you take full damage.”


----------



## Plane Sailing

I think that Firelance summed up perfectly the focus of balance in the various editions.

I voted 'No' in the poll itself, as I consider the design of AD&D1 being primarily about 'fun' and fidelity to certain sword and sorcery tropes. I don't think that balance in the sense in which the term is used today was really considered at all.

However, I don't think it was detrimental to the game at all. The groups of people I played AD&D with (and OD&D before that) all had a stable of characters, with different adventures in different campaign worlds (or different parts of the same campaign world). Some people had better attributes than others, but by and large the main focus of the ability scores was as a role-play hook rather than anything else!

The xp tables were a bit screwy, because although wizards required more xps than anyone else to reach 2nd level, and also again at the upper levels, round about the 6th/7th/8th level region they needed less than the fighters!

I'm not convinced by the argument that new DMs benefit from more hand-holding or systems to make it easier for them to run games well since, well, being a DM isn't exactly rocket science! Tens of thousands of people were running fun games of D&D back in the 70's and early 80's with what little support and advice was available back then.

Cheers


----------



## Umbran

Celebrim said:


> When the DMG talks of game balance, it doesn't mean anything at all like the term 'game balance' is used today.  The idea of parity between the classes or even characters wasn't even a consideration.




I disagree that outright parity between the classes is really what balance means these days - the means of attaining balance, and balance itself, are not synonymous.

4e makes strong use of parity to provide balance.  3e, and other games, also are designed for balance, but make less use of that particular tool.


----------



## Stoat

It looks to me like 1E gave at least some consideration to parity between the classes.  The cleric trades away the ability to use higher-damage bladed weapons in exchange for spell casting.  The wizard gains his spells at the cost of good armor, hit points and attack rolls.  

Class parity is nowhere near as tight as in later editions, but I think its there in spirit at least.


----------



## Janx

Stoat said:


> It looks to me like 1E gave at least some consideration to parity between the classes.  The cleric trades away the ability to use higher-damage bladed weapons in exchange for spell casting.  The wizard gains his spells at the cost of good armor, hit points and attack rolls.
> 
> Class parity is nowhere near as tight as in later editions, but I think its there in spirit at least.




I'll buy that as an attempt in 1e to have balance between characters


----------



## Bullgrit

Through the years, I've seen comments saying that AD&D1 didn't bother with balance -- making the stand that balance designed into a game system (specifically the recent D&D editions) was unnecessary and bad.

Because I see the balancing mechanisms all over the place in AD&D1, and I read the advice for balance in the DMG and Dragon magazine, I assumed that those saying AD&D1 didn't bother with balance must be just a vocal minority. "Surely there aren't many people who think this," I figured.

But look at the poll results. Wow. More people think AD&D1 was not designed for game balance. Really? This surprises me. I mean, to me, the intention for game balance are obvious and throughout the rules. This is like seeing a poll say that more people think the sky is not blue.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> But look at the poll results. Wow. More people think AD&D1 was not designed for game balance. Really? This surprises me. I mean, to me, the intention for game balance are obvious and throughout the rules. This is like seeing a poll say that more people think the sky is not blue.




It's really a question of definitions. Is the sky blue? What do you mean by blue? Sky blue, cerulean, royal blue, navy blue, periwinkle, cornflower? Given today's weather, I'm looking at white, but then I'm looking at a 12" snow advisory over the next 24 hours.

Balance, in RPGs, means different things to different people. I also think it's really a no-brainer that 1e was designed with game balance in mind... but it's a different type of balance than current gamers and WotC designers tend to focus on these days.


----------



## Bullgrit

This is looking a lot like the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions:

X concept is bad, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.
X concept is good, and n edition did/does have it.
X concept is bad, and n edition did/does have it.
X concept is good, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.


Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.
Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.

I need to copyright the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions (RoC). Or is it trademark?

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm not convinced by the argument that new DMs benefit from more hand-holding or systems to make it easier for them to run games well since, well, being a DM isn't exactly rocket science! Tens of thousands of people were running fun games of D&D back in the 70's and early 80's with what little support and advice was available back then.




The technology exists to give me a car that will go farther than 30 miles on a gallon of gas.  Back in the 1950s, people generally lacked that technology, but managed to drive anyway.  I am not benefiting from the advancement?  The fact that I can get by without means I cannot benefit?  Dude, then why aren't we still getting by in caves with stone knives and bearskins?


----------



## diaglo

Umbran said:


> The technology exists to give me a car that will go farther than 30 miles on a gallon of gas.  Back in the 1950s, people generally lacked that technology, but managed to drive anyway.  I am not benefiting from the advancement?  The fact that I can get by without means I cannot benefit?  Dude, then why aren't we still getting by in caves with stone knives and bearskins?




and some cars back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s got great gas mileage.

it is only b/c of gas shortages in the 70s that people really got to looking more carefully.

and what did it prove. that we learned nothing.

b/c of the gas guzzlers of the 90s and 00s.

the mpg of cars may be on the floor of Congress or the world stage at the UN.

but people still prefer their choice of car. getting the parts is the problem.

on topic. i think 1edADnD was just following the trend with the introduction of Supplement I Greyhawk in 1975.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Bullgrit said:


> This is looking a lot like the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions:
> 
> X concept is bad, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.
> X concept is good, and n edition did/does have it.
> X concept is bad, and n edition did/does have it.
> X concept is good, and n edition didn't/doesn't have it.
> 
> 
> Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.
> Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
> Balance is bad, and AD&D1 edition did have it.
> Balance is good, and AD&D1 edition didn't have it.
> 
> I need to copyright the Edition Argument Rule of Contradictions (RoC). Or is it trademark?
> 
> Bullgrit



Problem really stems from the fact that what constitutes "balance" is thought of rather differently today than it was for 1E.  If the original poll question and response options were now to be rephrased AS your EARoC you'd actually get a somewhat different discussion.  This is actually less of of an edition war and more a discussion of game history and design.

Although people responded differently to the poll they nonetheless seem to agree that things hinge on how you choose to consider the idea of "balance".  Some think of it only in the more current sense, some consider it according to how it was thought of at the time, some a little of both.  Given the discussion the poll really needs to be redone.


----------



## Bullgrit

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Problem really stems from the fact that what constitutes "balance" is thought of rather differently today than it was for 1E.



If the poll question was:
Were school lunches in the 80s balanced?

You're saying that because our current concepts of "balanced deit" are different (4 food groups versus food pyramid, etc.) today than they were in the 80s, some people might answer differently?

One person might say, "Yes, they were balanced," based on the thinking of the time. Because there were charts and guidelines for balance.

Another person might say, "No, they were not balanced," based on thinking of today. Even though there were charts and guidelines for balance.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

diaglo said:


> and what did it prove. that we learned nothing.




No.  It proved that consumers can be distracted from what they know.  More importantly, on the producer's side it also proved that failing to follow smart designs when they are available can be very bad for business.

There are at least two levels upon which a design goal can be evaluated - utility to the individual, and value to the aggregate.  When discussing incremental improvements, for any given design goal or feature, you can probably make an argument that an individual does not really "need" it.  However, the value becomes far more clear when viewed in the aggregate of the market, where the actions of large numbers of individuals become visible.

Was the absolute, stunning simplicity of the iPod interface really necessary?  Certainly not, as humans are pretty good with gadgets.  It is very clear than pretty much any individual can use an mp3 player with a far more complicated and clumsy interface.  However, that doesn't mean that interface was not a major reason for the product's success. 

Frequently, the extra utility is marginal for each individual - but those marginals can add up when we talk about the product's overall success.


----------



## Storm Raven

Bullgrit said:


> But look at the poll results. Wow. More people think AD&D1 was not designed for game balance. Really? This surprises me. I mean, to me, the intention for game balance are obvious and throughout the rules. This is like seeing a poll say that more people think the sky is not blue.




Well, the first thing is to reiterate the point that what was meant by "balance" in the 1e era is very different than what game designers refer to as "balance" now, to such an extent that the current definition would have been unrecognizable to Gygax as a game concern in 1972.

I would further argue that "balance" simply wasn't much of a design consideration for the first edition of D&D. Some things were clearly superior to others, and that was just the way it was. The primary goals of the game were different - providing a functioning system that would more or less simulate pulp action.


----------



## TerraDave

Bullgrit said:


> Because I see the balancing mechanisms all over the place in AD&D1, and I read the advice for balance in the DMG and Dragon magazine, I assumed that those saying AD&D1 didn't bother with balance must be just a vocal minority.




Your right. The irony is that if anything, there are more, and more complicated, bits and pieces for balancing in that game then probably any edition of D&D.

Take high level spell casting. You have got to avoid getting your spell disrupted, beat magic resistance, maybe hope a save is failed (unlikely at high levels), and that the target is not immune. While portrayed as gods, high level spell-casters could be nerfed by high level oponents.  

But the balancing was conditional, in a few ways, and didn't really work a lot of the time in play. Hence unbalanced, and I guess some people liked it that way.


----------



## jdrakeh

Bullgrit said:


> I mean, to me, the intention for game balance are obvious and throughout the rules.




I think that the intent for game balance was there, as I think concerted efforts were made to honor that intent. Ultimately, though, I think that most of those attempts _failed_.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Umbran said:


> The technology exists to give me a car that will go farther than 30 miles on a gallon of gas.  Back in the 1950s, people generally lacked that technology, but managed to drive anyway.  I am not benefiting from the advancement?  The fact that I can get by without means I cannot benefit?  Dude, then why aren't we still getting by in caves with stone knives and bearskins?




That is irrelevant hyperbole. I can't even fathom what point you are trying to make  You could equally say that back in the 1950s anyone could pop open the bonnet of their car and fix problems, while nowadays the computer-controller systems in many cars means that they can't be fixed without special equipment at a dealer.

Seems to me that effort was allegedly going into a problem that didn't really exist - and in my opinion didn't do what they wanted it to.

Cheers


----------



## diaglo

Umbran said:


> No.  It proved that consumers can be distracted from what they know.  More importantly, on the producer's side it also proved that failing to follow smart designs when they are available can be very bad for business.
> 
> There are at least two levels upon which a design goal can be evaluated - utility to the individual, and value to the aggregate.  When discussing incremental improvements, for any given design goal or feature, you can probably make an argument that an individual does not really "need" it.  However, the value becomes far more clear when viewed in the aggregate of the market, where the actions of large numbers of individuals become visible.
> 
> Was the absolute, stunning simplicity of the iPod interface really necessary?  Certainly not, as humans are pretty good with gadgets.  It is very clear than pretty much any individual can use an mp3 player with a far more complicated and clumsy interface.  However, that doesn't mean that interface was not a major reason for the product's success.
> 
> Frequently, the extra utility is marginal for each individual - but those marginals can add up when we talk about the product's overall success.




and so we are back to the same thing again.

OD&D(1974) is the one true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.


----------



## ExploderWizard

jdrakeh said:


> I think that the intent for game balance was there, as I think concerted efforts were made to honor that intent. Ultimately, though, I think that most of those attempts _failed_.




I will respectfully disagree. As others have pointed out, bypassing balancing aspects of the game on purpose then claiming the game is unblanced isn't fair. 

If one were to allow 1st level 4E PC's to start with stats all in the mid 20's then claim that 4E was unbalanced it would be just as bogus. 

Claiming that "nobody followed rule X" and then say the game was unbalanced isn't fair to any game.


----------



## jdrakeh

ExploderWizard said:


> As others have pointed out, bypassing balancing aspects of the game on purpose then claiming the game is unblanced isn't fair.




Good thing I didn't do that, then. As I said, I think that the intent was there and that efforts were made, but that I feel _most_ of those efforts failed. I didn't say that _all_ of those efforts failed. I also didn't say that the game, as a whole, was unbalanced. Nor did I say that "nobody followed rule X" and then claim that _this_ unbalanced the game. In point of fact, I voted for "Other." Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to create a quarrel where none exists.


----------



## ExploderWizard

jdrakeh said:


> Good thing I didn't do that, then. As I said, I think that the intent was there and that efforts were made, but that I feel _most_ of those efforts failed. I didn't say that _all_ of those efforts failed. I also didn't say that the game, as a whole, was unbalanced. Nor did I say that "nobody followed rule X" and then claim that _this_ unbalanced the game. In point of fact, I voted for "Other." Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to create a quarrel where none exists.




Ease up hoss . Fair enough. What efforts do you think failed and which were a success?


----------



## Umbran

Plane Sailing said:


> Seems to me that effort was allegedly going into a problem that didn't really exist




My point is that "improvement" does not equate to "fixing problems".  

Today, if you were trying to outfit an office worker to do his job, you'd not pick an IBM Thinkpad T-30.  There is no "problem" with the T-30.  It is a solid workhorse of an office machine, and it'll run Windows XP, web browsers, and MS Office just fine.  However, the tech here is from early in the decade - it all functions well, but a T-60, or a T-500 would work *better*.

Lots of folks here talk about how the definition of balance has changed.  I think that may be barking up the wrong tree.  I think the operative thing is how our _understanding_ of balance has changed.

It seems to me that Gygax and friends had basically the same definition of balance as I do - a game and its characters are balanced when all the basic choices available can leave the player feeling like they are an effective part of the overall game play, that nobody ends up twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to come to the session, because the other guy gets to do all the fun stuff.  That Gary understood this is born out by descriptions of gameplay under him as a GM, and I don't find the idea that he'd leave that out of his intent in designing a game to be credible.

Now, Gary was at the forefront here - so his understanding of how to achieve that goal was limited by inexperience.  He was restricted largely to what was in his own head, and in the heads of the relatively small group of people, with only a little playtesting, and little clear feedback.  Basically, he was guessing.  And while he got the basic idea in place, many of his measures fall short of the mark. 

Is 1e AD&D playable?  Most certainly.  It works, and I like it.  I still bring it out for the occasional one-shot.  I have to spend some attention to keeping it balanced.  This is not a "problem".  However, I have to spend less attention (not zero attention, just less) playing with newer systems, designed with better understandings of balance.  

In essence, a balanced game is like a faster computer - it makes it easier for me to spend more time doing the things I want to do.


----------



## scruffygrognard

I think EGG set out with balance in mind but went off of the rails with Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Umbran said:


> Lots of folks here talk about how the definition of balance has changed. I think that may be barking up the wrong tree. I think the operative thing is how our _understanding_ of balance has changed.
> 
> It seems to me that Gygax and friends had basically the same definition of balance as I do - a game and its characters are balanced when all the basic choices available can leave the player feeling like they are an effective part of the overall game play, that nobody ends up twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to come to the session, because the other guy gets to do all the fun stuff. That Gary understood this is born out by descriptions of gameplay under him as a GM, and I don't find the idea that he'd leave that out of his intent in designing a game to be credible.




I agree that the collective understanding of balance has changed. The original intent was that the final level of balance wasn't something that the printed game material could provide. The referee was supposed to provide the most essential elements of game balance. 

That understanding has shifted. The expectation today is that the game material should provide any balance essential to the game. This means more rules, more fiddly bits, etc. 

The primary reason for this shift is marketing. A product that requires a steeper learning curve does not provide for the instant gratification demands of the modern consumer. Players are demanding more "out of the box" balance and designers are addressing that need. 

There are some (like me) that believe the older,simpler systems provide a more satisfying gaming experience primarily because the balance is home brewed. Others prefer more ready made packaged balance. Luckily there are games out to serve the needs of all.


----------



## Umbran

ExploderWizard said:


> That understanding has shifted. The expectation today is that the game material should provide any balance essential to the game. This means more rules, more fiddly bits, etc.




I believe the expectation today is that the game provide more inherent balance than was present in 1e.  I do not think that extends to "any balance essential to the game" - gone a bit too far there, I think.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Umbran said:


> I believe the expectation today is that the game provide more inherent balance than was present in 1e. I do not think that extends to "any balance essential to the game" - gone a bit too far there, I think.




Oh, quite so. I don't think it has been achieved but the constant post- release tweaking leads me to believe that it is a goal.


----------



## Ariosto

Love how "current" and "today" and "21st century" apply only to partisans of WotC-D&D. After all, any other preference is just nostalgia, eh?



> You're saying that because our current concepts of "balanced deit" are different ... some people might answer differently?



You're on the wrong track. To a large degree, changing concepts of a balanced diet are (#1) based on better information as to how to achieve the same goals -- objectives stated and measured objectively in scientific research. To some extent, they're (#2) based on changing priorities. To some extent, they're (#3) just fads and fallacies.

The issue of different views of "balance" in D&D is *not* anything like (#1). It is not _at all_ a matter of everyone being on the same page. People who love 1e and loath 4e have very different ends in mind, calling for different means, than people who love 4e and loath 1e.

The present situation may be "progress" from one of those perspectives, but it is hardly incumbent on anyone else to make that view privileged.

It's like saying your _Diplomacy_ game is more this or better that since you started playing _Descent_ instead. What syllable of "different games" is so hard to understand?


----------



## BryonD

Certainly yes.

Though the details of what constituted balance are rather different than those commonly presumed now.  And also the window of "close enough" was notably wider (though no less frequently missed)


----------



## Kwalish Kid

cperkins said:


> I think EGG set out with balance in mind but went off of the rails with Unearthed Arcana.



Given the level-limits for PCs and the progression of the classes that are right there in the PHB, I can't agree with this. Balance issues were, if anything, secondary.


----------



## Ariosto

> Lots of folks here talk about how the definition of balance has changed. I think that may be barking up the wrong tree. I think the operative thing is how our _understanding_ of balance has changed.



I _know_ you are barking up the wrong tree as far as I and my friends are concerned. We simply *do not want* what 4e delivers, or what 3e delivers.

  This comes off as if the preference of some people for Baseball somehow means that those who prefer Cricket don't have a different goal for their game -- they just lack _understanding_ of means relative to Baseball fans.

You can reduce both to vague (and often patronizing and invidious) statements about bats and balls, "that nobody ends up twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to come", and so on -- therefore it follows that they are both attempts to do just the same thing, and Baseball is self-evidently superior at doing it.

And so, of course, Baseball fans are in the better position to say what Cricket fans _really_ want.


----------



## Thunderfoot

Orius said:


> <SNIPPY>
> That's another significant change, sort of related to the point I made on magic items above.  The game wasn't balanced for just the dice, but with the idea that the DM would be making fair and impartial decisions (originally the DM was called the referee after all).  Some people complain that the newer rules particularly 3e and 4e empower the players while stripping power from the DM, but I think some of those design decisions reflect that fact that not all DMs know what they're doing as soon as they pick up a DMG.  There's a lot about DMing that requires experience, and I think the newer rules are like they are to make things easier for a novice DM, and to ensure that he doesn't destroy the party outright because he underestimated the power of a spell, monster, or trap.  TPKs should be the result of player carelessness, not DM carelessness.



I totally concur!  It seems to me however, that a lot is expected of a new DM more by the PCs than the rules - we used to give (and I still do) new DMs a grace period for learning from their mistakes, I have, however seen groups that were much less forgiving - so I guess there are two sides to that coin.


----------



## frankthedm

Ariosto said:


> You come off as if the preference of some people for Baseball somehow means that those who prefer Cricket don't have a different goal for their game -- they just lack _understanding_ of means relative to Baseball fans.
> 
> You can reduce both to vague (and often patronizing and invidious) statements about bats and balls, "that nobody ends up twiddling their thumbs wondering why they bothered to come", and so on -- therefore it follows that they are both attempts to do just the same thing, and Baseball is self-evidently superior at doing it.



its more comparing Massmaketed Baseball today with Baseball Decades passed. We see the lowering of the pitchers mound and the shrinking of the strike zone and know that it being done so juiced up batters can swing for the fences  to drive the masses into the stadium even at the cost of the game.


----------



## Bullgrit

Ariosto said:
			
		

> People who love 1e and loath 4e have very different ends in mind, calling for different means, than people who love 4e and loath 1e.





			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> We simply do not want what 4e delivers, or what 3e delivers.



You seem to be trying pretty hard to make this an edition war. This discussion is about AD&D1 and balance -- not about what any other edition has.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran

Ariosto said:


> I _know_ you are barking up the wrong tree as far as I and my friends are concerned. We simply *do not want* what 4e delivers, or what 3e delivers.




I'll bet you I'm not barking up the wrong tree, because we have not yet noted something terribly important: 

_*There is more to a game than how much balance it provides.*_ 

Intrinsic balance is merely one thing one might look for in a game.  It may not be your top priority.  That is fine and dandy.  You pick your game based on your own desires.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

DracoSuave said:


> More accurately, I think that the designers of 4e realized that instead of balancing combat -with- non-combat between classes, like most games have done before, they decided to give characters the best of both worlds by balancing combat between classes, and non-combat between classes, and abandoning the concept that a character who has good utility outside combat must be balanced by having bad utility inside combat... or that a good combattant must be good at that, and less capable outside combat.
> 
> Instead, they found it's easier to just balance combat between the classes, and non-combat, and lo and behold, it works better for a lot less work.




And the concept of archetypes was completely abandoned along the way.


----------



## Ariosto

> You seem to be trying pretty hard to make this an edition war.



That's just Bullgrit. I have observed that different people just happen to prefer different games, and championed the view that it is quite sensible and unobjectionable that there should be "different strokes for different blokes". Who has been offering analogies with technological progress, asserting that the difference in games is a matter not of different tastes but of New and Improved versus Old and Obsolete?

Not Yours Truly.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Bullgrit said:


> You seem to be trying pretty hard to make this an edition war. This discussion is about AD&D1 and balance -- not about what any other edition has.




I don't see that he is doing that all. Aristo isn't putting any value judgements on the different attitudes, merely noting that they typically exist and he finds himself on one side rather than another.

No denigration. No vitriol. No edition war.

Thanks


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> This discussion is about AD&D1 and balance -- not about what any other edition has.




In addition to what PS said - it really isn't possible to talk about what 1e has or has not out of context.  We need to compare and contrast in order to have perspective.


----------



## Khairn

Hell no.

AD&D is a great game, and I enjoyed it when it met what I wanted in a game.  But "balance", as we understand it today, certainly wasn't an accomplishment in its final design.


----------



## MerricB

cperkins said:


> I think EGG set out with balance in mind but went off of the rails with Unearthed Arcana.




Supplement I: Greyhawk, thank you very much! (I know diaglo agrees with me. )

Cheers!


----------



## Skallgrim

I'm not sure how so many people can vote "No" on balance unless you assume that the writer of the book was, in fact, crazy or a liar.  

Since you specified that you were not asking whether the edition _was_ balanced, but whether it was _intended_ to be balanced, and EGG specifically says that game balance was a design consideration, either he was crazy (and saying things that had no relation to reality), or a liar (and deliberately spreading falsehood).

As many, many, many posters have said, it was a different type of balance that was intended, but clearly, unless you can somehow show that EGG is using the words "game balance" in a logically or factually incorrect way, I think it is blindingly obvious that game balance was intended.

I mean, clearly one can have different opinions on what is considered 'game balance', but if I say I'm going to make 'spicy meatballs', and the meatballs I make are what I consider spicy, then clearly, I have made the meatballs I set out to make.  Maybe _you_ might not consider them spicy, but it would be inaccurate to say that I, in fact, did not actually make spicy meatballs.


On the side topic of 'quick/slow' game balance progression (where wizards are balanced by being weak at low levels and powerful at high levels), this sort of game balance had one obvious problem (wizards dominated late stage games) and one less obvious problem.  It did not adequately account for people starting a new character during the game.  Either they started at a lower level than everyone else, and were substantially disadvantaged, or they started at around the same xp level as everyone else, and, depending on class choice, might not have to suffer through any levels of 'weaksauce' to get to their 'sweet spot'.


----------



## Bullgrit

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> You seem to be trying pretty hard to make this an edition war. This discussion is about AD&D1 and balance -- not about what any other edition has.



Reading what I wrote after reading everyone's response shows me how I miscommunicated.

I wasn't meaning that Ariosto is trying to create an edition war. Rather, it seemed to me, that he was taking things that others have said as edition warring. (Wearing his heart on his sleeve.) It seemed, again, to me, that anything anyone said positive about D&D4 as an insult (a negative) to AD&D1.

Basically: 
Someone says, "D&D4 has this good feature."

Ariosto responded with, "I don't want your D&D4. It's not better than AD&D1."

And then the whole:







			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> People who love 1e and loath 4e have very different ends in mind, calling for different means, than people who love 4e and loath 1e.



He seems to think everyone has this mutually exclusive relationship between editions. If you love one, you must therefore hate the other. With this attitude, it's no wonder that anything positive said about one is taken as a negative about the other. Or anything negative said about one is taken as a postive for the other.

Saying, "I like X about D&D4," gets taken as "I hate AD&D1, and you are stupid for liking it." That's a little too sensitive. And "I dislike Y about AD&D1," gets taken as "I hate AD&D1, and you are stupid for liking it."

This attitude makes it very difficult to discuss anything about any edition. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Holy Bovine

I certainly think 1E was intended to be as balanced as possible.  I don't think, ultimately, that it succeeded (even by the standards of the time let alone modern standards).  Of course this means, in no way whatsoever, that 1E is anything less than a heckuva a great game and one I would play or DM again in a flat minute.


----------



## Garmorn

FireLance said:


> 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.
> 2E's primary point of reference is the campaign.
> 
> 3E's primary point of reference is the adventuring day.
> 
> 4E's primary point of reference is the (usually combat) encounter.






Lanefan said:


> Firelance has, once again, neatly summed things up, 3 or 4 posts above:In short, the intended balance has shifted from a macro level to a micro level; hand in hand with the general theme of the games' design becoming more and more about micro-management as time has gone on.
> 
> I won't be at all surprised if 5e uses the single combat round as its point of reference for balance.
> 
> And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, balance in 1e works vastly differently when looking at a 1-year 5-adventure low-level blast-through or a 10-year 50-adventure low-mid-high campaign - the longer and bigger the campaign, the more balanced the whole thing becomes...when looked at overall.  Day-to-day balance?  Who cares?
> 
> Lan-"still unbalanced after all these years"-efan




Firelance is right, but Lanefan response points out a view that seems to be common.  I deleted an earlier post because until I read this tread also had this view.  There is a solid reason for the gradual shift in how the characters/game are balanced.   The only way to truly balance a game is to make sure it is balanced at the lowest level that every one is going to play the same.

The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level.  The concept was for the game to be balance a cross the campaign but how can that happen when there is no standard campaign length?  This is also the weakness of 2e's balance problem.  For 3e the period was a day with 4 combats but how many varied from that regularly?  4e is now geared to the lowest possible time frame an encounter.  Long term balance is now more of the DM job.

Lots of us hated or did not think 1e was balanced not because of house rules but because of different campaign lengths/max levels different groups played to.  This severely changed the dynamics of the game.  It caused some to make lots of house rule (many were pretty bad) or use other means to fix the problem caused by the changed expectations. 

Now I not saying 4e is perfect, or 1e is horrible, but for balance between players in power and spotlight I would not play in a pickup or short 1e game.  Give me a really good DM who I know would run it until 20th and I will enjoy it.  For quick pickup when stuck in an airport over night give me 4e.


----------



## Votan

Garmorn said:


> The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level.  The concept was for the game to be balance a cross the campaign but how can that happen when there is no standard campaign length?  This is also the weakness of 2e's balance problem.  For 3e the period was a day with 4 combats but how many varied from that regularly?  4e is now geared to the lowest possible time frame an encounter.  Long term balance is now more of the DM job.




I think that is also a modern change in how balance is seen; the DM has to put a lot more thought and effort into balancing 1st edition -- often over the course of an entire campaign.

I also think that the focus has shifted from "cool stories" to "character power" in a way that has not been 100% positive.


----------



## MerricB

Garmorn said:


> The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level.




It's worth noting that the balancing of AD&D works much better if you _don't_ play much past 10th level. Demihuman limits and all that. 

Cheers!


----------



## Orius

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm not convinced by the argument that new DMs benefit from more hand-holding or systems to make it easier for them to run games well since, well, being a DM isn't exactly rocket science! Tens of thousands of people were running fun games of D&D back in the 70's and early 80's with what little support and advice was available back then.




I don't think new DMs need their hands held, but I believe they do benefit from having the learning curve eased a bit. We all know it's higher for them than for someone running a PC simply because they have more to do and more they need to keep track of.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

MerricB said:


> It's worth noting that the balancing of AD&D works much better if you _don't_ play much past 10th level. Demihuman limits and all that.



Yeah, definitely.  I see 10th level as the high end of the scale, for AD&D.  You could go beyond that, certainly, but most mortals did not.  If you were around 10th level, you were "name" level -- the top of the pyramid.  (See my level musing.)


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Orius said:


> I don't think new DMs need their hands held, but I believe they do benefit from having the learning curve eased a bit.



Do more rules to cover more situations ease the learning curve?


----------



## Ariosto

> On the side topic of 'quick/slow' game balance progression (where wizards are balanced by being weak at low levels and powerful at high levels), this sort of game balance had one obvious problem (wizards dominated late stage games) and one less obvious problem. It did not adequately account for people starting a new character during the game. Either they started at a lower level than everyone else, and were substantially disadvantaged, or they started at around the same xp level as everyone else, and, depending on class choice, might not have to suffer through any levels of 'weaksauce' to get to their 'sweet spot'.



As the game had no "late stage" except in terms of a particular character's career, that is actually most obviously _not_ a problem to me. Likewise, _everyone_ would be starting characters at low levels, as often as they started new characters -- which was not expected to be all at the same time. Gygax indeed suggested the deal of starting around some average level (with a random factor), for experienced players, and that would indeed be likely to alter the risk-reward balances that different classes present.

What of it? Players are not forced (except perhaps by incredibly unlucky rolls, offset by the chance of incredibly lucky ones) into playing any particular type. If everyone were presenting (say) a magic user, then one might take that as a clear market evaluation -- and create incentives to try other classes. If nobody picks a demi-human, then it's probably not a problem from Gygax's human-centric perspective; level limits were _meant_ to make humans dominant at high levels.

The balance valued there is that you and I are both subject to the same dice-throw probabilities, and the same rules governing available options. It's a "level field" for *players*, not for _characters_.


----------



## cattoy

I think that the OP should end this poll and create a new one.

But first, decide and state in explicit terms what he means when he says 

"designed for game balance"

because that phrase is so vague as to be undefinable.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Garmorn said:


> The campaign level of AD&D 1e did not work because so many groups never played pass 10th level. The concept was for the game to be balance a cross the campaign but how can that happen when there is no standard campaign length?




I think you misread Firelance - he was saying 'campaign level' as the primary model for 2e. 1e was primarily about the 'game'.

Mind you, the groups I played with had very successful and fun-filled 1e campaigns, both with characters below 10th level and with characters above 10th level.

In fact in many ways the charm of 1e campaigns was that it was expected that adventures would shift from 'mere' dungeon bashing to building castles and getting involved in a larger canvas on the world. Something I personally found much more interesting and fulfilling in terms of growth in the game.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing

Votan said:


> I also think that the focus has shifted from "cool stories" to "character power" in a way that has not been 100% positive.




I agree with this observation.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Orius said:


> I don't think new DMs need their hands held, but I believe they do benefit from having the learning curve eased a bit. We all know it's higher for them than for someone running a PC simply because they have more to do and more they need to keep track of.






Philotomy Jurament said:


> Do more rules to cover more situations ease the learning curve?




Philotomy's question is germane to the point. The learning curve for the earlier games was arguably much, much simpler because there was far less you had to know.

More detail in a game certainly appeals to lots of people (the success of 3e and 4e is partially testament to that); however, this must have steepened the learning curve for playing the game just on the basis of there being more to read and digest!

Cheers


----------



## Garmorn

Plane Sailing said:


> I think you misread Firelance - he was saying 'campaign level' as the primary model for 2e. 1e was primarily about the 'game'.
> 
> Mind you, the groups I played with had very successful and fun-filled 1e campaigns, both with characters below 10th level and with characters above 10th level.
> 
> In fact in many ways the charm of 1e campaigns was that it was expected that adventures would shift from 'mere' dungeon bashing to building castles and getting involved in a larger canvas on the world. Something I personally found much more interesting and fulfilling in terms of growth in the game.
> 
> Cheers




Yes but much of the balancing is still suppose to be spread out over a period of time.  I not saying it was a bad approach for it time.  Just that as the community grew more diverse it became less functional.  



Plane Sailing said:


> Philotomy's question is germane to the point. The learning curve for the earlier games was arguably much, much simpler because there was far less you had to know.
> 
> More detail in a game certainly appeals to lots of people (the success of 3e and 4e is partially testament to that); however, this must have steepened the learning curve for playing the game just on the basis of there being more to read and digest!
> 
> Cheers




Earlier editions had fewer rules true but they required more work, a deeper understanding of not only the rules, the why's and wherefore's of the rules.  You had to be good at winging things, and making up your own rules. 

The skills and talents need for that are in limited supply.  The new approach opens up the position to more players.

So yes all of the rules prior to 3e edition where balanced but only if you had a DM with the right skill/talent combination.  This is the combination the Gary had and taught.  That is why my of the older gamers admire him so much.  Lots of the new DM's and gamers are of a different style, skill and talent set and need the more detail rules. (I will admit the I can't create a good house rule with out months are even years of trying and generally come here when I need one.)


----------



## Umbran

Plane Sailing said:


> Philotomy's question is germane to the point. The learning curve for the earlier games was arguably much, much simpler because there was far less you had to know.




Here's the interesting bit - it seems to me that 1e had a much steeper learning curve than 3e or 4e.  The later editions have unified mechanics with simply stated systems.  1e had a hodgepodge of systems with unrelated designs and complex resolutions that required reference to charts to get things done.  

We are talking about "balance" here.  It seems to me that the numeric balance in 3e and 4e is far more transparent than that in 1e, which should make learning what the DM has to add to keep things running smoothly easier.


----------



## nightwyrm

I think there's a separate learning curve for DMs and players.  In TSR editions, players have a less steep learning curve.  They could sit down, roll chars and start playing while relying on the DM to know and adjudacate the rules.  But because of the heavier reliance on the DM's understanding of the system for the game to function, the learning curve for the DM is steeper.


----------



## AllisterH

MerricB said:


> 2e didn't nerf the druid: they completely destroyed the Cleric and Magic-User classes and subclasses. The introduction of spheres and schools as more than just descriptive text completely ruined the balance of those classes, as well as destroying the uniqueness of the Illusionist and the Druid. The Druid sort of maintained some uniqueness, the Illusionist was gutted and left to rot.
> 
> There are many things that 2e clearly did better than 1e. The redesign of the Cleric, Druid, Magic-User and Illusionist was not one of those things.
> 
> Cheers!




Actually, there _WAS_ errata for the Spheres so that they fixed the divine classes. Inspired by a DRAGON article that reassigned the spells into their proper spheres, the Player's Option:Spells and Magic had the new sphere system.

Took almost 7 years into 2e, but they did get it right finally (which I might add, was the basis for the BEST 2e product, Faiths & Avatars)


----------



## Mallus

Umbran said:


> Here's the interesting bit - it seems to me that 1e had a much steeper learning curve than 3e or 4e.



Totally agree -- though I think it has something to do with the fact people are more familiar with role-playing game conventions now than they were 30 years ago, thanks to there being 30 or so more years worth of role-playing games (and gamers) out there, not to mention the exposure to RPG elements you get from other media, ie video and computer games, CCG's, and the animated shows based on them.


----------



## Clavis

nightwyrm said:


> I think there's a separate learning curve for DMs and players.  In TSR editions, players have a less steep learning curve.  They could sit down, roll chars and start playing while relying on the DM to know and adjudacate the rules.  But because of the heavier reliance on the DM's understanding of the system for the game to function, the learning curve for the DM is steeper.




Pre-WOTC D&D is definitely easier for the players, for the reason you state. In my experience, pre-WOTC D&D was also many times less stressful to DM, _because the rules were a hodge-podge of unrelated sub-systems._ If the DM forgot an official rule, it didn't really matter. He could make up a new system on the spot, and know that it wouldn't adversely affect any other part of the overall system. Don't like the weird unarmed combat rules? No problem, just let the players strike as normal and only do 1 point of damage + their strength modifier. It won't cause problems anywhere else. The players were not expected to know the systems the DM used in any event, so the DM was less concerned about rules lawyers. No matter what the DM was doing behind the screen, it might all look the same in front of it. AD&D looks very complicated on paper, but it can actually be played very light if the DM wants to reduce his workload. That's the advantage of non-unified, non-interlocking rules. Of course, such a system does not allow for things like "rules mastery" on the part of players, but I personally consider that a good thing.


----------



## nightwyrm

Clavis said:


> Pre-WOTC D&D is definitely easier for the players, for the reason you state. In my experience, pre-WOTC D&D was also many times less stressful to DM, _because the rules were a hodge-podge of unrelated sub-systems._ If the DM forgot an official rule, it didn't really matter. He could make up a new system on the spot, and know that it wouldn't adversely affect any other part of the overall system. Don't like the weird unarmed combat rules? No problem, just let the players strike as normal and only do 1 point of damage + their strength modifier. It won't cause problems anywhere else. The players were not expected to know the systems the DM used in any event, so the DM was less concerned about rules lawyers. No matter what the DM was doing behind the screen, it might all look the same in front of it. AD&D looks very complicated on paper, but it can actually be played very light if the DM wants to reduce his workload. That's the advantage of non-unified, non-interlocking rules. Of course, such a system does not allow for things like "rules mastery" on the part of players, but I personally consider that a good thing.




I'm not sure that's such an easier thing.  Sure, the DM has more _power _and more leeway to simply make things up.  But learning how to wield his power properly is the big hurdle.  Maybe the learning curve for DMs of old editions is less rule mastery and more game management.  

A poor or novice 3e and 4e DM can always fall back on solid (more or less) rules and run a decent if unspectacular game.  A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Umbran said:


> Here's the interesting bit - it seems to me that 1e had a much steeper learning curve than 3e or 4e.  The later editions have unified mechanics with simply stated systems.  1e had a hodgepodge of systems with unrelated designs and complex resolutions that required reference to charts to get things done.
> 
> We are talking about "balance" here.  It seems to me that the numeric balance in 3e and 4e is far more transparent than that in 1e, which should make learning what the DM has to add to keep things running smoothly easier.




From my experience and judgement, I'd still say that I think 1e had a much shallower learning curve. Even as DM you didn't need to know everything to run a game, the whole process was much more straightforward.

I know 13 year olds who picked up the books and took to it like a duck to water.

The unity of the d20 system is touted as an advantage, but while it has a theoretical appeal it is also a little problematic as so many things in 3e were integrated together that it was more difficult to evaluate the knock-on effects of changes. It seems even worse in 4e to me. Sure you can change the paint job on the outside, but changing any of the fundamental underpinnings is far more difficult because the underlying design is hidden (e.g. in 4e the relationship of damage, duration, and different side effects for different powers).

All through 3e (which I really like BTW) I pointed out that it suffers from high coupling of its systems. 1e was in many ways a more practical design with high cohesion and low coupling between its subsystems - there were no knock-on effects from changing one subsystem.

It is the lack of inter-relatedness of things in 1e which actually made it easier for people to pick up (in my observations).
Cheers


----------



## Clavis

nightwyrm said:


> I'm not sure that's such an easier thing.  Sure, the DM has more _power _and more leeway to simply make things up.  But learning how to wield his power properly is the big hurdle.  Maybe the learning curve for DMs of old editions is less rule mastery and more game management.
> 
> A poor or novice 3e and 4e DM can always fall back on solid (more or less) rules and run a decent if unspectacular game.  A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.




I will admit that in my experience pre-WOTC D&D is much more sensitive to DM quality than WOTC D&D. In 3rd or 4th, a player is pretty much assured a fair to good game every time. Pre-WOTC can be truly awful when you have an awful DM. A good DM, however, can take pre-WOTC D&D to great places that the rules of 3rd and 4th simply do not allow him to go. Its the bugbear of "game balance" that sabatoges great DMs, IMHO.  Sure, you get predictability, but you lose the greatness that can only happen when you throw the rules out. Throw the rules out for a strech in AD&D and the rest of the game is fine. Throw out the rules in WOTC D&D, and your game will fall apart.


----------



## Storm Raven

Clavis said:


> Pre-WOTC D&D is definitely easier for the players, for the reason you state. In my experience, pre-WOTC D&D was also many times less stressful to DM, _because the rules were a hodge-podge of unrelated sub-systems._ If the DM forgot an official rule, it didn't really matter. He could make up a new system on the spot, and know that it wouldn't adversely affect any other part of the overall system. Don't like the weird unarmed combat rules? No problem, just let the players strike as normal and only do 1 point of damage + their strength modifier. It won't cause problems anywhere else.




I'm trying to figure out what problems this sort of ruling would have in a 3e game, and I can't seem to think of any.


----------



## Clavis

Storm Raven said:


> I'm trying to figure out what problems this sort of ruling would have in a 3e game, and I can't seem to think of any.




In 3rd, the DM always has the problem of Feats to think about. Any attempt to change procedures can invalidate one or more of the PCs carefully chosen Feats. For instance, giving any player a chance to hit multiple opponents (with severe penalties), because it would be dramatically appropriate, will invalidate the Cleave feat. Trying to do without Attacks of Opportunity will invalidate a host of Feats that employ them. Because WOTC interconnects all its rules for D&D, changing any rule on the fly will always have unexpected effects.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Storm Raven said:


> I'm trying to figure out what problems this sort of ruling would have in a 3e game, and I can't seem to think of any.




The same problems any ruling has using any system-those that the participants see as problems.


----------



## Scribble

Plane Sailing said:


> All through 3e (which I really like BTW) I pointed out that it suffers from high coupling of its systems. 1e was in many ways a more practical design with high cohesion and low coupling between its subsystems - there were no knock-on effects from changing one subsystem.
> 
> It is the lack of inter-relatedness of things in 1e which actually made it easier for people to pick up (in my observations).
> Cheers




Eh... I don't know if I agree with this. I think those effects occur, they're just not as easy to spot.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> Eh... I don't know if I agree with this. I think those effects occur, they're just not as easy to spot.




I think its fairly accurate. For example,take the the unarmed combat system. We used a Dragon article instead of the stuff from the DMG. There were no feats taken that were invalidated by doing this. Subsystems could compliment other areas of the rules without invalidating those rules should they not be used. 

Lets take a simple thing like initiative and change that around. In 1E it wasn't that big a deal. If we decide to replace the turn based system in 3E with a simple d6 then we invalidate feats, have to deal with swift actions, etc. If we do the same with 4E the whole system crashes because everything is tied to someones turn.


----------



## Sonny

MerricB said:


> Supplement I: Greyhawk, thank you very much! (I know diaglo agrees with me. )
> 
> Cheers!





*EDIT: Got the wrong quote at first. I are dumb. Sorry *


I think that it's just the nature of supplements in general. power creep was definitely a problem in the later stages of 1e, but they were much worse in the later stages of 2e. Not to mention 3rd edition also had this problem. And I have no doubt that they'll be some horribly balanced classes/races for 4e too.

I think Gygax  did try to keep things balanced, but they often took a back seat to what was "perceived" as being fun*.





*Keep in mind, I'm not saying that older editions were more about fun and that 3rd and 4th are all about balance. It's just that Gygax (like everyone)
had his own idea of what made things more enjoyable and that perfect balance between all classes were not necessary to achieve that end.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> I think its fairly accurate. For example,take the the unarmed combat system. We used a Dragon article instead of the stuff from the DMG. There were no feats taken that were invalidated by doing this. Subsystems could compliment other areas of the rules without invalidating those rules should they not be used.
> 
> Lets take a simple thing like initiative and change that around. In 1E it wasn't that big a deal. If we decide to replace the turn based system in 3E with a simple d6 then we invalidate feats, have to deal with swift actions, etc. If we do the same with 4E the whole system crashes because everything is tied to someones turn.




Sure the later editions make use of the balance idea by directly tying options to other rules, but that just makes the balance issues do to changes more apparent, it doesn't create them. 

Take the 1e wizard for example. Give him access to more spells per day, more weapons and armor, and you honestly think it won't effect the balance of the system?

Give the fighter a random percentage chance to pick pockets, and you don't think it will effect the thief at all?

Changes will still effect various "sub systems" in the game- it's just unless you're watching the math you won't notice them as easily.

If you're ok with that, and find it more fun- cool.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Clavis said:


> In 3rd, the DM always has the problem of Feats to think about. Any attempt to change procedures can invalidate one or more of the PCs carefully chosen Feats. For instance, giving any player a chance to hit multiple opponents (with severe penalties), because it would be dramatically appropriate, will invalidate the Cleave feat. Trying to do without Attacks of Opportunity will invalidate a host of Feats that employ them. Because WOTC interconnects all its rules for D&D, changing any rule on the fly will always have unexpected effects.



Feats are just a subset of PC abilities. Changing any procedure that interacts with a PC ability is going to have an effect on the PCs that possess that ability, in any edition and, indeed, any roleplaying game.

For example, in 1e, multiplying casting times by ten is going to impact majorly on the spellcasting classes, particularly magic-users. Allowing any character to climb walls, hide in shadows or move silently is going to nerf thieves. Changing the surprise rules is going to affect the classes and races that get a bonus to surprise. And so on.

It's easier to change a feat than it is to change class or race so, if this is a problem, then it's actually more of a problem in a game where all PC abilities are dependent on these two factors.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Plane Sailing said:


> It is the lack of inter-relatedness of things in 1e which actually made it easier for people to pick up (in my observations).
> Cheers



There are many dependencies in 1e. For instance, lots of monster abilities are based on spells. If I change the spell then the monster ability also changes, which may be unintended. If I get rid of levels or classes or hit points (not unreasonable, as many rpgs do exactly this) then many other rules are affected.

We just don't see these dependencies because it's very rare to want to change such a basic element of the rules.

I think the reason the dependencies in 3e are more visible is because a lot of people wanted to make 3e more like earlier editions of D&D by removing skill points, feats and attacks of opportunity, and found this to be tricky. Personally I think it's relatively easy to remove the last two. The first, skill points, are harder because they are significant for several character classes, but by varying degrees.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Any set of rules composed of discrete sub-systems will be harder to learn than one with a single, unified system. AD&D is not easy to learn. But the thing is, you don't need to learn the rules in order to participate. And it doesn't matter if you get the rules wrong. This is true of all rpgs.


----------



## Ariosto

> A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.



YMMV, I guess, but really -- not in ruling on the minutia with which the WotC rule-books are preoccupied. The many pages devoted to peculiarities of a particular, notably complex, combat game are simply not relevant. Feats and skill ratings? Ditto. Trivia about climbing free-standing knotted ropes versus un-knotted ropes next to walls, and so on ... just never really made anything like that difference in any other RPG I have ever played.

Again, we're dealing with *different* games. When it's _up to the players_ to choose their path through the big decision-space of a sprawling dungeon, that's a different situation from the DM presenting the next "encounter" on a program.

When the expectation is of a challenge that should be hard to beat, one that is likely to remove from play a few 1st-level characters (providing the _opportunity_ to roll up new ones!), with several expeditions in a sitting ... maybe that's by design a different kind of game?

I do not recall its being especially hard for interested parties to pick up, although the DM's job was certainly at the high end of the contemporary scale of complexity -- not for game mechanics, but for the scope of the concern (an imaginary "world"). With 3e and 4e, we have gone completely _off_ a scale calibrated to such relative trifles as advanced-game _Anzio_, even though the "world" is no greater.


----------



## Ariosto

> The later editions have unified mechanics with simply stated systems. 1e had a hodgepodge of systems with unrelated designs and complex resolutions that required reference to charts to get things done.



When I look at the books, and at actual play, I do not see that dichotomy. This looks to me like an "urban legend" kind of thing that "everyone knows" because "everyone says".



> But the thing is, you hardly need to know any of the rules in order to start playing. And you don't need to get the rules right. This is true of all rpgs.



But in the real world, it is more true of some -- and more rules are more rules to get wrong. "We're just going to ignore all those rules" tends not to go over well with the players of certain games I have seen ... unless you're playing Monty Hall (and maybe not then).

It makes sense, doesn't it? If they really wanted to play a rules-light game, then they could do just that -- and without spending hundreds of dollars!

The grappling rules in the 1st ed. DMG are about as tiresome as those in 3e, but who avoids grappling to avoid using the rules? AD&D players who don't like 'em routinely and casually just ignore 'em -- if they are aware of them in the first place -- and go with whatever works for them. My impression is that most 3e players seem to have some strong incentive not to do that.

No Attacks of Opportunity: How many feats and other "build" factors would that screw up? How long does it take just to look up and add up the answer to that question?

As to balance, it looks to me as if bigger systems are buggier systems.

And if the DM dismisses it, then how is a player to get his money's worth from _Munchkin Might II_? I think that is a bit _different_ from 







> As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of an honorable death.


----------



## Orius

Umbran said:


> Here's the interesting bit - it seems to me that 1e had a much steeper learning curve than 3e or 4e.  The later editions have unified mechanics with simply stated systems.  1e had a hodgepodge of systems with unrelated designs and complex resolutions that required reference to charts to get things done.
> 
> We are talking about "balance" here.  It seems to me that the numeric balance in 3e and 4e is far more transparent than that in 1e, which should make learning what the DM has to add to keep things running smoothly easier.




I think the real difference is that there's more details in 3 and 4e than in earlier games with skills, feats, etc.  Earlier editions didn't have that, though there were proficiencies in 2e, and IIRC the Basic game had a skill system somewhere.  But where in 3e had standardized the d20 roll where high rolls were good and low rolls weren't, earlier editions had situations where high rolls were good for somethings and bad for others.  

Though another problem is when 1e was rolled out, the game was set up into D&D and AD&D.  New players were to start with D&D and move up into AD&D if they wanted to, and the systems were more compatible.  But then when D&D branched out into BECMI, two seperate rule sets developed, and during the 2e days, D&D was taken off the market, leaving only the more complex AD&D.  That was the situation when I started playing.  I didn't have too many problems learning how to DM, but I can see how some new players at that time (a period of about 5-6 years) would have struggled.  When 3e was released, it was an extention of the 2e rules, but some of the design decisions must have been influenced by the fact that it was the only D&D game on the market, and needs to be accessible to new players.  The same considerations were made with 4e as well.



nightwyrm said:


> I think there's a separate learning curve for DMs and players.  In TSR editions, players have a less steep learning curve.  They could sit down, roll chars and start playing while relying on the DM to know and adjudacate the rules.  But because of the heavier reliance on the DM's understanding of the system for the game to function, the learning curve for the DM is steeper.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sure, the DM has more _power _and more leeway to simply make things up.  But learning how to wield his power properly is the big hurdle.  Maybe the learning curve for DMs of old editions is less rule mastery and more game management.
> 
> A poor or novice 3e and 4e DM can always fall back on solid (more or less) rules and run a decent if unspectacular game.  A poor DM running old editions can be left floundering and do a really crappy game.




Yeah, this was the point I was trying to make.  The DM doesn't just have to learn the rules, he has to learn how to run the game.  Running the game is something that needs to be learned by experience.  The DMG gives some advice, but naturally has never been big enough in any edition to cover every situation a DM is going to face.  That's were Dragon came in in the old days, and now we have internet forums where DMs can get advice, learn refereeing tips and so on.  Even then, sometimes a DM just has to run the game to learn what needs to be done.  The old Basic game kept things simpler for the DM as well.  However when it got to the point during 2e when AD&D was the only version of the game, new DMs had nothing but a DMG that offered a lot of vague advice and encouraged them to do what they felt was best.  As a relatively new DM, that certainly didn't help me much.  I was never sure for example what magic items weren't too powerful, how much treasure to give out, how powerful a monster was compared to the party, etc.  The 3e rules had some guidelines in place, although imperfect in spots, but it did give me a better idea of what to use.  

Now I'm just talking about inexperienced DMs here.  When it's a case of a crappy DM, it's going to be a pretty crappy game no matter what edition is used.  The only real advantage to post-AD&D rules in this situation is that the DM may not wreck the game as spectacularly as he might have done in the past.  That's not a guarantee though, rather that crappy DMing just has a more uniform result.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Orius said:


> earlier editions had situations where high rolls were good for somethings and bad for others.




I'm struggling to think of examples of this?

Every time you rolled a d20, you wanted high (rolling to hit, rolling saving throws).

I suppose in situations where you rolled %age dice (e.g. thieves skills) you were rolling low, but there was never a disconnect because you were trying to get under a percentage - and this continued into 3e unchanged anyway!.

Can you give some examples where a high d20 roll would be bad in an earlier edition?

Thanks!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Plane Sailing said:


> Can you give some examples where a high d20 roll would be bad in an earlier edition?




You wanted to roll under an ability score in some cases.  This appeared mainly in modules -- it wasn't an "official rule" per se, but it might have been incorporated into proficiencies (I would have to check to be certain).


----------



## Plane Sailing

Raven Crowking said:


> You wanted to roll under an ability score in some cases.  This appeared mainly in modules -- it wasn't an "official rule" per se, but it might have been incorporated into proficiencies (I would have to check to be certain).




Such as? 

I've normally got quite a good memory for rules, but I'm struggling to think of things from the 1e PHB (or DMG) (or OD&D) where this is the case, and I'm worried that my memory is failing me!


----------



## diaglo

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm struggling to think of examples of this?
> 
> Every time you rolled a d20, you wanted high (rolling to hit, rolling saving throws).
> 
> I suppose in situations where you rolled %age dice (e.g. thieves skills) you were rolling low, but there was never a disconnect because you were trying to get under a percentage - and this continued into 3e unchanged anyway!.
> 
> Can you give some examples where a high d20 roll would be bad in an earlier edition?
> 
> Thanks!




well i think he was meaning the variety of dice. d20 you rolled high.

but say a d6 for surprise or not being surprised. or hear noise check for nonthief

or search for secret doors.

or open doors

edit: whereas you rolled high for init or damage


----------



## Raven Crowking

Plane Sailing said:


> Such as?
> 
> I've normally got quite a good memory for rules, but I'm struggling to think of things from the 1e PHB (or DMG) (or OD&D) where this is the case, and I'm worried that my memory is failing me!




As I said, mainly modules....and the NWP rules didn't appear until OA, so they wouldn't be in the 1e PHB or DMG.

There were many 1e modules that suggested that a check be made by rolling under Strength in particular......One or two for Dexterity as well.  I haven't read it in quite some time, but I believe one Dex example might occur in White Plume Mountain, when the PCs are crossing the hanging wooden discs over spuming lava to get to the vampire's lair.


RC


----------



## FireLance

Plane Sailing said:


> Such as?
> 
> I've normally got quite a good memory for rules, but I'm struggling to think of things from the 1e PHB (or DMG) (or OD&D) where this is the case, and I'm worried that my memory is failing me!



Like RC mentioned above, non-weapon proficiency checks (and less officially, ability score checks) were the main instances where you would roll a d20 and hope to get a low score. NWPs got incorporated into the core rules in 2E.


----------



## ggroy

Plane Sailing said:


> Can you give some examples where a high d20 roll would be bad in an earlier edition?




Not an official rule, but in many of my 1E games we used a house ruled skill check system where one rolled a d20 less than or equal a particular ability stat for a pass.

Another case of a houserule we used was for low level wizards being allowed to use a particular combat spell unlimited.  For example, a common choice was magic missile.  To prevent this unlimited magic missile from being too powerful, we required a d20 roll of less than or equal to the magic user's INT stat for the magic missile to hit.  So even with an INT of 18, there was still a 10% chance of failure.


----------



## diaglo

FireLance said:


> Like RC mentioned above, non-weapon proficiency checks (and less officially, ability score checks) were the main instances where you would roll a d20 and hope to get a low score. NWPs got incorporated into the core rules in 2E.




they added NWP from the beginning.

but for 1edADnD they got a boost with the Dungeoneers and Wilderness Survival Guides circa 1985.


----------



## Jack7

I'm sure I'm not saying anything that already hasn't been said before, since I didn't have time to read the entire thread.

But I'd say no, absoltueltely not. Not in the modern sense of "balance" anyway.

Balance is a contemporaneous preoccupation of modern, technologically-obsessed Geeks, but it was not of the Nerds who originally designed and played the game.

The earlier editions of the game were not concurred with "technical matters" nearly as intently as with the game being interesting and heroic. (It's sort of analogous to the difference between the type of science necessary _*to send a man to the moon for the very first time*_, versus the type of science necessary _to safely complete the 300th Shuttle mission in LEO_.)

Ask yourself this question, go back and look at those character "classes" in earlier editions and ask yourself objectively if they seem balanced to you at all, say, compared to 3E, 4E or other modern, commonly accepted ideas and ideals of RPG balance?

Of course they weren't, and neither was the game itself, as a whole.

That's because earlier editions of the game were not the work-result of a committee of Geeks, but of a small group of Nerds. And often of individual Nerds.

The Geek's first preoccupations in design (in practically any kind of design) are process and outcome (and how do you rigidly and purposely control these aspects of function in design, or put another way, _how do you discourage the unforeseen and unplanned during operations_?), the Nerd's first priorities are flexibility and innovation (and how do you encourage, rather than discourage, these functional aspects of design during actual operations, or put another way, _how do you encourage innovation during ordinary operations_?).  

And that's a totally different set of priorities and outlook upon the world.
It's the difference between Corporate Strategy (which I have nothing against, as it is often a valuable exercise and method of operation) and Individual Genius (which is far les concerned with refinement and process, and far more interested in creativity and originality).

Of course to be absolutely accurate in discussing these emitters one would have to develop exact an exact definition for the term Balance, and that definition would have to both define Balance generally speaking, and allow for any variation or alteration in actual meaning over the passage of time, and due to modifications in use.. 

Something that could be precisely developed in say, an academic or theoretical paper, but I doubt you're gonna see much agreement on over the public internet.


----------



## Raven Crowking

For the design goals of 1e, 1e is balanced.  It is woefully unbalanced for the design goals of 3e or 4e.

For the design goals of 3e or 4e, those games are balanced.  They are woefully unbalanced for the design goals of 1e.


RC


----------



## Bullgrit

Jack7, and all others who voted "No, AD&D1 was not designed for game balance," what was the purpose of:

Different xp necessary for level advancement

Demihuman level limits

Armor and weapon restrictions

Ability score requirements

And all the articles and comments from the designers through the years in Dragon magazine about game balance

Bullgrit


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Doug McCrae said:


> There are many dependencies in 1e. For instance, lots of monster abilities are based on spells. If I change the spell then the monster ability also changes, which may be unintended.



Actually, that's not entirely true.  Monster or magic item abilities might use the same name as a spell but could (and surprisingly often DID) work differently.  If a spell were changed in 1E/2E then it would naturally be up to the DM to decide IF monsters and magic items should use the new version of the spell.  It would just be yet another exception in a game RIFE with exception-based rules.  In 3E/4E it would not really even be up for discussion - of COURSE the new spell would apply across the board.

This gets back to the original question.  Someone upthread phrased it much better than I - AD&D attempted balance only in regard to the PLAYERS, WotC D&D approaches balance in regard to the CHARACTERS.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Bullgrit said:


> Jack7, and all others who voted "No, AD&D1 was not designed for game balance," what was the purpose of:




*Different xp necessary for level advancement*
No 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 limits*
To maintain an otherwise nonsensical humanocentric world.

*Armor and weapon restrictions*
This 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 requirements*
This 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.



> And all the articles and comments from the designers through the years in Dragon magazine about game balance



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.


----------



## Ariosto

I expect some old hands say "no" because when the new school says "no" it's clear that "game balance" means something different to them.

"Where do you see similar balances in other games?" might be interesting and even helpful.


----------



## Jack7

> Jack7, and all others who voted "No, AD&D1 was not designed for game balance," what was the purpose of:





BG, all of the things you mentioned could be described as emphasizing the very opposite of balance, as it now is commonly defined. Then again one might argue they imposed a sort of superficial, or I prefer the term *mytho-poetic balance,* as applied to and on a game that was not "_technically balanced_, nor desired to be" in the modern sense. 

By mythopoetic I mean the fact that the Paladin doesn't have to be the equal of the Ranger in every way. Or vice-versa. *The Paladin is a Demon-killer*, _*the Ranger is a Giant-killer*_. They are by nature different in function and abilities. Just as thieves are naturally different in nature and capabilities from the Wizard. They don't need cross-over capabilities, _their function is Mythopoetic and peculiar to their individual nature as characters and classes_, not Geek-interchangeable, as is common thinking where one technologically, "trades out and exchanges parts as required by the situation." In Star Trek a Geek centered world, one trades out parts and roles as needed to solve a problem. In mythopoetic situations only the Knight can slay the dragon, and only the Wizard  can work the magic, and only the Thief can effectively footpad. Roles aren't interchangeable or balanced, they are unique and indispensable. And in time fantasy-games have become Geek-incentivized. Not myhtically and historically incentivized. I'm just offering this as a social and psychological evaluation of how the idea of balance has changed over the years within game design.

The Geek sees your list of items and says to himself, "see there, it's proof that the game was trying to be balanced by artificially correcting built in and obvious imbalances." (Read, Paladin slays demons,  Thief steals treasure.) The Nerd sees the same items and comparing them to modern standards says, "this is the very opposite of balance, it displays the obvious and intentional imbalances in design." (Because Paladins shouldn't have powers that resemble those of thieves. And yes, I'm only using this analogy in the metaphorical sense.)

Although I might not have used the same term(s), I thought Canis answered this pretty well:



> 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.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Plane Sailing said:


> I suppose in situations where you rolled %age dice (e.g. thieves skills) you were rolling low, but there was never a disconnect because you were trying to get under a percentage - and this continued into 3e unchanged anyway!.
> 
> Can you give some examples where a high d20 roll would be bad in an earlier edition?






			
				lrac_hsan on RPGnet said:
			
		

> Ability checks were in basic D&D (1980 Moldvay edition) Page 60: "The DM may want to base a character's chance of doing something on his or her ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and so forth). To perform a difficult task (such as climbing up a rope or thinking of a forgotten clue), the player should roll the ability score or less on 1d20. The DM may give a bonus or penalty to the roll, depending on the difficulty of the action (-4 for a simple task to +4 for a difficult one). A roll of 1 should always succeed, and a roll of 20 should always fail."
> 
> Ability checks appeared in 1e modules (for example, I3, Pharaoh), and obliquely in the 1e Player's Handbook in the "Dig" spell description, p. 76: "Any creature at the edge (1’) of such a pit uses its dexterity score as a saving throw to avoid falling into the hole, with a score equal to or less than the dexterity meaning that a fall was avoided."




Also, if we're not talking in-game rolls, there were times when you wanted to roll high on percentiles: rolling for psionics and exceptional strength. Didn't psionic combat use percentile dice and higher was better?


----------



## nightwyrm

The idea behind early edition is that the game would be _fair_ to all the _players_ over a long stretch of time. More powerful classes have higher stat requirement, thus making them rarer, but a player is expected to go through several characters and thus will play some powerful classes and some weaker classes over time. Similarly with levels, some classes have to go through painful periods of weakness while being powerful over other periods. The entire assumption is that when you averaged over a long period of time, each _player_ should be about the same. 

Old editions don't use the modern concept of balance, instead they use the concept of fairness in place of it. In a sense, it's very similar to gambling amongst a bunch of friends who are about the same skill level. One of you may win big any particular night, but over a long time, it evens out and each player would have the same expected payoff.

To take the gambling analogy further, poker isn't balanced. Some hands are clearly better than others. But it's fair to all the people sitting around the table playing the game.  That's the same way old editions are designed.  Its concept of "balance" is that the game is fundamentally fair to all players (note I say players instead of characters).  Modern concept of balance has moved beyond that and includes more stuff in it.


----------



## Ariosto

> Old editions don't use the modern concept of balance, instead they use the concept of fairness in place of it.



Except that *fairness = balance* in games as I think is _still_ the common usage in the wider culture beyond D&D. So, the puzzle remains:

What the heck *is* this "modern concept of balance" in D&D?


----------



## ggroy

Ariosto said:


> What the heck *is* this "modern concept of balance" in D&D?




Is there a precise mathematical definition of "balance" in the context of (A)D&D?


----------



## MerricB

"The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and *balanced* to give each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game." - AD&D PHB page 7.

"Clerics and fighters have been strengthened in relation to magic-users, although not overly so. Clerics have more and improved spell capability. Fighters are more effective in combat and have other new advantages as well. Still, magic-users are powerful indeed, and they have many new spells. None of these over-shadow thieves. All recommended subclasses... are included to assure as much variety of approach as possible." - AD&D PHB page 7.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> For the design goals of 1e, 1e is balanced.  It is woefully unbalanced for the design goals of 3e or 4e.
> 
> For the design goals of 3e or 4e, those games are balanced.  They are woefully unbalanced for the design goals of 1e.




That makes no sense.

AD&D is balanced over the period of a campaign from 1st to 10th level.
D&D 4E is balanced over the period of the encounter and the campaign.

D&D 4E thus has balance both for the period AD&D does and for smaller periods as well. 

This is not to say that the amount balance that 4E has is something that all players want, but I'd like to see how it fails to be balanced for "1e design goals" - fails other goals of 1e, certainly, but balance?

Cheers!


----------



## nightwyrm

Ariosto said:


> Except that *fairness = balance* in games as I think is _still_ the common usage in the wider culture beyond D&D. So, the puzzle remains:
> 
> What the heck *is* this "modern concept of balance" in D&D?




Perhaps I should rephrase.  I think as one moves from old to modern editions, the time frame over which "player fun" or "player power" (or whatever index you're using) is averaged is shortened.  In old editions, you may be expected to take the average over several years real time.  In new editions, you're averaging over a session or an encounter.  This is rather abstract and I encourage people to think of this graphically.

One outcome or perhaps correlation of this shortening of averaging time frame is that player balance has become character/class balance.


----------



## Bullgrit

*Gygax on AD&D1 balance*

For what it’s worth:







			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with eachother.



http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ers-beat-up-my-role-player-6.html#post3657438



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In UA, you see an attempt to balance the fighter against the Magic-User, Cleric, and other spellcasters. The new classes are designed to be on par with those classes. It is an attempt to create a balance that, if balance was truly the holy mantra that some would have it be, should make us applaud the intent if not the execution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, at last!
> 
> Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work. . .
Click to expand...


http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ers-beat-up-my-role-player-6.html#post3657389



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> [Game balance] covers character creation, means that no class of skill is substantially more powerful or useful that other. This continues on through character progression to higher level or greater degree of skill.
> 
> Balance extends to monsters and problems as well. As with characters, the challenge faced should be balanced for the characters facing them.



http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/31466-game-balance-2.html#post487833



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> airwalkrr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you have different XP progressions for each class? Also, some of the XP tables seemed to "speed up" at some points while others "slowed down" at others. What was the rationale for this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, it was all for game balance, and it worked reasonably well, I opine.
Click to expand...


http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/161566-gary-gygax-q-part-x-21.html#post2919177



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> Balance should be built into the system, relatively unobtrusive, completely so in play.



http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/125997-gary-gygax-q-part-ix-12.html#post2223547

Bullgrit


----------



## cattoy

And there we have it. This poll is nothing but a trap for the unenlightened to fall into a position that cannot be maintained, for the OP has the *Words* of the *Great Designer* himself and that is evidence that cannot be debated, doubted or questioned.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

cattoy said:


> And there we have it. This poll is nothing but a trap for the unenlightened to fall into a position that cannot be maintained…



But now, cattoy, by publicly calling it out as a bullgrit thread (heh), you have fallen foul of another classic trap (not the never get into a land war in Asia one), and may trigger the "I am wronged!" result.


----------



## Doug McCrae

cattoy said:


> the OP has the *Words* of the *Great Designer* himself and that is evidence that cannot be debated, doubted or questioned.



You have to admit, Bullgrit's Gygax quotes, plus MerricB's quotes from the text itself in post #160, are very strong evidence as to author intention. And that's what the poll is about.


----------



## merelycompetent

Philotomy Jurament said:


> But now, cattoy, by publicly calling it out as a bullgrit thread (heh), you have fallen foul of another classic trap (not the never get into a land war in Asia one), and may trigger the "I am wronged!" result.




You forgot the only slightly less well known classic blunder: Never go in against a Sicilian when _death_ is on the line!

But seriously, cattoy, how else are we supposed to determine if balance was a design goal, unless we consider the thoughts of the author, and his stated intentions? If the author states that elements of the game were created or added with the intention of making the game more balanced, then it passes the OP's original question.

Complaining about evidence that cannot be debated, doubted, or questioned is unsound, and likely unbalanced. But I think that strawman has been burned enough.

Pointing out how efforts to achieve balance design goals succeeded or failed, on the other hand, is much more constructive. In spite of some designers' great words.

FireLance still has, I think, the best summary of design goals across the editions.


----------



## Ariosto

You _don't_ have to admit that the designer _achieved_ his intention. I think he largely did, though, understanding that the goal itself was different from that in a design that on point after point takes a very different (perhaps even directly opposite) approach.


----------



## Bullgrit

Over 160 posts into this discussion, I'm the only one who thought to do a search for EGG's own words in this forum? (Granted, I didn't think of it, either, until about 150 posts in.) These quotes even come from replies to some people posting in this discussion -- and they didn't remember or think to go back and look? 

I really didn't expect "No" to get so many votes. Like a couple others in this thread have said, I thought it was completely obvious that AD&D1 was designed with game balance intended. But, in many threads, here, through the years, there's been a lot of statements that AD&D1 design didn't worry about game balance, often with the follow-on statement or insinuation of "and it didn't need it."

I would rather have brought in quotes out of the AD&D1 PHB and DMG (as MerricB did), but I have those books packed away for another couple of weeks. So I had to settle for searching this message board.

"Game balance" seems to be, to some, an unwanted and unneeded intrusion on the newer game editions by unwise or unimaginative or scared current designers. I always found this concept strange, because I saw obvious game balance intentions in the design of all D&D editions.

If I were to posit a theory, I think some don't/didn't see game balance in AD&D1 because we were younger and less experienced in gaming and game design. "Game balance," as a term, wasn't the buzz word for us when we were newer to the game. We might note that a rule was weird or just didn't work (for us), and we'd house rule it (often without thinking the house rule through completely) for our own game. (The rules that worked fine, we probably didn't think twice about.)

But really, isn't game balance an underlying foundation of *every* game (not just D&D or RPGs)? Whether you see it or not, whether the designers state it explicitly in the rules or not, game balance has to be intended for a game to work, yes?

Bullgrit


----------



## Stoat

Based on the posts instead of the votes in the poll, it looks like most folks agree that Gygax intended the game to be "balanced".  It appears to me that a lot of folks are voting no because they think: (a) Gygax failed, 1E wasn't balanced or (b) Gygax's definition of balance is radically different from the current understanding of the term.

I'm not particularly interested in watching people fight over (a), but I'm curious about (b).  What did Gygax (or anyone else in 1977) mean when they talked about game balance?


----------



## Plane Sailing

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Also, if we're not talking in-game rolls, there were times when you wanted to roll high on percentiles: rolling for psionics and exceptional strength. Didn't psionic combat use percentile dice and higher was better?




I never saw Basic D&D, and lots of wonky stuff got introduced in modules, so I still think that the essential use of the d20 in the initial AD&D rules was still the same basic 'roll high on a d20 to do well'. People writing modules later just didn't get the memo  Of course, that later got enshrined in the wacky NWP...

I guess my point is that 1e didn't start out being inconsistent in rolling dice, even though it may have ended up that way.

I take the point on rolling for exceptional strength and psionics being a 'roll high' situation with percentages - although you were not trying to beat a value, but set a value, which I feel is just on the side of OK 

Cheers


----------



## Bedrockgames

My answer to the OP is yes and no. I think the system itself was not designed with game balance in mind, the way a lot of modern games are. But I also feel game balance was a huge part of the game. My memories of 1E and 2E involve being more aware of game balance issues as a DM. Balance wasn't built into the game itself, because that was part of the job of the DM, to maintain balance during play.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit,

Those posts abou 1e not worrying about balance refer to balance as defined by WotC.  Eggs and grizzlies.

Also, I assume, the source of all those "No"s.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Bullgrit,
> 
> Those posts abou 1e not worrying about balance refer to balance as defined by WotC.  Eggs and grizzlies.
> 
> 
> RC




Well... I'd say yes and no to this one.  

True, the two versions of the game have different ways of trying to achieve it, but the end goal is the same- a balanced game.

It seems the later versions of the game feel that balance is better achieved in different ways then the earlier editions attempted it. You might agree or disagree with the thought, but the end is the same- both games are/were attempting to find the same end.

Balance is balance, so not really "eggs and grizzlies."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Plane Sailing said:


> I never saw Basic D&D, and lots of wonky stuff got introduced in modules, so I still think that the essential use of the d20 in the initial AD&D rules was still the same basic 'roll high on a d20 to do well'. People writing modules later just didn't get the memo  Of course, that later got enshrined in the wacky NWP...




I think the idea of the "ability check" in 1E modules came from the usage in the spell Dig. That was the very first Dex check formalized in the core rule books.


----------



## Raven Crowking

What is t be balanced, what the game is about, how the game is to be played, the role of the DM, how character creation should proceed all affect what "balance" means within this context.

Eggs and grizzlies.  At best.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> What is t be balanced, what the game is about, how the game is to be played, the role of the DM, how character creation should proceed all affect what "balance" means within this context.
> 
> Eggs and grizzlies.  At best.




Still disagree.

All those things are put in place in order to achieve a balanced game; they don't redefine balance. The end point remains the same- the path we take is the difference.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Raven Crowking said:


> What is t be balanced, what the game is about, how the game is to be played, the role of the DM, how character creation should proceed all affect what "balance" means within this context.
> 
> Eggs and grizzlies.  At best.



Go ahead and sign my name on that one. 

Any game of a complex nature that takes 5 seconds of design consideration will attempt "balance" as a goal. If "balance" is not attempted as a design goal, the game risks being able to be "solved," which is certainly not something desirable in a RPG.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Still disagree.




Your perogative, of course.

We can agree to disagree.


----------



## diaglo

ggroy said:


> Is there a precise mathematical definition of "balance" in the context of (A)D&D?




kinda.

there were numerous traps which involved trying to maintain it so your PC could avoid falling into pits, onto spikes, or sliding down a shaft into the unknown.

as well as during combat when climbing over obstacles or up a rope or swinging on a chandelier.

S2 White Plume Mountain has some good uses of it.


----------



## Ariosto

> Balance is balance, so not really "eggs and grizzlies."



No; a well balanced chicken would be a mighty awkward bear. An Easter egg hunt is different from a football match. "But they're both animals! But they're both games!" So?

How is a raven like a writing desk?

You can't dismiss function in considering form!


----------



## Ariosto

Chess is all strategy. An opponent who (or that, as in a computer program) beats me every time might be as easily beaten by you because you have more skill.

Chutes and Ladders is all chance. The most cunning grownup gamer has no advantage over a little child.

Both of those are designed to produce different outcomes among participants, but on different bases.

Other amusements may be designed to produce essentially _the same_ experience among all participants. Different people might have different guesses as to the end of a movie, but the succession of scenes is the same regardless.

How hard should it be for a player to get a character to high level (or even to 2nd level)? Should it even be in question, or just an entitlement? To what degree should it depend on player skill, and on what skills? To what degree should it depend on chance -- and how significant is the skill of not leaving things to chance?

Is variation in outcomes desirable at all, and if so then to what degree -- or is the design for an experience more like that of watching a movie, or even like _telling_ a story?


----------



## howandwhy99

jgbrowning said:


> I voted other. It was designed for game balance, but a concept of balance different than what is now termed as game balance.
> 
> joe b.



I voted yes, but otherwise agree with the above.  

For whatever reason the hobby began to think of its' games as simulation games.  Which isn't what roleplaying games are.  In a simulation game balance is predetermined by the designer.  Balance is achieved by pitting every player against the same challenges each with a pre-set difficulty to overcome.  Like in computer games, RPG simulation games saw game balance as a level of difficulty predetermined by the designers.  However, sometimes players are given the option to change this beforehand (easy, standard, hard, InSaNe!).  In 3e and 4e this was/is set by the DM.  If you beat a kobold while playing solo on a bought encounter map in either game, you faced the same difficulty as anyone else playing did in the exact same situation. 

Early D&D did not require consistent challenges across games, but only within them.  This was an asset in regards to their flexibility.  AD&D was actually created to set a predetermined consistency of challenges and their difficulty across all games.  As I understand it, this was originally done so convention tournament participants could all be working within the same skill set.  That and the game was becoming so varied in its play that modules and other salable items were not applicable to many people's games.  Now, in AD&D, each could recognize a monster for what it was from another game and all have an equal chance of beating it.  But, ironically, this attempt at formalizing the game backfired and led to the simulation game mindset we've seen for a long, long time now.

It should be said though, neither is AD&D a storygame.  Its' ideas of balance had more to do with equivalent rules for individual elements (like monsters, treasure, magic items, combat actions) across all games than in balancing the game according to what degree each player could contribute to a story-making session.  It was (and is) still a strategy game where creating a story was not the objective, so giving every player equal story rights did not go into balancing its' design.  Each player at the table does play turn by turn (or round by round depending on the situation), but a player's potential influence over what can happen in each turn is radically different for every PC.

AD&D1e and other early editions are balanced according to single players facing the game alone.  Each and every game was a solo game against the impartial DM/Ref where additional players enabled the choice of whether or not to assist each other.  Every player is rewarded separately and each are in a different situation than each other (regardless of what is going on).   What makes the game balanced is every player is attempting to guess the same hidden ruleset behind the screen even though each player may need to achieve different ends within it to gain points.  If they were the same Class (role), then the rewarded ends would be the same.  But class levels between players, treasure distribution, influence of powers between PCs, the number and influence of allies between PCs, et cetera all have no bearing on the balancing of the game.


----------



## Hussar

/snip, never mind.  Sorry.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Ariosto said:


> No; a well balanced chicken would be a mighty awkward bear. An Easter egg hunt is different from a football match. "But they're both animals! But they're both games!" So?
> 
> How is a raven like a writing desk?
> 
> You can't dismiss function in considering form!




What this thread shows is that there are broad, deep channels separating old-school and new-school concepts and approaches. 

Somehow i have to wonder, though, if they are already there (and only identified and described in threads like this), or if some people are constantly shovelling them deeper and broader.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Keefe the Thief said:


> What this thread shows is that there are broad, deep channels separating old-school and new-school concepts and approaches.
> 
> Somehow i have to wonder, though, if they are already there (and only identified and described in threads like this), or if some people are constantly shovelling them deeper and broader.




I think it is safe to ay that there are people constantly shovelling them deeper and broader.  It's hard to "slaughter the sacred cows", or create a new edition that isn't backwards-compatable, without doing do.


RC


----------



## Bullgrit

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> or if some people are constantly shovelling them deeper and broader.



I think this.

When people start arguing to break up a commonly understood term like "game balance" into different meanings for different eras. . .

It's like saying "aerodynamics" meant something different in the 1910s and 1940s than it does in the 2000s.

Bullgrit


----------



## Faraer

I think the ubiquity of mutual misunderstanding and talking at cross purposes in 'game balance' threads shows it's not a commonly understood term at all. In the run-up to 3E, its designers started using it in a very specific and somewhat novel sense, without (at first) making that sense and its assumptions explicit, and people started to copy that use, leading to frequent confusion when they failed to distinguish the specialized 3E jargon sense of 'game balance' from its universe of possible meanings and ways of balancing games.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> When people start arguing to break up a commonly understood term like "game balance" into different meanings for different eras. . .





Hrm.  I wonder how one would define "game balance" so as to be inclusive of the attempted balances of both Mr. Gygax and WotC?  When I see that definition, I will be happy to rethink my position.

In any event, if what you mean by "game balance" is not what Mr. Gygax meant by "game balance", then it isn't Mr. Gygax who changed the definition.  Your criticism applies to the newer, not the older.

"Aerodynamics" implies the same goal in all eras; it also implies something that is objectively measurable.  Neither is true of "game balance", not in any era.  The only way every PC can be "balanced" is if every PC was mechanically the same.  And, while we seem to be (officially) headed in that direction, we (thankfully) aren't there yet.  Nor, I think, shall we ever be.

The gulf between NS and OS methods of approaching the game widens as a matter of "evolution", as it were -- similar to what happens when a species is seperated, diverging into two species.  It is inevitable, especially if/when the creators of the new game intentionally sever ties with the past.



RC


----------



## Bullgrit

> I think the ubiquity of mutual misunderstanding and talking at cross purposes in 'game balance' threads shows it's not a commonly understood term at all.



A few people arguing against the common understanding does not make a ubiquity of mutual misunderstanding.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit

For instance:

Monopoly -- first published in 1935

Settlers of Catan -- first published in 1995

60 years between one and the next. Was the concept of game balance different for these board games?

Bullgrit


----------



## Raven Crowking

That similar cases can exist over the course of 60, 100, or 1,000 years does not mean that all cases are similar.

_EDIT:  I am not familiar with Settlers.  Does every player start with the same "mechanics"?  If so, then the idea of game balance is the same....all players start with equal resources.  If not, then the idea of game balance has shifted_.

When I see that definition that defines "game balance" so as to be inclusive of the attempted balances of both Mr. Gygax and WotC, I will be happy to rethink my position.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> A few people arguing against the common understanding does not make a ubiquity of mutual misunderstanding.
> 
> Bullgrit




At this point, 54% of the responders said "No" despite the author's stated attempts at balance.  Clearly, more than half of the responders don't believe that what Gygax meant by a "balanced game" is what is meant by a "balanced game" now.


----------



## Faraer

Having read a lot of these threads, but not every post of this one, without looking back I don't even know which sense Bullgrit thinks the common one is, or what's marginal about the other ones.


----------



## Scribble

Ariosto said:


> No; a well balanced chicken would be a mighty awkward bear. An Easter egg hunt is different from a football match. "But they're both animals! But they're both games!" So?
> 
> How is a raven like a writing desk?
> 
> You can't dismiss function in considering form!




Reread my post maybe? I wasn't arguing the method used to be an "animal" was the same (I didn't say chicken = bear.) Only that the end result was the same goal ( a balanced animal/game.) 




Raven Crowking said:


> When I see that definition that defines "game balance" so as to be inclusive of the attempted balances of both Mr. Gygax and WotC, I will be happy to rethink my position.




Maybe it would help if you defined what you consider Gygax's definition for balance?

As it stands I feel like you'd confusing the method for the definition, but perhaps I'm missing something.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> At this point, 54% of the responders said "No" despite the author's stated attempts at balance.  Clearly, more than half of the responders don't believe that what Gygax meant by a "balanced game" is what is meant by a "balanced game" now.




Or that over half the respondents feel that he failed to achieve it.


----------



## Bullgrit

> I don't even know which sense Bullgrit thinks the common one is



Well, how about:
Game balance means that no class or skill is substantially more powerful or useful than another, from creation on through progression to higher level. Challenges (monsters and problems) should be appropriate for the characters facing them.

Game balance is a goal, not a method.

Bullgrit


----------



## Hussar

I'll admit I voted no.

But, perhaps for a slightly different reading.  I read the question to mean, was the balance that 1e achieved arrived at by design.  In other words, I took the design part of the question to be important.  

It's pretty much true that all games are trying for some form of balance.  That's pretty much necessary for most games.  Allowing me to start with three aces in Poker is an interesting variant, but, not very balanced.  However, giving you ten to one odds if you win, suddenly shifts things back again.

However, my thinking is that AD&D was not designed in the sense that we mean it with games today.  Most of the mechanics were back of the envelope style calculations with an awful lot of gut feeling producing many of the numbers.  At least, that's the sense that I get from AD&D.  There was no design team to speak of, no rigorous playtesting, very little in the way of games theory being employed and so on.

So, how much can you really call 1e "designed"?  To me, design implies a pretty formal, scientific process.  I got the sense that 1e mechanics were arrived at more or less by trial and error and "close enough" was generally acceptable.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Or that over half the respondents feel that he failed to achieve it.



Or they were mistaken in their belief that he didn't attempt it at all.

Bullgrit


----------



## Scribble

Bullgrit said:


> Or they were mistaken in their belief that he didn't attempt it at all.
> 
> Bullgrit




Yep.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> Well, how about:
> Game balance means that no class or skill is substantially more powerful or useful than another, from creation on through progression to higher level. Challenges (monsters and problems) should be appropriate for the characters facing them.




That's definitely not Gygaxian balance.

Here's my stab at Gygaxian balance defined:

Game balance is the result of player choices and player skill interacting with the milieu.

Game balance means that every class or skill is substantially more powerful or useful than another, within a specific range of situations, so that all players have a role to play.  Balance is achieved by the players choosing from among their options to have strong abilities in a variety of situations.  

Balance is important as regards at least the following points:

1.  Player options are balanced through the course of a campaign.  This means that players should have the chance to create multiple characters, and to trade low-survival start-up options for the potential of great reward later.

2.  Related to the above, player skill should be rewarded.  If a player can opt for a harder starting option, it is desireable to reward that player with greater ability with success.  A system that forces all players to play characters with equal abilities is unbalanced, because it seeks to negate player skill.

3.  Balance of the campaign milieu (i.e., so-called "Gygaxian naturalism") trumps character balance or encounter balance.  This is necessary to allow the players context for game decisions.

4.  It is up to the players to determine what encounters they should engage in, and up to the players to determine how they should engage in them.  It is not only okay, but appropriate, though, for the DM to use traps or tricks to cause unwary players to face tougher challenges (including challenges that are far beyond thier ability to defeat).

5.  Challenges (monsters and problems) should be appropriate for the characters facing them only in the event that the DM imposes the challenges (as in a tournament setting); otherwise the players should have the option of trying harder encounters for greater rewards.  It is appropriate for players to be able to face challenges beyond those that the DM feels they can beat, and reap greater rewards if they have managed to devise a plan to do so.

6.  The DM must provide opportunities, but not guarantees.  Guarantees are unbalanced because they negate player choice and/or player skill.

Failure to achieve the above principles fails to create a balanced playing experience.​


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> That's definitely not Gygaxian balance.
> 
> Here's my stab at Gygaxian balance defined:




This is a breakdown of the methods used to achieve balance. You mention balance being achieved by doing several of these steps, but never actually seem to define what you consider "balance."


I think the primary difference between earlier and later editions is that the later games try to achieve balance by making the game numbers fair and level throughout the entire game, while the former editions attempted to "average them out" in the end.  (IE at some points your class might be better suited to the task at hand then another class, but this is made up for by that class being better in areas you aren't.)

I do think the former idea of how to achieve balance still exists in the new games, just to a lesser extent.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> This is a breakdown of the methods used to achieve balance. You mention balance being achieved by doing several of these steps, but never actually seem to define what you consider "balance."





Better go back and read again.

"Game balance is the result of player choices and player skill interacting with the milieu."

Also, please be careful here about "what *you* consider", as my attempt is to parse out Gygaxian balance, not Crowkingian balance.


RC


----------



## Bullgrit

> That's definitely not Gygaxian balance.



LOL! Oddly enough, it is game balance as directly defined by Gygax, on this very forum:







			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> [Game balance] covers character creation, means that no class of skill is substantially more powerful or useful that other. This continues on through character progression to higher level or greater degree of skill.
> 
> Balance extends to monsters and problems as well. As with characters, the challenge faced should be balanced for the characters facing them.



http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/31466-game-balance-2.html#post487833

Bullgrit


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Better go back and read again.
> 
> "Game balance is the result of player choices and player skill interacting with the milieu."
> 
> RC




That's not a definition though. That's a statement of methods used tom achieve balance. You still haven't indicated what balance IS. (At most that's a simple definition of game play in general.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Let's keep the context:



			
				Gary said:
			
		

> Game balance is really broader than the options allowed for oin the poll.




So, we can hopefully see, this is not Gygax defining game balance, but discussing some points of game balance.  Nor should "no class of skill is substantially more powerful or useful that other" be taken to mean "no class of skill is substantially more powerful or useful that other" *in all situations*.  An examination of the 1e PHB and DMG shows, quite clearly, that Gygax felt otherwise.

(You can look at the poll options to see what Gary felt was not sufficient to define "Balance":

Game balance means equal "power" in character creation.
Game balance means "viability" for each character. Combat power does not matter.
Game balance means no death is arbitrary and there's nothing more to it.
Game balance refers to the ratio between the whim of the GM and the freedom of the characters.)

He also says

As long as there are challenges for the party that don't leave them a heart monitor away from death every encounter, each player can contribute, no one player dominates, and the "bad guys" / opposition are not push overs, I think you have what ammounts to as "balanced" a game as possible.​
is "a mighty good summation" in his book.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> That's not a definition though. That's a statement of methods used tom achieve balance. You still haven't indicated what balance IS. (At most that's a simple definition of game play in general.)




No, it is a statement of what balance IS.

Gygaxian balance is process-oriented, not end-state oriented.  Outside of the process of the game, balance doesn't exist.  There is no end-state balance.  This is why "Game balance is really broader than the options allowed for on the poll."

Gygaxian balance is based on his wargaming roots:



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> [In war games, ]Game balance is usually maintained through the principle of strength vs. cost. Individually, units have clearly identifiable advantages or weakness. These in combination determine the unit’s relative strength and thus its cost. In theory, a small number of strong units are balanced with a larger number of weaker units if the cost of the two groups is the same.
> 
> In the greater context, a player will have a mix of units at his disposal. Dependent on the tactical situation, the mix of units may have an effective value greater than or less than the sum of its parts.




Game balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If one reads Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, or in KotB, or the similar advice found in modules like B1, it becomes clear that the players in any given milieu share a large burden in maintaining "game balance" both on the basis of the choices made in play, and in preparing for play (including both character generation/selection and equipment selection).  The DM is deliberately presenting an environment that attempts to trick the players into unbalanced play.  Superior players will not take the bait, or, better yet, will manage to discover ways to "defeat" the "unbalanced" encounters.

This is, in Gygaxian terms, what "superior play" *is*.

In Gygaxian terms, balance is what good play falls into....treading the narrow line between "too easy" and "too hard" on the basis not of the DM setting up the world to make this line all there is, but on the basis of the players being skilled and canny enough to recognize the line and walk it with care.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Another way to look at it is that WotC balance is an *inherent* property that, quite often, doesn't survive actual game play, whereas Gygaxian balance is an _*emergent*_ property that doesn't exist until game play creates it.


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Bullgrit said:


> LOL! Oddly enough, it is game balance as directly defined by Gygax, on this very forum:http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/31466-game-balance-2.html#post487833
> 
> Bullgrit



But his game was so very clearly not balanced that way _in and of itself_.  He might have intended for the DM to make that happen, but since a DM was not included in any box set I ever saw, relying on DM adjudication was a fools errand.  Incidentally, the vision of some sort of Gygaxian Mini-me packed in each box is making me chortle with glee.

Power and utility of different classes, even by the RAW, is radically different at any given time point, and the aggregate of a typical campaign will vary tremendously with how much time you spend at certain character levels, accidents of loot distribution, or any number of other factors.  This is true to some extent with all games, but far, far less so in modern iterations.

And they certainly weren't balanced the way I saw them played, either, which was quite a different thing than RAW.  Before 3e, I don't think I ever experienced two games that were played with the same rules, regardless of which books were technically on the table.  The DM had a metric ton of adjudicating to do constantly.  Personal style of the guy behind the screen had immense effects on even the fiddliest bits of the gameplay experience of everyone involved, far more so than under recent rules.

And that's just staying within the rules.  Beyond the burden deliberately placed on them by the rules, there are significant social effects on how the game runs.  In my misspent youth, social pressures required young DMs to re-write the rules constantly or risk the proto-nerd-rage of their fellow suburban kids or the full blown drama of hormone-afflicted high school students.

The vast and terrifying variance in table-to-table experience is probably what pushed designers to a more "simulationist" or constrained set of rules when 3e rolled around.  Canalizing the experience from table to table creates more shared experiences and controls partially for the vast and yawning gulfs of experience that separate DMs.

This seems like designers responding to an inherent lack of balance in the game as a whole.  In video games, that would have happened quickly since the designers have direct, mathematical access to play experience.  In a tabletop game, you have generational effects.  Each designer probably brought a radically different aggregate experience of "D&D" to the table when it came time to make 3e.  It just makes sense to standardize under those conditions, and since the single largest sources of variance were DM skill and fiddly rules, you standardize the fiddly rules and obviate the need for as much DM adjudication.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Raven Crowking said:


> Another way to look at it is that WotC balance is an *inherent* property that, quite often, doesn't survive actual game play, whereas Gygaxian balance is an _*emergent*_ property that doesn't exist until game play creates it.
> 
> 
> RC



Ah, but only the right kind of game play creates it.  Small deviations create huge balance flubs.  A butterfly flaps its wings and an entire campaign goes down the tubes.

I never met a group that managed a balanced 1e/2e game in half a dozen years of trying.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Canis said:


> Ah, but only the right kind of game play creates it.  Small deviations create huge balance flubs.  A butterfly flaps its wings and an entire campaign goes down the tubes.
> 
> I never met a group that managed a balanced 1e/2e game in half a dozen years of trying.




I have seen both balanced and unbalanced play with both systems.

OTOH, I am not claiming that Gygaxian "balance" is easy to create, merely that it is substatially _*different*_ than that meant when discussing "balance" in 3e or 4e.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> No, it is a statement of what balance IS.
> 
> Gygaxian balance is process-oriented, not end-state oriented.  Outside of the process of the game, balance doesn't exist.  There is no end-state balance.  This is why "Game balance is really broader than the options allowed for on the poll."




All games are balanced through process based means. It's just a statement really that all players by default exist within a set of fair rules. 

This doesn't imply that all the processes are the same (they're definitely not) nor does it imply that one process is better then another (that's personal preference.)

No matter what your process though, it doesn't change the definition of balance. (Fairness throughout the rules basically)

To think it does is absurd: It's like saying that because a helicopter and an airplane use a different process to achieve flight, that somehow the definition of flight is different- it's not; flight is flight.

Gygax's idea of how a game should be balanced is different then the current designers ideas, sure- and one can argue whether either designer achieves his goals or not sure, but in either case the point remains the same, the games were designed with balance in mind. 



> If one reads Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, or in KotB, or the similar advice found in modules like B1, it becomes clear that the players in any given milieu share a large burden in maintaining "game balance" both on the basis of the choices made in play, and in preparing for play (including both character generation/selection and equipment selection).




This is true in just about any game.  




> The DM is deliberately presenting an environment that attempts to trick the players into unbalanced play.  Superior players will not take the bait, or, better yet, will manage to discover ways to "defeat" the "unbalanced" encounters.




Again you can do this in any game. I regularly present challenges that are out of "balance" to my players in my games. All you're doing is taking a balanced game and presenting the option to unbalance it.



> This is, in Gygaxian terms, what "superior play" *is*.



 Cool, his play style prefers presenting unbalanced choices. Right on.



> In Gygaxian terms, balance is what good play falls into....treading the narrow line between "too easy" and "too hard" on the basis not of the DM setting up the world to make this line all there is, but on the basis of the players being skilled and canny enough to recognize the line and walk it with care.




This doesn't have anything to do with the design of the game, only the play style. The game itself was designed to be balanced, but the players can (and in his opinion should) let it become unbalanced or balanced based on their choices, and play style. (This matches my opinion as well.)

Balance is a tool, same as it always was. 

The argument can be made that the current designers are promoting a way of using balance that is different then Gygax preferred sure- but that's a different thread.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Another way to look at it is that WotC balance is an *inherent* property that, quite often, doesn't survive actual game play, whereas Gygaxian balance is an _*emergent*_ property that doesn't exist until game play creates it.
> 
> 
> RC




If you want to argue that- sure, that's fine,  but it still doesn't change the fact that balance = balance, no matter whether it's created at start, or intended to be created in play. You're still striving for balance.

(I disagree btw; as stated above. I think he strove for a balanced system, but intended for the players of the game to maintain/disregard balance during play based on what they found fun.)


----------



## Raven Crowking

Believe what you will.

We can agree to disagree.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Canis said:


> But his game was so very clearly not balanced that way _in and of itself_. He might have intended for the DM to make that happen, but since a DM was not included in any box set I ever saw, relying on DM adjudication was a fools errand. Incidentally, the vision of some sort of Gygaxian Mini-me packed in each box is making me chortle with glee.
> 
> It just makes sense to standardize under those conditions, and since the single largest sources of variance were DM skill and fiddly rules, you standardize the fiddly rules and obviate the need for as much DM adjudication.




A roleplaying game cannot be balanced in an of itself. The play of the game, and thus the balance of that play including aspects of the "rules" require meaningful contributions by the participants. Diminishing the value of those contributions will not bring a magical balance to the game. No matter how much autopilot balance is attempted, it will never be perfected as long as the participants in the game remain a variable. This is proven time and time again as players discover new and unforseen ways to abuse the system. This is followed by a decree that X is now broken and needs to be fixed. X is then fixed with a loophole plug which causes Y to suddenly malfunction. Even computer games which try to mechanically balance with precision need constant adjustment for every tiny new element that gets added. 

Lets assume that a system can indeed have _all _of the imbalances worked out of it. This would ultimately mean that anyone playing the game really wouldn't matter. Is this something we really want?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

ExploderWizard said:


> Lets assume that a system can indeed have _all _of the imbalances worked out of it. This would ultimately mean that anyone playing the game really wouldn't matter. Is this something we really want?



Not at all.

Human beings will always alter the conditions.  That is our nature.  

But I think the latter day way of balancing works better for me.  I think the experience from table to table is more consistent.  For me and the people I played with, 1e/2e simply put too many decisions that impacted everyone's fun in the hands of one guy.  There was no continuity at all from game to game because interpretation was a stronger force than the written rules.

This is my opinion, obviously, but it felt like those rule sets were not definitive, just sort of connotative.  As a kid, that definitely didn't work.  YMMV, and probably did.  I haven't played it as an adult.  I imagine it would work better.  If nothing else, I trust more of the people I know now not to let the "DM hat" go to their head.

I'm guessing, however, that part of the reason for the changes to "DM empowerment" and rigid rules is that many of the designers had experiences similar to mine, because the changes they made drastically curtailed the corner cases that flubbed my groups up as kids.


----------



## Ariosto

No, RC,  "Game balance is the result of player choices and player skill interacting with the milieu," is not a definition of game balance.

"Gymnastic balance is the result of gymnast choices and gymnast skill interacting with the milieu." True enough, but as true for a clumsy dismount or accidental fall -- what we would call _lack of balance_ -- as for a polished performance. Not _every_ possible result is "balance".


----------



## dougmander

I voted "other." The strongest mechanism for balance in 1e is the tension between DM fiat and the right of players to vote with their feet if they don't feel the DM is fair.


----------



## Ariosto

> Power and utility of different classes, even by the RAW, is radically different at any given time point, and the aggregate of a typical campaign will vary tremendously with how much time you spend at certain character levels, accidents of loot distribution, or any number of other factors.



*... and from character to character of the same class, as one of 9th level is different from one of 3rd level.* People seem to forget that aspect quite a lot, no doubt because they play games in which Bobby and Joe and Bobby Joe somehow always advance together in lockstep no matter what -- so "the campaign" can be spoken of as being "at level X".

Scribble: You seem to suggest either that 3e runs itself, not requiring implementation by a DM -- Oh, if only it were so! -- or that 1e does not present guidance to the DM. If you mean merely that the guidance is in your opinion inadequate, then so be it, but that is not at all the same as the game not being designed for game balance.



> I regularly present challenges that are out of "balance" to my players in my games. All you're doing is taking a balanced game and presenting the option to unbalance it.



Let's not get too slippery here. If I make a bad move in chess, then the "game" in the sense of that particular instance of play may be said to become "unbalanced" in the sense that I have granted my opponent an advantage. That is not at all the same thing as calling The Game of Chess unbalanced ... unless you're using some newfangled notion of game balance!

If, for instance, you consider equality of opportunity insufficient; if you insist on equality among outcomes; then your "balance" utterly negates the possibility of what would normally be considered _game_ balance.


----------



## Scribble

Ariosto said:


> Scribble: You seem to suggest either that 3e runs itself, not requiring implementation by a DM -- Oh, if only it were so! -- or that 1e does not present guidance to the DM. If you mean merely that the guidance is in your opinion inadequate, then so be it, but that is not at all the same as the game not being designed for game balance.




I think you have me confused with someone else? When did I indicate that 3e ran itself in some way. It most certainly did not.

I also never said either game wasn't designed with balance in mind... The opposite actually.

I'm a bit confused on this one...



> Let's not get too slippery here. If I make a bad move in chess, then the "game" in the sense of that particular instance of play may be said to become "unbalanced" in the sense that I have granted my opponent an advantage. That is not at all the same thing as calling The Game of Chess unbalanced ... unless you're using some newfangled notion of game balance!




Right... but that's not what I'm talking about. 



> If, for instance, you consider equality of opportunity insufficient; if you insist on equality among outcomes; then your "balance" utterly negates the possibility of what would normally be considered _game_ balance.




Balance for me in a game system is akin to when I got my new LCD tv. The manufacturer has several "optimal" settings for things like brightness, color balance, contrast, etc.

Awesome. Under an optimal viewing experience this is what would look the "best."

Despite how hard I try though, my living room is not the optimal viewing setting. I have un color balanced lights in weird places,  I can't adjust how much light they output, I have things like windows, my position on the couch is not the perfect spot, etc... Plus my own personal tastes ( I tend to like the brightness slightly higher then others might.)

So I adjust from there. The manufacturer's optimal settings are a starting point.

Same with a game for me. I look at the game and it tells me under "perfect" conditions this is a balanced game. I adjust as needed for optimal fun.


----------



## Ariosto

> The strongest mechanism for balance in 1e is the tension between DM fiat and the right of players to vote with their feet if they don't feel the DM is fair.



And the strongest mechanism for balance in 3e is what? How does making mechanics more complex create balance? Is it that the referee running the game -- just that -- is what "unbalanced" means, so that wearing down his stamina (by making him deal with such a burden of data) to make him more easily buffaloed is an improvement?

See, it looks to me as if the DM still sets DCs. That means the DM, _not_ whether you have -2 or +20 on your character sheet, sets the probability. The DM still defines the environment. Is it "fair" for your character to meet a pair of ancient dragons when he ventures to the Mountain of the Ancient Dragons? If you think not, then who you gonna call? DM Busters?


----------



## Ariosto

Scribble said:
			
		

> I think you have me confused with someone else?



Yes, begging your pardon! I had in mind words from Canis.


----------



## MerricB

Ariosto said:


> If you think not, then who you gonna call? DM Busters?




LOL!  Very nice.

There are two types of game balance in a RPG. One is between the DM and the players, and the other is between the different players.

The first type is what Gary Gygax invokes when he describes Monty Haul and Killer Campaigns - games where the balance between the threats and rewards that DM provides the players with has broken down. One of the great failures of AD&D - in my opinion - is how Gary spends a lot of time talking about how AD&D means to set right these extremes, but precious little in achieving it. Indeed, there are times when what he said has been misinterpreted and caused styles of gaming that are not what AD&D was meant to be.

One example is in regard of the scarcity of magic items. AD&D is not a system in which magic items are rare! Why do some people believe it is? Because Gary spent some time discussing how _at low levels_ they should be rare. This was then extended to higher levels which is quite against how the game was demonstrated in modules and other source material later.

The second type is invoked when Gary writes in the foreword and introduction to the Player's Handbook about how he was balancing the classes. In this area, I believe, he was quite successful. Yes, the low level magic-user is possibly a bit too limited, and the very high level magic-user is too strong, but in the main levels that AD&D was written for - 4th through 10th - the game works very well.

There are parallels between D&D and Squad Leader/ASL. With Squad Leader, you had one of the most successful wargames of all time - if not the most successful. (One source posits 200,000+ copies sold). However, with each expansion, the rules got more confusing and contradictory. Eventually, Advanced Squad Leader was released which completely rewrote the rules to be make sense as a whole.

D&D - with oD&D and its supplements - was in a similar state and so AD&D should have been like ASL. Unfortunately, I don't think Gary was up to the task of integrating everything successfully. There are too many areas where there are still contradictory or incomplete rule systems. Consider the monk's reduced chance of surprise. How does that integrate with the d6 surprise system? The answer is: it doesn't. At all. Initiative is a mess, especially as regards spellcasting, and then you have a small section about helmets which doesn't flow with the rest of the rules at all!

However, the major structures are there and you have an eminently playable game.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> I have seen both balanced and unbalanced play with both systems.
> 
> OTOH, I am not claiming that Gygaxian "balance" is easy to create, merely that it is substatially _*different*_ than that meant when discussing "balance" in 3e or 4e.




RC, if you are claiming that Gygaxian balance (as you call it) is an emergent property, then it wasn't designed.  Emergent properties are inherently chaotic and cannot be predicted.

So, are you claiming that Gygax actually DIDN'T design for balance but rather more or less achieved balance accidentally?


----------



## Ariosto

The degree of success in different endeavors in the AD&D books varies. I don't think Gygax tried very hard really to produce the clear-cut tournament rules set he bruited, and in any case the weight of evidence suggests to me that technical writing simply was not his strong suit. The DMG especially seems clearly to have wanted more copy editing, and changes due to the evolving design were never harmonized in the earlier volumes.

Psionics factors in the MM are a mixed up mess (See Supp. III). The x.p. values in Appendix E look to have been "eyeballed" rather than calculated. It was probably not until a few years after publication that Gygax actually _used_ the rules for grappling, pummeling and overbearing enough (at all?) to find them tiresome.

I think the HD boosts were an overdue response to the boosts in monster damage from Supplement I. Basic D&D is "hard ball" in that regard! The MU was left out of that (but already had a significant improvement over the original set, except at 1st level). So was the ranger and so, IIRC, was the monk.

Those changes, and others, were clearly based on balance concerns.

What levels should one expect PCs eventually to attain? I think that crept up with Supplement I, again with AD&D, and yet again with _Unearthed Arcana_. By 1985, I think Gygax may also have had in mind the way in which AD&D was actually getting played -- as opposed to how he had played it. That change in fundamental expectations as to what a "campaign" meant in terms of space, time, number of players, number of characters, and so on, marked the emergence of "a different game" much more truly IMO than had the publication of AD&D.

There are things in UA that seem to me out of whack anyway, but pretty clearly the goal posts were moving.

A case in point, at least to my mind, was a letter to The Dragon complaining that some things had been okay for the magazine -- but became "official", and thus mandatory, when put into the book. Not only that, but UA was apparently the last straw in an overweening imposition of "Gary's campaign" upon all AD&Ders.

That's a bit odd to me, but I see the seeds of the view on which the Wizards' edifice seems to have been built. Nor do I think it totally at odds with Gygax's own pontification of the time.


----------



## MerricB

Ariosto said:


> What levels should one expect PCs eventually to attain? I think that crept up with Supplement I, again with AD&D, and yet again with _Unearthed Arcana_. By 1985, I think Gygax may also have had in mind the way in which AD&D was actually getting played -- as opposed to how he had played it. That change in fundamental expectations as to what a "campaign" meant in terms of space, time, number of players, number of characters, and so on, marked the emergence of "a different game" much more truly IMO than had the publication of AD&D.




Very true. 

Cheers!


----------



## Lanefan

Canis said:


> Power and utility of different classes, even by the RAW, is radically different at any given time point, and the aggregate of a typical campaign will vary tremendously with how much time you spend at certain character levels, accidents of loot distribution, or any number of other factors.



Again, not a huge problem over a long campaign; much more an issue in a short campaign or one-off where there isn't time for things to even themselves out (as random things often do).

One of the biggest fundamental differences between 0-1-2e and 3-4e is that the earlier ones at least seem to have been designed for long (i.e. multi-year) campaigns, where the more recent ones are intended to last one or two years, tops.  And as you can tell by my DM-ing record (see sig.), I prefer the former. 


> The vast and terrifying variance in table-to-table experience is probably what pushed designers to a more "simulationist" or constrained set of rules when 3e rolled around.  Canalizing the experience from table to table creates more shared experiences and controls partially for the vast and yawning gulfs of experience that separate DMs.



And why do I as either player or DM give a flying fig what happens at any table other than the one I am sitting at?  I mean, Keep on the Borderlands was a shared experience for many of us even though every single one of us probably played it in a slightly different game system; so that argument doesn't fly.  The DM argument does fly, but I see the inherent problem there as one of players being less patient, less willing to allow a new DM to screw up - and thus learn - than in days of old.

In fairness, the 3-4e era has had to contend with the information-sharing behemoth that is the internet, where everyone can far more easily find out what goes on at many a table.

As for modularity in 1e design; believe me, it's not hard at all to modify significant things about 1e rules and still not have to worry too much about knock-on effects.  For example, abandoning weapon speed and changing the initiative system in 1e to a straight d6, re-rolled individually each round: does that really affect anything else?

Then, ask yourself what happens if you do the same thing in 3e.  Or 4e.  

Overall, it speaks to a difference in base philosophy.  In 0-1e days, and to some extent in 2e, the philosophy seemed to be one of "Here's the framework, but if it doesn't work for you then go ahead and design your own game around it."; where in 3-4e days it has become "Leave the designing to us.  You just play it."  

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> RC, if you are claiming that Gygaxian balance (as you call it) is an emergent property, then it wasn't designed.  Emergent properties are inherently chaotic and cannot be predicted.
> 
> So, are you claiming that Gygax actually DIDN'T design for balance but rather more or less achieved balance accidentally?




No.

But I will happily claim that you know far less about emergence than you think you do.

@ Ariosto:

Any definition of "balance" which does not claim to be a definition of "good balance" will perforce apply to "bad balance" as well.  Therefore, as with Scribble, we may agree to disagree.


RC


----------



## MerricB

Lanefan said:


> Again, not a huge problem over a long campaign; much more an issue in a short campaign or one-off where there isn't time for things to even themselves out (as random things often do).
> 
> One of the biggest fundamental differences between 0-1-2e and 3-4e is that the earlier ones at least seem to have been designed for long (i.e. multi-year) campaigns, where the more recent ones are intended to last one or two years, tops.  And as you can tell by my DM-ing record (see sig.), I prefer the former.




Given the sweet spot for 1e, the good campaigns would last 1-1.5 years anyway before a fair number of character types were no longer great. 

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Recall also the Gygaxian expectation of "10 levels = 5 year's play".


RC


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> Recall also the Gygaxian expectation of "10 levels = 5 year's play".
> 
> 
> RC




So a campaign was suppose to be balance over the course of 5 years?

I don't think most groups stayed together that long.  Typical Gamer starting when 14.  Fours yeas then collage, jobs and adult hood.  Collage max 4 years before jobs,  how many people live in the same city for more then 4 or 5 years?  

Of course Gygax had know information except his own games to base any thing off.  There was I time period where I moved or changed groups because of other people moving once every year and a half.  How as Gary to know this was common to a large segment of the gaming community that is military?  

The change in length of campaign is driven to some extend by our culture and economics.

Now some of you can do 2+ year campaigns.  For you a new game or a rewritten 1DD type game would work.  For lots of us it won't.


----------



## Bullgrit

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Recall also the Gygaxian expectation of "10 levels = 5 year's play".



Untrue. Gygax said, in this forum, in a thread that you participated in, that 10th level in 1 year was proper and expected.

Bullgrit


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garmorn said:


> So a campaign was suppose to be balance over the course of 5 years?




Over the course of play, over the short haul, and over the long haul.



Bullgrit said:


> Untrue. Gygax said, in this forum, in a thread that you participated in, that 10th level in 1 year was proper and expected.
> 
> Bullgrit




You misquote the gentleman.

He said that a good player could be expected to reach 10th level in about a year's play, assuming no setbacks.  In The Strategic Review, he goes into detail about the highest levels reached in the then-longest-running campaigns.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> Untrue. Gygax said, in this forum, in a thread that you participated in, that 10th level in 1 year was proper and expected.
> 
> Bullgrit




Okay, just to be specific:

Gygax said 



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play.




and



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.




You may assume, if you like, that the Gygaxian assumption is "5 years = 14 levels", but this is Gygax's epitome of play, not his average.

Very different from "proper and expected".



Of course, then, if memory serves, you still hold that all the treasure in modules is expected to be found, despite the quote to the contrary in B1?




RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, then, if memory serves, you still hold that all the treasure in modules is expected to be found, despite the quote to the contrary in B1?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RC




I think that all treasure in modules is expected to be found. Notice that this is different from asserting that all treasure should be handed out. Found indicates some searching and effort on the part of the players. I therefore expect treasure seeking adventurers to find that which is hidden. 

Lets not forget that finding the treasure isn't the same as getting it home either.


----------



## Raven Crowking

ExploderWizard said:


> I think that all treasure in modules is expected to be found.




[A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.

- Module B1, Page 24


----------



## ExploderWizard

Raven Crowking said:


> [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
> 
> - Module B1, Page 24




I prefer _can_ have and _improbable_. A certainty of not finding something is almost as bad as a guarantee of finding it. Gameplay hits the middle with varying degrees of probability.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Originally Posted by Gary Gygax, the Strategic Review Issue 2.2, page 23



That was about OD&D -- 1975 = 3 years before AD&D1. This thread is specifically about AD&D1.



> Of course, then, if memory serves, you still hold that all the treasure in modules is expected to be found, despite the quote to the contrary in B1?



I've never said any such thing. And not only is this little side comment untrue, it is, again, not related to AD&D1, anyway. (B1 is for BD&D.)

Your tenacious defense of your theories is impressive, but your methods are . . . bad.

Bullgrit


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> That was about OD&D -- 1975 = 3 years before AD&D1. This thread is specifically about AD&D1.





I know.  And, about 1e, his primary message was (according to the man himself) "The party is over."  AD&D was meant to slow progression, not to speed it up.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> Your tenacious defense of your theories is impressive, but your methods are . . . bad.





I suppose that little bit of ad hominem was easier than coming up with a coherent argument.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> I've never said any such thing.




You are correct; memory does not serve.  I was confusing you with another poster.


RC


----------



## Bullgrit

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I suppose that little bit of ad hominem was easier than coming up with a coherent argument.



I'm not arguing. I was originally interested to hear your point of view on the subject, but your methods of "proving" it with unrelated information (and disregarding direct information), and "disproving" other points of view by knocking down strawmen isn't interesting me. I'm just telling you how it looks to me: bad methods.

Bullgrit


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> [Y]our methods of "proving" it with unrelated information (and disregarding direct information), and "disproving" other points of view by knocking down strawmen




Hardly.

1.  What unrelated information are you talking about?  Why do you consider it unrelated?

2.  What direct information are you talking about?

3.  What strawmen are you talking about?

But, again, ad hominem is (apparently) far easier than cogent argument.




RC


----------



## Bullgrit

Is there anything left to discuss on the actual thread subject?

Bullgrit


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Lanefan said:


> And why do I as either player or DM give a flying fig what happens at any table other than the one I am sitting at?



Purely as a player... You don't.  The guy writing the game might.  He wants it to be fun for new players and experienced players.  He wants to obviate the rough edges some DMs might have to ensure the group wants to play again.

Also, what if you're someone who changes groups a number of times as I did?  People move.  DMs get girlfriends who don't like the game and they suddenly decide the game isn't for them.  Etc.  With 3e I at least found that DM style didn't completely trump the rulebooks.  I could sit down to a 3e game and find enough familiarity to other tables that I could just play.  When I was younger... not at all.  Every new DM or even new campaigns from the same DM, was like playing a different game entirely.

Let me illustrate.  With the change in tables under 3e, you might be playing a different game.  But it was like knowing all the rules to Sorry! and sitting down to play Parcheesi.  Same concept (standard Cross and Circle game) but the execution is a little different.  You catch on quick and are only occasionally slapped by a quirky difference.

With AD&D, I'd sit down to a new game and find it was like knowing all the rules to Chinese Checkers and sitting down to either Axis & Allies or Chutes and Ladders.  All 3 are played on a board.... and there the similarity ends.



> I mean, Keep on the Borderlands was a shared experience for many of us even though every single one of us probably played it in a slightly different game system; so that argument doesn't fly.



Selection bias from Hades.  People on this board are the people who played Keep on the Borderlands back in the day _and are still playing_ or, like me, still interested in playing.

That is a very small percentage, if I had to guess.  I played through that module 3 times myself and had fun once.  One of them wasn't recognizable as being the same module.  That one and one other were also not recognizable as "fun" or even as a genre of fun that might be enjoyed by a bipedal mammal in some parallel universe.



> The DM argument does fly, but I see the inherent problem there as one of players being less patient, less willing to allow a new DM to screw up - and thus learn - than in days of old.



The problem _came from_ "days of old."  You see enough tables tank because of bad DMing for 5, 10, 15 years.... and you start thinking about how you can help new DMs.  Leastways I did.  If they had brought me on as a designer, that would probably have been my number one priority: Find a way to make DM skill more consistent or less important.

It is admittedly a sad truth that the former is impossible to achieve while the latter is at least something you can attempt.



> Overall, it speaks to a difference in base philosophy.  In 0-1e days, and to some extent in 2e, the philosophy seemed to be one of "Here's the framework, but if it doesn't work for you then go ahead and design your own game around it."; where in 3-4e days it has become "Leave the designing to us.  You just play it."



Exactly.

The former method works for a population that seems common on these boards but who I have only rarely met in real life: people who have a reasonable sense of how to work with rules and change them without bringing death and destruction to the game.  I cannot stress enough how rare this type of person is in the wild.  ENWorld is some sort of wildlife refuge for this species.

The latter method works better (IMO) for everyone else.  And it still has value for people who know how to work with the rules.  Tweak and steal away!


----------



## Ariosto

As to rate of advancement over years of play; that can vary widely. It really depends on *other* factors that one must know before "reasonably calculating" the inference of potential X levels in Y years. A low-level character could gain several levels in a single session per year, or a high-level PC just one in many sessions.

On campaigns: Probably the longest regularly meeting campaign is Prof. Barker's Tekumel. Arneson and Gygax apparently went from very frequent DMing for a couple of years -- maybe even about 5 years for Arneson -- and dropped off after that until, in their last decade or two or three, they were running occasional convention games and maybe an annual reunion of old hands.

I don't think that Gygax's views on such matters changed radically from one edition (D&D) to the next (AD&D). The notion that the observation concerning treasure in B1 is inapplicable is very hard to take at all seriously.


----------



## Ariosto

> You see enough tables tank because of bad DMing for 5, 10, 15 years....



I think there is some kind of demographic gulf here between people who have had such a horrible experience and those of us who have not. There is probably a similar gulf between the D&D-mainly or -only demographic and that of people who primarily play other RPGs.

I find it hard to imagine RuneQuest or Traveller players, for instance, countenancing the virtual reduction of the game to a skirmish wargame. The fundamental premise that an "adventure" consists of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another is not "the same game, better balanced" -- it is a fundamentally different game.


----------



## Lanefan

Canis said:


> The former method works for a population that seems common on these boards but who I have only rarely met in real life: people who have a reasonable sense of how to work with rules and change them without bringing death and destruction to the game.  I cannot stress enough how rare this type of person is in the wild.  ENWorld is some sort of wildlife refuge for this species.
> 
> The latter method works better (IMO) for everyone else.  And it still has value for people who know how to work with the rules.  Tweak and steal away!



We run with different packs of dogs, my friend.  Your "rare person" is what I'm used to dealing with, because there are so many of them!

Just about everyone who plays in our games sooner or later starts coming up with ideas for rule changes and improvements, some of which are very good.  Why is this, you ask?  Because, I think, our game system is so obviously kitbashed in the first place it's just assumed to be an evolving entity.

And, that "reasonable sense of how to work with rules and change them without bringing death and destruction to the game" is only going to come after some trial and error.  The later editions are not so forgiving of the error part. 

Lanefan


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> The fundamental premise that an "adventure" consists of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another is not "the same game, better balanced" -- it is a fundamentally different game.




What game are you speaking of? Because no game I've played fits your "fundamental premise." Your veil wears thin.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What game are you speaking of? Because no game I've played fits your "fundamental premise." Your veil wears thin.




It is no secret that, while originally understanding that faster combats should be a goal for 4e, the designers tweaked the numbers so as to give everyone a chance to do "cool stuff".  IOW, after taking steps to speed combats up, they went back and slowed combat back down.  

Couple that with classes whose utility is completely designed around combat, and designer statements about what D&D _*is not*_ can easily lead one to the premise that WotC decided what consumers wanted is "adventures" consisting "of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another."

Going through 4e adventures to find material to convert for my own game leads me to a similar conclusion.  

Of course, this isn't limited to 4e.  3e seems, after about 6-8 levels, to be very much caught up in combats that take far too long; 4e has the same problem IMHO.  The current module layout also seems to focus very tightly on combat scenes, and this methodology started with 3e.

Even going through Dungeon, looking for maps I can reuse for my game, I can see a definite shift in focus from early Dungeon "whole area" focus to later Dungeon "encounter area" focus.  (This is not absolute, obviously, but the pendulum has certainly swung.)

None of this, of course, means that *your* 4e game needs to consist of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another -- just as your 1e game might not follow the Gygaxian ideal.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> It is no secret that, while originally understanding that faster combats should be a goal for 4e, the designers tweaked the numbers so as to give everyone a chance to do "cool stuff".  IOW, after taking steps to speed combats up, they went back and slowed combat back down.




I think this idea is kind of misunderstood. 

I don't think they were designing from the idea that the combat itself should take a lot less time, but instead that the combat itself should be faster paced.

In 3e combats could slow to almost a crawl, especially at higher levels, when people had various actions they could take, and a number of followers with various actions, plus a lot more "big" calculations.

4e definitely sped this up, so rounds go by at a much faster pace. There's also a lot more stuff that encourages movement in the combat, so the combats feel a little more frenetic, and faster paced.

The actual length of time it takes to play out the combat isn't always much shorter, but I don't think this is a bad thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble,

I am not disagreeing with you about the changed pace of combat.

When the designers first started talking, they admitted that combat needed to be speeded up, one would imagine based upon the regular complaints about how long a single fight took.  Of course, there were lots of complaints about how long a single _*round*_ took as well.

The designers then came up with a system (which we have in 4e) where the rounds were speeded up significantly, which speeded up combat overall.

_*But*_ since everyone had all of these "per-encounter" powers, fast combat makes the characters seem kinda hollow.  After all, if most of your "per encounters" didn't get used, what was the point of them?  Where was the attrition?  The edge-of-your-seat-iness?  So, they inflated the numbers to make combats last longer.

This is a direct consequence of (1) moving to a per-encounter attrition model, and (2) moving to an all-combat-powers character model.  Really, put those two things in place, and there is little else that you can do.  Encounters must last long enough to allow for attrition to occur, and they must last long enough for all of those combat powers to come into play.

"Adventures" consisting "of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another" is a very good description of the result.  Even skill challenges, by the book, are means to allow you to move swiftly through anything that isn't a combat.  Things like traps should be played as though they were combats.  Simulation should in no way get in the way of combat powers -- find a way to narrate it so it makes sense, or don't worry about it making sense, but do not declare that a power doesn't work because its application defies your sense of realism.

It is clear in 4e that combat is the "meat" of any adventure, while anything else is dressing, at best, to be moved through as quickly as possible so as to get back to the "meat".

You don't have to play it that way, but that is the way it is designed.  It is, AFAICT, a direct consequence of the design parameters.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Scribble,
> 
> I am not disagreeing with you about the changed pace of combat.
> 
> When the designers first started talking, they admitted that combat needed to be speeded up, one would imagine based upon the regular complaints about how long a single fight took.  Of course, there were lots of complaints about how long a single _*round*_ took as well.
> 
> The designers then came up with a system (which we have in 4e) where the rounds were speeded up significantly, which speeded up combat overall.




Which is the part I think people misunderstand.  They sped up combats to make them less static, not to get them quickly out of the way.



> _*But*_ since everyone had all of these "per-encounter" powers, fast combat makes the characters seem kinda hollow.  After all, if most of your "per encounters" didn't get used, what was the point of them?  Where was the attrition?  The edge-of-your-seat-iness?  So, they inflated the numbers to make combats last longer.




Was this explained somewhere? Do you have a quote indicating this?



> This is a direct consequence of (1) moving to a per-encounter attrition model, and (2) moving to an all-combat-powers character model.  Really, put those two things in place, and there is little else that you can do.  Encounters must last long enough to allow for attrition to occur, and they must last long enough for all of those combat powers to come into play.




Or it was designed from the standpoint that people did enjoy combat, and didn't want the combats to be glossed over, just made more interesting.



> "Adventures" consisting "of going from one hour-long (or more) combat scenario to another" is a very good description of the result.




In your opinion. Just like any edition of the game, you can go from combat to combat, or combat to exploration, narration, whatever. The choice is yours. You can also design encounters that happen a lot more quickly based on the challenge level. 



> Even skill challenges, by the book, are means to allow you to move swiftly through anything that isn't a combat.




By the book? Page number? 

I think you're reading your own impressions in there quite a bit. For me skill challenges give a good way to allow the players to use their stats to effect the game outside of combat. They aren't a way to ignore anything non combat related. If you're not using them to good effect... Well sorry for you? 



> Things like traps should be played as though they were combats.




Which makes a lot of sense. Traps done this way become more dynamic. They aren't just a single die roll anymore. 



> Simulation should in no way get in the way of combat powers -- find a way to narrate it so it makes sense, or don't worry about it making sense, but do not declare that a power doesn't work because its application defies your sense of realism.




The same as D&D has pretty much always been. D&D has always had characters doing unrealistic things for the sake of fun. That's kind of part of the point. 



> It is clear in 4e that combat is the "meat" of any adventure, while anything else is dressing, at best, to be moved through as quickly as possible so as to get back to the "meat".
> 
> You don't have to play it that way, but that is the way it is designed.  It is, AFAICT, a direct consequence of the design parameters.RC




Again, no more so then D&D has ever been.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Edit: Nevermind. Scribble said it better.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> Again, no more so then D&D has ever been.




This I disagree with. Take a random 1E "hackfest" dungeon module and look through it. You might find little more than description, area contents, and statistics for the inhabitants. This certainly makes the adventure all about combat right?

Wrong. Barebones adventures like these didn't have "combat scenes", "skill challenge scenes", and instructions on which group each encounter belonged to. The percentage of play spent on combat could vary wildly from group to group using the same material.

Play was not chopped into such distinctive chunks. Skill use could turn into combat which could turn into a chase, which could lead to evasion followed by more combat. 

The presentation of the 4E adventure including instructions on what type of encounter each one is supposed to be make it easy to pinpoint the combat/non-combat content (as intended) by page count.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> In your opinion.




(Shrug)

If you like, why not?  In my (educated) opinion, then.

I am not saying that 4e doesn't do what it was designed to extremely well.  I am saying, however, that if you want to play a game with square pegs, it makes sense to choose one that isn't designed with round holes.  

You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it -- but pretending that the holes aren't round is not something I am willing to do.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> This I disagree with. Take a random 1E "hackfest" dungeon module and look through it. You might find little more than description, area contents, and statistics for the inhabitants. This certainly makes the adventure all about combat right?
> 
> Wrong. Barebones adventures like these didn't have "combat scenes", "skill challenge scenes", and instructions on which group each encounter belonged to. The percentage of play spent on combat could vary wildly from group to group using the same material.




These supposed "combat scenes" you describe in 4E are nothing of the sort. The encounter areas I am reading in WotC produced adventures contain information about the setting of the area, motivations of the NPCs, advice on what happens if the players decide to talk instead of fight, and much more that any old "hackfest" dungeon module. The percentage of play spent on 4E combat can vary widely from group to group using the same material.



ExploderWizard said:


> Play was not chopped into such distinctive chunks. Skill use could turn into combat which could turn into a chase, which could lead to evasion followed by more combat.




The same is true of 4E.



ExploderWizard said:


> The presentation of the 4E adventure including instructions on what type of encounter each one is supposed to be make it easy to pinpoint the combat/non-combat content (as intended) by page count.




Wrong. Flat out. They are called Encounter Areas. And the 4E DMG points out quite clearly that *not all encounters need to end in combat.* Each group's approach to these encounters is still intact. There is no more instruction to make an encounter a fight now than there was in 1E-2E-3E.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> I am not saying that 4e doesn't do what it was designed to extremely well.  I am saying, however, that if you want to play a game with square pegs, it makes sense to choose one that isn't designed with round holes.
> 
> You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it -- but pretending that the holes aren't round is not something I am willing to do.
> 
> YMMV.




Mine does obviously. You can play 4E in the same style you have always played D&D. Or you can use the new tools presented to do things differently. Follow the link in my sig to the conversion of the 2E module WGR1. You can see how I've taken the old convention of the random encounter that happened by chance regardless of player action and turned it into a Skill Challenge that allows players to use their wits and their character's skills to effect the occurance of random encounters. The format of the style of challenge I created is not that of the DMG exactly, but follows a style similar to that presented in WotC adventure P2.


----------



## billd91

Scribble said:


> Was this explained somewhere? Do you have a quote indicating this?




There was but I recall it being about getting the _monsters_ to use their all their powers rather than not be alive long enough to deploy them all. I don't have the citation, though.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> (Shrug)
> 
> If you like, why not?  In my (educated) opinion, then.




OI'd go with biased- but hey.



> I am not saying that 4e doesn't do what it was designed to extremely well.




Yep- a fun edition of the D&D line. I'll agree with that one! 



> I am saying, however, that if you want to play a game with square pegs, it makes sense to choose one that isn't designed with round holes.
> 
> You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it -- but pretending that the holes aren't round is not something I am willing to do.




And if you want to play a game of checkers with a jackrabbit you better not own a purple tie!

Pointless metaphors aside, if 4e isn't your preferred edition that's cool- I couldn't really care any less if you like it or not.  If the rules don't work for you, that's cool- but don't insinuate that I'm either "pretending" or forcing the rules to work for what I want, or that I'm missing some sort of hidden design agenda you've managed to spot, or that the rules have moved away from "the true way the game should work"  in some way.  For me, the game plays the same way it's always played, with new tools to enhance the experience at the table. 

Everyone has their own way of interpreting what the rules mean in the game. Frankly the way you interpret a lot of the rules seems weird and alien to me, but to each his own.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Mine does obviously. You can play 4E in the same style you have always played D&D.




I already said "You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it" -- which is not a pointless metaphor (no matter how much Scribble might wish it so!).


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> These supposed "combat scenes" you describe in 4E are nothing of the sort. The encounter areas I am reading in WotC produced adventures contain information about the setting of the area, motivations of the NPCs, advice on what happens if the players decide to talk instead of fight, and much more that any old "hackfest" dungeon module. The percentage of play spent on 4E combat can vary widely from group to group using the same material.




If combat scenes are not planned then why are so many "encounter areas" set up like prepared stages with description largely confined to the combat relevant features of the area. 




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The same is true of 4E.




This I can conditionally agree with since my own 4E campaign is more organic and less encounter-centric. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Wrong. Flat out. They are called Encounter Areas. And the 4E DMG points out quite clearly that *not all encounters need to end in combat.* Each group's approach to these encounters is still intact. There is no more instruction to make an encounter a fight now than there was in 1E-2E-3E.




What about the other way around? What if the players dont give a rat's ass about getting 5 successes before 3 failures?  

There are some structured skill challenges in published adventures without stats for NPC's that the PC's come into conflict with because the encounter is set up as a skill challenge. 

I never said that all encounters end in combat, just that the adventure makes it pretty clear which ones do and do not.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> I already said "You can knock the square pegs into the round holes -- there is a whole forum here to help you do it" -- which is not a pointless metaphor (no matter how much Scribble might wish it so!).
> 
> 
> RC




Pointless in the sense that anyone can make a statement like this, and expect people to accept it as universal truth.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Pointless in the sense that anyone can make a statement like this, and expect people to accept it as universal truth.




Which is, I imagine, better than burying one's head in the sand.  Or better than proclaiming that "X is better than Y!  Better yet, X is also exactly the same!"  

WotC wasn't shy about telling us their design goals.  Overall, I think that they accomplished what they set out to do.  We were told first; some of us predicted outcome on that basis; what we see is exactly what was predicted/expected.

As a result, I think that people who don't recognize the change in design parameters simply do not want to.


RC


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Which is, I imagine, better than burying one's head in the sand.  Or better than proclaiming that "X is better than Y!  Better yet, X is also exactly the same!"




Again implying you have some universal truth somewhere. 

My own thoughts are that the intended result is the same, the tools we have to get to those results have been improved.  Sorry you don't see that, or they don't work for you?

Again if you don't like the game, so what? I'm just tired of the arrogant attitude that if it doesn't work for Raven, then obviously those that it DOES work for have their head in the sand about how they're just forcing it to work. 



> WotC wasn't shy about telling us their design goals.  Overall, I think that they accomplished what they set out to do.  We were told first; some of us predicted outcome on that basis; what we see is exactly what was predicted/expected.
> 
> As a result, I think that people who don't recognize the change in design parameters simply do not want to.




And I feel that some people who don't see it's the same game with new tools just don't want to. People looking for an outcome will probably find it.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> And I feel that some people who don't see it's the same game with new tools just don't want to. People looking for an outcome will probably find it.




" The same game" can only be judged by those playing. No one, not a game company, or a random person on the internet can tell you from on high if your game remains the same. After all, were these people at your table prior to the release of system X or even afterwards for that matter?

If not, then the whole claim one way or another is just false. 

For my own game, I am enjoying my 4E campaign just fine. Like most systems I had to take it out behind the woodshed and teach it a lesson before it was ready for prime time.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Again implying you have some universal truth somewhere.




If there is a universal truth out there, it is out there whether we see it or not.

If I make statements about, say, my design goals in RCFG, I feel reasonably certain that there is some level of truth about those goals.  If I make statements about what RCFG is, or is not, about, I feel reasonably certain that there is some truth that my statements relate to my design goals.

I tend to assume that, when the 4e designers made statements about their design goals, and as to what they thought the game was (and was not) about, that there is some level of truth to be found there, especially when I see it objectified in the final product.

It is a simple enough process to see if "the intended result is the same" -- simply read through Gary Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, and his advice to DMs in the 1e DMG, then compare it to what what one gets in 4e.  Does the advice still apply?  Is the intended result still the same?  You can say "Yes", of course, but that answer is a horse pill that I can't swallow.



> I'm just tired of the arrogant attitude that if it doesn't work for Raven, then obviously those that it DOES work for have their head in the sand about how they're just forcing it to work.




Erm......Where did you get that from?

I am on record as saying that 4e does admirably what the designers set out to do.  I am willing even to agree that the designers of 4e more clearly achieved their design goals in the game than Gary Gygax did in his.  

But they are not the same design goals, and if your goals are more in keeping with Gary Gygax's, then you need to fit square pegs into round holes when using 4e.  If your goals are more in keeping with those of the 4e designers, then you are fitting round pegs into round holes.

_*4e is a great game, if it is the game you want.*_  Not the first time I've said so, surely not the last.  That doesn't mean it is without problems -- no game is -- but that they met their design goals admirably.

If, as some insist, their design goals are the same as those of 1e, then they did a piss-poor job instead.  But that isn't what happened.

Having one's head in the sand occurs only when one insists that there is no change in those design goals.  That is, AFAICT and IMHO, as self-deluding in claiming that there is no mechanical change between editions.

Of course, if you like, you can simply decide that I am irrational.

(Shrug)

Makes little difference to me.


RC


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> " The same game" can only be judged by those playing. No one, not a game company, or a random person on the internet can tell you from on high if your game remains the same. After all, were these people at your table prior to the release of system X or even afterwards for that matter?
> 
> If not, then the whole claim one way or another is just false.
> 
> For my own game, I am enjoying my 4E campaign just fine. Like most systems I had to take it out behind the woodshed and teach it a lesson before it was ready for prime time.




I agree with this completely.

I'm not saying my thoughts are universal truth anymore then any of the other thoughts out there. 

For me the game is the same, just with better tools. For others it's not, and that's fine. Just don't tell me I'm "obviously" deluded.


----------



## Raven Crowking

"I like the changes" is not delusional.  "There are no changes" is.  The design goals of the game designers are not subject to what table you sit at.  The goals of the participating players, however, is a different story.  If the goals of the participating players are more in line with the goals of the game designers, they are more likely to enjoy the game.

So, sure, one may "play as they always played".  Perhaps previously they were pounding square pegs into round holes, and now they have round pegs and holes.  In which case, it is obviously not delusional to like the new game!  Indeed, it would be strange if the participants did not!


Easy Design Goals questions:

*  Is 4e designed to be humancentric?

This is a specific design goal of 1e.

How about placement/inclusion of magic items?  Can anyone tell me how this design parameter has changed, and how that change is driven by differing design goals?

Bueller?  Bueller?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Raven Crowking said:


> It is clear in 4e that combat is the "meat" of any adventure, while anything else is dressing, at best, to be moved through as quickly as possible so as to get back to the "meat".
> 
> You don't have to play it that way, but that is the way it is designed.  It is, AFAICT, a direct consequence of the design parameters.



I'm going to quibble slightly.  The 4e _module_ design definitely suggests this.  I am not convinced the design parameters of the game itself (the game engine, as it were) do this.  In fact, with skill challenges and what not, there's more "design" and structure to non-combat events than there was in 3e.  Arguably, for non-rogues, there's more structure to non-combat stuff than there has ever been, though my experience with that end of it was always limited since my 1e/2e DMs only ran the game as almost pure combat, anyway.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> Easy Design Goals questions:
> 
> *  Is 4e designed to be humancentric?
> 
> This is a specific design goal of 1e.




Humans gain an extra feat, an extra skill, an extra power, and a bonus to a stat. They also gain the ability to put their stat bonus, anywhere.

So I'd say yes, it's designed to make humans a prime focus, a more versatile race then the others, but in a way that doesn't gimp someone's choice to play another race if they want.

A better tool in my opinion to achieve the same idea. 

You can feel free to disagree.



> How about placement/inclusion of magic items?  Can anyone tell me how this design parameter has changed, and how that change is driven by differing design goals?
> 
> Bueller?  Bueller?




Same goal, inclusion of magic items in a game that has a large focus on people going into underground holes looking for magic items and gold. 

Better tools: Better placement of magic items in the books, better advice on how to allocate magic in the game, as well as how powerful they are, (for better information on how they will effect the game) combined with better tools for their existence in the game world, and more options with how to deal with them in terms of buying/selling.

Again feel free to disagree.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Scribble said:


> A better tool in my opinion to achieve the same idea.




Looking at it from a logic angle, "better" = improvement.

Improvement = change. Therefore the game HAS changed.

Change = improvement is where the whole thing falls apart. That is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Scribble

ExploderWizard said:


> Looking at it from a logic angle, "better" = improvement.
> 
> Improvement = change. Therefore the game HAS changed.
> 
> Change = improvement is where the whole thing falls apart. That is a matter of opinion.




Sure, I never said it wasn't. In my opinion the changes that have been made improved the experience, but others are free to disagree. Also I feel the changes that have been made don't change the important part, the end goal. They only change the tools we have available to get there. Others can and obviously do disagree.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> If combat scenes are not planned then why are so many "encounter areas" set up like prepared stages with description largely confined to the combat relevant features of the area.




Many are predisposed to the combat focus of an area and that information does make up the majority of the text in a published module. Keep in mind though that a single stat block now takes up half a column on average compared to two lines in 1E. The modules I have purchased from WotC (H1-E1) have setting descriptions that do not pertain to combat and NPC motivations that can circumvent combat. Some of the published adventures are better at this combined description than others, but this is nothing new in regards to a series of published adventures from the publishers of D&D.



ExploderWizard said:


> What about the other way around? What if the players dont give a rat's ass about getting 5 successes before 3 failures?




Module/Adventure writers have always used this paradigm. They expect an encounter to go a certain way and write what they feel is relevant. Those expectations aren't always met. Some good module writers allow for more freedom. P2: Demon Queen's Enclave is a great example of a module that provides both combat and non-combat setups for the encounter areas.



ExploderWizard said:


> There are some structured skill challenges in published adventures without stats for NPC's that the PC's come into conflict with because the encounter is set up as a skill challenge.




Same was true in older modules when the PCs weren't expected to fight. And no, "*King Jared*, F10" does not count as stats. See P2 for an example of a good 4E module that figures this out better.



ExploderWizard said:


> I never said that all encounters end in combat, just that the adventure makes it pretty clear which ones do and do not.




Just because some DMs see a set of combat stats and a tactics section and ignore the advice in the 4E about encounters not always turning into combats does not mean that the adventure *tells* you that Encounter A-2 *must* be combat.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Canis said:


> I'm going to quibble slightly.  The 4e _module_ design definitely suggests this.  I am not convinced the design parameters of the game itself (the game engine, as it were) do this.




Thank you for the well-reasoned post, Canis.  XP to you.

Design goals, regardless of the edition, are not monolithic.  Certainly, the designers of 4e knew that players were not always going to be in combat.  Since 4e prefers the AP approach (a trend started waaaaayyyyy back with DragonLance and greatly strengthened in 3e due to the success of the Dungeon APs), there needs to exist some means to move characters from scene to scene.

However, the designers were clear that D&D isn't a game about talking to faeries; it is a game about combat.  And it shows.

I credit 3e with having the first system in place (complex skill checks) to deal with non-combat encounter conflicts in a satisfying mechanical way.  3e provided DMs with excellent tools to make a game that is precisely about talking to faeries, and to make that "action" meaningful in game terms.

However, the skill challenge system in 4e, as it first appeared, needed a lot of work.  It was simply bland and meaningless, with the die rolls having no real effect apart from toting up a score.  As the means to move the story along to the next exciting combat sequence, it was a reasonable tool.  As a means to exciting resolution in and of itself, not so much.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that skill challenges in 4e, as initially presented, were a pale shadow of more robust mechanics from 3e.  

Again, when examining the initial release of 4e, what are characters designed to do?  What are their class abilities geared for?  I can example class abilities in 1e that are not geared for combat without any difficulty whatsoever....even low-level ones.

Again, we are presented with traditionally non-combat parts of D&D (traps, for instance) that we are asked to treat as though they were combat.  What are we to make of this?

In the case of monsters, non-combat utility powers from previous editions are stripped out.  What are we to make of this?

In actual play, any given combat will grind away a disproportionate amount of table time to any other encounter type, by design.  Contrast this to 1e, where a disproportionate amount of table time is given to exploration and mapping, again by design.  _*So much of 1e's table time is devoted to exploration and mapping, in fact, that elements in the game (wandering monsters, frex) were included to impose some form of limit to the activity.*_  Indeed, the single most common complaint heard on EN World about 1e is the "boredom" imposed by "Greyhawking" a dungeon.

Again, the result of different design goals.  And the result of some people trying to fit their round pegs into 1e's square holes.

One would think they would be happy that the games have different design goals.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> For my own game, I am enjoying my 4E campaign just fine. Like most systems I had to take it out behind the woodshed and teach it a lesson before it was ready for prime time.




Which is something that most gamers seem to have done with every game they've played. Which sounds like "pounding a square peg into a round hole." Heck, RC had to go create his own dang system. I assume the hole of all versions of D&D were the wrong size then.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> So I'd say yes, it's designed to make humans a prime focus, a more versatile race then the others, but in a way that doesn't gimp someone's choice to play another race if they want.





This is a logical contradiction.

If humans are a prime focus, as opposed to "one among many", then perforce choosing to human must be preferable to choosing another race.

If no choice is "gimped" then all choices are co-equal.  There is no "prime focus".

And, again, this shows in WotC design, and it plays well into the overall marketing strategy as well.  After all, who wants to buy "Player's Handbook 7:  The Substandard Choices"?  It is far easier to sell "Player's Handbook 4:  The Better Choices than PHB 1".

This is exactly what happened with 3e, with 2e, and with 1e when the 1e _*Unearthed Arcana*_ came out.  

It is of interest to note that the initial AD&D 1e publishing plan of TSR included a 1e PHB, MM, DMG, FF, MM2, and DDG (all alluded to specifically or already out when Gary wrote about the DMG release in _The Strategic Review_), but not OA, DSG, WSG, or UA.  It is the late sellers -- the "Why would I buy that?"s where power creep tends to happen.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Which is something that most gamers seem to have done with every game they've played. Which sounds like "pounding a square peg into a round hole." Heck, RC had to go create his own dang system. I assume the hole of all versions of D&D were the wrong size then.




Pretty much yes for the stubborn gamer for whom "close enough" just doesn't quite fit the bill. Basic D&D is the closest for me in terms of complexity/ flexibility but that doesn't mean I don't tinker around with it and make adjustments.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Which is something that most gamers seem to have done with every game they've played. Which sounds like "pounding a square peg into a round hole." Heck, RC had to go create his own dang system. I assume the hole of all versions of D&D were the wrong size then.




A correct assumption.

Every era of D&D has had different design goals, as well as different tools to achieve those goals, some of which I prefer to others.  RCFG is specifically designed to meet my own design goals, and to provide the best tools I can to do so.

Most gamers IME have plenty of experience with "pounding a square peg into a round hole." 


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> However, the skill challenge system in 4e, as it first appeared, needed a lot of work.  It was simply bland and meaningless, with the die rolls having no real effect apart from toting up a score.  As the means to move the story along to the next exciting combat sequence, it was a reasonable tool.  As a means to exciting resolution in and of itself, not so much.




Rules are bland. If you found Skill Challenges bland in the original presentation then I charge that you were the one limited in your imagination as to how they could be used in an interesting way. And I can understand that because the concept is a new development on the complex skill rules.



Raven Crowking said:


> Again, when examining the initial release of 4e, what are characters designed to do?  What are their class abilities geared for?  I can example class abilities in 1e that are not geared for combat without any difficulty whatsoever....even low-level ones.




I can name thieving abilities, which have been subsumed by Skills, so those are in 4E. What others can you think of? Spells? I think the non-combat utility of many powers are lost in the newness of the game. At the outset of D&D players had not yet discovered all the neat non-combat ways they could use their spells outside of combat. And players of 4E are now going through the same process, except some have to unlearn the "rules are written in stone" lessons from 3E. I've given advice on how powers and class abilities can be used outside of combat (a warlock cursing an NPC outside of combat in an attempt to intimidate them; allowing powers to be used without the damage component; etc.).



Raven Crowking said:


> Again, we are presented with traditionally non-combat parts of D&D (traps, for instance) that we are asked to treat as though they were combat.  What are we to make of this?




Traps in all editions have done what? Attack your character. Before they were a sub-system, now they have been incorporated into what they always really were. And now you can have more than just a "gotcha!" trap and incorporate more elaborate traps.



Raven Crowking said:


> In the case of monsters, non-combat utility powers from previous editions are stripped out.  What are we to make of this?




That these were usually handled off-scene and now still are through rituals. No need for detail because they happen out of view of the characters anyway. This is very much like the methodology used in 1E.



Raven Crowking said:


> In actual play, any given combat will grind away a disproportionate amount of table time to any other encounter type, by design.  Contrast this to 1e, where a disproportionate amount of table time is given to exploration and mapping, again by design.  _*So much of 1e's table time is devoted to exploration and mapping, in fact, that elements in the game (wandering monsters, frex) were included to impose some form of limit to the activity.*_  Indeed, the single most common complaint heard on EN World about 1e is the "boredom" imposed by "Greyhawking" a dungeon.




I never saw any evidence that wandering monsters were imposed as a limit to exploration and mapping. They were simply an application of "logic" that monsters would not just sit in rooms waiting for adventurers and would instead mill about. And what evidence do you have that mapping and exploration were the default focus of 1E and not just your focus (or your idea of its focus if you never played 1E)?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> This is a logical contradiction.
> 
> If humans are a prime focus, as opposed to "one among many", then perforce choosing to human must be preferable to choosing another race.
> 
> If no choice is "gimped" then all choices are co-equal.  There is no "prime focus".




Ah, but 1E had a false humanocentric assumption amongst player choices. They gave no real reason to play a human. Demi-humans were objectively better than humans execpt for their level limits. But those level limits covered most if not all of 1E's "sweet spot" and (IIRC) as you yourself said the focus after the sweet spot turns to ruling a domain, not direct conflict. I believe all versions of D&D have the stated design goal that the "average" inhabitant in the game world was human. But PCs are not average.


----------



## Elbeghast

It was designed to be a balanced _game_. 
There's more to game balance than a rules system.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> This is a logical contradiction.
> 
> If humans are a prime focus, as opposed to "one among many", then perforce choosing to human must be preferable to choosing another race.
> 
> If no choice is "gimped" then all choices are co-equal.  There is no "prime focus".




This assumption only works if not being gimped is the same as not being as versatile.  This is not true, therefore your logic is faulty.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Rules are bland. If you found Skill Challenges bland in the original presentation then I charge that you were the one limited in your imagination as to how they could be used in an interesting way.




Or, having already modified the 3e OGC in a more interesting way for RCFG (IMHO, obviously, and also obviously to my taste), I found them bland.  Or, in addition, they seemed like a poorly-developed afterthought in the 4e "Core" Core.

In the 1e MM, giant beavers are bland.  That doesn't mean that they cannot be used in an interesting way.  However, it might be a hint that 1e isn't really about giant beavers.  



> I never saw any evidence that wandering monsters were imposed as a limit to exploration and mapping.




I take it you never read the 1e DMG then?



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Ah, but 1E had a false humanocentric assumption amongst player choices. They gave no real reason to play a human.




This may indeed be true.  Gary Gygax clearly intended for this to be the case -- he wasn't shy about saying so -- but how effective it was is another question entirely.  Not effective enough, I would agree, if a humancentric milieu is desired.....Indeed, this is one of the things I considered and changed when working on RCFG.



Scribble said:


> This assumption only works if not being gimped is the same as not being as versatile.  This is not true, therefore your logic is faulty.




You've never studied logic, formal or otherwise, have you?  


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Raven Crowking said:


> However, the designers were clear that D&D isn't a game about talking to faeries; it is a game about combat.  And it shows.
> 
> I credit 3e with having the first system in place (complex skill checks) to deal with non-combat encounter conflicts in a satisfying mechanical way.  3e provided DMs with excellent tools to make a game that is precisely about talking to faeries, and to make that "action" meaningful in game terms.



I really just see this in a very different way.  Cumbersome and needless rules for something as intuitive and fundamental to the human experience as social interaction should usually just get the heck out of my way.  And then when you get into something as unintuitive as combat, rules should be available to make it fair for all participants.

I don't actually need rules to adjudicate a conversation with faeries "fairly" or in an interesting way.  Negotiation will work there.  It is sorta nice to have in-game Diplomacy skills or whatever to control for or replace entirely the varying real life skills of people that would unbalance the situation in a game that focused extensively on those things, but it's not really necessary.  YMMV, and obviously does.  Conversation is also inherently interesting as long as the ideas being exchanged are good, engaging, and/or humorous.

But to run combat in a fair way that is also interesting to use... I need a system.

A game about talking to people is not worth money to me.  I can handle that on my own.  But to simulate combat... a game about combat with engaging and interesting mechanics is critical.



> However, the skill challenge system in 4e, as it first appeared, needed a lot of work.  It was simply bland and meaningless, with the die rolls having no real effect apart from toting up a score.  As the means to move the story along to the next exciting combat sequence, it was a reasonable tool.  As a means to exciting resolution in and of itself, not so much.
> 
> In fact, I would go so far as to say that skill challenges in 4e, as initially presented, were a pale shadow of more robust mechanics from 3e.



I disagree with that last to some extent, but that's not really relevant here.

What's relevant is that they had an intent to make non-combat situations engaging and relevant _to the whole group_ in the same way that combat has always been.

They may have failed wholly, largely, or partly in their execution.  But that's not really what's at issue here.  They did provide a (debatably weak) framework for non-combat interactions that went beyond the mere "roll d20, add modifiers, check against DC" model, if only by stringing multiple such checks together from multiple people.  Rather than conversation starting and everyone but the "face" character disengaging and waiting for the game to restart, everyone can throw some dice in an attempt to influence the outcome.

It may be ham-handed, but I think the intent was simply to get more players engaged at the same time.  This is apparently something that many of you have not seen as a problem in your games.  So maybe it looks so bad to you because they're trying to fix a non-existent problem.  I obviously have a different perspective.



> Again, we are presented with traditionally non-combat parts of D&D (traps, for instance) that we are asked to treat as though they were combat.  What are we to make of this?



That they wanted to leverage the most interesting and dynamic "engine" of the game for something other than combat.  And it works.  Traps are more interesting than Perception check followed by Disable Device check... OK, people besides the rogue can start playing again.



> In the case of monsters, non-combat utility powers from previous editions are stripped out.  What are we to make of this?



That those don't see play for many gamers anyway.  I sure as heck rarely saw them used.  For those that do use them, they can just as easily be a straight-jacket as a help.  "But a <insert monster here> can't _do_ that" is a complaint that _makes sense_ when the books delineate every single thing they can do, and is a complaint responsible for derailing at least two campaigns I've been in.  When the books only delineate what they probabilistically do in combat.... the DM is free to do what the game needs outside of combat without "breaking rules".

On the map-making thing.... I've seen people obsess over this or gloss over it completely independent of system.  My (admittedly limited) experience has been reliably diametrically opposed to what you're talking about.

My 1e/2e experience was practically wall-to-wall combat with nothing but the occasional damsel-in-distress to break it up.  My 3e experience was... awful, but that was due to the people playing and not the game system.  One of the DMs, at least, was trying to do something more than combat and basically got shouted down by most of the players.  They had been a group for a while, and they all just wanted to kill things and take their stuff.... which is apparently what they had done in 2e.  One of them even complained that 3e was "all sissified and about talking and <expletive redacted>."

I haven't been in contact with any of them for years because most of them were vile wastes of carbon that would have been more profitably used by society as doorstops or jet fuel, so I can't determine how they feel about 4e.

My point is not to bash and one of these systems, but to point out that a focus on combat, roleplaying, etc is more determined by the people at the table than the rules.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Rules are bland. If you found Skill Challenges bland in the original presentation then I charge that you were the one limited in your imagination as to how they could be used in an interesting way. And I can understand that because the concept is a new development on the complex skill rules.




This is concept that makes no sense whatsoever. I could just as well say that if OD&D does not work for you then your imagination is limited. 

Why is it OK to be told to use your imagination to make a situation fit into a pre-defined set of parameters (THE RULES) but being told the same thing about creating mechanical solutions to judge gameplay (WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE GAME) doesn't cut it? 

The imagination mantra is getting old.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> You've never studied logic, formal or otherwise, have you?




I have, but that's not the point of the discussion. Again stop with the veiled insults.

The 1e method to promote Humans as the "top" race was to remove the ability of other races to actually BE certain classes, and set limits on how high they can rise in the ones they have.

Gimped because they HAVE to choose certain classes because they lack the ability to do otherwise even if the player wanted.

This promotes a human centric world by forcing the player to be a human if he wanted to play a certain class.

The newer method is to promote certain classes for certain races, but leave the ultimate choice up to the player. They won't perform quite as well, true, if they go outside of the "norm," but they're not FORCED to follow that path, nor is the choice completely self destructive. The player ultimately gets to choose. 

Humans are more versatile in that they can perform equally well in all classes. They can choose any class and still gain all of their benefits.

A superior (in my opinion) method of showing humans as the more versatile race, while not removing choices from those that wish to play non humans.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> I take it you never read the 1e DMG then?




I have read it and still own it. Now if you could actually provide some evidence from the book that you believe supports your position instead of holding the 1E DMG up as if it were the Bible I may be able to discuss your claim.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> In the 1e MM, giant beavers are bland.  That doesn't mean that they cannot be used in an interesting way.  However, it might be a hint that 1e isn't really about giant beavers.




I see what you did there, Raven Cleverking. But 1E didn't devote articles to the giant beaver expanding upon the ways you could make the giant beaver interesting. Nor did they develop new and interesting ways to use giant beavers in their adventures. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Or, having already modified the 3e OGC in a more interesting way for RCFG (IMHO, obviously, and also obviously to my taste), I found them bland. Or, in addition, they seemed like a poorly-developed afterthought in the 4e "Core" Core.




IOW you didn't bother to imagine ways you could use them because you already had a way you were happy with. Nothing wrong with that. I meant no attack upon your imagination in general.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ExploderWizard said:


> This is concept that makes no sense whatsoever. I could just as well say that if OD&D does not work for you then your imagination is limited.
> 
> Why is it OK to be told to use your imagination to make a situation fit into a pre-defined set of parameters (THE RULES) but being told the same thing about creating mechanical solutions to judge gameplay (WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE GAME) doesn't cut it?
> 
> The imagination mantra is getting old.




As I said to RC, I didn't mean to say those who haven't "figured out" skill challenges are lacking imagination, sorry if I came off that way.

The reason skill challenges require more work and some imaginative application is because they are only mechanical in the sense that you check to see if your character has the skill to execute your plan. Plus there are nearly limitless situations (or at least too many) to codify all of them as skill challenges. Combat is rather finite and the rules across all editions have been relatively tight. The stuff that happens outside of combat can go in too many directions.

I'm not saying that skill challenges are perfect. But they do accomplish the thought that players should be rewarded for encounters outside of combat. 1E did this through XP for GP, you didn't *have* to fight to get that gold. 2E tried individual class XP that was difficult, IMO, to track as DM. Core 3E gave mere lip service to awarding XP for achieving goals as an alternate method. 4E establishes XP for non-combat encounters in the core.


----------



## billd91

Scribble said:


> Humans are more versatile in that they can perform equally well in all classes. They can choose any class and still gain all of their benefits.
> 
> A superior (in my opinion) method of showing humans as the more versatile race, while not removing choices from those that wish to play non humans.




I can't say I have a problem with rebalancing the PC races so that no character is completely shut out of a profession or even seriously hampered in one. But I can't agree that it goes anywhere to promoting a humanocentric world like 1e's design goal. I think that's a terrible stretch.


----------



## bardolph

Elbeghast said:


> It was designed to be a balanced _game_.
> There's more to game balance than a rules system.



Not really. The _rules_ were designed to be balanced, but the game did not succeed very well in this aspect.

AD&D had a pretty narrowly defined "solution": play a fighter or a cleric. If you rolled high enough dice, you can consider playing one of the overpowered sub-classes. Any choice outside of this range would inhibit the party's chances of success. This didn't stop people from playing thieves and magic-users anyway, but these characters were definitely dead weight in most groups.

It's okay. This was the Wild West of tabletop RPG gaming. Later editions corrected the earlier editions' mistakes.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Scribble and Raven Crowking, take a break from each other or you'll end up booted from the thread. 

It's been a mostly interesting discussion up until the last couple of pages. I'd rather not close the thread but I may have to if it devolves into edition warring.

That's the warning, folks.

Thanks


----------



## Chainsaw

bardolph said:


> Not really. The _rules_ were designed to be balanced, but the game did not succeed very well in this aspect.
> 
> AD&D had a pretty narrowly defined "solution": play a fighter or a cleric. If you rolled high enough dice, you can consider playing one of the overpowered sub-classes. Any choice outside of this range would inhibit the party's chances of success. This didn't stop people from playing thieves and magic-users anyway, but these characters were definitely dead weight in most groups.
> 
> It's okay. This was the Wild West of tabletop RPG gaming. Later editions corrected the earlier editions' mistakes.




Not to be contentious, but.. my friends and I largely played games with 2-3 players consisting of a couple thieves and a wizard and we had an AWESOME time... recapturing that fun and comraderie is the only reason I even came back to RPGs as an adult.

I think it can be tough to generalize across the "old days" (and maybe the "new days" too) because of how customizable D&D was (and is). Like I said, we played mostly thieves and wizard types and had fun. Of course, we probably weren't playing by the same rules you were, but that's why it's tough to generalize about D&D..


----------



## Plane Sailing

bardolph said:


> AD&D had a pretty narrowly defined "solution": play a fighter or a cleric. If you rolled high enough dice, you can consider playing one of the overpowered sub-classes. Any choice outside of this range would inhibit the party's chances of success. This didn't stop people from playing thieves and magic-users anyway, but these characters were definitely dead weight in most groups.
> 
> It's okay. This was the Wild West of tabletop RPG gaming. Later editions corrected the earlier editions' mistakes.




Unprecedented success of D&D up to 1e says you're wrong here, mate! Thousands of people all across the world had huge amounts of fun playing all manner of different character classes. 

I'd be tempted to characterise the early 80's as not so much the wild west but rather a golden age in terms of availability of game systems, game manufacturers, magazines and fanzines. 

Furthermore, I think that *Elbeghast* is right - the focus of AD&D was more on the game than the rules per se. It is the same thing that others have already said about AD&D being balanced for the players rather than the characters, challenging for the players rather than the characters.

Regards,


----------



## bardolph

Chainsaw said:


> Not to be contentious, but.. my friends and I largely played games with 2-3 players consisting of a couple thieves and a wizard and we had an AWESOME time... recapturing that fun and comraderie is the only reason I even came back to RPGs as an adult.
> 
> I think it can be tough to generalize across the "old days" (and maybe the "new days" too) because of how customizable D&D was (and is). Like I said, we played mostly thieves and wizard types and had fun. Of course, we probably weren't playing by the same rules you were, but that's why it's tough to generalize about D&D..



I never said it wasn't _fun._ Just that it wasn't _balanced._

Believe me, most games I played in had their fair share of thieves and wizards. Why? Because most players don't have any clue how useless they're going to be - they just know that wizards and thieves are SEXY, and they get lured in by dreams of stealing stuff from their friends or of being an all-powerful lightning-crackling god on earth. It just doesn't pan out that way on the table.

Part of the fun comes from realizing that once you've cast your one _sleep_ for the day, you're now totally defenseless and vulnerable and that even a stiff _breeze_ might kill you. As a thief, it gets even better, since your _whole purpose in life_ is to roll against a 5%-25% chance of success to avoid some kind of lethal death trap that will knock you of the adventure. But _if you get lucky_, you get to the treasure first, and can try to keep it from your friends!

The funny thing is, _danger is fun,_ and so players still can have a good time. But the fun had very little to do with how well balanced the rules were.

I always thought it was ironic how many pages of ink were spent describing spells that _will never be used_ in the vast majority of games. It makes great reading, though, and definitely sets the mood for the game.


----------



## Chainsaw

bardolph said:


> I never said it wasn't _fun._ Just that it wasn't _balanced._




I hear you. Maybe I misinterpreted your post. If the way the classes compared with each other balance-wise was in error, I'm not sure anyone in my group noticed or would have wanted it corrected if it had even been brought to their attention. Like I said, it's very difficult to generalize about or even compare RPG experiences because of how customizable they are. Half the time when I read arguments on here, I'm waiting for someone to inadvertently spill that they did/didn't follow X rule and for the other guy to go, "Oh well, if that's the case then we totally agree." Unfortunately there are so many variables in D&D that getting on the same page with someone can be tough without actually playing with them.


----------



## bardolph

Chainsaw said:


> I hear you. Maybe I misinterpreted your post. If the way the classes compared with each other balance-wise was in error, I'm not sure anyone in my group noticed or would have wanted it corrected if it had even been brought to their attention.




In my experience, it was usually in retrospect that players realized how gypped certain classes were. Wizards and thieves usually had a short life span, but were almost universally chosen by new players. Players that wanted to play for the long term usually chose a fighter, cleric, or some variant of either. Or, they would roll up a wizard or thief, die, then reroll a cleric or fighter.

Long-term thieves and wizards were played by casual players. Sometimes they were there, sometimes they weren't. But it didn't matter much, since their usefulness was so limited anyway. They did add plenty of flavor, though.

Another variant I encountered often was the NPC Thief Henchman that the DM ran most of the time, but would "lend out" to guests whenever someone new wanted to play but didn't have time to roll a new character. This situation was usually very entertaining, since the guest player would invariably do what they do best, which is set off traps and/or steal stuff from the party, so if the traps didn't knock them out, the party fighter would (aided by the cleric, of course)!



> Like I said, it's very difficult to generalize about or even compare RPG experiences because of how customizable they are. Half the time when I read arguments on here, I'm waiting for someone to inadvertently spill that they did/didn't follow X rule and for the other guy to go, "Oh well, if that's the case then we totally agree." Unfortunately there are so many variables in D&D that getting on the same page with someone can be tough without actually playing with them.



Agreed. A major design goal of the later editions was to give the game more longevity without needing the DM to resort to these kinds of techniques.


----------



## billd91

bardolph said:


> In my experience, it was usually in retrospect that players realized how gypped certain classes were. Wizards and thieves usually had a short life span, but were almost universally chosen by new players. Players that wanted to play for the long term usually chose a fighter, cleric, or some variant of either. Or, they would roll up a wizard or thief, die, then reroll a cleric or fighter.
> 
> Long-term thieves and wizards were played by casual players. Sometimes they were there, sometimes they weren't. But it didn't matter much, since their usefulness was so limited anyway. They did add plenty of flavor, though.




I have to say that's totally different from my experience. Mine suggests that 1e did far better at achieving balance as a whole despite lack of balance between some character build options. Had 3e never come around, we'd be pretty content to keep playing 1e.



bardolph said:


> Agreed. A major design goal of the later editions was to give the game more longevity without needing the DM to resort to these kinds of techniques.




For us, the coming up with house rules had a lot more to do with getting rid of cumbersome rules and not trying to rebalance things to keep a game running long term. So we got rid of weapon vs armor adjustments, the wacky unarmed combat rules, casting times and initiative. Not a lot of serious balance issues in any of these, just stuff to streamline how the game is administered.


----------



## Chainsaw

billd91 said:


> For us, the coming up with house rules had a lot more to do with getting rid of cumbersome rules and not trying to rebalance things to keep a game running long term. So we got rid of weapon vs armor adjustments, the wacky unarmed combat rules, casting times and initiative. Not a lot of serious balance issues in any of these, just stuff to streamline how the game is administered.




Same types of changes we had.. we didn't really rejigger the classes directly.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I never saw any evidence that wandering monsters were imposed as a limit to exploration and mapping. They were simply an application of "logic" that monsters would not just sit in rooms waiting for adventurers and would instead mill about.



The "logical" explanation for why there are wandering monsters is separate from their game function, which is inherent in the rules for XP, time, and exploration.  

The default assumption of the original rules is that your characters are after "fortune and glory," with a big emphasis on the fortune.  That's why treasure awards XP: it's an abstract "story award" that fits the assumed paradigm.  Under the system of XP awards that became standard (from Supplement I Greyhawk on), PCs could expect around 80% of their XP to come from treasure, and only 20% or so from monsters.

With that kind of setup, fighting wandering monsters has a poor risk:reward ratio.  Wandering monsters rarely have any treasure to speak of.  They become something to avoid, for game reasons, as well as for story reasons.  The threat of wandering monsters encourages players to set a goal and keep it in mind, to avoid wasting time on things like detailed mapping and searching every little inch of the place, et cetera.  In that sense, wandering monsters certainly act to limit and focus exploration.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Philotomy Jurament said:


> The "logical" explanation for why there are wandering monsters is separate from their game function, which is inherent in the rules for XP, time, and exploration.
> 
> The default assumption of the original rules is that your characters are after "fortune and glory," with a big emphasis on the fortune. That's why treasure awards XP: it's an abstract "story award" that fits the assumed paradigm. Under the system of XP awards that became standard (from Supplement I Greyhawk on), PCs could expect around 80% of their XP to come from treasure, and only 20% or so from monsters.
> 
> With that kind of setup, fighting wandering monsters has a poor risk:reward ratio. Wandering monsters rarely have any treasure to speak of. They become something to avoid, for game reasons, as well as for story reasons. The threat of wandering monsters encourages players to set a goal and keep it in mind, to avoid wasting time on things like detailed mapping and searching every little inch of the place, et cetera. In that sense, wandering monsters certainly act to limit and focus exploration.




Indeed. The relevant sections can be found on page 103 of the PHB and page 97 of the DMG (1E versions). From both the DM and players perspectives  there are warnings and admonitions about wasting time and the effect such activity can have on wandering monster frequency.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

bardolph said:


> Not really. The _rules_ were designed to be balanced, but the game did not succeed very well in this aspect.
> 
> AD&D had a pretty narrowly defined "solution": play a fighter or a cleric. If you rolled high enough dice, you can consider playing one of the overpowered sub-classes. Any choice outside of this range would inhibit the party's chances of success. This didn't stop people from playing thieves and magic-users anyway, but these characters were definitely dead weight in most groups.
> 
> It's okay. This was the Wild West of tabletop RPG gaming. Later editions corrected the earlier editions' mistakes.




Overpowered how?  If your first level characters need a lock picked, the thief is overpowered.  If you need a sleep spell, the wizard is.  1e characters were pretty well balanced, I think, just not inside of combat - and they were never meant to be.  The game is not primarily about combat, but of the exploration of a world.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

But higher level wizards ruled exploration too with knock/fly etc. I  know at what you´re getting at here, but i don´t think that the first few "glass jaw" levels of spellcasters made up for their ever-increasing flexibility, inside AND outside of combat. 

I´ve always thought that you could have remedied that with a better approach at utility magic items in AD&D - because of some quirk of magic, ONLY non-spellcasters can use all those not-spellstoring magic items. So, if you find an apparatus of kwalish, only your thief/fighter can use it.


----------



## Ariosto

> You can see how I've taken the old convention of the random encounter that happened by chance regardless of player action and turned it into a Skill Challenge that allows players to use their wits and their character's skills to effect the occurance of random encounters.



I have not looked at that Second Edition module in a while. The AD&D1 rules, though, do not stipulate random encounters that happen "regardless of player action". Indeed, the primary purpose of wandering monsters is to discourage certain choices of action -- in general, the choice of wandering without a clear objective, at a snail's pace due to "pixel bitching" each step. (Naturally, there are no wandering monsters in the Tomb of Horrors).


----------



## Ariosto

> My own thoughts are that the intended result is the same, the tools we have to get to those results have been improved.



Do you mean the same in 4e as in 3e? I see a transitional phase in 3e, and hardly think that people who prefer it to 4e just don't appreciate "better tools". A fair number of people seem to like 4e who did not like 3e. Just accident? Are the new kids on the block just better designers than Johnathan Tweet, Monte Cook and Skip Williams?

I think it much more straightforward to attribute the suitability of different designs to different purposes as being chiefly ... *by design*!

The resulting game is _so_ different from, sometimes diametrically the opposite of, what Gygax set forth as his intent, that the claim falls flat. Gygax was quite capable of designing VERY different games; the gulf between _Dangerous Journeys/Mythus_ and _Lejendary Adventures_ demonstrates that well!

Is 4e designed to be humanocentric? You say yes ...







> ... but in a way that doesn't gimp someone's choice to play another race if they want. A better tool in my opinion to achieve the same idea.



Do you really think that "doesn't gimp someone's choice" applies to class and level limits? Or do you think that halflings deserved the severest limits as "balance" for being so much more "powerful" than elves? Or do you think all that is just accidental, not really "the idea" in the first place? _Seriously_??!!

If you are unclear on just what "humanocentric" meant, then you can read page 21 in the 1st ed. _Dungeon Masters Guide_.


----------



## Ariosto

> However, the skill challenge system in 4e, as it first appeared, needed a lot of work.



As it appears in the 4e DMG I have, it is to my mind atrocious -- but to my mind it "needs a lot of work" the way a torture device might. I am hardly inclined to fork out more money to find out how it has been "improved". 







> It was simply bland and meaningless, with the die rolls having no real effect apart from toting up a score.



And now? Is it _exciting_ and meaningless? See, it's not _the dice rolls_ "having no real effect" that concerns me. As a player, I would like to get on with actually _playing a game_.


----------



## Ariosto

> Traps in all editions have done what? Attack your character. Before they were a sub-system, now they have been incorporated into what they always really were. And now you can have more than just a "gotcha!" trap and incorporate more elaborate traps.



Yeah, can't be anything so elaborate in ol' _Grimtooth's_ eh? I mean, never mind the lack of data for a 4e dice-fest -- there are NO game mechanics at all!



> But higher level wizards ruled exploration too with knock/fly etc. I know at what you´re getting at here, but i don´t think that the first few "glass jaw" levels of spellcasters made up for their ever-increasing flexibility, inside AND outside of combat.



"Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up." -- a long sentence from _Men & Magic_, page 6.

The situation was well known, and indeed by design, right from the start.

A couple of pages later, we find "*Halflings:* Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting-Man class as a halfling. Halflings cannot progress beyond the 4th level (Hero), but they will have magic-resistance equal to dwarves (add four levels for saving throws), and they will have deadly accuracy with missiles as detailed in CHAINMAIL."

Is there any suggestion that a halfling hero is in any way the equal of a human wizard? No; they are clearly unequal (except for a couple of saving throw categories). Does it follow that the game is unbalanced?

No more than it follows that chess is unbalanced because a pawn is not on par with a queen.

Note: *Wizard* in pre-2e sets is a _magic-user_ level title gained at "name" (in Original or Advanced, 11th) level   -- so there is no such thing as a "low-level" wizard.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Ariosto said:


> A couple of pages later, we find "*Halflings:* Should any player wish to be one…



That line from _Men & Magic_ never fails to make me chuckle.

(I'm not a fan of halflings, or their many variants, as a PC race.  I love hobbits as a literary device in _Lord of the Rings_, but find them a poor fit in my D&D games.)


----------



## Ariosto

> It may be ham-handed, but I think the intent was simply to get more players engaged at the same time.



What, again, is it that keeps players from being "engaged" without 4e "skill challenges"? I missed that part. So, yeah, 







> This is apparently something that many of you have not seen as a problem in your games. So maybe it looks so bad to you because they're trying to fix a non-existent problem.





> And it works. Traps are more interesting than Perception check followed by Disable Device check... OK, people besides the rogue can start playing again.



Yeah, obviously NOBODY got to play D&D before getting Supplement I. ??? The way some people _chose_ to treat the thief presaged the way some people _chose_ to treat darned near everything in 3e -- and the designers of 4e delivered a game made just for them. Was that the Gygaxian design? No.

Different games.

Different balances.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Philotomy Jurament said:


> The "logical" explanation for why there are wandering monsters is separate from their game function, which is inherent in the rules for XP, time, and exploration. The threat of wandering monsters encourages players to set a goal and keep it in mind, to avoid wasting time on things like detailed mapping and searching every little inch of the place, et cetera.  In that sense, wandering monsters certainly act to limit and focus exploration.






ExploderWizard said:


> Indeed. The relevant sections can be found on page 103 of the PHB and page 97 of the DMG (1E versions). From both the DM and players perspectives  there are warnings and admonitions about wasting time and the effect such activity can have on wandering monster frequency.




I guess I was more puzzled over the inherent mapping activity in 1E. I agree witht the above.



Ariosto said:


> I have not looked at that Second Edition module in a while. The AD&D1 rules, though, do not stipulate random encounters that happen "regardless of player action". Indeed, the primary purpose of wandering monsters is to discourage certain choices of action -- in general, the choice of wandering without a clear objective, at a snail's pace due to "pixel bitching" each step. (Naturally, there are no wandering monsters in the Tomb of Horrors).




The only action the players could take in WGR1 to avoid random encounters was to not travel back and forth between the City of Greyhawk and the ruins. What I meant was that players who take reasonable precautions to avoid bandits in the original module still have a 1 in 6 chance, rolled 3 times, of encountering bandits each time they approach or leave the ruins.



Ariosto said:


> As it appears in the 4e DMG I have, it is to my mind atrocious -- but to my mind it "needs a lot of work" the way a torture device might. I am hardly inclined to fork out more money to find out how it has been "improved". And now? Is it _exciting_ and meaningless? See, it's not _the dice rolls_ "having no real effect" that concerns me. As a player, I would like to get on with actually _playing a game_.




So you never roll skill checks? Of course you do. And the Skill Challenge setup, if used in an interesting way, will seem just as organic as the skill rolls called for without them while also rewarding your players for completing a non-combat challenge.



Ariosto said:


> Yeah, can't be anything so elaborate in ol' _Grimtooth's_ eh? I mean, never mind the lack of data for a 4e dice-fest -- there are NO game mechanics at all!




Point taken. I did use those quite often back in 1E. My point still stands that folding traps into combat statistics in 4E has some logical basis.



Ariosto said:


> What, again, is it that keeps players from being "engaged" without 4e "skill challenges"? I missed that part. So, yeah, Yeah, obviously NOBODY got to play D&D before getting Supplement I. ???




Nothing keeps them from being engaged without a skill challenge. Your premise is that skill challenges are useless. I've given reasons why I disagree with that. Do I think everyone should use skill challenges? No. Dismiss them if you want, but I've found some interesting ways to incorporate them in my game and I will continue to share those ideas on these boards.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Ah, but 1E had a false humanocentric assumption amongst player choices. They gave no real reason to play a human. Demi-humans were objectively better than humans execpt for their level limits.



And this is NOT what was meant by "humanocentric" in 1E.

I'm going to relay a big, quoted chunk here. Under the heading of "The Monster as a Player Character" it's noted that players want to play monsters since they see them as superior to their PC peers and would provide a dominant role, and that reflection reveals the game is heavily weighted toward mankind. It goes on to say:



			
				AD&D DMG said:
			
		

> Advanced D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes are more fearsome - the 3 D's of demi-gods, demons and devils are enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods themselves are brought into consideration. Yet, there is a point where the well-equipped, high level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. In cooperation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, *for they have no upper limits as to level or aquired power from spells or monsters*_._ [emphasis mine]
> 
> The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role from which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough without becoming that too! Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a *world*, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair.
> 
> By having a basis to work from, and a well-devleoped body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either). Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon. Those which do not deal with men at all are scarce indeed. To attempt to utilize any such bases as the central, let alone sole, theme for a campaign milieu is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?



In other words, the humanocentric design goal of 1E has little to do with equality of PC character power and game mechanics but everything to do with roleplaying and campaign design. The game ORIENTS around humanity because we can all relate to humanity since we are all human. This, as opposed to a game which doesn't even feature humanity at all and ONLY deals with elves, dwarves, and other creatures with distinctly alien, NON-human perspectives.  And in any case, where it does enforce this perspective with rules you CANNOT throw out level limits and then be surprised when it doesn't make sense WITHOUT level limits.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> In other words, the humanocentric design goal of 1E has little to do with equality of PC character power and game mechanics but everything to do with roleplaying and campaign design. The game ORIENTS around humanity because we can all relate to humanity since we are all human. This, as opposed to a game which doesn't even feature humanity at all and ONLY deals with elves, dwarves, and other creatures with distinctly alien, NON-human perspectives.  And in any case, where it does enforce this perspective with rules you CANNOT throw out level limits and then be surprised when it doesn't make sense WITHOUT level limits.




In other other words, "play how I want you to play." You can still have a humanocentric world without forcing players to play humans so they can reach high level, without forcing DMs to drop level limits because they don't ascribe to Gary's way of thinking, or without forcing DMs to limit their campaigns to name level. The latter two options were used by so many gaming groups that level limits were dropped officially in all but OD&D and 1E (Even BECMI had advancement for demihumans beyond the artificial limits set).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In other other words, "play how I want you to play."




Yes.  Absolutely.  Even though it is true that Gary Gygax gave explicit permission to play in other ways, every game (including 1e, 4e, and RCFG) is designed to be played in a specific way.  The designer's views of "the best/most fun way to play" informs the design goals of the designer(s), whether they are aware of it or not.

Gary Gygax was merely upfront about what he thought was the best/most fun way to play, and why.  Some of his reasoning I agree with; some I do not.  However, his reasoning and design goals are different than the reasoning and design goals of the designers of 3e, 4e, and even 2e.

Heck, the design goals of AD&D 1e and *Basic D&D* are explicitly different.

Any game has its "best play" experience occur when the user and the designer have the same end goal in mind.  Note that I do not mean here the best play experience a given specific person can have; I mean the optimum experience available to the optimum user for that system.



> You can still have a humanocentric world without forcing players to play humans so they can reach high level, without forcing DMs to drop level limits because they don't ascribe to Gary's way of thinking, or without forcing DMs to limit their campaigns to name level.




Sure you can.  All you have to do is make humans, in some way, the best choice.  It doesn't matter what way this is done in.  All that matters is that it is done.

IOW, *if all options are equal, there is no "central" option*.

It was an intentional design goal in 3e to decentralize options (as opposed to the humanocentric 1e).  I would argue that decentralized options were an unstated goal of 2e, which saw splatbooks for every race except humans, and saw official endorsement for monster PCs.  

1e's mechanics were informed by its design goals.  2e's mechanics were modelled off of 1e's, but the design goals were far more similar to those of 3e.  It was a mismatch of mechanics and goals that, ultimately, hurt the system.  3e was not "1e with better mechanics"; it was, if anything, "2e with better mechanics (in some cases)".  Prestige classes offered a more balanced take on kits.  The 2e skill system was refined and improved.  The 2e idea of the bard was retained.  Even the early 3e spaltbooks followed the basic model of the "Complete Book" series.

And, perhaps, for the majority, the design goals of 4e, 3e, and/or 2e lead to a better game than the design goals of Gary Gygax in 1e.  But they are different design goals, leading to different "best play" experiences.  All this means is that these games have a different set of optimum users.

You know, I've never heard anyone who prefers checkers to chess claim that checkers _*is*_ chess _*with better rules*_.    Perhaps we are letting the name of the game(s) blind us when attempting to view what these games seek to accomplish?  4e can "be D&D" without being "1e with better rules".


RC


----------



## bardolph

JRRNeiklot said:


> Overpowered how?  If your first level characters need a lock picked, the thief is overpowered.



No. The thief was underpowered. The % chance of actually _succeeding_ at any of the tasks the thief was supposedly "good" at was so low that it was only slightly better than no chance at all.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

25% is pretty damn good for a first level character.


----------



## Votan

JRRNeiklot said:


> 25% is pretty damn good for a first level character.




True, but you cannot plan around it in adventure design.  And if there is a simple way to bypass the lock (that will end up being used 75% of the time) then it is hard to make the thief look essential.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Heck, none of the Thief's functions are essential, anyway.  Making him "look" essential is about the best that could be expected.


----------



## Votan

Philotomy Jurament said:


> Heck, none of the Thief's functions are essential, anyway.  Making him "look" essential is about the best that could be expected.




True.  But I see it as good design to have different roles contribute in neat ways.  One of the ironies of AD&D is that the skill based hero is close to the modern default archetype and yet it seems quite under-powered.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

bardolph said:


> No. The thief was underpowered. The % chance of actually _succeeding_ at any of the tasks the thief was supposedly "good" at was so low that it was only slightly better than no chance at all.



Even on success, it often didn't make a hell of a lot of difference.  For example, consider that the _Players Handbook_ equates moving silently with magical silence, and goes on to give an example where a party that is both invisible and magically silenced gets a 2 in 6 better chance to surprise (4 in 6, rather than the standard 2 in 6).  

So a Thief who tries to move silently and fails is still moving quietly; he just doesn't enjoy the same kind of surprise bonus that he would, otherwise.  And a Thief who makes his move silently roll doesn't necessarily auto-surprise, but he gets a better chance to surprise (maybe 1 in 6 better, in an otherwise standard situation).

(I'm not a big fan of the Thief class, as it came to be.  I think there's probably a place for the archetype, I just don't like its implementation.)


----------



## Ariosto

> The only action the players could take in WGR1 to avoid random encounters was to not travel back and forth between the City of Greyhawk and the ruins. What I meant was that players who take reasonable precautions to avoid bandits in the original module still have a 1 in 6 chance, rolled 3 times, of encountering bandits each time they approach or leave the ruins.



Not if you use common sense. Not if you read the 1st ed. DMG, which on the *very first page* of the main text addresses *precisely* this situation -- as an _example_ of why you're supposed to use common sense. There is in fact no statement in the module that taking reasonable precautions has no effect, any more than that an "encounter" means an unavoidable attack. Maybe that would be implied in, say, a 4e module -- but that has nothing at all to do with 1E AD&D.



> So you never roll skill checks? Of course you do. And the Skill Challenge setup, if used in an interesting way, will seem just as organic as the skill rolls called for without them while also rewarding your players for completing a non-combat challenge.



Naturally, I never "roll skill checks" that are not part of the game in the first place. Do you "of course" use weapon speed factors and armor type modifiers, or strike ranks and hit locations, in 4e?? "Interesting" or not, the skill challenge baloney completely bypasses actual engagement with the game-world problem. That is its *purpose*! That is the only "benefit" of imposing utterly arbitrary probabilities instead of letting the players actually come up with and play out a plan that can succeed or fail on its own merits.


> Your premise is that skill challenges are useless.



My premise is that skill challenges are very useful for _overturning_ the game balance for which AD&D1 was designed. As in _the thread topic_, you know?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> Not if you use common sense. Not if you read the 1st ed. DMG, which on the *very first page* of the main text addresses *precisely* this situation -- as an _example_ of why you're supposed to use common sense. There is in fact no statement in the module that taking reasonable precautions has no effect, any more than that an "encounter" means an unavoidable attack. Maybe that would be implied in, say, a 4e module -- but that has nothing at all to do with 1E AD&D.




Except common sense is not common, so you would get widely varying results dependant upon who was DMing. You imply that I'm not using common sense in 4E, which is a total crock. All the skill challenge mechanic does is put the thoughts of "common sense" up front, to prepare for common solutions to the problem. You are still suggested to be open to other solutions to the problem that you didn't prepare for when writing the skill challenge.



Ariosto said:


> My premise is that skill challenges are very useful for _overturning_ the game balance for which AD&D1 was designed. As in _the thread topic_, you know?




But they aren't used to overturn game balance. When written in a sensable manner they provide a framework for the DM to determine if the players have overcome a complex challenge. They accomplish the *same exact thing* DMs have always had to adjudicate, just with a chance to prepare and to provide a method of reward for overcoming complex challenges.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> Not if you use common sense. Not if you read the 1st ed. DMG, which on the *very first page* of the main text addresses *precisely* this situation -- as an _example_ of why you're supposed to use common sense. There is in fact no statement in the module that taking reasonable precautions has no effect, any more than that an "encounter" means an unavoidable attack. Maybe that would be implied in, say, a 4e module -- but that has nothing at all to do with 1E AD&D.
> My premise is that skill challenges are very useful for _overturning_ the game balance for which AD&D1 was designed. As in _the thread topic_, you know?




Since I'm sure you haven't bothered to go look at what I'm talking about here it is:

[sblock]SKILL CHALLENGE #1
Avoiding harrassment by bandits
Level 4, Complexity 2 (350 XP) [Award XP whether challenge is completed successfully or not - do not award XP for encounters caused by failure.]

If the party tries to avoid the bandits in the area, each player should make a single check each time the party approaches or leaves the ruins. Award a single success or failure based on whether the checks are a majority success or failure. The Aid Another action is not allowed on these checks. If the party makes no attempt to avoid the bandits failure is automatic.

Common skill use examples:
Athletics DC 18 - Traversing more difficult terrain that isn't commonly travelled.
Bluff DC 13 - Seeming to be unworthy of attention or much more powerful.
Diplomacy DC 23 - Attempting to negotiate with the bandits at minimal cost.
Endurance DC 18 - Moving at a hastened pace to offer less window of opportunity for the bandits.
Insight DC 23 - Recognizing dangerous groups within the area.
Intimidate DC 13 - Seeming tougher and meaner to dissaude bandits from attacking.
Nature DC 13 - Recognizing areas that would provide the bandits with opportunities to ambush travelers.
Perception DC 18 - Spotting trouble before it occurs.
Stealth DC 13 - Moving unseen and unheard through the region.

Results:
6 successes: The group has built a reputation, found a safe path, or whatever else seems appropriate to their methods to not have to worry about attacks from bandits any more.

4-5 successes: The group has learned enough about the bandit activity to no longer be surprised by their attacks.

1-3 successes: No effect.

1st failure: Attacked by bandit group consisting of 4 human bandits and a human berserker.

2nd failure: Attacked by bandit group consisting of 4 human guards and a human mage.

3rd failure: Attacked by bandit group consisting of 10 orc drudges and 2 gnoll huntmasters. After a 3rd failure the party has earned a reputation in blood and will no longer be at risk of bandit attacks.
[/sblock]

This skill challenge *requires* initiation by the players. There is no decree of "Skill Challenge Time!" It sets up *examples* of skill uses and the difficulty of the exampled uses to give myself a gauge for adjudicating player ideas that I haven't thought of. It does use the #success/#failure framework, but in a way that makes sense in game terms. In other words, I have in-game reasons why the skill challenge ends after the full number of successes or the full number of failures.

And I'm sure you'll pick on my use of the term "Attacked" in the failure section of the skill challenge. I mean that in terms of intent. The bandits are coming after you to take your stuff forcibly. Whether that results in combat is up to the players. They could surrender and give the bandits their stuff, they could try to use diplomacy/bluffs/initimidation to deter the bandits from attacking or anything else they think of when encountering the bandits.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes.  Absolutely.  Even though it is true that Gary Gygax gave explicit permission to play in other ways, every game (including 1e, 4e, and RCFG) is designed to be played in a specific way.  The designer's views of "the best/most fun way to play" informs the design goals of the designer(s), whether they are aware of it or not.
> 
> Gary Gygax was merely upfront about what he thought was the best/most fun way to play, and why.  Some of his reasoning I agree with; some I do not.  However, his reasoning and design goals are different than the reasoning and design goals of the designers of 3e, 4e, and even 2e.
> 
> Heck, the design goals of AD&D 1e and *Basic D&D* are explicitly different.
> 
> Any game has its "best play" experience occur when the user and the designer have the same end goal in mind.  Note that I do not mean here the best play experience a given specific person can have; I mean the optimum experience available to the optimum user for that system.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can.  All you have to do is make humans, in some way, the best choice.  It doesn't matter what way this is done in.  All that matters is that it is done.
> 
> IOW, *if all options are equal, there is no "central" option*.
> 
> It was an intentional design goal in 3e to decentralize options (as opposed to the humanocentric 1e).  I would argue that decentralized options were an unstated goal of 2e, which saw splatbooks for every race except humans, and saw official endorsement for monster PCs.
> 
> 1e's mechanics were informed by its design goals.  2e's mechanics were modelled off of 1e's, but the design goals were far more similar to those of 3e.  It was a mismatch of mechanics and goals that, ultimately, hurt the system.  3e was not "1e with better mechanics"; it was, if anything, "2e with better mechanics (in some cases)".  Prestige classes offered a more balanced take on kits.  The 2e skill system was refined and improved.  The 2e idea of the bard was retained.  Even the early 3e spaltbooks followed the basic model of the "Complete Book" series.
> 
> And, perhaps, for the majority, the design goals of 4e, 3e, and/or 2e lead to a better game than the design goals of Gary Gygax in 1e.  But they are different design goals, leading to different "best play" experiences.  All this means is that these games have a different set of optimum users.
> 
> You know, I've never heard anyone who prefers checkers to chess claim that checkers _*is*_ chess _*with better rules*_.    Perhaps we are letting the name of the game(s) blind us when attempting to view what these games seek to accomplish?  4e can "be D&D" without being "1e with better rules".



Sign my name on this post, too.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> Naturally, I never "roll skill checks" that are not part of the game in the first place. "Interesting" or not, the skill challenge baloney completely bypasses actual engagement with the game-world problem. That is its *purpose*! That is the only "benefit" of imposing utterly arbitrary probabilities instead of letting the players actually come up with and play out a plan that can succeed or fail on its own merits.




Is this just a matter of not having skills in 1E? Well, at least until the Wilderness and Dungeoneer's Survival Guides. Skills may impose "utterly arbitrary probabilities" but so did playing out a plan that can succeed or fail on its own merits. How, you ask? Because your DM is the final decider on whethe your plan succeeds or fails. The probability involved is whether your idea of common sense in the situation matches your DM's. Different methods, same results.


----------



## Ariosto

> But they aren't used to overturn game balance. When written in a sensable manner they provide a framework for the DM to determine if the players have overcome a complex challenge. They accomplish the *same exact thing*



They implement the game balance of 4e; they overturn the game balance of 1e (and pretty much every other RPG of my experience). 

The issue at hand is not how much you happen to like the mechanism. The issue at hand is whether AD&D1 was designed for game balance. I think the "skill challenge" sub-game illustrates design for *different* balance -- not at all "the same exact thing".

The "imbalance corrected" here in 4e is the variation in ability among players. The influence of skill that seems not just permitted but encouraged in the combat game is clearly not desired elsewhere.

AD&D1 was designed to give player skill scope in actual strategic and tactical decisions of combat (while not imposing time-consuming minutia) -- *and* in other undertakings.

It is in my experience not greatly different when playing Traveller or RuneQuest, or some other game in which characters have "skill ratings".



> Skills may impose "utterly arbitrary probabilities" ...



...but they need not. A "skill system" is not a big difference (indeed, is so little that I am delighted to do without one in a game designed without one).



> Because your DM is the final decider on whethe your plan succeeds or fails. The probability involved is whether your idea of common sense in the situation matches your DM's. Different methods, same results.



So, the DM in 4e does not set the factors for a skill challenge? The DMG reads, "set the complexity based on how significant you want the challenge to be. ... Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved."

Again, it's not a matter of "skills". Come on -- _you_ tell _me_ how the DM setting the difficulty is any different from calling for "skill checks" or other rolls without the 4e formalism. All your +5 in Balderdash says is that you're a better choice to roll than some other player. The DM dictates where your chance falls between 0% and 100% (probably pretty shakily, with the "x successes before y failures" rule).

The big difference is that this abstraction has taken priority -- if not over completely, to the point that _it does not matter_ what your supposed "plan" is. All that matters is the raw numbers.

It is obviously at its worst with a pre-designed formula (as in a published scenario). Could a DM instead first look at a plan during play and then come up with a skill challenge that roughly maps to it? Sure, but why impose the arbitrary scheme in the first place? Why force the sound and the silly into the same probabilistic mold?

The answer is that "all that matters is the raw numbers" is the purpose. Give the players enough options to pick the best numbers, and -- in combination with the "character build" system -- you should end up with about the same most of the time.


----------



## Ariosto

> Since I'm sure you haven't bothered to go look at what I'm talking about here it is:



Great. After your complaint, you not only make it so that in fact there is nothing the players can do to avoid with certainty the certainty of not merely an encounter but an attack: 







> If the party makes no attempt to avoid the bandits failure is automatic. 1st failure: Attacked ...



... but (although this is unclear) you might also impose automatic surprise each time until: 







> 4-5 successes: The group has learned enough about the bandit activity to no longer be surprised by their attacks.



It's fine that you have constructed a game system that you like. As the grand finale of that particular attack on Gygax's game design -- on the basis of a Second Edition work with which (quite poignantly) he had nothing to do -- it is just absurd.

YOU designed that "skill challenge", did you not?

Whatever my view of how much common sense the result demonstrates, I do not see how you can claim that AD&D somehow prevented you from exercising just as much judgment, or even from constructing such a complicated sub-system.

The great bottom-line bafflement is just how you see the "skill challenge" as directed at the same design goals as AD&D1.

I could go into detail, with your concoction as an example, but I think that would be almost as tiresome as a "skill challenge" itself. You can consider for yourself:

_What skills does it challenge?_


----------



## Witty Comeback

Clipped quote, all emphasis mine:







Vyvyan Basterd said:


> SKILL CHALLENGE #1
> Avoiding harrassment by bandits
> Level 4, Complexity 2 (350 XP) [Award XP whether challenge is completed successfully or not - do not award XP for encounters caused by failure.]
> 
> If the party tries to avoid the bandits in the area, each player should make a single check each time the party approaches or leaves the ruins. Award a single success or failure based on whether the checks are a majority success or failure. The Aid Another action is not allowed on these checks. If the party makes no attempt to avoid the bandits failure is automatic.
> 
> Common skill use examples: <snip>
> *Bluff* DC 13 - Seeming to be unworthy of attention or much more powerful.
> *Diplomacy* DC 23 - Attempting to negotiate with the bandits at minimal cost.
> *Intimidate* DC 13 - Seeming tougher and meaner to dissaude bandits from attacking.
> 
> <snip>
> The bandits are coming after you to take your stuff forcibly. Whether that results in combat is up to the players. They could surrender and give the bandits their stuff, they could try to use *diplomacy/bluffs/initimidation* to deter the bandits from attacking or anything else they think of when encountering the bandits.



Given that you've already gone through a Skill Challenge, why would you then allow the PCs to use those same skills to avoid the situation?

I don't have a horse in the edition war race, I am just a guy who likes to game and is strapped for time.  So how is the time and effort justified for writing up and playing a skill challenge like this if, upon failure, the PCs can talk their way out of combat?  Why not just listen to the description of PC precautions, figure out a reasonable probability on the fly, and then adjudicate according to the PCs' reactions?


----------



## bardolph

JRRNeiklot said:


> 25% is pretty damn good for a first level character.




That's precisely my point. 25% is the _upper_ range of a low level thief's ability. Most average characters are rolling against a 10 to 15. Which means, of course, that any thief actually trying to use his professional skills is likely a dead thief. The better strategy is to simply stay out of harm's way and take no chances. But then, why play a thief at all?


----------



## Ariosto

In the Greyhawk campaign, I think the thief was in fact overwhelmingly an NPC class apart from some multi-class characters. One might better ask why play a _human_ thief at all?

"Any thief actually trying to use his professional skills is likely a dead thief." Only if his life depends on it, in which case his plight could only be *worse* without the second chance a thief function provides.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

bardolph said:


> That's precisely my point. 25% is the _upper_ range of a low level thief's ability. Most average characters are rolling against a 10 to 15. Which means, of course, that any thief actually trying to use his professional skills is likely a dead thief. The better strategy is to simply stay out of harm's way and take no chances. But then, why play a thief at all?




No.  A 1st level thief has a 25% chance of picking a lock period.  The only adjustment is for a high dexterity. There is no penalty.


----------



## Ariosto

> No. A 1st level thief has a 25% chance of picking a lock period. The only adjustment is for a high dexterity. There is no penalty.



A dexterity of 9 gives a -10% penalty, one of 10 -5%; an elven thief gets -5%.

A dexterity of 12 or better avoids all penalties but one (-5% to moving silently), and a score of at least 13 avoids that one. By any of Methods I-IV in the DMG (and of course by UA's Method V), it would be most unusual to be unable to assign a 13 or better to dexterity -- in which case one might consider another career than thief.

Obviously, though, a thief with neither bonus nor penalty is in the 10% to 15% range only for the following:

Level 1: silent 15% -- shadows 10% -- hear 10%
Level 2: --------------- shadows 15% -- hear 10%
Level 3: ---------------------------------- hear 15%
Level 4: ---------------------------------- hear 15%


----------



## AllisterH

re: Humanocentric D&D.

In both 3e and 4e, humans are one of the strongest races mechanically speaking. In core 3.x, humans were pretty much considered the BEST race (dwarves might have a chance arguing against that) and in 4e, humans are similarly considered one of the best races (there might be race X and Y  that perfectly synchs with a class, but humans are slowly becoming stronger as more and more options release (another at-will and bonus feat are sweet)

re: Skill Challenges

I always assumed that skill challenges are there for those that have groups were in non-combat they seem trapped like a deer in headlights or there's only one guy who seems to shine at it.

Maybe I'm weird, but I found a lot of groups over the years needed handholding when it came to non-combat scenarios. From coming up with plans to get the attention of the Duke during the annual royal ball to coming up with a plan to sneak into the enemy fortress to simply doing a murder investigation, many players don't seem to know what to do.

The skill challenge idea (it has certainly been refined since the original presentation in the 1st DMG - alot like how other mechanics from Men & Monsters got refined in the next iteration. Contrast the skill challenge chapter in DMG1 with the one in DMG2) is a great mechanic for easing/teaching players how to interact with the world in non-combat scenarios.

I personally have found that if your group ALREADY does all these things, you're not going to use said mechanic but frankly,that's not how most players start off with. 

It certainly took many a years before I would consider my 1e group to be "roleplaying"...the roleplaying mechanic/advice in 1e certainly wasn't what caused it.


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> A dexterity of 9 gives a -10% penalty, one of 10 -5%; an elven thief gets -5%.
> 
> A dexterity of 12 or better avoids all penalties but one (-5% to moving silently), and a score of at least 13 avoids that one. By any of Methods I-IV in the DMG (and of course by UA's Method V), it would be most unusual to be unable to assign a 13 or better to dexterity -- in which case one might consider another career than thief.
> 
> Obviously, though, a thief with neither bonus nor penalty is in the 10% to 15% range only for the following:
> 
> Level 1: silent 15% -- shadows 10% -- hear 10%
> Level 2: --------------- shadows 15% -- hear 10%
> Level 3: ---------------------------------- hear 15%
> Level 4: ---------------------------------- hear 15%




OK, OK, yes. Of course imagine my chagrin after digging through my closet to find my old PHB only to remember that I lent it to a friend several years ago!

But whether we're talking about 10% hide in shadows or 25% for open locks, my point still stands that a 75+% FAILURE rate results in a character who isn't very useful overall.

Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness, or a cleric's 100% success rate when casting Cure Light Wounds, and the thief starts to look like the bastard step-child that he is.

I also found it amusing that MAGIC was the LEAST variable and MOST reliable element in the game.


----------



## Lady Dragon

I voted Other. I don't really think That Gary really understood game balance the way we do today. Especially back in 77, 78 when he was writing it. Game balance wasn't really an issue like it is today. Also I think he was inexperienced and naive enough so that he believed that most people would follow the rules as written ( even though there is evidence that he and his group did not always do so themselves). So even though the 4 main classes are somewhat balanced if you take the long veiw of it into account, with magic-users weak early and very powerful late. Obviously the other classes were superior but hard to roll up if you followed the rule of strict 3d6 for each attribute no exceptions.

However, the hard restrictions on non-humans to their level advancments show that he did take balance into account he felt that their special abilities made them more powerful so he restricted their levels in most classes and restricted what classes they could become.

So while it is obvious that he did take Game balance into account in some ways in other ways he obviously ignored it.

I have long had a theory that what made 3rd edition so special was it was the first edition to acheived game balance by addition instead of subtraction. Gary used subtraction. The non human races had special abilities so he had to subtract from them to achieve balance, by resticting there class choices and level advancement. Paladins could do eveything that fighters could do plus cast spells and turn undead so he had to make it hard to be one and put other sometimes unreasonable restrictions on them. In fact a lot of the unreasonable rules and restrictions from first edition were because of game balance.

But in 3rd edition they used addition. instead of taking something away from non-human characters to make up for the their special abilities they added abilities to humans extra feats and skills) Fighters were no longer just ordinary they got extra abilities (Feats) that Paladins didn't have.

So basically Gary was counting on the roll of the dice to restrict just anyone from playing the premium classes not realizing they most players and DM's would fudge to rolls so that they could play the class that they wanted. It is after all a game and it is about fun so why not.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Ariosto said:


> A dexterity of 9 gives a -10% penalty, one of 10 -5%; an elven thief gets -5%.




I stand corrected.  Somehow I had the idea that an 8 or lower had penalties, and since you have to have a 9 to be a thief.....

At any rate, why play a thief with a 10 dex?  Unless of course, that's all you qualify for.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

bardolph said:


> OK, OK, yes. Of course imagine my chagrin after digging through my closet to find my old PHB only to remember that I lent it to a friend several years ago!
> 
> But whether we're talking about 10% hide in shadows or 25% for open locks, my point still stands that a 75+% FAILURE rate results in a character who isn't very useful overall.
> 
> Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness, or a cleric's 100% success rate when casting Cure Light Wounds, and the thief starts to look like the bastard step-child that he is.
> 
> I also found it amusing that MAGIC was the LEAST variable and MOST reliable element in the game.




The thieves skills are very specialized.  1 in 4 is pretty good odds, considering my chances to pick a lock are about 1 in one million.


----------



## Ariosto

> Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness.



Certainly.

A first level fighter _or cleric_ has a 10% (1.1 x) better chance to hit AC10, a 17% (1.17 x) better chance to hit AC 6 and a 50% (1.5 x 10% = 15%) better chance to hit AC 2, than a first level thief or magic-user.

 He can strike from behind, but does he deal double (100% better) damage? No; nor shall he eventually deal quintuple.

What is the first level fighter's chance of picking a lock? The tenth level fighter's? Of moving _silently_, of hiding _in shadows_ so as to remain unobserved when _in sight_, of climbing like a "human fly"?  What is his chance of ever casting a spell from a scroll, apart from dual-classing? 

A 4% total chance of removing a poisoned needle device is not so great -- but how about a 20% chance of noticing it _in addition to_ whatever other precautions one might take?

Shall we take it that you so disdain your level 1-2 fighter's measly 20% saving throws versus breath weapons and spells as to donate them to a needy thief?


----------



## Ariosto

> Obviously the other classes were superior but hard to roll up if you followed the rule of strict 3d6 for each attribute no exceptions.



They are close enough to _impossible_ to roll up with 3d6 in order -- which naturally was *not among the options presented*.



> Gary used subtraction.



Yes. In the case of the barbarian, subtract the magic-users. What, there can't be any in the campaign? No; *different model of campaign*. How is the barbarian balanced? As a member of a small party of fighters (using Method V and Weapon Specialization), or even as a "lone wolf" ... like Conan or Thongor in so many stories.

How about drow and deep gnomes? They're fine in the Depths of the Earth, especially as _opponents_ of normal AD&D PCs. An all-monsters campaign in the faerie underworld might be splendid. Mixed in with PCs of the standard surface-dwelling races, they are a recipe for trouble primarily (but not solely) because they are so powerful.

*Oriental Adventures*? East is East, and West is West, and the East is better in every way. Dumb move, except that it appealed not only to fanciers of ninjas and samurai but to munchkins everywhere.



> The non human races had special abilities so he had to subtract from them to achieve balance, by resticting there class choices and level advancement.



Yes, but balance was not what he was after there. He wanted to keep at least the highest levels in the campaign packed with humans. 

Subtraction is key in 4e as well. It balances making the magicians more martial by making them less magical (and the warriors more so). Coming from previous games called D&D, that means a net loss either of magic; or of class distinctions; or both.



> But in 3rd edition they used addition. instead of taking something away from non-human characters to make up for the their special abilities they added abilities to humans extra feats and skills) Fighters were no longer just ordinary they got extra abilities (Feats) that Paladins didn't have.



No, they were as much "just ordinary" as ever; but elves and paladins became "just ordinary", too. That is nifty and spiffy and feytouched and dragonborn and all sorts of things ... but it is not what AD&D1 was about.


----------



## Remathilis

bardolph said:


> OK, OK, yes. Of course imagine my chagrin after digging through my closet to find my old PHB only to remember that I lent it to a friend several years ago!
> 
> But whether we're talking about 10% hide in shadows or 25% for open locks, my point still stands that a 75+% FAILURE rate results in a character who isn't very useful overall.
> 
> Compare that to a Fighter's combat effectiveness, or a cleric's 100% success rate when casting Cure Light Wounds, and the thief starts to look like the bastard step-child that he is.
> 
> I also found it amusing that MAGIC was the LEAST variable and MOST reliable element in the game.




While I agree with your premise, I want to point out; clerics with wisdom less than 13 suffer SPELL FAILURE when casting their spells. Granted, its small (20% for wis 9) but it does remind us all that for a game that prided itself on "3d6" bell-curves, your really weren't any good unless you had AT minimum a 13, and realistically a 16 (and most often an 18; come to think of it, I never saw a PC with less than an 18 in prime) prime requisite.

I will agree though that most thief skills were too low. Again, you needed an 18 dex (with its +10 to most skills, give or take) to make them usable at 1st level. Most of the time, low-level thieves were a.) Multi-classed with fighter or magic-user to make them useful or b.) Snipers with a bow until they got some magical items and levels. 

Still, with an 18, a 40% PP, 40 OL, 25% F/RT, 25 MS, 20 HS, 10 HN, 85 CW, and no RL was acceptable. Just make sure you fudged rolled that 18 Dex!

However, backstab was a real waste of time though. First, you had to a.) not be noticed by the foe so, lets pull out that 25/20% success HS/MS rolls, b.) hit, though a +4 was nice, it was usually negated by a thieves less than 17 strengh and 2nd worst thac0; and c.) all for... 1extra dice at low-level, 4 extra at high. Assuming you used a longsword, you did 2d8 damage (+ whatever magical plus, which was NOT doubled). Compared to a fighter whose 18% strength granted him a guaranteed +3-+6 damage per hit (plus spec, if used) and backstab looks kinda pathetic. And that's not EVEN comparing how much easier and more effective a spell from a M-U is!


----------



## Lady Dragon

The original question of this thread was do you think They tried to balance 1st edition not was it balanced. Of course it wasn't balanced,but that's another issue.

All of the elite classes were very unbalanced, with the ordinary ones even barbarians and of course all of the oriental classes were as well ( In fact I think OA's material became the basis for most 2nd edition changes)

Also OA was a late  1st edition book that may have been a practice book for the next edition the fact that although Gary's name appears as the author on the cover David Cook was probably the primary author of that book and he wrote 2nd edition as well. 

As for Drow they were consiered monsters in first edition and monsters were not allowed in the "official rules" so whether they were balanced is not an issue.

And of course the perfect power party in 1st edition differed depending on what level your party was. Low levels needed multiclassed elves high levels needed magic-users.

But again as I said earlier The whole process was new I don't think he fully understood the principles of game balance like we do 32 years later. So ultimately I think he tried to put some balance in but just didn't really know how to do it right.

As for forth edition is it balanced I suppose. Is it better than all its predessors, well.....

And although I understand why balance is important it's not the only thing in a game.


----------



## AllisterH

Again, I'm pretty sure Gygax didnt intend for 3d6 to be the actual default rolling method.

From the 1e PHB



> The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in *no FEWER than two* ability characteristics"




No way no how does 3d6 net you that score on average. Hell, Avg score is 10.5 with a std deviation of 3 meaning that 67% of rolls will not even hit the 15 mark.

Hell, even 4d6 drop 1 on average will net you scores of 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 9 if my brute force computations are right (simulate 1000 rolls and see what the results are).

There's something very, very weird in the rolling method recommended as neither 3d6 or 4d6 drop 1 are good methods if you want to play the game as Gygaxm recommends.


----------



## Remathilis

AllisterH said:


> Again, I'm pretty sure Gygax didnt intend for 3d6 to be the actual default rolling method.
> 
> From the 1e PHB
> 
> 
> 
> No way no how does 3d6 net you that score on average. Hell, Avg score is 10.5 with a std deviation of 3 meaning that 67% of rolls will not even hit the 15 mark.
> 
> Hell, even 4d6 drop 1 on average will net you scores of 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 9 if my brute force computations are right (simulate 1000 rolls and see what the results are).
> 
> There's something very, very weird in the rolling method recommended as neither 3d6 or 4d6 drop 1 are good methods if you want to play the game as Gygaxm recommends.




We used *Method XVIII*: roll 4d6, drop the lowest around 7 or 8 times, re-rolling any ones, and setting an 18 into Str (warriors, roll % and re-roll any roll below 50%), Dex (rogues), Int (wizards) or Wis (Priests) as needed. 

We found it usually worked.


----------



## Ariosto

I don't think the thief was intended to be such a generally good player choice as a fighter, cleric or magic-user, especially for frequent play. One can recruit a thief as henchman, unless one is a paladin. Then again, "should any player want to be one," a hobbit fighter/thief might be more attractive than a level-capped fighter.

(Note that halflings don't get the one-level lift that dwarves and elves get in AD&D. Opportunities to exceed the old limit even with high strength are so limited that only tallfellows with an 18 on the dice start able to reach 5th. For them to reach 6th, or for stouts to reach 5th, requires somehow _exceeding the racial maximum!_)

Given the same x.p., a thief is a level ahead of a fighter at low levels, or three ahead at high levels. That doesn't make it generally as "powerful" in any clear way -- and I don't think it any coincidence that it's the one class in which all the standard demihumans except half-orcs -- who substitute assassin -- get unlimited advancement. (Half-elves also get druid.)

The basic problem is that the thief's functions tend to be Plan B.

You can give a thief of any level a 100% chance to pick a lock, simply by allowing repeated attempts until success (greater expertise translating thus into greater speed). It's still preferable to open a lock _with the key_.

A thief can climb a wall with a chance of falling and breaking his neck -- or anyone can do it more safely with proper equipment (such as rope).

Why try to remove a trap, at risk of getting hurt, when you can instead set it off while clear? Why not bypass it altogether? Obviously, there are sometimes going to be significant answers to those questions -- but too often, among poor players, it's just, "Duh. I dunno."

For them, the thief was created. Well, actually I think it was created for players who said, "If only we could find out that a locked chest is full of copper _before_ we go to the trouble of hauling it back to town."

You mean without removing the hinges? "Yeah, that takes time -- even more if the hinges are hidden -- and makes noise. Smashing is sometimes faster, but leaves the chest useless. And those metal chests are a real drag. Then there are the occasional locked doors and portcullises. And traps! Poisoned needles and spring blades are bad enough, but damn poison gas!"

A magic-user can cast _knock_, and a cleric can cast _find traps_. "Yeah, but those are second level spells. The m-u in particular has a limited supply, and none at all before third level." The supply is even more limited in AD&D than in the older game.

"Right, so it would be neat if we could get a little edge in that department." If we come across three chests, and 3rd-level spell-casters can deal with only one, then about a 33% chance with some other method would be about the same ...


----------



## Remathilis

Ariosto said:


> I don't think the thief was intended to be such a generally good player choice as a fighter, cleric or magic-user, especially for frequent play.




Its this mindset that reminds me why I no longer play pre-2000 versions of D&D...

Older D&D is littered with all sorts of hidden "gotchas!" that seem powerful (or merely "viable") that turn out to be hoses. Druids (and monks) for example, seem fine until name level; then your leveling becomes tied solely to social-promotion and ritual combat. Likewise; Demi-humans seem greatly powerful until you realize few, if any, ever reach name level due to level-limits. Its also no secret magic-users tend to dominate the game in high-level play (with clerics being no slouch either). 

Say what you want about Gygax's notion of "balance" the one thing I've always seen as a liability to the game was these weird "artificial" limits to character longevity; why get attached to your druid/assassin/elf PC when he's going to retire after X level because he can no longer advance and your left in the dust? I guess that explains why Greyhawk is known for its human wizards and their lackeys!

While never perfect, the one thing I applaud 3e for was TRYING to make up the perceived imbalance between classes like this by removing level limits, strengthing some classes (like thief/rogue) and attempting to make such choices viable, if not always optimal. 

Because why should the guy pretending fling fireballs have more fun than the guy pretending to be an elf or the girl who wants to pick NPC's pockets?


----------



## Ariosto

The game is largely what one makes of it.

If you want to gain levels most rapidly, then the druid beats the thief up to 11th. On the other hand, the thief attains "name" level sooner -- and does not hit the druid's ceiling. On the gripping hand, starting his own gang means starting a war to the death.

If you want an especially sneaky scout character, then an elf or halfling (especially one with infravision) -- not in metal armor -- is a good choice. If you want a non-human (not part-human) with unlimited advancement, then a thief is the only choice.

(The exception to resurrection used to be halflings, but in AD&D it's elves and half-orcs -- worth noting if your career plan includes getting killed.)

Dwarves have a racial ability (specified in AD&D as having a 50% chance) to detect traps involving pits, falling blocks and other stonework. Gnomes have 70% to detect "unsafe walls, ceilings or floors".

The thief's function, per the PHB, "pertains to relatively small mechanical devices such as poisoned needles, spring blades, and the like".



Gauntlets of Dexterity (.06%), Gauntlets of Swimming and Climbing (C, F, T, .09%), Boots of Elvenkind (0.18%), a Cloak of Elvenkind (0.27%), a Ring of Invisibility (.35%) ... Yes, there are magic items that let their possessors do more or less some things a thief can do. Note, however, that they serve to _enhance_ a thief's capabilities! Given their rarity, the advantage -- should one aim to undertake such adventures as those treasures would facilitate -- of having a thief before (as well as after) acquiring any, should be clear enough.

"Optimization" isn't everything, if one has the temperament to roll dice for ability scores in the first place. Yeah, someone else might start with a higher score than your best, or with a higher average. Odds are, someone else _has!_ So, maybe you just happen to have fun playing a human thief.

Having fun, whatever that means to you, should be enough in a game form that otherwise has no set conditions for "winning". (A tournament scenario is something else.) That very personal objective seems to be the most important thing by far, and may find different outlets in different characters.

Those AD&Ders who especially enjoy playing thieves (or magic-users, or monks, or halflings, or the allegedly "plain Jane" human fighter, or what have you) could tell of memorable exploits to make not only the day but a player's career. I have no doubt that they are out there because, from what I have seen, the class has never ceased to be represented.

As with the magic-user or illusionist -- as, really, with any character of any class -- what matters most is what you make of it. Some are pretty easy to play moderately well, with less of a dynamic range beyond that. Others both call for and reward greater skill, or by default leave more to chance.


----------



## Ariosto

> Its this mindset that reminds me why I no longer play pre-2000 versions of D&D...



It's not for everyone, obviously.

But neither is either of WotC's games.

I think one reason _Unearthed Arcana_ seems so unbalancing is that it really is leaning toward new balances tailored to different modes of play. My guess is that a Gygaxian second edition, while not quite sharing the WotC ethos, would have been better suited to the kind of game many people already were playing. It probably would also have continued the Bigger! More! trend, front-loading more chrome than the actual (post-Gygax) Second Edition -- with thinner "core" books and a long line of supplements -- did.



> Its also no secret magic-users tend to dominate the game in high-level play (with clerics being no slouch either).



It's odd that you say it's "also no secret" after going on about "all sorts of hidden 'gotchas'!" The PHB clearly states: 







> Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak.



How is anything else of that sort "hidden", pray tell? I don't think it's necessary to see anything in the DMG to make a fair appraisal. Certainly everything you mentioned about druids, monks and demi-humans is laid out plainly in the PHB.

How about 3e, eh? Was it really a "gotcha" to find out that removing all the burdens AD&D had laid upon them made spell-casters really, _really_ top dogs -- and not with such a long, hard way to the top, either?



> Say what you want about Gygax's notion of "balance" the one thing I've always seen as a liability to the game was these weird "artificial" limits to character longevity; why get attached to your druid/assassin/elf PC when he's going to retire after X level because he can no longer advance and your left in the dust?



Sure, after how many years? And really, who says that such an extraordinary individual can go no further? Did you miss the bit about "tallfellows that *somehow obtain* 18 strength"? Check out the pre-generated characters for the Giants-Drow tournament modules. If memory serves, some of those break not only the limits in the PHB (which was published around the same time) but even those of the UA (not yet even a twinkle in Gary's eye). There are probably more examples elsewhere. In D&D, what is impossible? Where there's a will, there is probably a way (and it probably involves a perilous quest).

Anyway, there is plenty more to do than rack up levels -- and indeed the game was designed to get into matters of greater importance on the stage of history. Go ahead and play 17th-, or 27th-, or 57th-, or 107th-level characters, if that's your cup of tea. Except for rare sessions, that has not held much appeal for players of my acquaintance.

Heck, isn't 3e (which so many people complain about playing past 10th) capped at 20th level, and 4e at 30th?

*Go ahead* and take off the limits if you want! Why don't the elves rule the world? What does a druid do after burning through the levels in UA? One might add a "hidden imam" assassin HD and more levels, but ... 

How much further is it really worthwhile to go? The magic-user's spell-casting maxes out at 29th level (7.5 million experience points). I have most often seen characters retire before or at about the same 1.5 million as for the PHB assassin or druid. That would be a Wizard (14th); Master Thief (16th or 17th); a Lord (13th); a High Priest (14th or 15th). Characters other than thieves have pressed on to 16th, 17th or 18th level, but rarely in my experience. I have heard of characters of higher levels, but don't recall offhand seeing one (played all the way from 1st, or even having started at 4th).

The levels past 14th or so seem to figure mainly in the persons of NPCs -- mainly *villains* of such might as to challenge a whole party of PCs and threaten a world (or several) with Dark-Lord-ish dooms. (30th is "high level" even for the gods in _D&D/L&L_, but they tend to have _far_ more hit points than that would suggest!)

"Different strokes", though!

*The really fundamental thing to understand* is that AD&D was not designed for the kind of campaign in which anyone is "_forced"_ to keep playing a character. A _lot_ of things get broken when you shove them into the context of a campaign limited to a single monolithic party of characters advancing through time, space and levels in lockstep. If you are allowed only one character per campaign, and get Hobson's choice of playing that character -- perhaps on an adventure determined by the DM, no less -- or not playing at all ... then it is no wonder that rules designed for *quite a radically different game* are less than satisfactory.

That whole game form, right from first premises, is unsatisfactory if what one really wants is what 4e is designed to provide. With 3e, you get a transitional form that is either the best or the worst of both worlds (probably depending on whom you ask).


----------



## Treebore

First off, read my sig.

Now not only did Gary and crew do their best to write as well balanced a game as they could at the time, but he also expected us to use our own judgement as our games grew and progressed.

Many of us did, because many, if not all, wrote house rules to fix things we found to be broken during our game experiences.

So Gary and crew knew very well their rules set was not perfect and needed further adjudication on an individual basis, which is why they wrote what is in my sig.

So not only did they do their best to "balance" 1E, but after 25 years I am more convinced than ever that they did a pretty good job, considering they were the first to ever try to do so with a game sold on such a scale.

Sure, people can sit here 30+ years later and claim they could have done better, but thats a safe claim to make since they can never prove it.

Plus Gary and company never, ever, for one minute, or even a second, tried to make the classes balanced between one another. 

They knew the mage would eventually become the most powerful PC. They knew the Thief pretty much sucked in combat. They knew that when it came to pure thump the fighter was the best in pretty much every situation, especially when magic was "dead" for whatever reason.

I think people had a problem with running 1E for many reasons. In my experience the biggest was that DM's didn't know that part of maintaining balance was to also know what each and every spell did. That way they knew what could negate those scrying spells, stop teleportation, or to make one single magic item with one 6th level spell in it that would allow a fighter to kill any spell caster once they got in range.

So yes, the game was far from being perfectly balanced, but it had a lot more balance to it than many seem willing to give it credit for. It was certainly the best for its time, and some of its bigger flaws are made even more obvious by decades of exposure to other game mechanics.

Todays games are built on identifying the mistakes of the past and figuring out ways to do it better.

I recently went back and played 1E for a few sessions. Yes, it has some things that still rub me the wrong way. You know what? With all the games I have ran and played in since I last ran 1E 20+ years ago, I can go back and house rule 1E better than I ever did before, and make it run a heck of a lot better than it ever did back in the day.

I imagine every one who visits these boards and used to also play 1E at one point could also do the same.

How good of a game do you think you could make it be today?


----------



## Votan

Treebore said:


> I recently went back and played 1E for a few sessions. Yes, it has some things that still rub me the wrong way. You know what? With all the games I have ran and played in since I last ran 1E 20+ years ago, I can go back and house rule 1E better than I ever did before, and make it run a heck of a lot better than it ever did back in the day.




Not to try to be a Grognard, but the old rules hold up surprising well, if played as intended.  It's remarkable how nic the system runs with a lot fewer pages (abd how wonderful the 1st Ed DMG is as a rulebook).  

Sure, there have been some nice advances since then but it is interesting how robust the underlying system is . . . and how easy to house rule.  The higher complexity of later systems actually makes it easier to knock things out of balance.  The high threat level makes it hard for any character to really try and do everything themselves and there are some really nice options.

Best of all, the classes seem to be fun to play and the focus was on that much more than making surte every character was equal.  In that respect, I still think we could learn a lot from the older system.  

I reread my 1st Ed books tonight and it really is surprising how fast it is to read and how easily things fit together.


----------



## Lanefan

A few things...

Minor nitpick: Isn't a Thief's backstrike damage (with a longsword) defined as 1d8 x 2 rather than 2d8? 







bardolph said:


> In my experience, it was usually in retrospect that players realized how gypped certain classes were. Wizards and thieves usually had a short life span, but were almost universally chosen by new players. Players that wanted to play for the long term usually chose a fighter, cleric, or some variant of either. Or, they would roll up a wizard or thief, die, then reroll a cleric or fighter.
> 
> Long-term thieves and wizards were played by casual players. Sometimes they were there, sometimes they weren't. But it didn't matter much, since their usefulness was so limited anyway. They did add plenty of flavor, though.




From 28+ years of these games (all 1e-based), these are the classes of the 10 characters with the longest adventuring careers (measured by number of adventures):

1. Assassin (!)
2. Magic-user
3. Fighter
4. Cleric
5. Fighter
6. Cleric
7. Magic-user
8. Magic-user/Druid*
9. Fighter/Thief
10. Illusionist

* - probably impossible using 1e RAW; however, we're a lot more flexible with allowable multi-class combinations.

3-and-a-half of the top 10 look like wizard-types to me.   And 1-and-a-half are rogue-types...



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> The really fundamental thing to understand is that AD&D was not designed for the kind of campaign in which anyone is "forced" to keep playing a character. A lot of things get broken when you shove them into the context of a campaign limited to a single monolithic party of characters advancing through time, space and levels in lockstep. If you are allowed only one character per campaign, and get Hobson's choice of playing that character -- perhaps on an adventure determined by the DM, no less -- or not playing at all ... then it is no wonder that rules designed for quite a radically different game are less than satisfactory.



A highly salient point.  The assumed-at-design-level party makeup and turnover rate in 1e is vastly different than in 3-4e; obviously, this affects the end-product game system.  1e assumed a large party, with characters joining, leaving, dying, retiring, etc. on a somewhat regular basis.  3e and 4e both assume a small tight party that as far as possible keeps the same members.

Part of this runs into an even deeper 1e assumption: that the players in a given campaign might also not remain constant, and the campaign might outlast any one of them (except, of course, the DM).  3-4e seem to expect that the players who start a campaign will stick around for the year or two it takes to finish it.

In my own experience I've noticed a huge difference between what I call "linear" campaigns (one continuing party, usually because the DM will not or cannot run a second game, sometimes with "lockstep" mechanics as noted by Ariosto) and multi-party campaigns; the party dynamics in the linear ones are sometimes quite contrived, and in some cases stilted, as if a character does not fit with the party there is nowhere else for it to be played.  The multi-party campaigns seem more fluid; turnover - and thus, in-party change - can be achieved simply by characters switching parties.

The rules of all editions so far have been designed for the linear campaign type.  Sometime, I'd love to see a DMG delve into ideas on how to manage a multi-party campaign.

I'm rambling, so if anything above does not parse please let me know and I'll try again. 

Lanefan


----------



## Votan

Lanefan said:


> From 28+ years of these games (all 1e-based), these are the classes of the 10 characters with the longest adventuring careers (measured by number of adventures):
> 
> 1. Assassin (!)




That's really nifty.  What level did (s)he die or retire at?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> The "imbalance corrected" here in 4e is the variation in ability among players. The influence of skill that seems not just permitted but encouraged in the combat game is clearly not desired elsewhere.




I disagree. Skill Challenges encourage players to think of innovative ways to use their character's skills to their fullest. For those with experience, like my players, their is no cue from me about how to solve a problem in character. For players without experience it can help them realize how to use their character's skills to solve a problem.



Ariosto said:


> AD&D1 was designed to give player skill scope in actual strategic and tactical decisions of combat (while not imposing time-consuming minutia) -- *and* in other undertakings.




So do more modern editions. The difference is that there is now a framework that determines what capabilities your character possesses instead of relying solely on player skill. You formulate the plan, your character's skills determine whether said plan will succeed.



Ariosto said:


> So, the DM in 4e does not set the factors for a skill challenge? The DMG reads, "set the complexity based on how significant you want the challenge to be. ... Set a level for the challenge and DCs for the checks involved."
> 
> Again, it's not a matter of "skills". Come on -- _you_ tell _me_ how the DM setting the difficulty is any different from calling for "skill checks" or other rolls without the 4e formalism. All your +5 in Balderdash says is that you're a better choice to roll than some other player. The DM dictates where your chance falls between 0% and 100% (probably pretty shakily, with the "x successes before y failures" rule).




I was trying to draw parallels between editions, not mark differences.



Ariosto said:


> The big difference is that this abstraction has taken priority -- if not over completely, to the point that _it does not matter_ what your supposed "plan" is. All that matters is the raw numbers.




Bogus. You've not read a skill challenge at all then. Your plan influences the outcome of a skill challenge directly.



Ariosto said:


> It is obviously at its worst with a pre-designed formula (as in a published scenario). Could a DM instead first look at a plan during play and then come up with a skill challenge that roughly maps to it? Sure, but why impose the arbitrary scheme in the first place? Why force the sound and the silly into the same probabilistic mold?




As a measure of reward for overcoming a challenge. Not everything should be a Skill Challenge. And I have seen some published ones that shouldn't be. I've also seen some published ones that are BAD. But I see the potential in the structure and don't find them to be the least bit "silly."



Ariosto said:


> The answer is that "all that matters is the raw numbers" is the purpose. Give the players enough options to pick the best numbers, and -- in combination with the "character build" system -- you should end up with about the same most of the time.




You could say the same about the game of Dungeons and Dragons over time. But with the right spirit put towards the game it becomes something more.



Ariosto said:


> Great. After your complaint, you not only make it so that in fact there is nothing the players can do to avoid with certainty the certainty of not merely an encounter but an attack: ... but (although this is unclear) you might also impose automatic surprise each time until: It's fine that you have constructed a game system that you like. As the grand finale of that particular attack on Gygax's game design -- on the basis of a Second Edition work with which (quite poignantly) he had nothing to do -- it is just absurd.




I'm not trying to attack 1E here. I noted a _specific_ module. I didn't claim it to be indicative of 1E AD&D. There is no auto-surprise, just *no* chance of surprise after enough successes. And I've already explained what I've meant by Attack. What do the bandits in your games do? Deliver daisies to the adventures and ask to be friends? No, they attack. Whether that becomes combat or not depends on what you (the players and DM) do.



Ariosto said:


> YOU designed that "skill challenge", did you not?




Yes.



Ariosto said:


> Whatever my view of how much common sense the result demonstrates, I do not see how you can claim that AD&D somehow prevented you from exercising just as much judgment, or even from constructing such a complicated sub-system.




I did not claim that 1E prevented this. I was drawing parallels. I did claim that the particular passage in the module seemed to give you no such options, but as you pointed out the advice was not direct in the text, but implicit in the system.



Ariosto said:


> The great bottom-line bafflement is just how you see the "skill challenge" as directed at the same design goals as AD&D1.




It's obviously not the same design goal, it has a different structure. But it can net the same result. Either method can be used to good or ill effect.



Ariosto said:


> I could go into detail, with your concoction as an example, but I think that would be almost as tiresome as a "skill challenge" itself. You can consider for yourself:
> 
> _What skills does it challenge?_




My skill challenge challenges the players' skill of caution. It tests their skill in ingenuity to solve a problem using the tools at their character's disposal. And it tests the characters' skill as to whether the player's plans will succeed or fail.



Witty Comeback said:


> Given that you've already gone through a Skill Challenge, why would you then allow the PCs to use those same skills to avoid the situation?




The difference is that they would be using those skills in an immediate confrontation. _I_ believe said skills would be harder to use once bandits are bearing down on you and your stuff, but I wouldn't rule out their use entirely.



Witty Comeback said:


> I don't have a horse in the edition war race, I am just a guy who likes to game and is strapped for time.  So how is the time and effort justified for writing up and playing a skill challenge like this if, upon failure, the PCs can talk their way out of combat?  Why not just listen to the description of PC precautions, figure out a reasonable probability on the fly, and then adjudicate according to the PCs' reactions?




Why have chances at all for random encounters if you're strapped for time? This skill challenge takes only as much time as the players devote to it. And at their discretion. If players are instigating the challenge or ignoring the danger wantonly one would have to believe they are doing so because that is the way they enjoy playing. Why not just do this without a skill challenge? I agree, if you don't want to spend the time creating them, then don't. They're hardly *necessary* to play the game. But _I_ believe they have gotten a bad rap and can be a fun way to adjudicate matters in the game.

And there is no edition war going on here despite how much Ariosto is trying to convince people I hate 1E. It is my 2nd favorite edition of D&D to date and I've never had any hateful feelings towards it.


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> I don't think the thief was intended to be such a generally good player choice as a fighter, cleric or magic-user, especially for frequent play. One can recruit a thief as henchman, unless one is a paladin. Then again, "should any player want to be one," a hobbit fighter/thief might be more attractive than a level-capped fighter.
> 
> (Note that halflings don't get the one-level lift that dwarves and elves get in AD&D. Opportunities to exceed the old limit even with high strength are so limited that only tallfellows with an 18 on the dice start able to reach 5th. For them to reach 6th, or for stouts to reach 5th, requires somehow _exceeding the racial maximum!_)
> 
> Given the same x.p., a thief is a level ahead of a fighter at low levels, or three ahead at high levels. That doesn't make it generally as "powerful" in any clear way -- and I don't think it any coincidence that it's the one class in which all the standard demihumans except half-orcs -- who substitute assassin -- get unlimited advancement. (Half-elves also get druid.)
> 
> The basic problem is that the thief's functions tend to be Plan B.
> 
> You can give a thief of any level a 100% chance to pick a lock, simply by allowing repeated attempts until success (greater expertise translating thus into greater speed). It's still preferable to open a lock _with the key_.
> 
> A thief can climb a wall with a chance of falling and breaking his neck -- or anyone can do it more safely with proper equipment (such as rope).
> 
> Why try to remove a trap, at risk of getting hurt, when you can instead set it off while clear? Why not bypass it altogether? Obviously, there are sometimes going to be significant answers to those questions -- but too often, among poor players, it's just, "Duh. I dunno."
> 
> For them, the thief was created. Well, actually I think it was created for players who said, "If only we could find out that a locked chest is full of copper _before_ we go to the trouble of hauling it back to town."
> 
> You mean without removing the hinges? "Yeah, that takes time -- even more if the hinges are hidden -- and makes noise. Smashing is sometimes faster, but leaves the chest useless. And those metal chests are a real drag. Then there are the occasional locked doors and portcullises. And traps! Poisoned needles and spring blades are bad enough, but damn poison gas!"
> 
> A magic-user can cast _knock_, and a cleric can cast _find traps_. "Yeah, but those are second level spells. The m-u in particular has a limited supply, and none at all before third level." The supply is even more limited in AD&D than in the older game.
> 
> "Right, so it would be neat if we could get a little edge in that department." If we come across three chests, and 3rd-level spell-casters can deal with only one, then about a 33% chance with some other method would be about the same ...



Wow. You've pretty much nailed it.


----------



## Remathilis

Lanefan said:


> Minor nitpick: Isn't a Thief's backstrike damage (with a longsword) defined as 1d8 x 2 rather than 2d8?




Its ambiguous in 1e, but Basic/BECMI and 2e imply you roll the die twice, not double the result.


----------



## Treebore

Votan said:


> Not to try to be a Grognard, but the old rules hold up surprising well, if played as intended.  It's remarkable how nic the system runs with a lot fewer pages (abd how wonderful the 1st Ed DMG is as a rulebook).
> 
> Sure, there have been some nice advances since then but it is interesting how robust the underlying system is . . . and how easy to house rule.  The higher complexity of later systems actually makes it easier to knock things out of balance.  The high threat level makes it hard for any character to really try and do everything themselves and there are some really nice options.
> 
> Best of all, the classes seem to be fun to play and the focus was on that much more than making surte every character was equal.  In that respect, I still think we could learn a lot from the older system.
> 
> I reread my 1st Ed books tonight and it really is surprising how fast it is to read and how easily things fit together.




Over all I agree. By and large I enjoyed playing it again, but there are definite tweaks I will do to it, pulling from other games I have played over the years, to make it much more enjoyable for me, and I am pretty sure it will be much more enjoyable for those who play it with me.

I agree the focus is not for the classes to be equal in combat, it was for them to be best at what niche they filled. Personally I think that is a good idea, since all our real lives are about being as good and successful as we can be in our own little niche. So I like it better than the "Master of all trades" approach so many games take today. Personally I am tired of games that allow my PC to be the superman. I much prefer having the limited range of abilities and resources and see what I can do within my areas of expertise.


----------



## bardolph

Lanefan said:


> From 28+ years of these games (all 1e-based), these are the classes of the 10 characters with the longest adventuring careers (measured by number of adventures):
> 
> 1. Assassin (!)
> 2. Magic-user
> 3. Fighter
> 4. Cleric
> 5. Fighter
> 6. Cleric
> 7. Magic-user
> 8. Magic-user/Druid*
> 9. Fighter/Thief
> 10. Illusionist



Cool. You're experience was different from mine. To be honest, I didn't spend a great deal of time in 1e before moving on to 2e (which I thought was a big improvement).

I saw a few campaigns where the DM wanted to start the game at a higher level (5, 7, or 9), and at these levels, it definitely makes a lot more sense to play a wizard.

However, I still found thieves to be pretty useless even as high as 7th level. Of course, it was almost guaranteed that a thief would have obtained _boots (or cloak) of elvenkind_ or a _ring of invisibility_ by this point, but it added insult to injury to realize that a ranger with the same equipment was far more useful.

I also had several friends who somehow managed to level their wizards up to 7th level or higher from the start, but in all of these cases they were small gaming groups (3 people max, including the DM), so there was probably much less pressure on these characters to "pull their weight" while slogging through these levels.

I'm surprised about your Assassin. Just out of curiosity, how did you adjudicate the Assassination table?


----------



## Ariosto

> You formulate the plan, your character's skills determine whether said plan will succeed.



See, there's the problem with skill challenges in 4e: *The plan* determines nothing. It's just post-facto "narration", explicitly not meant to be any more than an excuse to let a skill play a part in the challenge. At best, it's a plausible rationale for whatever the dice dictate.



> My skill challenge challenges the players' skill of caution. It tests their skill in ingenuity to solve a problem using the tools at their character's disposal.



If you really want to test players' ingenuity at solving a problem, then -- I know this is a really wild idea! -- let them *actually solve the problem*.

Just play it out like anything else: Here's what you perceive; what will you do? Adjudicate on the basis of the particular circumstances.

The reason to mess with that straightforward process is definitely not to get the same result -- because the process *is* the key result!



> And there is no edition war going on here despite how much Ariosto is trying to convince people I hate 1E.



Huh?? Wrong.

I have tried to convince you that how much you happen to like 4e "skill challenges" *has nothing to do with whether AD&D1 was designed for game balance*. How much you happen to like 4e "skill challenges" is _not the topic of this thread_.


----------



## Lanefan

Votan said:
			
		

> That's really nifty. What level did (s)he die or retire at?



He ended up almost all the way through 10th level in a very slow-advancing game; and the only reason he retired was because the campaign ended.  Had he been just about any other class he'd have been higher, but Assassins kinda ground to a halt after 9th.  He started either at raw 1st or partway through 1st.







bardolph said:


> I'm surprised about your Assassin. Just out of curiosity, how did you adjudicate the Assassination table?



Didn't have to use it much, truth be told; which meant than when I did need it, I looked it up and figured it out the hard way.  He was usually played very much like a Thief who could fight, and the party accepted him because by the time they found out he was an Assassin instead of a Fighter he'd become senior member of the party...and not because he killed off the others!

Also, he was a Dwarf.  A long time ago we really eased off on the class-race level limits, and pretty much anyone could go as high as their abilities took them in Thief or Assassin.

Lanefan


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> See, there's the problem with skill challenges in 4e: *The plan* determines nothing. It's just post-facto "narration", explicitly not meant to be any more than an excuse to let a skill play a part in the challenge. At best, it's a plausible rationale for whatever the dice dictate.



One possibility is to present the skill challenge without revealing which skills are important. The Players choose their actions, then the DM has them roll skill checks whenever appropriate and conducts the number crunching secretly throughout the challenge.

This is similar to a DM who keeps monster armor class and hit points secret during a combat.



> If you really want to test players' ingenuity at solving a problem, then -- I know this is a really wild idea! -- let them *actually solve the problem*.




This sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. Depends on the nature of the challenge. For example, you can't ask players to pick a lock for you at the table.

Also, it's reasonable to expect that the PC will know things that the player doesn't. For example, History, Arcana, Insight, Perception.

Even for something like Diplomacy, it might be difficult for a shy player to represent a character with a silver tongue and good public speaking skills. This is especially true for younger players.



> Just play it out like anything else: Here's what you perceive; what will you do? Adjudicate on the basis of the particular circumstances.



The same held true for combat. However, as combat rules became more codified and streamlined over the editions, running combat became more smooth and consistent.

Skill challenges are simply a framework for making non-combat encounters run more smoothly and consistently.

Example: the PCs decide to sneak inside a local noble's house to steal a letter intended for the king. Rather than playing the robbery as a dungeon crawl using maps, tokens, and monster stats, you can run this as a skill challenge. Very handy when the DM isn't in the mood to gen up a map in the middle of a session.


----------



## Ariosto

> One possibility is to present the skill challenge without revealing which skills are important.



Right. Let's play "guessing game". After all, it doesn't _really_ matter what we're doing -- so why should we even know?

"Mischief moves somewhere near and I must blast it with my magic!"
"First you are swathed head to foot in the intestines of fresh killed owls."
"We go to the image expander; there we will explode the ghost to the macroid dimension."
"Until work has reached its previous stage nympharium privileges are denied to all."
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."

"I rolled an 18!"
"For what?"
"How should _I_ know?"



> This is similar to a DM who keeps monster armor class and hit points secret during a combat.



No, it's not. It's similar to a DM who keeps secret the fact that he's "fudging" or "railroading". Or a DM who's so stoned he has no more idea of what's going on than the players have.



> For example, you can't ask players to pick a lock for you at the table.



I _can_, but I won't. So, make a roll against "lock picking skill" or whatever. What's this got to do with 4e "skill challenges"?



> Also, it's reasonable to expect that the PC will know things that the player doesn't. For example, History, Arcana, Insight, Perception.



What, you think the character -- which in fact does not exist -- knows numbers on a character sheet but the player does not? [/joke] Just tell the player,

"Be warned that tales told have it that this being possesses powers which make him nearly undefeatable! Accounts relate that it is quite unlikely that any adventurers will ever find the chamber where the demi-lich Acererak lingers, for the passages and rooms of the Tomb are fraught with terrible traps, poison gases, and magical protections. Furthermore, the demi-lich has so well hidden his lair, that even those who avoid the pitfalls will not be likely to locate their true goal. So only large and well-prepared parties of the bravest and strongest should even consider the attempt, and if they do locate the Tomb, they must be prepared to fail."

Or whatever. Again, what has this to do with 4e "skill challenges"?



> Even for something like Diplomacy, it might be difficult for a shy player to represent a character with a silver tongue and good public speaking skills.



But he *is* a _player_, right? A DUNGEONS & DRAGONS player? So he's not too shy to turn into a cross between Sun Tzu and Patton as soon as the DM says, "Roll initiative."

It's not an audition for Masterpiece Theater. I am not eager to sit through a thespian performance by someone whose fantasy is to have social skills -- any more than I want Fat Ninja Boy to demonstrate his character's martial arts technique. I just want to know what in blazes he's talking *about*. Is he diplomatically offering a large sum of money for a little favor, or is he diplomatically asking for a handout just because ... well, just because? It makes a difference.

_If_ a dice-roll is called for, then the circumstances are going to affect the probabilities of different outcomes.

Again, what has this to do with a 4e "skill challenge"?

I've been playing games with "skill systems" -- starting in my case with *Traveller* and *RuneQuest* -- over a span of 30 years. They had nothing to do with a 4e "skill challenge" and I _want_ nothing to do with it.


----------



## Gimby

Ariosto said:


> Right. Let's play "guessing game". After all, it doesn't _really_ matter what we're doing -- so why should we even know?
> 
> "Mischief moves somewhere near and I must blast it with my magic!"
> "First you are swathed head to foot in the intestines of fresh killed owls."
> "We go to the image expander; there we will explode the ghost to the macroid dimension."
> "I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
> 
> "I rolled an 18!"
> "For what?"
> "How do I know?"
> 
> No, it's not. It's similar to a DM who keeps secret the fact that he's "fudging" or "railroading". Or a DM who's so stoned he has no more idea of what's going on than the players have.




Ludicrious hyperbole isn't really making your point.

The above is as reasonable as saying that a situation thats addressed by a skill challenge in 4e was covered by playing Mother-May-I in 1e.

Lets take the example of avoiding bandits on the way back from Castle Greyhawk.  

In both cases the party makes a plan.  Lets say they are going to avoid the bandits by travelling away from the roads near areas where bandit ambushes are expected.  

What is now in question is *whether or not they can execute this plan*.  Different games approach this in different ways.  You can take the strategy game approach of plotting out the group's movement and the bandit's positions and see if they interact.  You can declare by fiat that the plan succeeds or fails. You can ask for a single roll.

The skill challenge approach is to get the players to use their character's skills in an attempt to execute their plan.  The players must use their best judgement to determine which skills are appropriate.

So an example of play might be:

Players: We want to avoid the bandits on the road back to town.
DM: Ok, how do you plan on doing that?
Players: We'll travel away from the roads near ambush spots.
DM: Ok, I'll run this as a skill challenge!
<DM creates skill challenge with difficulties based on the abilities of the bandits, their dispositons and the quality of the plan - a plan to avoid bandits by say, dressing up as an undefended merchant caravan is going to fail whatever you do.  This is a decent plan as the DM knows the bandits are really only watching the road, so its an easy challenge>
DM:You are on the road from Castle Greyhawk, the morning sun burning away the mists as you face the day's travel.  Player A, how are you helping perform your plan?
Player A: I'm going to try to remember where the town's history say bandits lurk on this road, or where there were famous attacks.  Rolling History!
DM: Ok, thats a success - you remember  that bandits used to ambush people in Dead Man's Valley and the Singing Wood, so be sure to avoid those.  Wracking your brain takes some time and keeps you a little distracted from the road.  Player B?
Player B: I'm going to keep a sharp lookout for bandits! Perception.
DM: Ok, success! You keep watch, wary for bandits. Player C?
Player C:  I jump really high in the air looking for bandits, bouncing along! Acrobatics!
DM: You sure? Thats pretty silly and doesn't really apply to your plan at all.
Player C: Sure! its my best skill and must be applied at all times!
DM: Sorry, thats a failure.  Kicking up lots of dust from the road and bouncing about is only going to attract the attention you are trying to avoid. Player D?
Player D: I'm going to scry on the Dead Man's Valley, looking for bandit activity.  
DM: Ok, you perform the short ritual and get a picture of the famous ambush spot.  Theres no sign of bandit activity there, so you can probably save some time and go down it. Thats a success.  Anyone else?
Player B: I pray to Pelor to watch over us.  Religion.
DM: Well, Pelor watches over you but thats not going to help you avoid bandits, so thats not relevant.
Player D: I help Character A keep watch, Perception.
DM: Success, with the two of you watching nothing shoud get past you.  Ok, challenge succeded- <proceeds to quickly narrate the days travel, passing down Dead Man's Valley but avoiding the Singing Wood where bandits are spotted - pausing to let the characters give C grief for being an idiot and for D and A to have a theological arguement over lunch>

So, simple skill challenge there where the DM didn't tell the players the skills needed ahead of time and based entirely on what the players wanted to do.  Tell me, whats so awful about it?


----------



## AllisterH

Ariosto said:


> But he *is* a _player_, right? A DUNGEONS & DRAGONS player? So he's not too shy to turn into a cross between Sun Tzu and Patton as soon as the DM says, "Roll initiative."
> 
> It's not an audition for Masterpiece Theater. I am not eager to sit through a thespian performance by someone whose fantasy is to have social skills --




From my PoV, you're actually arguing FOR skill challenges here Ariosto.

D&D has always handheld/provided options so that the player who doesn't know his Sun Tzu from Mary Sue knows what to do in a combat situation. There's weapons, feats, spells, HP etc. 

All of these "combat" information help a player become "effective" in D&D battle even if they've never even participated in so much as a pillow fight.

I think the issue is that for MANY a player, when it came to non-combat situations, the game just said "act it out/describe how you would do it" and that's it.

The equivalent in combat would be something more akin to the narrative style of combat in say an Indie game like "Sorceror".


----------



## FireLance

As I have said in other threads and in my blog:
To me, skill challenges strike a middle ground between a very free-form problem-solving approach which is almost entirely dependent on player skill/DM adjudication (e.g. solve this mystery) and a very mechanical, rules-defined approach to tackling common (but specific) problems (e.g. opening locks, noticing secret doors, finding and removing traps, following tracks).

Properly used, the skill challenge framework can give you the best of both approaches. An inventive player can come up with creative solutions to the skill challenge, or novel ways to use the skills he is good at, and the DM can allow the use of those skills to score successes, or even award successes without the need to make a skill check. On the other hand, a player who is more comfortable working within a fairly well-defined framework can simply run through his character's list of trained skills and pick one that seems appropriate to the challenge.

... if you are inclined to allow player skill and creativity to solve problems in your games, the presence of the skill challenge mechanic should not prevent you from doing so. Feel free to allow players who come up with good ideas to overcome skill challenges without rolling for skill checks - just as if the skill challenge mechanic did not exist. 

If you want to give clever and creative players an advantage, but are not prepared to let them solve the problem without rolling dice, then the granular nature of skill challenges (in that a certain number of "successes" are required before the skill challenge is overcome) allows you to reward good ideas with more successes if the PC makes the skill check, or even automatic successes (less than the total number of successes required, if you do want the PCs to make some skill checks). 

Of course, none of the above is very useful if you are faced with a bunch of players who just go through their PCs' skill lists and roll dice. Under such circumstances, a DM who wants to encourage more imagination and out of the box thinking from the players should start hinting that such approaches would be more advantageous, and then actually reward the players' attempts, perhaps erring on the side of generosity, at least at first, to encourage more of such creativity in the future.​


----------



## Ariosto

> Tell me, whats so awful about it?



Tell me what makes it a 4e "skill challenge".

What makes the critical difference from playing out a situation in any of myriad other "skills-based" RPGs?

We both know what that is. You ought to, anyway, if you're going on about how grand it is.

What it is _not_ is the design paradigm of 1st ed. AD&D. If it _is_ your concept of essential "game balance", then of course in that sense AD&D was not designed for "game balance".


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gimby said:


> So, simple skill challenge there where the DM didn't tell the players the skills needed ahead of time and based entirely on what the players wanted to do.  Tell me, whats so awful about it?




It is far worse (IMHO) than:

Players: We want to avoid the bandits on the road back to town.

DM: Ok, how do you plan on doing that?

Players: We'll travel away from the roads near ambush spots.

DM: How, exactly?  You are currently on the road from Castle Greyhawk, the morning sun burning away the mists as you face the day's travel.

Player A:  Do I know where bandits lurk on this road, or where there were famous attacks?

DM:  You remember that bandits used to ambush people in Dead Man's Valley and the Singing Wood, because there is plenty of cover there.  Of course, that's no guarantee -- the bandits are likely to know this as well!

Player B: I'm going to keep a sharp lookout for bandits!

DM: Ok, but that sort of goes without saying! You keep watch, wary for bandits.

Player C: I jump really high in the air looking for bandits, bouncing along! 

DM: You sure? That's pretty silly, and likely to kick up lots of dust from the road.  It's also likely to tire you out, leaving you fatigued if you do encounter any bandits!

Player C:  You're right.  Never mind.

Player D: I'm going to scry on the Dead Man's Valley, looking for bandit activity. 

DM: Ok, you perform the short ritual and get a picture of the famous ambush spot. Theres no sign of bandit activity there _*right now*_. 

Player A:  Of course, we still don't know where the bandits are, so we're still going to have to pick a route.....

etc.

*************************

The "skill challenge" as presented assumes a few odd things, such as that using one's perception where there are no bandits somehow tells you something other than that you see no bandits at your current location.  Why is it less silly to make a Perception check before picking a route than it is to bound along like a giant grasshopper?  IMHO, they apply equally as presented -- which is to say, not at all.

Why would a player even imagine that bounding would help?  Because his reading of the skill challenge formula suggests that it would!  

Moreover, let us assume momentarily that the DM knows where the bandits are.  Presumably, then, scrying on their location reveals the bandits, and scrying elsewhere does not.  If you know where the bandits are, they should be relatively easy to avoid.  Why bother with the "skill challenge"?  If you know where they are not, that knowledge can help you pick your route, but why would the PCs not have to still pick their route?

"If they're not at Dead Man's Valley, they're probably in the Singing Wood.  We cut off the road there to the east, giving the Singing Wood a wide berth."

Again, if the bandits are in the Singing Wood, why bother with the rest of the "skill challenge"?  If they are not, how did the scrying actually help the PCs?

This just smacks of the "quantum states" approach that 4e seems built around.  The bandits are in/not in the area you pass through based on your skill checks.

I have no problem with random encounter frequency being reduced through skill use....woodcraft, for example.....but the idea that a set encounter changes locations because the players decide to have their characters march down the King's Highway, and, hey, they made X successes before Y failures, sets my teeth on edge.

YMMV, of course.

RC


----------



## billd91

Raven Crowking said:


> *************************
> 
> The "skill challenge" as presented assumes a few odd things, such as that using one's perception where there are no bandits somehow tells you something other than that you see no bandits at your current location.  Why is it less silly to make a Perception check before picking a route than it is to bound along like a giant grasshopper?  IMHO, they apply equally as presented -- which is to say, not at all.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This just smacks of the "quantum states" approach that 4e seems built around.  The bandits are in/not in the area you pass through based on your skill checks.
> 
> I have no problem with random encounter frequency being reduced through skill use....woodcraft, for example.....but the idea that a set encounter changes locations because the players decide to have their characters march down the King's Highway, and, hey, they made X successes before Y failures, sets my teeth on edge.
> 
> YMMV, of course.
> 
> RC




I think we're laboring under an example of a skill challenge that isn't particularly good. Of course PCs are going to use perception to foil a potential bandit ambush. That's how the rules in general are applied when the ambush actually starts! So it's not really appropriate to use in a skill challenge to figure out what road to use to avoid bandit attacks.

A better challenge would probably involve using History (history of notorious bandit attacks), Nature (knowing good paths that avoid or reduce ambush terrain), Streetwise (getting info from the locals about recent bandit activity, some of whom may be working with the bandits and may unwittingly reveal some hints), and Bluff (giving the impression that you're far too dangerous for bandits to even try to attack, when you really might not be). Get enough successes and you can chart a course that keeps you safe from bandits. The skill challenge mainly gives the DM a chance to think out what might be helpful and allows him to jot down what sort of success level is necessary before he's willing to declare that the PCs have achieved their objective. 
What a skill challenge won't do, in this case, is prevent the players from being uncreative or foolish in the tactics they use to try to meet and overcome the challenge. I could certainly see players in 1e declaring some of the same silly or useless ideas as the ones in Gimby's example.

On the subject of quantum states, that's not exactly new with 4e. I've been using "quantum" encounters since 1e and I still use them in 3.5. It's simply a tactic for reusing planned out resources you've got when PCs go whereever they want, particularly if they are following a particular plot line for part of the campaign and they get way off track or the DM wants to change the pacing of the campaign.


----------



## billd91

Ariosto said:


> Tell me what makes it a 4e "skill challenge".
> 
> What makes the critical difference from playing out a situation in any of myriad other "skills-based" RPGs?
> 
> We both know what that is. You ought to, anyway, if you're going on about how grand it is.
> 
> What it is _not_ is the design paradigm of 1st ed. AD&D. If it _is_ your concept of essential "game balance", then of course in that sense AD&D was not designed for "game balance".




What makes it a skill challenge? Structure on the DM's end. That's about it. It's really not that different from other skill-based RPGs, nor is it all that different from the design paradigm of 1e except that it's got a defined set of tools feeding into it that did not exist in 1e rather than entirely ad hoc adjudications.


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> I think we're laboring under an example of a skill challenge that isn't particularly good.




The problem is that yours is not particularly better.

The initial example used History (as does yours).  Nature is an improvement, but how Streetwise is going to help you now that you are on the road, or how you are going to successfully Bluff bandits you haven't encountered is just more Grasshopper Bounding.

Moreover, the supposed strength of the "skill challenge" system is that the players get to use the skills thier PCs are good at, rather than (as in all other skill-based systems) the ones that obviously apply.

Appropriate knowledge-based skills (History, Nature, Local[?]) give the _*players*_ the means to make informed choices.  Everything else?  Grasshopper Bounding.

Frankly, I fail to see *anything* that "skill challenges" are an improvement on from complex skill checks in 3e.



> On the subject of quantum states, that's not exactly new with 4e.




The degree of reliance on quantum states -- and with it, the decrease in player choices being meaningful in determining outcomes -- is.

IMHO, at least.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> See, there's the problem with skill challenges in 4e: *The plan* determines nothing. It's just post-facto "narration", explicitly not meant to be any more than an excuse to let a skill play a part in the challenge. At best, it's a plausible rationale for whatever the dice dictate.




*THE PLAN* determines what skills the characters use to try to accomplish their plan. 1E Players: "We try to move steathily through the area to avoid contact with the bandits." -Plan. 1E DM: "Have the Thief roll Move Silently and the elf roll a d6. The fighter, cleric and wizard aren't very skilled at that, so..." [I don't remember how to adjudicate this by 1E rules, but by common sense I'd have to decide whether they succeed or fail.] 4E Players: "We try to move steathily through the area to avoid contact with the bandits." -Plan. 4E DM: "Each of you roll a Stealth check." [By the setup of my skill challenge if more PCs succeed than fail, then they have succeeded.]

It is in no means "Post-facto narration." The PCs plans directly result in how they deal with the bandits.



Ariosto said:


> If you really want to test players' ingenuity at solving a problem, then -- I know this is a really wild idea! -- let them *actually solve the problem*.




Here's a even wilder idea! *I AM!* _They_ determine a course of action - a plan - the skill challenge gives some *examples* of ideas they may come up with. These examples allow me to pre-determine how easy or difficult I think a plan will be instead of implementing it on the fly and to have a comparison point for plans that the players think of that I didn't, because ya know player do that sometimes.



Ariosto said:


> Just play it out like anything else: Here's what you perceive; what will you do? Adjudicate on the basis of the particular circumstances.




*It does play out like that!* I _don't_ announce I my game show voice "SKILL CHALLENGE TIME!!!" I set up the area, they hear rumors of bandits, what do you do? You are adjudicating on the fly. I've put preparation into my adjudication. Different methods. Same results.



Ariosto said:


> The reason to mess with that straightforward process is definitely not to get the same result -- because the process *is* the key result!




The part of the process _you_ consider key is still alive and well _if_ a skill challenge isn't treating like a little side game. A skill challenge is nothing more than a semi-prepared adjudication framework. It is not meant to take the place of the process.



Ariosto said:


> I have tried to convince you that how much you happen to like 4e "skill challenges" *has nothing to do with whether AD&D1 was designed for game balance*. How much you happen to like 4e "skill challenges" is _not the topic of this thread_.




Trying to convince me that I'm off-topic by continuing an off-topic discussion? Good plan. I'll accept that we've gotten off-topic.



bardolph said:


> One possibility is to present the skill challenge without revealing which skills are important. The Players choose their actions, then the DM has them roll skill checks whenever appropriate and conducts the number crunching secretly throughout the challenge. Skill challenges are simply a framework for making non-combat encounters run more smoothly and consistently.




Exactly. The Skill Challenge is a DM adjucation tool, not a player tool. That's why it's in the DMG, not the PHB. A good skill challenge will pass without the players ever knowing it took place.



Ariosto said:


> Right. Let's play "guessing game". After all, it doesn't _really_ matter what we're doing -- so why should we even know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ariosto said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it a guessing game for 4E payers when apparently 1E players could figure out a plan without even a skill framework? The challenge isn't "figure out what skill the DM wants me to use," it is "figure out a plan that works." A good 4E DM will use a skill challenge that is open to many different reasonable player plans just like a good 1E DM who is open to many different reasonable player plans. A bad 4E DM (or badly written Skill Challenge) will stifle player ideas, only accepting his own ideas of what will work, just as a bad 1E DM will stifle player ideas, only accepting his own ideas of what will work.
> 
> 
> 
> Ariosto said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. It's similar to a DM who keeps secret the fact that he's "fudging" or "railroading". Or a DM who's so stoned he has no more idea of what's going on than the players have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You typed the owl intestine passage and then accuse others of being stoned? How does a DM who has prepped for possible player plans in a given situation versus one that adjudicates players plans on the fly have "no more idea of what's going on than players have?"
> 
> 
> 
> Ariosto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to know what in blazes he's talking *about*. Is he diplomatically offering a large sum of money for a little favor, or is he diplomatically asking for a handout just because ... well, just because? It makes a difference. _If_ a dice-roll is called for, then the circumstances are going to affect the probabilities of different outcomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And still makes a difference under the current skill system and therefore the skill challenge structure.
> 
> 
> 
> Ariosto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been playing games with "skill systems" -- starting in my case with *Traveller* and *RuneQuest* -- over a span of 30 years. They had nothing to do with a 4e "skill challenge" and I _want_ nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one said you had to have anything to do with skill challenges. I've said that from the start of this tangent. But your attitude towards them that I'm a somwhow inferior DM than you because I use them sparked this whole mess. And just because you've played a couple more years than me and played a couple of games I've not played doesn't make you some kind of mighty expert.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> A skill challenge is nothing more than a semi-prepared adjudication framework. It is not meant to take the place of the process.




We can agree to disagree on this one.  I think that it was, initially, meant to take the place of the process, but that WotC modified this subsequently when they realized that wasn't what players wanted.

Still, if you look at this thread (and others), it becomes obvious that (1) some DMs do announce skill challenges, and (2) some of the ideas as to how they should be resolved feed directly into the criticisms levelled against them.

I think, had the designers understood how much players would latch onto them, skill challenges would have been given a lot more thought upfront.

This is rather like prestige classes in 3e.  They were, at first, for DMs.  They were in the DMG, after all.  But what did they become?



> A good skill challenge will pass without the players ever knowing it took place.




This I would agree with.

The question I have, though, is how are skill challenges an improvement over complex skill use from 3e (in the UA)?  

I can't think of any way, and I believe that the format causes more problems than it resolves.  The example skill challenges that I have seen nearly all point in this direction.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> The "skill challenge" as presented assumes a few odd things, such as that using one's perception where there are no bandits somehow tells you something other than that you see no bandits at your current location.  Why is it less silly to make a Perception check before picking a route than it is to bound along like a giant grasshopper?  IMHO, they apply equally as presented -- which is to say, not at all.






billd91 said:


> I think we're laboring under an example of a skill challenge that isn't particularly good. Of course PCs are going to use perception to foil a potential bandit ambush. That's how the rules in general are applied when the ambush actually starts! So it's not really appropriate to use in a skill challenge to figure out what road to use to avoid bandit attacks.




I think you are looking at this wrong. The Perception check made in the context of a skill challenge isn't a matter of what the character perceives right at that moment, but instead a measure of how perceptive the character is during the execution of the party's plan.



Raven Crowking said:


> Why would a player even imagine that bounding would help?  Because his reading of the skill challenge formula suggests that it would!




This is why I suggest _not_ letting the players realize they are in a skill challenge. Players look for ways to use things to their best advantage and have their characters act in unnatural ways sometimes. Unless you're going to take control of their character you have to let them do stupid things and mock the silliness in-game.



Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, let us assume momentarily that the DM knows where the bandits are.  Presumably, then, scrying on their location reveals the bandits, and scrying elsewhere does not.  If you know where the bandits are, they should be relatively easy to avoid.  Why bother with the "skill challenge"?  If you know where they are not, that knowledge can help you pick your route, but why would the PCs not have to still pick their route? "If they're not at Dead Man's Valley, they're probably in the Singing Wood.  We cut off the road there to the east, giving the Singing Wood a wide berth." Again, if the bandits are in the Singing Wood, why bother with the rest of the "skill challenge"?  If they are not, how did the scrying actually help the PCs?




It was mentioned that there are different approaches to this. Plotting out exact movements of the bandits and then plotting out the exact route the PCs take would not require a skill challenge. That challenge is more tactical. The skill challenge instead presents a more abstract resolution. I prefer the abstract only because I do not wish to spend too much time detailing the land between Greyhawn City and Ruins.



Raven Crowking said:


> This just smacks of the "quantum states" approach that 4e seems built around.  The bandits are in/not in the area you pass through based on your skill checks.




Or it is abstract. How many 1E DMs with a random bandit encounter chart like the one in the module knew where the bandits were? You didn't even know how many there were and of what kind or whether they would even show up (1 in 6 chance). This was an abstraction back then and the skill challenge changes it into a different kind of abstraction now.



Raven Crowking said:


> I have no problem with random encounter frequency being reduced through skill use....woodcraft, for example.....but the idea that a set encounter changes locations because the players decide to have their characters march down the King's Highway, and, hey, they made X successes before Y failures, sets my teeth on edge.




Well luckily the example was based on random encounters, not a set one.



Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, the supposed strength of the "skill challenge" system is that the players get to use the skills thier PCs are good at, rather than (as in all other skill-based systems) the ones that obviously apply.




No. That is not a strength of the system. The strength is in the framwork it provides the DM to fairly and consistently adjudicate non-combat encounters. It is not an exercise in trying to find a use for your key skill in every circumstance.



Raven Crowking said:


> Frankly, I fail to see anything that "skill challenges" are an improvement on from complex skill checks in 3e.




I'm not familiar with 3E complex skill checks. But no one has been arguing skill challenge vs. complex skill checks, so why would you even bring it up?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> We can agree to disagree on this one.  I think that it was, initially, meant to take the place of the process, but that WotC modified this subsequently when they realized that wasn't what players wanted.




Whatever the original intent was, their use has evolved, even in WotC published material.



Raven Crowking said:


> Still, if you look at this thread (and others), it becomes obvious that (1) some DMs do announce skill challenges, and (2) some of the ideas as to how they should be resolved feed directly into the criticisms levelled against them.




Poorly written skill challenges and DMs who don't use them in a meaningful way should not condemn the framework. It would be akin to saying that module B1 was atrocious and therefore BD&D is terrible too.



Raven Crowking said:


> I think, had the designers understood how much players would latch onto them, skill challenges would have been given a lot more thought upfront.




Well they didn't, get over it. If you don't want them like Ariosto, then the lack of original effort means nothing to you. And if you do want to use them there is alot of growth and advice on how to make them relevant and interesting now.



Raven Crowking said:


> This is rather like prestige classes in 3e.  They were, at first, for DMs.  They were in the DMG, after all.  But what did they become?




A powergamers wet dream? 

That's why I advocate for keeping the SC as a DM tool, used wisely, to provide fun non-combat encounters that have equal weight to combat encounters. Not just shooed away with fiat or a single die roll.


----------



## AllisterH

Oh, the designers themselves didn't have a handle on skill challenges completely at the time of the DMG1. You're right RC to compare it to PrC in that initially, I don't think they realized exactly what they were doing 100%.

However, DMG2 shows that they have a much better handle on it. Indeed, there's a section that talks about "transparency" of one and Mearls actually recommends NOT announcing a skill challenge unless the players are totally lost.

Also has good advice on alternatives to the skill challenge such as the group check or skill tests.

Contrast DMG2 (22 pages -10 pages of advice/info/rules and 10 pages of sample skill challenges)

vs

DMG1 (4 pages - 4 pages of advice/info/rules and 4 pages of examples)

BTW: How the hell did we end up from the OP to 4e skill challenge?


----------



## billd91

Raven Crowking said:


> The problem is that yours is not particularly better.
> 
> The initial example used History (as does yours).  Nature is an improvement, but how Streetwise is going to help you now that you are on the road, or how you are going to successfully Bluff bandits you haven't encountered is just more Grasshopper Bounding.
> 
> Moreover, the supposed strength of the "skill challenge" system is that the players get to use the skills thier PCs are good at, rather than (as in all other skill-based systems) the ones that obviously apply.
> 
> Appropriate knowledge-based skills (History, Nature, Local[?]) give the _*players*_ the means to make informed choices.  Everything else?  Grasshopper Bounding.




There you would be wrong. Bandits usually exist within a local population of supporters or other people knowledgeable about them. Streetwise is a way to get information from those people in the small towns that dot the landscape or from travellers on the road. Bluff works against the same population, giving the bandits' network of information gatherers and mark spotters the impression that you're not worth the effort.

Your discounting of skills like that is a failure of imagination, something that the skill challenge, thought out in advance, can help to prevent on the DM's part.



Raven Crowking said:


> Frankly, I fail to see *anything* that "skill challenges" are an improvement on from complex skill checks in 3e.




They're frankly not that different from them, true. Just promoted to being part of the core rules instead of a supplemental suggestion in the experimental rules book.


----------



## billd91

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think you are looking at this wrong. The Perception check made in the context of a skill challenge isn't a matter of what the character perceives right at that moment, but instead a measure of how perceptive the character is during the execution of the party's plan.




I don't think I'm looking at it wrong. If the skill challenge is to avoid bandit encounters by finding a better route, then using perception to foil the ambush in place says tha the challenge has failed, they've picked the bandit-ridden path, and now have to deal with it. By then, perception is too late.

Now, if you were involved in foiling an ambush that's in place, then I don't think a skill challenge is the way to run it. You'd deal with a full-on encounter. Maybe perception will help you detect it, stealth or other skills help you get around it, combat ability help you fight through it, but by then I don't really think it's a skill challenge as much as it's a potential combat encounter that can be dealt with in a mix of combat and non-combat tactics.


----------



## billd91

Raven Crowking said:


> The degree of reliance on quantum states -- and with it, the decrease in player choices being meaningful in determining outcomes -- is.
> 
> IMHO, at least.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> 
> RC




If the PCs have come up with a good plan - a good use of skills to overcome a skill challenge in charting a bandit-free path - they've made meaningful choices that determine the outcome of their actions. If not, then I pull the bandit encounter out of my pocket and lay it out on the table. That's not really less meaningful than me putting the bandits on road A and giving the PCs the choice of taking road A or B.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Well luckily the example was based on random encounters, not a set one.




Was it?  Where was this stated?  I apparently missed it.



> That is not a strength of the system.




Here we agree.



> I'm not familiar with 3E complex skill checks. But no one has been arguing skill challenge vs. complex skill checks, so why would you even bring it up?




Because it is relevant.  I wasn't aware that there was a permission-only clause on EN World towards being the first to bring things up.  Is it in The Rules?  

It is clear to me that skill challenges were built out of complex skill checks.  The question of which works better is relevant.  After all, complex skill checks should work in 4e just fine.

IMHO.  YMMV.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Whatever the original intent was, their use has evolved, even in WotC published material.




I stopped reading 4e materials past the Core core, so I don't have first-hand knowledge of its evolution, although I have heard as much.  Still, the examples one sees on EN World do not lead me to believe that the evolution has been sufficient yet.

Or, at least, not sufficient to warrant the hype.



> Poorly written skill challenges and DMs who don't use them in a meaningful way should not condemn the framework.




Agreed, if there is strong evidence that they are in the minority.  Otherwise, what we have is the kernel of a mechanic that has yet to sprout into a fully fledged tool.  

That some people have sprouted it on their own should not be taken to support the framework, either.

I would also argue that conversations like this are useful for the designers, should they happen to read them.  Who knows?  Perhaps the seed of a Dragon article appeared in your last post!



> That's why I advocate for keeping the SC as a DM tool, used wisely, to provide fun non-combat encounters that have equal weight to combat encounters. Not just shooed away with fiat or a single die roll.




I agree with your advocation.

That the check is not the result of fiat, though, is a (perhaps welcoms?) illusion.  



AllisterH said:


> Oh, the designers themselves didn't have a handle on skill challenges completely at the time of the DMG1. You're right RC to compare it to PrC in that initially, I don't think they realized exactly what they were doing 100%.
> 
> However, DMG2 shows that they have a much better handle on it.




I would be interested in reading that text, but am not going to buy another hardcover for a game I don't play.   So I will just accept your word.  



> BTW: How the hell did we end up from the OP to 4e skill challenge?




I think it goes something like this:

1.  Was 1e designed for game balance.
2.  What do you mean by game balance?
3.  You know, like what 4e has.  That's the only definition of game balance there is.
4.  I am fairly certain that there are other types, and that some parts of 4e's game balance damage other types of game balance.
5.  For instance?
6.  Skill challenges.

Etc.

Now, I don't hold that skill challenges are necessarily a bad thing.  But I do argue that I have yet to see an example of a skill challenge where said challenge is the best mechanic for the job, out of the mechanics already devised and available to the designers of 4e.

On this or on a forked thread, I would love to see an example of a good skill challenge.  By a good skill challenge, I mean one that is (1) not Grasshopper Bounding, and (2) not better served by other mechanics.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> There you would be wrong. Bandits usually exist within a local population of supporters or other people knowledgeable about them. Streetwise is a way to get information from those people in the small towns that dot the landscape or from travellers on the road.




What people?  You are adding material to the example presented.  This is no different than perceiving the bandits from miles away because you make a Perception check.  Until the PCs encounter people, you are Grasshopper Bounding.

This feeds into Ariosto's argument about skill checks being used to avoid interacting with the world.  If the PCs run into fellow travellers, or run into small towns, they can interact at that point.  However, their initial statement was that they would stay off the road, right?

You are also, BTW, feeding into Ariosto's argument, where the PC skill checks begin to define the world, as opposed to reacting to the world as presented.   



> Your discounting of skills like that is a failure of imagination




And then the Godwin comes out.



Colour me unimpressed.


RC


----------



## billd91

Raven Crowking said:


> What people?  You are adding material to the example presented.  This is no different than perceiving the bandits from miles away because you make a Perception check.  Until the PCs encounter people, you are Grasshopper Bounding.




Not if the PCs trek cross country a little way to consult with the farmers a few miles away. Castle Greyhawk isn't so remote that this is not possible considering farm children sometimes skirt the outer bounds of the location according to at least one of the modules in which it has appeared. That's looking at the resources and skills they have and putting leverage on them to make them useful without being silly. That's a mark of good play.




Raven Crowking said:


> This feeds into Ariosto's argument about skill checks being used to avoid interacting with the world.  If the PCs run into fellow travellers, or run into small towns, they can interact at that point.  However, their initial statement was that they would stay off the road, right?
> 
> You are also, BTW, feeding into Ariosto's argument, where the PC skill checks begin to define the world, as opposed to reacting to the world as presented.




Or they use the skill checks to _inspire_ a way to interact with the world. To find ways to bring their skills to bear.




Raven Crowking said:


> And then the Godwin comes out.
> 
> 
> 
> Colour me unimpressed.




In fact I _was_ unimpressed with your statement that you could only think of knowledge skills being of any use. Looking at the situation like you're building a skill challenge can give DMs a focus for thinking of the ways a skill could be used in a situation that isn't obvious.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

billd91 said:


> I don't think I'm looking at it wrong. If the skill challenge is to avoid bandit encounters by finding a better route, then using perception to foil the ambush in place says tha the challenge has failed, they've picked the bandit-ridden path, and now have to deal with it. By then, perception is too late.
> 
> Now, if you were involved in foiling an ambush that's in place, then I don't think a skill challenge is the way to run it. You'd deal with a full-on encounter. Maybe perception will help you detect it, stealth or other skills help you get around it, combat ability help you fight through it, but by then I don't really think it's a skill challenge as much as it's a potential combat encounter that can be dealt with in a mix of combat and non-combat tactics.



[/QUOTE]

Perception can be used at a greater distance than encounter range. Staying vigilant and watching for trouble in the distance can alter your path. Another good reason why "choose your path" as presented by others is too limited. Continuous information could make the characters want to alter the execution of the plan midway.



Raven Crowking said:


> Because it is relevant.  I wasn't aware that there was a permission-only clause on EN World towards being the first to bring things up.  Is it in The Rules?
> 
> It is clear to me that skill challenges were built out of complex skill checks.  The question of which works better is relevant.  After all, complex skill checks should work in 4e just fine.




Maybe it would be more relevant if you actually discussed _what_ makes complex skill checks a better mechinc than skill challenges? I have as little knowledge of 3E complex skill checks as you do 4E DMG2 skill challenges.



Raven Crowking said:


> I would also argue that conversations like this are useful for the designers, should they happen to read them.  Who knows?  Perhaps the seed of a Dragon article appeared in your last post!
> 
> I agree with your advocation.




Thank you. You've at least discussed the matter though you disagree.



Raven Crowking said:


> That the check is not the result of fiat, though, is a (perhaps welcoms?) illusion.




Before we start a whole line of quibbling over the meaning of the word fiat, I meant a yes/no decision made solely by the DM. I know a DM sets DCs and _can_ set them to achieve certain results.



Raven Crowking said:


> I think it goes something like this:
> 
> 1.  Was 1e designed for game balance.
> 2.  What do you mean by game balance?
> 3.  You know, like what 4e has.  That's the only definition of game balance there is.
> 4.  I am fairly certain that there are other types, and that some parts of 4e's game balance damage other types of game balance.
> 5.  For instance?
> 6.  Skill challenges.




Uh, no. More like:

1.  Was 1e designed for game balance.
2.  What do you mean by game balance?
3.  Discussion of balance then and balance now, how they can be different but the same, etc.
4.  Thinly veiled attack on 4E as a game that runs from one hour long combat to the next.
5.  VB the 4E Paladin reacts with a Nu-uh! Uses skill challenges as an example.
6.  Swirl around the drain...



Raven Crowking said:


> Now, I don't hold that skill challenges are necessarily a bad thing.  But I do argue that I have yet to see an example of a skill challenge where said challenge is the best mechanic for the job, out of the mechanics already devised and available to the designers of 4e.




I'm not trying to find best, I'm looking for interesting to me. Is it _better_ to run a skill challenge vs. the common sense approach of 1E? No. It's just a different method to achieve the same end goal. The 1E method allows you to, as Ariosto says, get on with the game. And that's fine and I loved that method for many many years. The skill challenge attempts to add a resolution mechanic to non-combat encounters that has only previously existed in combat encounters. I find the exploration of its use interesting now. But I'm not going to say it's better and only take offense to those trying to tell me that the common sense approach is the One True Way.



Raven Crowking said:


> On this or on a forked thread, I would love to see an example of a good skill challenge.  By a good skill challenge, I mean one that is (1) not Grasshopper Bounding, and (2) not better served by other mechanics.




Click the link in my sig, you tell me. I've 2 of 2 people give positive feedback to the exact example we are using in this thread.



Raven Crowking said:


> What people?  You are adding material to the example presented.  This is no different than perceiving the bandits from miles away because you make a Perception check.  Until the PCs encounter people, you are Grasshopper Bounding.
> 
> This feeds into Ariosto's argument about skill checks being used to avoid interacting with the world.  If the PCs run into fellow travellers, or run into small towns, they can interact at that point.  However, their initial statement was that they would stay off the road, right?
> 
> You are also, BTW, feeding into Ariosto's argument, where the PC skill checks begin to define the world, as opposed to reacting to the world as presented.




The world as presented is limited to what the DM has thought of before sitting down to the table. And you won't have presented every possible thing to the players before they sat down (or immediately following). If the players plans involve looking for local connections to the bandits and you didn't consider that possibility you decide as DM at that point whether those connections exist and therefore whether a check in that regard would succeed or fail. Nothing is the framework *forces* you as DM to define your game world in any way you don't want to.


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> Tell me what makes it a 4e "skill challenge".




The core mechanic of the 4e skill challenge is the "three strikes and you're out" rule. If the PC's fail 3 times while rolling mission-critical skill checks, it's time for the DM to call it a failure and end the encounter.

It's actually a good guideline to follow. Even if the DM is totally winging it, he knows that 3 failures is the right time to "call in the guards," or invoke whatever penalty appropriate to the situation.


----------



## billd91

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Perception can be used at a greater distance than encounter range. Staying vigilant and watching for trouble in the distance can alter your path. Another good reason why "choose your path" as presented by others is too limited. Continuous information could make the characters want to alter the execution of the plan midway.




If that's the way you wanted to make the skill challenge, I suppose. But I wouldn't do it that way. Looking at the example you link to in your sig, I don't think I'd be very satisfied with that skill challenge or that style of skill challenge. It looks to me like a combination of ways to avoid the bandits and simultaneously encounter the bandits with the goal being avoiding trouble and not necessarily avoiding the bandit encounter. The way I'd run a skill challenge would be in avoiding the encounter entirely. If they were then encountered and parley ensured, I might then have a different skill challenge for negotiating through the encounter and avoiding trouble.
The way I see it, these can be two discrete challenges, approached in substantially different ways. And any skill challenge(s) I would come up with would incorporate that. That's why perception would be pretty out for my first challenge, though I can see a place for it in the second if you successfully spot any hidden assets the bandits might be holding in reserve - forcing them to put their cards on the table as it were...


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> Not if the PCs trek cross country a little way to consult with the farmers a few miles away.




While there may be skill checks involved in doing this, choosing to do this is not a skill check.

If I were to accept your argument at face value, then I would also have to accept that the Grasshopper Bounder was perfectly correct, and it was just your failure of imagination that you could not see this.  Likewise, if I tried Swimming, I am sure that there is a way that it could be made relevant, if only one didn't lack the imagination to make it so.  

Or, for that matter, Banjo Playing and Nose Picking.  What?  You don't think Nose Picking is relevant?  Shows your lack of imagination.

And, if the PCs go and talk to the farmers or whathaveyou, then their success or failure obviates the need for the skill challenge or does not, in exactly the same way as the scrying example.

Your response, AFAICT, is exactly what Ariosto is talking about.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

@VB:

I didn't disagree; I agreed.  SC as a mechanic is best used when the players are unaware of it, and the DM is using it as a rough benchmark.  Moreover, it is best used when "skill checks" are played through.

IOW, *the less the skill challenge resembles the original presentation, the better it is*.  I will readily agree that good DMing can trump a bad mechanic.

However, that said, I don't think it is very good even as a rough benchmark, at least not based upon the presentation that I have seen, nor does it seem superior to the mechanics it replaced.  What it seems best at is supplying the DM with the illusion of having a good benchmark.  This in itself may be useful for some, of course.

OTOH, I haven't read the DMG 2, so perhaps the failure is in the examples I've seen, rather than in the (current) presentation.  


RC


----------



## billd91

Raven Crowking said:


> While there may be skill checks involved in doing this, choosing to do this is not a skill check.




Choosing to do this allows you to use Bluff and Streetwise in the bandit avoidance skill check. 



Raven Crowking said:


> If I were to accept your argument at face value, then I would also have to accept that the Grasshopper Bounder was perfectly correct, and it was just your failure of imagination that you could not see this.  Likewise, if I tried Swimming, I am sure that there is a way that it could be made relevant, if only one didn't lack the imagination to make it so.
> 
> Or, for that matter, Banjo Playing and Nose Picking.  What?  You don't think Nose Picking is relevant?  Shows your lack of imagination.




And this is just showing the failure of logic in this argument. Being able to imagine a decent way to use a skill in a challenge is not even close to being able to or required to incorporate them all.
There may be ways to use bounding like a grasshopper or banjo/nose picking in certain kinds of skill challenges, particularly ones that involve amusing the fairly easily amused like inbred kings and small children. But avoiding encounters with bandits, probably not. Though I'd be open to using them to amuse the bandits after they were encountered and thus avoiding a fight...



Raven Crowking said:


> And, if the PCs go and talk to the farmers or whathaveyou, then their success or failure obviates the need for the skill challenge or does not, in exactly the same way as the scrying example.




It would be a piece of the information puzzle - but not necessarily deterministic of success/failure of the skill challenge. The farmer may know something about the bandit behavior from where he's spotted camp fires, how often they seem to move around, but he may not know exactly where they are either. But, putting his information together with what history and nature tell the PCs, they may be able to figure out a best course of action.


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> Right. Let's play "guessing game". After all, it doesn't _really_ matter what we're doing -- so why should we even know?
> 
> "Mischief moves somewhere near and I must blast it with my magic!"
> "First you are swathed head to foot in the intestines of fresh killed owls."
> "We go to the image expander; there we will explode the ghost to the macroid dimension."
> "Until work has reached its previous stage nympharium privileges are denied to all."
> "I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
> 
> "I rolled an 18!"
> "For what?"
> "How should _I_ know?"



Hilarious.

Misses my point completely, of course. But funny nonetheless.

My point was that the DM doesn't have to lay the mechanics of the skill challenge out on the table. Take the "City Chase" example from the DMG (or DMG2, I can't remember off-hand), which lists Acrobatics as a key skill. Rather than telling the PCs ahead of time that Acrobatics is one of the skills in the challenge, wait until someone tries to take a short-cut to gain ground on the target, then call for an Acrobatics roll on the spot, recording the success or failure as appropriate.



> No, it's not. It's similar to a DM who keeps secret the fact that he's "fudging" or "railroading". Or a DM who's so stoned he has no more idea of what's going on than the players have.



Again, funny, but no.



> I _can_, but I won't. So, make a roll against "lock picking skill" or whatever. What's this got to do with 4e "skill challenges"?



I gave a specific example in the post that you're responding to. Go back and reread it if you'd like to know the answer to your question.



> It's not an audition for Masterpiece Theater. I am not eager to sit through a thespian performance by someone whose fantasy is to have social skills -- any more than I want Fat Ninja Boy to demonstrate his character's martial arts technique. I just want to know what in blazes he's talking *about*. Is he diplomatically offering a large sum of money for a little favor, or is he diplomatically asking for a handout just because ... well, just because? It makes a difference.



Exactly.


> _If_ a dice-roll is called for, then the circumstances are going to affect the probabilities of different outcomes.
> 
> Again, what has this to do with a 4e "skill challenge"?



It has everything to do with it. Good creative imagination adds a bonus to the roll. This is explicitly stated in the DMG.

Adding quotes around the phrase "skill challenge" doesn't automatically invalidate the mechanics.



> I've been playing games with "skill systems" -- starting in my case with *Traveller* and *RuneQuest* -- over a span of 30 years. They had nothing to do with a 4e "skill challenge" and I _want_ nothing to do with it.



Clearly.


----------



## bardolph

Raven Crowking said:


> OTOH, I haven't read the DMG 2, so perhaps the failure is in the examples I've seen, rather than in the (current) presentation.



WotC made a major revision between DMG and DMG2. In the DMG2 version, all complexity levels fail at 3 failures, and the number of successes required for each complexity level are adjusted downwards.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

billd91 said:


> If that's the way you wanted to make the skill challenge, I suppose. But I wouldn't do it that way. Looking at the example you link to in your sig, I don't think I'd be very satisfied with that skill challenge or that style of skill challenge. It looks to me like a combination of ways to avoid the bandits and simultaneously encounter the bandits with the goal being avoiding trouble and not necessarily avoiding the bandit encounter.




It's a sliding scale skill challenge. Instead of taking place all at once and only being surpassed when the number of successes or failures are reached, it takes place over the course of time and has measured levels of success or failure, not just the absolute win/lose. The inspiration came from a skill challenge in adventure P2 where [sblock]characters who attempt to move through a city of the dead incognito make checks over time based on their plans to blend in, each failure brings on a new penalty, enough successes means they've achieved their goal of trying to move through the city unnoticed.[/sblock]

I just took this further and granted bonuses on successes before reaching the ultimate number of successes.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

bardolph said:


> WotC made a major revision between DMG and DMG2. In the DMG2 version, all complexity levels fail at 3 failures, and the number of successes required for each complexity level are adjusted downwards.




I think he means the failure of the writer to create good skill challenges. I have to agree there were some stinkers early on, but I've seen nothing but improvement as I continue to see more of them.


----------



## billd91

Ariosto said:


> I've been playing games with "skill systems" -- starting in my case with *Traveller* and *RuneQuest* -- over a span of 30 years. They had nothing to do with a 4e "skill challenge" and I _want_ nothing to do with it.




You know, there are a number of multiple-skill situations in Traveller that could easily be presented as skill challenges. My classic Traveller stuff isn't handy, but my MegaTraveller stuff is, so that will be the basis of my examples:

Going into jump space - in MegaTraveller, it takes a navigation check and a couple of engineering checks. Could be combined into a skill challenge.
If we added in getting into orbit and piloting out to 100 diameters we can add a couple more skills to the mix. Too many failures = misjump or a more severe misjump.

Navigating within a star system - based on the Starship Operator's Manual, you can mix piloting, navigation, engineering checks to shave many hours of transit time by pushing the reactors, navigating best routes, and executing them well.

Finding a good speculative cargo - broker, admin, bribery skills could all be used to get a better price, cut through regulations, get special merchant kickbacks.


----------



## bardolph

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think he means the failure of the writer to create good skill challenges. I have to agree there were some stinkers early on, but I've seen nothing but improvement as I continue to see more of them.



I agree.

The DM definitely should not read the skill challenge text directly to the players. Adhering to this principle alone should improve the over-the-table experience of the worst-written challenges.


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> Choosing to do this allows you to use Bluff and Streetwise in the bandit avoidance skill check.




For the sake of argument, I am going to branch this out into two different SC.  In the first SC, the players are doing what the DMG 1 suggests -- they are picking skills and rolling dice.  In the second SC, the players are doing what VB suggests -- they do not even know that they are in a SC.

SC1:  Either the PCs have no one to ask (as there is no one in the set-up description), or their decision to use Bluff and Streetwise "cause" someone to appear.  Or they have nothing to do with the world itself, but are simply the highest stats the PC has.

One PC chooses to bound like a grasshopper.  How is this relevant?  Perhaps the bandits are afraid of obviously insane people.  Perhaps all that bounding makes him tired, so that he rests at just the right time, so as to miss the bandits.  Perhaps the nose picker sees an "omen" in the shape of his booger that tells him to go the other way.

The only reason not to use a skill is a "failure of imagination" on the part of someone.

Unless the world around the PCs, and interaction with that world, is a prime determinant, player choice is compromised.  Highest stats are all that matter.  This is, as I understand it, the majority of where Ariosto's complaint lies.

SC2:  The players just think that they are asking around.  The skill checks might even be made by the DM in secret.

Asking around might lead the PCs to believe that the best way is to go across the Running River and take the Other Road.  Crossing the Running River might require swimming or wading across a ford.  It might include other encounters.  Perhaps enough people have taken this route that the bandits now have a scout along it that the players must slip by or deal with.

In this case, player choice is very important.  Players are not simply given information, but must decide how to act upon it.  Moreover, there is not a static DC for the skill challenge; what the players choose to do determines the various DCs, and the various numbers of checks they must make, in order to succeed.

The problem, of course, is that this is no longer a skill challenge as defined in 4e (at least not as initially defined).  There is little difference between this and freeform play.

Worse, the residual effect of designing skill challenges to move PCs along from one combat encounter to the next might rear its ugly head -- the poor neophyte DM cuts short the drama of the action because, along the way, the PCs have made three successful skill checks.  No longer is there a need to swim/ford the river, or avoid that bandit scout.

If one chooses to forgo the structure in order to fulfill the dramatic potential of events, then why is this considered a SC at all?  This is, from what I can gather, the other part of Ariosto's complaint.

In neither SC1 or SC2 is the result better than that from freeform play, and in both cases it may be substantially worse.  The less the "skill challenge" resembles a "skill challenge", the better it is in terms of actual play.

Where, then, is the benefit of the mechanic?



> And this is just showing the failure of logic in this argument. Being able to imagine a decent way to use a skill in a challenge is not even close to being able to or required to incorporate them all.




Again, we are given two choices:

In SC1, you can say "No" to any skill (and saying No to Streetwise and Bluff makes just as much sense as saying No to Acrobatics and Perception).  It is entirely arbitrary.  Ultimately, this is DM Fiat thinly disguised as something else.  Which is why you and VB cannot agree what skills should qualify.

In SC2, appropriate skills are chosen by examining a world which presents opportunities for skill use, again, by DM Fiat.  If we follow VB's advice, the players don't know that they are involved in a SC, allowing the DM to transition smoothly to freeform play as soon as possible....indeed, quite likely before the SC is resolved if the DM is a good one.

This leads us to another observation:  *The best skill challenges are not resolved as skill challenges*.

In the case of SC2, the mechanic should be there only as a "hand holding" measure to guide the DM and players back into freeform play once they've become stuck.  Unfortunately, AFICT, this is not how the mechanic is presented (although I would be happy to hear otherwise).  

It is certainly not how this supposed "holy grail" of game mechanics is seen described here on EN World.

*******

The problem, as I see it, is that prior to 3e, D&D hasn't had a good skill system.  This is IMHO, of course, but I would go so far as to say that good skill systems were few and far between in RPGs.

In the 3e PHB, Swim was given a "three strikes and you're out" rule.  You didn't drown on the first go.  And, Behold!  Rolling more than once before actually failing (or even actually succeeding) was demonstrated to be more fun/satisfying than just rolling once.

Then, when UA came out, complex skill checks were added.  Effectively, these were using the "X successes before Y strikes"; the same formula, in fact, that would be rebranded as Skill Challenges in 4e.  Effectively, swimming across a body of water writ large on the D&D rules.

The problem with the mechanic, overall, is that it isn't dynamic enough.  Other systems, like "Degree of Success" (DS) and "Opposed DS" in _*Tournaments, Taverns, and Fairs*_, gave as good, or better, methods...and were OGC to boot.  (DS already appeared in the 3e PHB in the core concept that some skills, when failed by a certain amount, had negative consequences; DS merely grants various DCs for various degrees of success....exactly as does Bardic Knowledge or Knowledge skills in 3e.)

Ideally, any form of complex skill check should map in a way similar to combat; failures make overall success more difficult, successes make the overall task less difficult.  Decisions that the players make _*now*_ should lead directly into how difficult subesquent checks are, and the result of each success and/or failure should change the situation.

In the example above, playing through Streetwise/Bluff should not only affect whether or not they meet the bandits, but (in some cases) how the bandits react to them subsequently.

Let us look at Bluff.

The use of Bluff that billd91 suggests assumes that the PCs can, by talking to the farmers/whatever, communicate with the bandits.  I.e., by making the farmers think they are tough, they make the bandits think they are tough.  It is implied that some system of communication must in place between the bandits and the farmers.

Well, then, failure may not just be another failure to chalk up.  It might mean that the bandits have better information on the PCs than they did before.  *If success has any consequences apart from frightening farmers, failure must also have consequences apart from not frightening farmers.* 

The DM must consider how each skill attempt, no matter its outcome, will affect the situation as a whole.  And, to make the whole seem like more than just an exercise in die rolling to get from point A to point B, the DM must include the means for the players to discover that their actions have larger consequences.

Again, the SC mechanic becomes nothing more than (at best) a hand-holding measure moving into freeform play, where no complex interaction is resolved by a single die roll....or even three.  At worst, it fools the DM into thinking that a situation has been fully presented, and player decisions taken into account, when the mechanic serves instead to dismiss those same decisions if followed verbatim.

**************

Another problem with SC1 is that, should the players choose to harass and intimidate farmers, then they can presumably know whether or not they succeeded at the skill challenge before hazarding the road.  If they succeed, they go down the road and get where they are going.  If they fail, they do not go down the road, and, unless the bandits teleport to their new location, their failure can still be turned into a success.  This is a very different animal than in freeform play.

Of course, our SC1 example has the players doing things like determining whether or not their Perception checks are successes.  How likely is it that the players would actually know this, apart from learning what information a successful check might garner them?

Couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't the DM conceal the results until the PCs have hazarded their outcome by actually going down the route they choose?

*****************

Skill Challenges, as presented, are a step toward integrating skill checks into complex interactions with the game milieu.  They are a step towards complex skill use in freeform play.

However, they are not there yet.  They have a long way to go.

Their initial design was hampered, IMHO, by a design philosophy that stongly pushed combat as the sole important complex mechanical interaction in the game.  

They are currently hampered, IMHO, by trying to make current implimentation consistent with that of the DMG1.  That's a pretty speculative opinion, mind you, as I have not read the DMG2, but it is what I gather from secondhand sources (including the examples & discussion thereof in this thread).

I suspect that these opinions will not be popular right now, but will be "widely acknowledged" by the time 5e is announced.  Indeed, I suspect we will learn then that they are "widely acknowledged" now.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's a sliding scale skill challenge.




Gives me hope, VB!  

Except, in your sblock, how can the challenge ever "end" so long as the PCs remain in the vicinity?



> I just took this further and granted bonuses on successes before reaching the ultimate number of successes.




Too bad the GSL prevents 3pp from redifining skill challenges, eh?  Again, this is a step in the right direction.


RC


----------



## Plane Sailing

Polite request - could you fork detailed skill challenge into another thread please?

Thanks!


----------



## bardolph

Raven Crowking said:


> For the sake of argument, I am going to branch this out into two different SC.  In the first SC, the players are doing what the DMG 1 suggests -- they are picking skills and rolling dice.  In the second SC, the players are doing what VB suggests -- they do not even know that they are in a SC.



Good breakdown. Which variant the DM uses will have a lot to do with the actual experience and ability of the DM and players.



> Worse, the residual effect of designing skill challenges to move PCs along from one combat encounter to the next might rear its ugly head -- the poor neophyte DM cuts short the drama of the action because, along the way, the PCs have made three successful skill checks.  No longer is there a need to swim/ford the river, or avoid that bandit scout.




It actually works in the opposite direction. It's three _failures_ that ends the encounter. The number of successes is variable depending on the complexity of the challenge.

Yes, the DM will always have the burden of creating good drama that's appropriate to the progress point of the PCs, but even when the DM fails in this, the PCs should have a decent idea of how well they are doing, and this will create a certain amount of "mechanical" drama, similar to what the hit point system creates during combat.



> If one chooses to forgo the structure in order to fulfill the dramatic potential of events, then why is this considered a SC at all?  This is, from what I can gather, the other part of Ariosto's complaint.
> 
> In neither SC1 or SC2 is the result better than that from freeform play, and in both cases it may be substantially worse.  The less the "skill challenge" resembles a "skill challenge", the better it is in terms of actual play.
> 
> Where, then, is the benefit of the mechanic?



The main benefit is that it gives adventure _writers_ a structured format to present their ideas, in a way that's consistent enough for DMs to be able to run it regardless of their own skill level as a DM.



> This leads us to another observation:  *The best skill challenges are not resolved as skill challenges*.
> 
> In the case of SC2, the mechanic should be there only as a "hand holding" measure to guide the DM and players back into freeform play once they've become stuck.  Unfortunately, AFICT, this is not how the mechanic is presented (although I would be happy to hear otherwise).



I agree. A good DM will hide the mechanics behind a storytelling curtain so that the PCs can concentrate on the role-playing aspects of the encounter.



> The problem with the mechanic, overall, is that it isn't dynamic enough.  Other systems, like "Degree of Success" (DS) and "Opposed DS" in _*Tournaments, Taverns, and Fairs*_, gave as good, or better, methods...and were OGC to boot.



Can you provide a link?



> Ideally, any form of complex skill check should map in a way similar to combat; failures make overall success more difficult, successes make the overall task less difficult.  Decisions that the players make _*now*_ should lead directly into how difficult subesquent checks are, and the result of each success and/or failure should change the situation.



The DMG gives examples of this. Basically, a success in one skill can "open up" another skill to the challenge.



> The DM must consider how each skill attempt, no matter its outcome, will affect the situation as a whole.  And, to make the whole seem like more than just an exercise in die rolling to get from point A to point B, the DM must include the means for the players to discover that their actions have larger consequences.
> 
> Again, the SC mechanic becomes nothing more than (at best) a hand-holding measure moving into freeform play, where no complex interaction is resolved by a single die roll....or even three.  At worst, it fools the DM into thinking that a situation has been fully presented, and player decisions taken into account, when the mechanic serves instead to dismiss those same decisions if followed verbatim.



A valid point, but the Skill Challenge system still provides a good way to codify "free-form roleplay" into a published adventure, without having to write essays on how to DM those transitional episodes.



> Their initial design was hampered, IMHO, by a design philosophy that stongly pushed combat as the sole important complex mechanical interaction in the game.



I think this problem exists in RPGs in general, and not just D&D.

The real question is whether or not non-combat situations should have any structure at all, and if so, what should that structure be?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Plane Sailing said:


> Polite request - could you fork detailed skill challenge into another thread please?
> 
> Thanks!




Sorry for the OT chatter. Forked per your request.


----------



## Ariosto

Bardolph gets it, or at least a part.

A very important "balance" factor in 4e is establishing a priori probabilities of success, encounter by encounter. The aim is to make the outcomes similar for most groups of players, regardless of particular circumstances.

AD&D1 was designed to be a game in which outcomes differ widely from one group to another, depending largely on the skill of the players.


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> Bardolph gets it, or at least a part.
> 
> A very important "balance" factor in 4e is establishing a priori probabilities of success, encounter by encounter. The aim is to make the outcomes similar for most groups of players, regardless of particular circumstances.
> 
> AD&D1 was designed to be a game in which outcomes differ widely from one group to another, depending largely on the skill of the players.




I agree. Whether or not either is a Good Thing, of course, is up for vicious debate 

EDIT: The a priori probabilities of success assume PCs with a reasonably good grasp of combat tactics. Bad choices over the table can certainly spell disaster for a group. Another distinction is that 4e shifts the most important decisions for success to be made during play, rather than during character creation.


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:
			
		

> AD&D1 was designed to give player skill scope in actual strategic and tactical decisions of combat (while not imposing time-consuming minutia) -- and in other undertakings.




Can you give examples of this Ariosto?  It was my belief that there was pretty much zero in the way of tactical or strategic decisions the players could make in combat other than playing "Mother May I" with the GM.  My admittedly fuzzy recollection does not recall much if anything in the way of either strategic or tactical decisions a fighter could make when facing an ogre.


----------



## Lanefan

So to *try* and drag this back somewhere vaguely closer to the original topic, would or could a 4e-style skill challenge system work in a 1e-style game, and would its presence make the game more balanced or less?

I'm not sure it'd fit at all, myself, balanced or not.

The nearest we've ever come to a skill system in our 1e games was to give each character a d10 roll to see how naturally good they are at three very basic skills: swimming, boating, and riding; with minor modification for race.  These rolls are mostly used to help flesh out a character, or to gauge how much help/hindrance someone is likely to be when crewing a boat or crossing a deep stream.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar

Oh, and by the way, Raven Crowking, I suggest you peruse a dictionary on Emergent Properties.  An emergent propery cannot be predicted before the process is completed, and thus, by definition, an emergent property cannot be designed into a system.  If it is emergent, it is, again, by definition, unexpected.

So, if balance, in your opinion, in 1e, is an emergent property, Gygax wasn't designing for it.  He achieved it as a completely unexpected result from elements that are unrelated to game balance.

Now, I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.  

Me, I think I'll stand by what I said earlier that I don't believe that 1e was "designed" in the way we generally mean the term.  It was a very organic effort which resulted in a game.  Elements were bolted on ad hoc and piecemeal until a game was created.  

3e was designed.  4e was perhaps overdesigned.  1e evolved.


----------



## Ariosto

bardolph said:
			
		

> The a priori probabilities of success assume PCs with a reasonably good grasp of combat tactics. Bad choices over the table can certainly spell disaster for a group.



I have seen one PC casualty from "friendly fire". I am also sure that, the first time I DMed, after having played 4e only a handful of times, I used less than optimal tactics for the monsters and thereby gave the players an easier time. However, when an encounter is calculated to use only X% of a party's resources in 4e, I think one can give that a high confidence -- and feel free to "take off the gloves".

The best session I had was one tough encounter followed by another that was tougher just basically ... and more so because two guys left ... and they were heavy hitters of just the sort we needed. We chose a reckless course of action (basically setting ourselves up for ambush) in a campaign that might not go past the "redlined" CRs, but doesn't shy away from using the full spectrum. There are several DMs, and the one running that night is maybe a bit tougher than the others.

Anyway, it seemed 4e players don't know reverse. Nobody quite knew what we faced, and we found out the hard way. We needed missile firepower, but got ourselves stuck on tar babies. It looked like a near-TPK, as one character after another made a desperate attempt at rescue instead of running away. The critical turning point came down to someone else succeeding with the same daily power that had failed me. So much hinged on a toss of the dice!

The gamble turned the tide, and 4e characters are nothing if not resilient. 

Darned tough baddies + foolishness atop foolishness = one thrilling fight (in a game system that usually loses my interest pretty quickly).


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> Oh, and by the way, Raven Crowking, I suggest you peruse a dictionary on Emergent Properties.  An emergent propery cannot be predicted before the process is completed, and thus, by definition, an emergent property cannot be designed into a system.  If it is emergent, it is, again, by definition, unexpected.
> 
> So, if balance, in your opinion, in 1e, is an emergent property, Gygax wasn't designing for it.  He achieved it as a completely unexpected result from elements that are unrelated to game balance.




So, you are arguing that one cannot plan for a living child?

So, you are arguing that one cannot do design work for computer AI?

So, you are arguing that one cannot develop or change a language?

In philosophy, systems theory and science, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions.  Emergent properties can obviously be planned for, and are obviously not always unexpected.  

What cannot be deteremined ahead of time is the shape that will emerge.  Thus, one can plan large-scale architecture knowing that useage will create naturally emergent pathways, and then pave those pathways.  The architect knows that pathways will appear.  He knows how to react when those pathways appear.  In all cases, the plan is to have pathways.  

What the plan isn't is to force those pathways into a predetermined box.

And, game balance _*is*_ an emergent property, no matter how you slice it.  "Emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions."  The 4e designers simply decided to try to force the pathways they thought you should use.  That those pathways are useable is as clear a demonstration that emergence can be planned for as is any of my children, or the BOIDS program, but ultimately WotC can no more design "balance" than Gygax could.  Balance happens at the table.

Again, you need to study a topic before you try to argue from expert opinion.



RC


----------



## Plane Sailing

Lanefan said:


> So to *try* and drag this back somewhere vaguely closer to the original topic, would or could a 4e-style skill challenge system work in a 1e-style game, and would its presence make the game more balanced or less?
> 
> I'm not sure it'd fit at all, myself, balanced or not.
> 
> The nearest we've ever come to a skill system in our 1e games was to give each character a d10 roll to see how naturally good they are at three very basic skills: swimming, boating, and riding; with minor modification for race.  These rolls are mostly used to help flesh out a character, or to gauge how much help/hindrance someone is likely to be when crewing a boat or crossing a deep stream.
> 
> Lanefan




All skill challenge discussion in the forked thread please

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269686-forked-skill-challenges.html


----------



## Plane Sailing

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, you need to study a topic before you try to argue from expert opinion.




Make your argument without attacking the person, please.


----------



## Hussar

/edit

Bardolph says it better than I do.  Well done him.


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> Darned tough baddies + foolishness atop foolishness = one thrilling fight.



This is a good thing, I hope.



Raven Crowking said:


> And, game balance _*is*_ an emergent property, no matter how you slice it.  "Emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions."  The 4e designers simply decided to try to force the pathways they thought you should use.  That those pathways are useable is as clear a demonstration that emergence can be planned for as is any of my children, or the BOIDS program, but ultimately WotC can no more design "balance" than Gygax could.  Balance happens at the table.




Right, and wrong.

The game balance that happens at the table is an emergent property.

The game balance that is designed into the rules is not an emergent property.

Also realize that 4e has orders of magnitude more playtesting behind it than 1e.


----------



## Bullgrit

I bet we could have an argument over whether paper-rock-scissors is a balanced system.

Bullgrit


----------



## howandwhy99

Bullgrit said:


> I bet we could have an argument over whether paper-rock-scissors is a balanced system.
> 
> Bullgrit



Yeah, rock beats everything in that game.  What's the point?

Also, I just found a note on what balance is in one of the old modules.  B4 to be exact:



> balance. A balance is an instrument used for weighing. It has two
> small pans hanging from either end of a balancing crossbar. When
> equal weights are placed in both pans, the crossbar will be level.


----------



## Hussar

I've heard a nice quote about balance as it relates to rock-scissors-paper:

*Rock*:  Memo to referees:  Nerf paper, scissors is fine.​


----------



## ExploderWizard

bardolph said:


> Also realize that 4e has orders of magnitude more playtesting behind it than 1e.




I don't think so. The number of post release adjustments suggests otherwise. 4E took the route of a lot of software companies with thier product, meaning that release =open beta. 

The skill challenge mess, revised stealth rules, etc., paint quite a different picture.


----------



## bardolph

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't think so. The number of post release adjustments suggests otherwise. 4E took the route of a lot of software companies with thier product, meaning that release =open beta.
> 
> The skill challenge mess, revised stealth rules, etc., paint quite a different picture.



Just open your 4e Player's Handbook and turn to the page "Playtester Credits."

Then do the same for your 1e books.


----------



## The Shaman

Ariosto said:


> After all, it doesn't _really_ matter what we're doing -- so why should we even know?
> 
> "Mischief moves somewhere near and I must blast it with my magic!"
> "First you are swathed head to foot in the intestines of fresh killed owls."
> "We go to the image expander; there we will explode the ghost to the macroid dimension."
> "Until work has reached its previous stage nympharium privileges are denied to all."
> "I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
> 
> "I rolled an 18!"
> "For what?"
> "How should _I_ know?"



Could someone please drop some XP on *Ariosto* for me, and I'll return the favor another time?


----------



## Raven Crowking

bardolph said:


> Right, and wrong.
> 
> The game balance that happens at the table is an emergent property.
> 
> The game balance that is designed into the rules is not an emergent property.
> 
> Also realize that 4e has orders of magnitude more playtesting behind it than 1e.




Right, and wrong.

The game balance that happens at the table is an emergent property.

What is designed into the rules of an RPG is not game balance, but tools intended to make it easier to achieve balance at the table.  It is an error to imagine that both (1) you cannot plan for an emergent property (i.e., the balance that occurs at the table, and (2) you can engineer that emergent property into the game.

Clearly, as has been demonstrated in many fields, one can plan for emergent properties, and one can safeguard against other emergent properties.  The "balance" that 4e largely has, that 1e certainly has far less of, is safeguards against certain types of "balance" that the designers viewed as undesireable.  For example, the balance that was promoted in the earliest versions of the game.

Both 4e and 1e attempt to restrict the emergent balance into channels that the authors/designers thought "fun".  4e's definition of "fun" is just far narrower than that of 1e.  



bardolph said:


> Just open your 4e Player's Handbook and turn to the page "Playtester Credits."
> 
> Then do the same for your 1e books.




This isn't necessarily relevant.

X playtesters over Y time, playing Z hours per day can provide far better playtesting than X+A playtesters over Y-B time, playing Z-C hours per day.  Moreover, the way that the feedback is utilized, and the agenda of the designer(s) are at least as important.

I bet I could list more playtesters for RCFG than for 4e if I liked.  What do you think that would prove?  The answer is simple:  The number of listed playtesters simply isn't relevant without other data.



RC

RC


----------



## Hussar

RC said:
			
		

> Clearly, as has been demonstrated in many fields, one can plan for emergent properties,




What has been demonstrated in many fields is that one can plan for emergent properties AFTER those properties have been identified.  You've got the cart before the horse.  If game balance is an emergent property, then you would have to play and play until you reached that balance and then reverse engineer backwards to create a game which would result in that property.

In other words, you couldn't actually design for balance in the first place.  I suppose this does fit rather well with the evolution of 1e - a rough collection of rules put together and then massaged until something like balance was achieved at one table.

The problem is, as soon as you deviated in any way from how the game was played at Gygax's table (or a rather small number of tables mostly played by the same people), balance fell apart because it was designed in reverse.  You can achieve balanced play in 1e, but only by playing in a fairly narrow, restricted way.

3e, OTOH, was very rigorously playtested.  Balance wasn't based on the end result.  They looked at numerous tables and designed to how people were actually playing, rather than trying to dictate to the players how the game should be played.  IMO, 4e took a similar approach but mostly seemed to focus on the RPGA play.  

A mistake IMO that has caused much of the backlash against 4e.

In case you think I'm being unduly harsh on 1e, remember the vast numbers of claims from 1e adherents who tell all and sundry, whenever this sort of thing comes up, that we were playing the game wrong.  Ariosto claims strongly that the mega-dungeon was the presumed style of play.  RC and the Shaman have also both claimed numerous times that certain playstyles are not the intent of 1e.  RC has claimed that no one will ever clean out dungeons for example.  That no one will ever discover everything in a dungeon, thus keeping leveling slower.

I've seen claims that the DMG is absolutely verbotten to the players and anyone allowing players to see the DMG is playing wrong.  That the game was meant to be low magic with magic items being about as common as hen's teeth.  On and on.  

Heck, now we're being told that 1e was as rigourously playtested as 4e.  Come on.  Do you honestly believe that?  If it was, why was the final edit of the rulebooks so bad, with rules scattered throughout several books and sometimes written in language that continues to baffle to this day?  I know there is a strong bent here to proclaim all things 1e superior to everything that came later, but, really?


----------



## Ariosto

The core material in AD&D1 was from D&D. That was a lot less radical than designing whole new games for 3e and 4e!

Play of D&D thus informed the revision that was AD&D. I don't know to what extent PHB and DMG material got tested in tournaments (or elsewhere) prior to publication, or what (if anything) player feedback on the preview combat tables published in magazines had to do with final developments.

I am sure that too few fresh eyes examined the typeset books before full production, though. The organization (or lack thereof) of the DMG, combined with its sheer volume, made it difficult to digest enough quickly to catch errors and inconsistencies. As well, the amount of clarification and elaboration -- by comparison with which, the old game seemed unfinished -- made such a profound immediate impression that it was hard to find fault.

There's a telling difference between game cultures in the responses, I think. D&Ders in 1979 were well accustomed to filling in gaps on their own, and to changing or ignoring whatever baffled, or otherwise did not suit, them. They were _already playing_ the D&D game -- so the AD&D manuals were less Canon than Commentary. Where AD&D presented problems was chiefly in new material; one could (and might be predisposed to) plug in old material, or ignore what had not even been there to ignore before.

I wonder about the subsequent influence of developments in computers, at least on different generations of gamers. From Nintendo's rejuvenation of the console video game field to the present, both that and the more general personal computer field have clearly had had _direct_ influence -- in many ways -- far wider than that of D&D (or perhaps any non-digital game, for that matter).

The relationships are a bit different even in that field than in the heyday of the Atari 5200 and Commodore 64. Meanwhile, the tabletop historical wargames that informed so many D&D players in the 1970s (especially the hex-and-counter variety) have become largely obscure.


----------



## Garmorn

Ariosto said:


> Sniped before and after
> 
> There's a telling difference between game cultures in the responses, I think. D&Ders in 1979 were well accustomed to filling in gaps on their own, and to changing or ignoring whatever baffled, or otherwise did not suit, them. They were _already playing_ the D&D game -- so the AD&D manuals were less Canon than Commentary. Where AD&D presented problems was chiefly in new material; one could (and might be predisposed to) plug in old material, or ignore what had not even been there to ignore before.




Yes but lot of players by 82 started in after 80.  This trend increased.  Also the starting age seems to have increased.  How many old times started in Junior or Senior High School?  Most of the people I gamed with in the 80's started with AD&D and where over 20 at the time they started.  We wanted a finished product not the incomplete one that TSR put out.  House rule became common in those groups because of the poorly designed or written rules in the original core books.  We ignored level limits, dual classing, race/class limits because they made no since.  We did not have the Dragon Magazine very often just the books.  The one time we got it there was a big Rant from GG about if you don't do it my way then you are not playing D&D.
We just ignored the arragants of such a stuip statement.


----------



## Ariosto

> Yes but lot of players by 82 started in after 80.



That seems likely, both because of the more widely distributed (than OD&D and Holmes) Basic/Expert sets and because of AD&D itself being more attractive as a complete game (versus one book per year, 1977-79).



> Also the starting age seems to have increased.



I see the opposite. Although Gygax played with his children (and someone else introduced me), the D&D scene seems to me mainly to have filtered down from the 30-something wargamers to the college clubs, then to high-schoolers. At last, Moldvay Basic explicitly targeted the younger generation ("Adults, Ages 10 and Up"). Mentzer was more mindful generally of the needs of people teaching themselves from the book, and especially of those with a lower level of reading proficiency -- and also brought in the art of Elmore (following Otus and Sutherland).



> We wanted a finished product not the incomplete one that TSR put out.



Yes, I think that was increasingly common. Old hands more commonly saw AD&D as not just complete but comprehensive!


----------



## MerricB

I'm pretty sure that the basic system of AD&D had received more playtesting (not more varied playtesting) than did the basic system of 4e. 

However, the entire AD&D package I'm pretty sure was _never_ playtested. There are too many elements that smack of "a good idea at the time" and weren't ever used in play - and certainly not all at the same time.

Cheers!


----------



## ExploderWizard

bardolph said:


> Just open your 4e Player's Handbook and turn to the page "Playtester Credits."
> 
> Then do the same for your 1e books.




I will clarify. Quantity does not always equal quality. It really doesn't matter if a system has thousands of playtesters or not. What is important is the results of the overall playtesting effort. A system requiring major overhauls and patches post release has experienced playtest fail. A larger credits section just means there are even _more_ people who either were not listened to, or should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> What has been demonstrated in many fields is that one can plan for emergent properties AFTER those properties have been identified.  You've got the cart before the horse.  If game balance is an emergent property, then you would have to play and play until you reached that balance and then reverse engineer backwards to create a game which would result in that property.





Luckily, Gary Gygax had games going back at least to H.G. Wells upon which D&D rules were based.  Because there was no desire to slaughter "sacred cows" that worked, in many cases Gygax was using game principles that had been tested for decades or longer.  Hence the way AC works prior to 3e.

Also, Hussar, while it is true that Gygax & co. had intentions as to how the game would be played, their intentions were far less restrictive than those of the 4e designers, and their game far less restrictive than that of the 4e design.  Tight "balance" of the 4e type can only occur by restricting emergent choices that would otherwise throw that "balance" off. 



RC


----------



## Gentlegamer

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, Hussar, while it is true that Gygax & co. had intentions as to how the game would be played, their intentions were far less restrictive than those of the 4e designers, and their game far less restrictive than that of the 4e design.  Tight "balance" of the 4e type can only occur by restricting emergent choices that would otherwise throw that "balance" off.



I generally refer to this as the "rules space" earlier D&D has that makes the system flexible to many play-styles and rules tweaks by the participants desiring to "flavor" various aspects of the mechanics to certain ends. I think this fits well with the emergent balance you're talking about.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Lancelot said:


> I think one of the biggest problems with 1e balance was the assumption that low probabilities helps to correct major benefits. An 18/00 Strength is a huge advantage for a fighter, but few fighters will ever have that. Psionics are awesome, but very few PCs will qualify due to the random roll. Your chances of rolling a _vorpal blade_ or _hammer of thunderbolts_ are miniscule.




One of the important aspects of early edition balance was the assumed lethality of the system: It was anticipated that players would be starting new characters on a what would seem an insanely frequent basis at most game tables today. In that environment, probability-based balance _was_ effective.

Looking such a system through a modern lens can be a little like saying that craps isn't balanced because rolling a 7 is better than rolling a 12. Why would the designers ever let the guy rolling a 7 be so much better than the guy rolling a 12?



> Similarly, I believe there were a few weird areas where balance was thrown out the window to achieve some semblence of historical accuracy. Take the weapons and armors, for example. Gygax seemed to really love this stuff (...check out the Appendix in _Unearthed Arcana_ on pole-arm nomenclature, for example). Hence, I don't think there was the same effort to balance the equipment tables.




Which, personally, I'm fine with. The belief that every equipment option needs to be equally viable seems strange to me. It assumes that the only reason equipment exists is for the PCs to use it. (In reality, of course, the DM will be responsible for equipping hundreds or thousands of characters compared to any given player. And for designing those NPCs, sub-optimal or situation-specific equipment may be extremely useful for any number of reasons.)


----------



## bardolph

Raven Crowking said:


> Clearly, as has been demonstrated in many fields, one can plan for emergent properties, and one can safeguard against other emergent properties.  The "balance" that 4e largely has, that 1e certainly has far less of, is safeguards against certain types of "balance" that the designers viewed as undesireable.  For example, the balance that was promoted in the earliest versions of the game.
> 
> Both 4e and 1e attempt to restrict the emergent balance into channels that the authors/designers thought "fun".  4e's definition of "fun" is just far narrower than that of 1e.



I think you're romanticizing 1e. Just because AD&D was full of horrible inconsistent flaws doesn't mean it was designed for "emergent properties." It just means that the rules weren't playtested enough (or even at all, in some cases).

AD&D was great because it was a roleplaying game competing against a field of boardgames and miniature wargames. AD&D was successful because it invoked the imagination in ways that other tabletop games could not. We were willing to put up with all the imbalances and inconsistencies because, in the end, it was worth it.

When I discovered other RPG systems outside of AD&D, I found _every single one of them_ to be better. However, I stuck with AD&D because the quality and quantity of published modules made it WAY easier to run than any of these other systems.

AD&D succeeded in spite of its design, not because of it.



> I bet I could list more playtesters for RCFG than for 4e if I liked.  What do you think that would prove?  The answer is simple:  The number of listed playtesters simply isn't relevant without other data.



So, are you seriously contending that the AD&D player's handbook had more playtesting before publishing than its 4e counterpart?

Or are you trying to suggest that "not enough data" exists for me to claim that 4e has had more playtesting?

Or is this another one of your straw men?

And what's RCFG? The Regional Computer Forensics Group?


ExploderWizard said:


> I will clarify. Quantity does not always equal quality. It really doesn't matter if a system has thousands of playtesters or not. What is important is the results of the overall playtesting effort. A system requiring major overhauls and patches post release has experienced playtest fail. A larger credits section just means there are even _more_ people who either were not listened to, or should be ashamed of themselves.



I don't think any shame is needed or deserved. 4e as a whole runs extremely well, even considering the shortcomings of the Stealth and Skill Challenge systems (which have been corrected). In my personal experience, D&D 4e runs smoother and faster _by a long shot_ than any other roleplaying game I've played in the last 25 years.

And if we want to take quality over quantity, I'll take personal experience every single time.


----------



## Ariosto

bardolph said:
			
		

> Just because AD&D was full of horrible inconsistent flaws doesn't mean it was designed for "emergent properties." It just means that the rules weren't playtested enough (or even at all, in some cases).



However, that it was designed for what it was explicitly designed for DOES mean that it was designed for "emergent properties", if I understand what RC means. Just because bardolph doesn't like something does not make it objectively a "horrible inconsistent flaw". There are inconsistencies, and cumbersome bits, and Gygax himself called some things flaws.

I reckon there are things that RC would call flaws. I do not see him using a judgment of their flawed status as a basis for his assessment of design intent for "emergent properties".


----------



## bardolph

Ariosto said:


> However, that it was designed for what it was explicitly designed for DOES mean that it was designed for "emergent properties", if I understand what RC means.



Maybe some examples would help. In what areas was 1e designed for emergent properties, and how did the design succeed in these areas?



> Just because bardolph doesn't like something does not make it objectively a "horrible inconsistent flaw". There are inconsistencies, and cumbersome bits, and Gygax himself called some things flaws.




Just to show that I practice what I preach, I'll give some examples to back up my claim:

18/00
Psionics
Assassination Table
Magic Missile vs Sleep
Cure Light Wounds vs Any Other 1st Level Cleric Spell
The Thief (the entire class)
Weapon vs Armor Class Table
The Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric
Leveling by Ritual Combat
Save vs. Rod, Staff or Wand (or wait... weren't staves moved into the spells column between D&D and AD&D?)
Why on earth does Armor class count _down_ from 10?

Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg. AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.

We can also play a guessing game: how many bona fide PCs do you suppose actually learned and cast the "Cacodemon" spell before the Player's Handbook went to press? My guess: zero.

Don't get me wrong. I loved AD&D, mostly for its modules. While the Player's Handbook and DMG were silly (from a game design perspective), the Temple of Elemental Evil was a thing of beauty.


----------



## Ariosto

Having played for a few months in an AD&D campaign being run in constrained "adventure path" fashion, I find that the design is poorly suited to that. Some changes that I understand are somewhat popular in that mode (such as having everyone "level up" simultaneously rather than awarding x.p.) seem to me just the opposite of improvement. I have also seen how easily a DM who really does not know his stuff can make a hash of things -- and some glimpses of why.

An unbalanced mess is not necessarily the worst outcome, for it might at least be exciting.

*Boredom* is the worst outcome.


----------



## Ariosto

Bardolph, I am afraid that none of your examples leap out to me as "horribly inconsistent flaws". In most cases, it is quite obscure just what you mean. With what is this inconsistent? How is that horribly flawed?

Someone else might type, "Gnomes. Experience points for treasure. Experience points. Character classes. Levels. Hit dice. A bunch of weird kinds of dice. Dungeons. Dragons."



> Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg. AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.



Uh, yeah ... and your point is ... ? It's not as if it was advertised (or commonly sought after) as sane and sensible rubbish!

That is altogether a different matter than whether or not it was designed for game balance. 

Is Earthworm Jim or Super Mario World sane and sensible? Was it designed for game balance?

Also quite another matter is how much testing a product got. That may have some bearing on how _successfully_ design goals are realized -- and some errors and omissions are so obvious that one might reasonably reverse-engineer an evaluation of play-testing (especially of critical "blind" testing) -- but it does not speak to the specific goals themselves (other than the likes of meeting a deadline).


----------



## Chainsaw

bardolph said:


> Just to show that I practice what I preach, I'll give some examples to back up my claim:
> 
> 18/00
> Psionics
> Assassination Table
> Magic Missile vs Sleep
> Cure Light Wounds vs Any Other 1st Level Cleric Spell
> The Thief (the entire class)
> Weapon vs Armor Class Table
> The Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric
> Leveling by Ritual Combat
> Save vs. Rod, Staff or Wand (or wait... weren't staves moved into the spells column between D&D and AD&D?)
> Why on earth does Armor class count _down_ from 10?
> Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg. AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.




Eh, I'm not sure these examples are as obvious to everyone else as they are to you - go post this list of 'nonsensical rubbish' on a 1E board and you'll get volumes of explanation that you might find interesting and useful (if this isn't just a drive-by, of course).


----------



## Bullgrit

bardolph said:
			
		

> I think you're romanticizing 1e.



I think a lot of people here do this.

Bullgrit


----------



## Chainsaw

Bullgrit said:


> I think a lot of people here do this.
> 
> Bullgrit




I think a lot of people here do this WITH EVERY SYSTEM.


----------



## ExploderWizard

bardolph said:


> Just to show that I practice what I preach, I'll give some examples to back up my claim:
> 
> 18/00
> Psionics
> Assassination Table
> Magic Missile vs Sleep
> Cure Light Wounds vs Any Other 1st Level Cleric Spell
> The Thief (the entire class)
> Weapon vs Armor Class Table
> The Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric
> Leveling by Ritual Combat
> Save vs. Rod, Staff or Wand (or wait... weren't staves moved into the spells column between D&D and AD&D?)
> Why on earth does Armor class count _down_ from 10?




A list of random things and no explanation of _why_ they are rubbish is in fact a pile of rubbish.

18/00- The wonderful gateway drug to bonus bloat. A beginning perhaps, to the insane notion that because it existed, every fighter _had _to have it or they might as well reroll. What is rubbish isn't the score itself, but the mentality that it helped inspire.

Psionics- Very quirky and more likely to get you killed than provide any benefit. 

Assassination table- assassins kill people, get over it. 

Magic Missile vs Sleep- you don't believe that every spell of the same level has to be equally valuable against every situation do you? If so then it would be stupid of you to play any system with more than one spell in a given power range.

Cure Light Wounds vs any other 1st level cleric spell- _Command-Disrobe, _Next!

The thief- A self justiying class IMHO but at least he had his own niche instead of _fighting _better than the _fighting man._

Weapon vs Armor class table- Not my cup of tea really but for those that liked it I can see the benefit of using it. Some weapons are better than others and that is that. 

The Fighter/Magic User/Cleric- Why is this any different than any other multi-classed character? Progression is very slow, which is a big price to pay for such versatility. Remember that this guy has 3 class trainers to pay to attain levels so unless he gets big cash donations from other party members to offset those costs he will be adventuring a bit without gaining xp which slows down advancement even further. Overpowered? not at all.

Leveling by ritual combat- Only 2 classes had this and it added to the flavor of those classes.

Save vs Rod, Staff, or Wand- more detail of what the problem is would be helpful here. 

Why on earth does Armor class count _down_ from 10?-Look into why the combat tables feature repeating 20's and you might find your answer.


----------



## Raven Crowking

bardolph said:


> I think you're romanticizing 1e.




How so?  What quotes, exactly, make you think that?

I could say, rather, that you are demonizing 1e.  I could example quotes like



> AD&D was full of horrible inconsistent flaws






> When I discovered other RPG systems outside of AD&D, I found _every single one of them_ to be better.






> AD&D succeeded in spite of its design, not because of it.






> AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.




One might wonder why you cannot simply state that you dislike something without trying to prove it to be objectively bad.  One might also wonder _*why*_ the things on your list are supposed to be "crazy nonsensical rubbish".

A bit too onetruewayish for me, I guess.  Perhaps you wil explain more clearly?



> So, are you seriously contending that the AD&D player's handbook had more playtesting before publishing than its 4e counterpart?




I am seriously contending that your evidence that 4e had more playtesting does not constitute evidence that 4e had more playtesting.  Which is what I said.  I thought I was clear.



> Or is this another one of your straw men?




Ad Hominem



> And what's RCFG? The Regional Computer Forensics Group?




Something that, by the evidenciary standards you asked us to accept re: 4e and 1e, I coud easily claim to be playtested more than both of them put together.  But I would not, because (1) such a claim would be false, and (2) the means by which I would thereby be making such a claim would not constitute evidence.  It is used merely as an example of how easy it is to mislead on the basis of such a list, either intentionally or not.



> I don't think any shame is needed or deserved. 4e as a whole runs extremely well, even considering the shortcomings of the Stealth and Skill Challenge systems (which have been corrected). In my personal experience, D&D 4e runs smoother and faster _by a long shot_ than any other roleplaying game I've played in the last 25 years.




Glad you found something you like!

But liking 4e doesn't (rationally) imply that 1e was not designed for balance.



RC


----------



## billd91

bardolph said:


> Just to show that I practice what I preach, I'll give some examples to back up my claim:
> 
> 18/00
> Psionics
> Assassination Table
> Magic Missile vs Sleep
> Cure Light Wounds vs Any Other 1st Level Cleric Spell
> The Thief (the entire class)
> Weapon vs Armor Class Table
> The Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric
> Leveling by Ritual Combat
> Save vs. Rod, Staff or Wand (or wait... weren't staves moved into the spells column between D&D and AD&D?)
> Why on earth does Armor class count _down_ from 10?
> 
> Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg. AD&D is full of such crazy nonsensical rubbish.
> 
> <snip>
> Don't get me wrong. I loved AD&D, mostly for its modules. While the Player's Handbook and DMG were silly (from a game design perspective), the Temple of Elemental Evil was a thing of beauty.




The Temple of Elemental Evil was a crashing bore that, after the Village of Hommlet and the moat house needed a desperate chopping by a competent editor. And I love most 1e modules. ToEE as written, not so much.

But what we're looking at here, in part, is a question of taste. You think that the weapon vs armor table was nonsensical. It was complex and cumbersome, but nonsensical is far from what I would call it. Simply put, there were certain types of historical weapons more capable of injuring someone in armor than others and the table reflects that. The question is whether or not the game benefits from including that additional complexity. Most would say no, but I think it's unfortunate that there's no differentiation between weapons designed to hammer armored targets and ones not.


----------



## pawsplay

I say, Yes. By design, every character, every time was designed to be a different experience, but all characters were intended for the same type of experience.


----------



## pawsplay

Celebrim said:


> When the DMG talks of game balance, it doesn't mean anything at all like the term 'game balance' is used today.  The idea of parity between the classes or even characters wasn't even a consideration.




Only if you accept a modern definition of game balance that describes nothing in the real world. Fact: Every game has suboptimal choices. Fact: Any "balanced" character can be felled by bad rolling. This statement is only true if you take balance to mean:

- Scene by scene balance
- Balance as consisting partly of consistency
- Balance as according all PCs some piece of the action in virtually all scenarios
- Fear is not an option

In fact, I think these are all impossible and undesirable goals.

- Scene by scene balance is boring because it is predictable, on one gets much of a moment in the spotlight, and it limits the character concepts that can be permitted. It also restricts all PCs to having similar resource use, when we know that in other games, different resource use is often a fun play element and in fiction, characters often have different resource use.

- Consistency is poo. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter if I have an 18/00 strength and get wacked by a stray arrow or a 9 Strength and roll maximum damage against a 3rd level NPC magic-user. Wild fortune is part of the fun of playing a game. Some consistency is useful, but ultimately, what people want is predictability. Characters in Call of Cthulhu are largely doomed, but it's not a big deal to veterans of the game because you know that going in. It's hard to argue that two players in AD&D, one with a fighter, one with a M-U, are saddled with a choice they felt was unfavorable to their goals.

- Balance by keeping everyone busy all the time sucks. Not everyone likes combat equally, or negoations. Just about everyone wants to use their special super power in their Spotlight Episode, or better, everyone gets a chance to in the Teamwork Episode. Sometimes it's time to get a Mountain Dew. Sometimes one player is less skilled than others and feels frustrated by being asked to be a full contributor to battle tactics. Some characters are deliberately designed around incompetence, whether it's Grunt Thog the fighter or Tuperculosus the Sorcerer or Lil Weasel the thief.

- Fear is important. Frankly, I think getting too attached to a PC is the symptom of an immature mentality. In some genres, PC death is common, in others rare. Either way, you knew the risks when you picked up the dice. 1st level M-Us wembling about whether to use up their spell, or whether to draw their dagger and join a fray once they are out of them, is actually a potentially interesting and therefore fun choice. One of the underestimated strenghs of AD&D is that 1st level and 10th level are not so far apart; anyone could be petrified, anyone could fall into a spiked pit, anyone could have his weapon turned to rust. You can put 2nd level and 6th level characters in the same adventure, and indeed, part of the fun becomes shephreding the lowbies up to the next level. If this stuff weren't fun, clickie-tactical-CRPGs would not exist... Freedom Force would have bombed. This is why critical hits were one of the most frequent house rules in AD&D, because they increased terror and nail-biting.


----------



## bardolph

ExploderWizard said:


> A list of random things and no explanation of _why_ they are rubbish is in fact a pile of rubbish.



Fair enough.



> 18/00- The wonderful gateway drug to bonus bloat. A beginning perhaps, to the insane notion that because it existed, every fighter _had _to have it or they might as well reroll. What is rubbish isn't the score itself, but the mentality that it helped inspire.



This.



> Psionics- Very quirky and more likely to get you killed than provide any benefit.



Agreed. Also, it's yet-another-subsystem that only sees play when an extroardinarily improbable conjunction of dice rolls occur during character creation. Or when the players cheat.



> Assassination table- assassins kill people, get over it.



No, rather my complaint is that _immediately_ after the chart is the suggestion that, rather than rolling on the table, maybe the encounter should be role-played instead, which calls into question the whole point of the chart in the first place.



> Magic Missile vs Sleep- you don't believe that every spell of the same level has to be equally valuable against every situation do you? If so then it would be stupid of you to play any system with more than one spell in a given power range.



Magic Missile had almost no valid uses. 1d4+1 damage just wasn't enough to justify a spell slot.



> Cure Light Wounds vs any other 1st level cleric spell- _Command-Disrobe, _Next!



OK, that's _two_ useful spells in the entire list. However, note that a cleric who regularly marches into battle armed with "Command-Disrobe" is a pretty silly notion in itself. Not from a usefulness standpoint, but rather from a why-does-every-encounter-turn-into-sketch-comedy standpoint.



> The thief- A self justiying class IMHO but at least he had his own niche instead of _fighting _better than the _fighting man._



 Problem is that his "niche" was to roll against a chart that was insanely stacked against him, usually leading to an early death.



> Weapon vs Armor class table- Not my cup of tea really but for those that liked it I can see the benefit of using it. Some weapons are better than others and that is that.



And why was "studded-leather-plus-shield" considered equivalent to "scale mail" from an armor-piercing standpoint?



> The Fighter/Magic User/Cleric- Why is this any different than any other multi-classed character? Progression is very slow, which is a big price to pay for such versatility. Remember that this guy has 3 class trainers to pay to attain levels so unless he gets big cash donations from other party members to offset those costs he will be adventuring a bit without gaining xp which slows down advancement even further. Overpowered? not at all.



It's not that it's overpowered, it's just cumbersome, as was all multiclassing. It was just weird that, when the cleric-part-of-my-personality advanced a level, I had to roll 1d8/3 for my hit points, for example.



> Leveling by ritual combat- Only 2 classes had this and it added to the flavor of those classes.



I agree. However, flavor was _all_ it ever was, since it's doubtful the author ever intended that real PCs would ever progress that far.

The monk was even more useless than the thief, as far as I'm concerned. A melee combat focused character who was _not allowed to wear armor?_ This class is pretty much designed to be dead on arrival.



> Save vs Rod, Staff, or Wand- more detail of what the problem is would be helpful here.



The entire saving throw chart was arbitrary and weird, and the fact that the column names kept changing from edition to edition only reinforced its weirdness. Poison, Petrification, and Death Magic? An entire column dedicated to Dragon Breath? Really? I guess the name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons, but...



> Why on earth does Armor class count _down_ from 10?-Look into why the combat tables feature repeating 20's and you might find your answer.



Nope, I still don't get it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

bardolph said:


> Nope, I still don't get it.





That much is obvious.  There are all kinds of things that I don't get, but that doesn't mean that they aren't valid.  I don't get why one would want the balance 4e is designed for, but I certainly accept that it was designed for a kind of balance, and that some folks like it.


RC


----------



## pawsplay

Don't get me wrong, AD&D 1e was a morass from which I was happy to escape, but the whole "1e no balance nada" argument seems to me like an attempt at shifting goal posts, claiming AD&D is not balanced because it is not balanced in the way 4e is balanced.


----------



## bardolph

Raven Crowking said:


> One might wonder why you cannot simply state that you dislike something without trying to prove it to be objectively bad.



I thought that was the whole point of having a discussion thread in the first place.


> One might also wonder _*why*_ the things on your list are supposed to be "crazy nonsensical rubbish".
> 
> Perhaps you wil explain more clearly?



Done. See above.



> I am seriously contending that your evidence that 4e had more playtesting does not constitute evidence that 4e had more playtesting.  Which is what I said.  I thought I was clear.



Clear, but a specious argument nonetheless. A printed list of playtesters _is_ evidence. That's why I mentioned it in the first place.

Also note that you have declined to produce any evidence to support the opposing side of the argument.



> Something that, by the evidenciary standards you asked us to accept re: 4e and 1e, I coud easily claim to be playtested more than both of them put together.  But I would not, because (1) such a claim would be false, and (2) the means by which I would thereby be making such a claim would not constitute evidence.  It is used merely as an example of how easy it is to mislead on the basis of such a list, either intentionally or not.




...okay. You throw out an undefined acronym in an attempt to shut down an argument, then when directly asked to define the acronym, you go into this meandering piece of sophistry, *while still refusing to define your own term.*

If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.


----------



## pawsplay

bardolph said:


> ...okay. You throw out an undefined acronym in an attempt to shut down an argument, then when directly asked to define the acronym, you go into this meandering piece of sophistry, *while still refusing to define your own term.*
> 
> If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.




Actually, he defines it every time he posts.


----------



## bardolph

pawsplay said:


> Actually, he defines it every time he posts.




Ah, it was in the sig. My apologies, RC.


----------



## Gentlegamer

bardolph said:


> If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is.



You don't know what trolling is.


----------



## ExploderWizard

bardolph said:


> No, rather my complaint is that _immediately_ after the chart is the suggestion that, rather than rolling on the table, maybe the encounter should be role-played instead, which calls into question the whole point of the chart in the first place.




How was one to gather the real point of your complaint from " The Assassination Table"? 

A suggestion is just that. Page 42 of the 4E DMG is just a table which is a _suggestion _for handling the mechanical effects of stunts. 



bardolph said:


> Magic Missile had almost no valid uses. 1d4+1 damage just wasn't enough to justify a spell slot.




I will try and keep that in mind the next time we plan our foray into the frozen tomb of incorporeal undead horror. Then again I would hate having to explain that the reason I cast sleep at the wraith was that magic missile wasn't worth the spell slot. 



bardolph said:


> OK, that's _two_ useful spells in the entire list. However, note that a cleric who regularly marches into battle armed with "Command-Disrobe" is a pretty silly notion in itself. Not from a usefulness standpoint, but rather from a why-does-every-encounter-turn-into-sketch-comedy standpoint.




Silly but effective. Getting an armored fighter to ditch plate mid conflict seems fairly worthwhile to me. 

That was just off the top of my head. Other spells have thier uses. The _light _spell had great utility because it could be used as a light source or an effective offensive spell. 





bardolph said:


> Problem is that his "niche" was to roll against a chart that was insanely stacked against him, usually leading to an early death.




I never said the niche was a very good one, or that I cared for it. 



bardolph said:


> And why was "studded-leather-plus-shield" considered equivalent to "scale mail" from an armor-piercing standpoint?




Shields added to any armor changes the game. Also, the modifier to the hit roll did not represent only the pierce or punch factor just as an attack roll did not represent a single swing of a weapon. The modifier was intended to represent the overall effectiveness of a given weapon against an opponent equipped with the listed gear. If it was only about the pure punch factor than every weapon would have massive bonuses against unarmored opponents. 



bardolph said:


> It's not that it's overpowered, it's just cumbersome, as was all multiclassing. It was just weird that, when the cleric-part-of-my-personality advanced a level, I had to roll 1d8/3 for my hit points, for example.




I'll take the division of a d8 roll by 3 any day over managing the powers for a paragon tier single classed character. Talk about cumbersome!



bardolph said:


> I agree. However, flavor was _all_ it ever was, since it's doubtful the author ever intended that real PCs would ever progress that far.
> 
> The monk was even more useless than the thief, as far as I'm concerned. A melee combat focused character who was _not allowed to wear armor?_ This class is pretty much designed to be dead on arrival.




The avenger is a 4E melee fighter limited to cloth armor. Are they useless? 



bardolph said:


> The entire saving throw chart was arbitrary and weird, and the fact that the column names kept changing from edition to edition only reinforced its weirdness. Poison, Petrification, and Death Magic? An entire column dedicated to Dragon Breath? Really? I guess the name of the game is Dungeons & Dragons, but...




Arbitrary and weird? Quite possibly. 



bardolph said:


> Nope, I still don't get it.




AD&D "to hit" adjustments generally modified the AC of the target rather than the raw die roll of the attacker. The repeating 20 kept a certain range of AC's from becoming hit proof. 

Lets match hit probilities mapping AD&D to the much more intuitive ascending AC system:

1E 
*AC     Target Number *
3      17 
2      18 
1      19 
0      20 
-1    20 
-2    20 
-3    20 
-4    20 
-5    20 

4E
*AC     Target Number*
17     17
18     18
19     19
20     20
21     FATAL EXCEPTION
22     FATAL EXCEPTION
23     FATAL EXCEPTION
24     FATAL EXCEPTION
25     FATAL EXCEPTION


----------



## Raven Crowking

bardolph said:


> A printed list of playtesters _is_ evidence. That's why I mentioned it in the first place.




And I have shown the problems with this as "evidence"....sufficiently well, I think, for the average person.  To be a bit clearer:

(1)  The quantity of playtesters does not evidence either the amount of playtesting done, nor the quality of playtesting done.

(2)  Evidence that cannot be checked, produced by a person or entity that has reason to cause you to draw a specific conclusion, fails the standard of evidence.  I would have thought that the tobacco companies taught us all this long ago.

(3)  We do not know what qualifies as being a "playtester" in either 1e or 4e.  If someone gains a credit in 4e for playtesting, said playtesting being of a type or quantity which would not grant a credit in 1e, the size of the list itself provides no evidence as to who would be on either list if the same criteria were applied.  In neither case do we know what criteria were applied.

[qote]Also note that you have declined to produce any evidence to support the opposing side of the argument.[/quote]

I do not need to provide evidence to reach the conclusion, "Not proven".  No one does.  For instance, were you to say, "It is not proven that 1e were designed for game balance" you would not need to provide evidence.



> You throw out an undefined acronym in an attempt to shut down an argument




(1)  It doesn't matter what the acronym means.  I can write a 1-page game, X, and list 999 pages of playtesters with (relative) ease.  Such a list, produced by the person producing the game, has no meaning in and of itself.  

What X is has no bearing on whether or not this is true.

(2)  It doesn't shut down the argument; it merely demonstrates that a line of reasoning is false.

(3)  Look at my .sig.

EDIT:  I had to drive my partner & her brother to the mall between writing & posting.  I see you are now aware of what RCFG means.  If you will follow the link, I think you will see that there is a lot of 3e and 4e inspiration.....If I thought 1e was perfect, that's what I'd be playing!


RC


----------



## bardolph

ExploderWizard said:


> How was one to gather the real point of your complaint from " The Assassination Table"?



I was assuming a context that, as it turns out, wasn't obvious. The assassination table's main flaw was that it was unclear _what_ the table actually represented, or how to use it. Do you roll on the table after rolling a successful hit? Do you roll it _instead_ of a hit roll? Does the table assume an unaware or helpless opponent? Does the table replace the _entire encounter, from infiltration to assassination_ (I believe this is the case). What are the consequences of failure on this roll? Can NPC assassins use this chart against PCs? Does this mean that a PC can simply "wake up dead" one morning without any chance of survival?



> A suggestion is just that. Page 42 of the 4E DMG is just a table which is a _suggestion _for handling the mechanical effects of stunts.



Agreed. However, the endless array of subsystems each with their own set of rules doesn't exactly lend itself to playability.



> Shields added to any armor changes the game. Also, the modifier to the hit roll did not represent only the pierce or punch factor just as an attack roll did not represent a single swing of a weapon. The modifier was intended to represent the overall effectiveness of a given weapon against an opponent equipped with the listed gear.



Better would be to list the specific gear, rather than the AC value on a chart. Another example: why did leather armor +3 have the same properties against specific weapons as chain mail?

And if the chart did not represent "pierce or punch factor," then what the heck did it represent?!

I really don't think these questions were thought through before going to press.



> The avenger is a 4E melee fighter limited to cloth armor. Are they useless?



No, because they are given alternative ways of improving their armor class. Monks weren't even allowed to include their Dexterity bonus into their AC calculation!



> AD&D "to hit" adjustments generally modified the AC of the target rather than the raw die roll of the attacker. The repeating 20 kept a certain range of AC's from becoming hit proof.



This makes some sense, but still does not explain why the AC chart starts at "ten."



Raven Crowking said:


> And I have shown the problems with this as "evidence"....sufficiently well, I think, for the average person.



The most compelling "evidence" in my opinion, is the quality of the game itself as it plays over the table in my personal experience. 4e runs very smoothly, with very little need for DM fiat to resolve encounters. 1e, not so much. While not evidence in a strictly objective sense, it was enough to convince me.

If you do a google search on "D&D 4th edition playtesting" you can find plenty more evidence of 4e playtesting. However the NDA that playtesters were required to sign limits the results quite a bit.


----------



## bardolph

Wow. RCFG is a lot of material. Looks like I'll be reading for quite a while!


----------



## pawsplay

bardolph said:


> This makes some sense, but still does not explain why the AC chart starts at "ten."




At AC 10, a fighter needs a 10 or higher to hit.


----------



## bardolph

pawsplay said:


> At AC 10, a fighter needs a 10 or higher to hit.




It would then follow that at AC 11, a fighter would need an 11 or higher to hit. 

But it doesn't work out that way. And once you take levels and non-fighter classes into account, the formula breaks down completely.


----------



## ExploderWizard

bardolph said:


> It would then follow that at AC 11, a fighter would need an 11 or higher to hit.
> 
> But it doesn't work out that way. And once you take levels and non-fighter classes into account, the formula breaks down completely.




Why would that follow?
If you need a 10 to hit AC 10 in a _descending_ AC system then an AC 11 would be hit on a 9. 

What formula would break down? Improvement means that you hit AC 10 on _less _than a 10 and if your combat ability was not on par with a standard fighter you would need _more _than a 10 to hit AC 10.


----------



## Ariosto

> Magic Missile had almost no valid uses. 1d4+1 damage just wasn't enough to justify a spell slot.



Potting another magic-user isn't valid? The spell out-ranges _sleep_, although the latter's area of effect _almost_ -- measuring range from its center -- makes up the difference (changes from OD&D, to be sure). An m-u of 5th level or higher is (as I interpret it) immune to the soporific spell.

Is a _nearly guaranteed_ 4-10 or 6-15 damage worth a slot when one has 2 or 4 slots available?


----------



## pawsplay

bardolph said:


> It would then follow that at AC 11, a fighter would need an 11 or higher to hit.
> 
> But it doesn't work out that way. And once you take levels and non-fighter classes into account, the formula breaks down completely.




I don't understanding your logic. Liking the number 10 doesn't have any bearing on what happens after that. I'll bet shoe sizes really bother you...


----------



## Ariosto

The messing up of armor classes (e.g., making them not really armor classes any more) by adding overlap and shoving studded leather and ring mail into the middle ... was not pretty. Really, it was pretty ugly. When the PHB came out and revealed what had been done, there were a few "AC 9 forever" bitter-enders. The claim (in the DMG) that counting down from 10 was done for backward compatibility still makes some sense, despite all that, though. I don't remember anyone getting all worked up over the ACs in the MM -- which was in so many ways really an OD&D work.


----------



## Raven Crowking

bardolph said:


> Wow. RCFG is a lot of material. Looks like I'll be reading for quite a while!




My not-so-secret agenda is achieved!  Join me on the Dark Side!


----------



## Ariosto

Most everything to do with m-us boils down to a "balance of terror" -- a sword-'n'-sorcery version of Mutual Assured Destruction. If there are not a lot more quickly dead than just among the 'quick', then the balance is probably off. Low-level magic-users should die like flies, and wizards should think twice and move once to avoid a fate worse than death.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> Luckily, Gary Gygax had games going back at least to H.G. Wells upon which D&D rules were based.  Because there was no desire to slaughter "sacred cows" that worked, in many cases Gygax was using game principles that had been tested for decades or longer.  Hence the way AC works prior to 3e.
> 
> Also, Hussar, while it is true that Gygax & co. had intentions as to how the game would be played, their intentions were far less restrictive than those of the 4e designers, and their game far less restrictive than that of the 4e design.  Tight "balance" of the 4e type can only occur by restricting emergent choices that would otherwise throw that "balance" off.
> 
> 
> 
> RC




So, RC, when you repeatedly argue that PC's should never gain all the treasure in an adventure, that random encounters should always be used to limit resting time, that magic should be limited and difficult to find, that creating new magic items should be virtually impossible (or at least as difficult as the DM wants to make it), that worlds should be humanocentric and pulp fantasy - you're not arguing that 1e limits play choices?

I can't speak to 4e, never played it and don't really care.  Even if 4e is more restrictive, that doesn't make 1e open and free.  The rules can be extremely restrictive - ask anyone who's ever played a druid or a monk or a paladin or any demi-human that didn't choose an unlimited level limit.

In other words, for your version of emergent balance to exist, all the initial elements must be very similar.  If they aren't then a particular emergent property won't occur.  If you change DMing styles then you will not achieve balance.

4e, from what I can see, balances without the intervention of the DM.  The DM can unbalance the system (probably in a similar way to 3e - by reinterpreting rules without understanding why those rules existed in the first place) but, if the DM runs the rules as written, the game will be balanced.

3e had issues, particularly at higher levels, but, for the most part allowed you to run a very large number of different campaigns with vastly different dming styles, all without becoming a train wreck.  The plethora of variant d20 systems shows how rubust d20 was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns.

I don't think the same can be said of AD&D.  It contained far too many presumptions on how your world would look.  Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> So, RC, when you repeatedly argue that PC's should never gain all the treasure in an adventure, that random encounters should always be used to limit resting time, that magic should be limited and difficult to find, that creating new magic items should be virtually impossible (or at least as difficult as the DM wants to make it), that worlds should be humanocentric and pulp fantasy - you're not arguing that 1e limits play choices?





Please read what you are responding to.

All games have built in limitations.  The more the designer attempts to build in balance, the more limitations must be built in.  Hence, perforce, the more “balanced” a game is, the fewer options it has.  The goal of all design is to create the “right balance” between these limitations and playability.  The designers of 1e chose to go with fewer limitations, and less inherent “balance”; the designers of 4e chose to go with more limitations and less inherent “imbalance”.

That’s the way it goes.  There is no other way it can go.  One trades off for the other.


----------



## Gimby

Raven Crowking said:


> Please read what you are responding to.
> 
> All games have built in limitations.  The more the designer attempts to build in balance, the more limitations must be built in.  Hence, perforce, the more “balanced” a game is, the fewer options it has.  The goal of all design is to create the “right balance” between these limitations and playability.  The designers of 1e chose to go with fewer limitations, and less inherent “balance”; the designers of 4e chose to go with more limitations and less inherent “imbalance”.
> 
> That’s the way it goes.  There is no other way it can go.  One trades off for the other.




I'd argue the opposite, really.  

Take 1e Wizards, as a simple example.  The balance in them is that they are weak at low levels and strong at high levels, so the balance emerges as its rare for a Wizard to reach high levels.  

If you are starting your game with characters at 8th level, then this balance point is moot.  The Wizard is now just stronger than other choices without its main "balance" feature.  

Or the Paladin, balanced by scarcity.  If you allow point/array stat generation, then a player can always choose to be one (or never choose to be one, if insufficient stats are given).  

Or the Thief, whose mediocre combat ability is balance by excelling at stealth, trapfinding and lockpicking where your campaign for whatever reasons features none (or little) of the above.  

And so on.

I recognise that this is a simplification, but if you want the balance aspects to come into play with greatest force then you must start characters at first level, must use random stat generation, must provide challenges tailored to the party rather than ones determined by the gameworld and so on.  You may ignore all these for a deliberately unbalanced game, but thats diverging from what appears to be the design assumptions.

If your character classes are balanced against each other at all points in time given identical levels, then this allows you to diverge from these constraints.  Use any stat generation method you like.  Start at whatever level you like.  Present whatever challenges you like.  Use any mix of character classes you like.  Doesn't matter, characters will still be balanced against each other and the challenge generation guidelines will probably still give reliable results.


----------



## Ariosto

> I don't think the same can be said of AD&D. It contained far too many presumptions on how your world would look. Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there.



Just one tome? As compared with how many for 3e?

Arcana Evolved
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Complete Arcane
Complete Warrior
Dungeon Masters Guide II
Dungeonscape
Iron Heroes
Players Handbook II
Savage Species
Unearthed Arcana
... Etc. ...

IIRC, one ENworld poster wrote of owning 80 3e books.

I have seen at first hand players using hand trucks to leverage and wheel their stacks of books to the tables at the FLGS.


----------



## Ariosto

> If you are starting your game with characters at 8th level, then this balance point is moot.



No doubt.

And if you start the white side in chess without half its pawns, and the black side with a pawn already promoted to a second queen ...

I'll bet that, if you devote the same effort to it, you can come up with a similarly unbalanced variant for any other game.


----------



## Gimby

Ariosto said:


> No doubt.
> 
> And if you start the white side in chess without half its pawns, and the black side with a pawn already promoted to a second queen ...
> 
> I'll bet that, if you devote the same effort to it, you can come up with a similarly unbalanced variant for any other game.




Indeed.  Because starting characters above first level is something that never comes up ever and is a wild, crazy idea.  

New players never join experienced parties, after all.  Characters never die and are replaced.  Players never get bored of characters and want new ones.  No, thats all crazy talk.

edit- If your point is that new players/characters should start at 1st level, then thats fine.  Its just that that represents a limitation enforced by balancing at the scale of the entire campaign.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Ariosto said:


> Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just one tome? As compared with how many for 3e?
> 
> Arcana Evolved
> Book of Vile Darkness
> Cityscape
> Complete Adventurer
> Complete Arcane
> Complete Warrior
> Dungeon Masters Guide II
> Dungeonscape
> Iron Heroes
> Players Handbook II
> Savage Species
> Unearthed Arcana
> ... Etc. ...
Click to expand...



I'm just passing through here, but I'd like to point out that none of those are binders or house rules.


----------



## Ariosto

> Because starting characters above first level is something that never comes up ever and is a wild, crazy idea.



It's not a very _well informed_ idea to expect that "eighth level" is some absolute balancing factor.


----------



## Ariosto

> I'm just passing through here, but I'd like to point out that none of those are binders or house rules.



_OOOH_ ... Pardon me a moment, while I pop over to the printing and binding service. There we go! You can call me "Bandwagon Games", if you please. I guess that makes it all officially superior, eh?


----------



## Gimby

Ariosto said:


> It's not a very _well informed_ idea to expect that "eighth level" is some sort of balancing factor.




"eighth level" is just a number picked out of a hat.  

The point is (simplified), if one class is designed to start weak and become rapidly stronger and another class is designed to start relatively strong and advance slower, then the basic balance is that the first class does well at high levels, while the second does well at low levels.  This is all very simple.  

This is a balancing mechanism, seemingly designed to ensure that both players get spotlight time (as derived from their mechanics, as player/character personality is independant of that) over the course of a campaign that goes from low levels to high levels.  Again, this is very simple.  

If your campaign does not go from low levels to high levels, then this doesn't work.  I'm going to assume that your answer to this will be that it was assumed that all players had multiple characters spread over a wide level range and that the idea of a "level 8" campaign was bunk.  All this does however, is demonstrate another design assumption that limits DM design - that you are going to use a wide population of characters which must be tracked and developed.  

If you don't want to do that? Well, too bad.  Balancing factors broken down again because you violated the game design assumptions.


----------



## Ariosto

> This is a balancing mechanism ...



Yes, indeed; so, I take it that your answer is, "Yes"?



> If your campaign does not go from low levels to high levels, then this doesn't work.



No surprise there, as a "campaign of a certain level" was just nonsense in the original context. But wherefore this assumption that it's a one-way street?

How well does 4e fare in that very same context? Not so well, aver the designers in the DMG.

Different designs for different balances for different goals for different games.


----------



## Obryn

Ariosto said:


> _OOOH_ ... Pardon me a moment, while I pop over to the printing and binding service. There we go! You can call me "Bandwagon Games", if you please. I guess that makes it all officially superior, eh?



I think you just reductioed your own absurdum!

-O


----------



## pawsplay

Gimby said:


> If you are starting your game with characters at 8th level, then this balance point is moot.  The Wizard is now just stronger than other choices without its main "balance" feature.




They still have terrible AC and hit points and level slower. In fact, if you start at a given XP total, which only makes sense, the wizard may start out lower level. In any case, practical experience suggests people play a variety of classes for a variety of reasons. I know that in Pool of Radiance, my "all fighter/MU plus one cleric/wizard" strategy ultimately proved to be an utter failure, even when I cheated to gain extra XP and maxed out everyone's levels. I think that game had a cap of either 6th or 8th level. 

It's true, around 19th level, a MU is going to have dizzying options, but the hit point disparity only gets wider, and that vorpal sword ain't gonna wield itself. In 1e, it was a rare wizard who could outfighter a fighter, even with Tenser's transformation. In 4e, that kind of balance is actually substantially worse, since you never know who is going to crowd in on your turf. 

In GURPS, you can spend your points literally anywhere you think is worthwhile. I have found that players appreciate GURPS for its options, rather than decrying that some options are more powerful in some respects than others. Options is options. 

Every game does it differently. In AD&D, a wizard has to brave out whatever levels, unless you start out maybe 11th level or higher when they have access to some wilder spells, they get d4s for hit points, max out at +2 hit points per hit die, and get +1 hit point only past 10th level. They have to commit a high enough Int to learn and cast their spells. Meanwhile, a fighter is free to sink a high score into Str or Con. Barring a really low hit point roll at 1st level, he's tough at virtually every level. By 12th level, he might begin to look a little like the M-U's assistant, except, well, he owns a castle and commands hundreds of men-at-arms of his own and has a sword that can pierce the hide of any monster, and three or four times as many hit points as a M-U.


----------



## Rel

Ariosto said:


> _OOOH_ ... Pardon me a moment, while I pop over to the printing and binding service. There we go! You can call me "Bandwagon Games", if you please. I guess that makes it all officially superior, eh?




The snarky sarcasm is unbecoming and counter to friendly discussion.


----------



## Ariosto

> I think you just reductioed your own absurdum!



I could have a hardbound volume gathering dust beside countless others on retailers' shelves next week, if I had the money to burn.

Please look up the argument to which this was specifically a counter-argument, rather than take it out of context.


----------



## evileeyore

Ariosto said:


> I could have a hardbound volume gathering dust beside countless others on retailers' shelves next week, if I had the money to burn.
> 
> Please look up the argument to which this was specifically a counter-argument, rather than take it out of context.




There is a difference between a supplement and a house rule.

One is mass marketed and is often used in games beyond your table, the second resides pretty much soley at your table.


----------



## Gimby

Ariosto said:


> No surprise there, as a "campaign of a certain level" was just nonsense in the original context. But wherefore this assumption that it's a one-way street?
> 
> How well does 4e fare in that very same context? Not so well, aver the designers in the DMG.
> 
> Different designs for different balances for different goals for different games.




Quite.  The point was made in response to RC, that somehow the design assumptions that go into 1e make it free of limitations in a way that say, 4e is limited.  

You demonstrate quite clearly that this is not the case - both games have limitations for balance which require running the game in accordance with those limitations if you want those balancing factors to apply.


----------



## Bullgrit

There are some people here who have drastically different opinions than I do, but I can at least understand their point of view. I can have an informative (and even fun) conversation with them even if we come to different conclusions on the evidence.

But Raven Crowking . . . his apparent reality is so completely different than my reality that I can't even understand his point of view. What he puts forth as evidence for drawing conclusions is often completely nonsensical to me. For instance:







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The designers of 1e chose to go with fewer limitations, and less inherent “balance”;



This is completely opposite of everything I know about AD&D1. AD&D1 was rife with limitations -- specifically to construct more inherent balance. That he states the opposite confounds any attempt by me to understand him. It's like listening to a discussion of global geography where one person insists that the world is flat.

Bullgrit


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gimby said:


> Quite.  The point was made in response to RC, that somehow the design assumptions that go into 1e make it free of limitations in a way that say, 4e is limited.






Bullgrit said:


> But Raven Crowking . . . his apparent reality is so completely different than my reality that I can't even understand his point of view.





Probably because you are taking the quote out of context, as is Gimby.  Or perhaps the idea is simply harder to understand than I think it is.  Maybe I am not explaining myself well.

When designing a role-playing game, one chooses how much balance is inherent in the rules, and how much balance has to be created at the table.  Balance inherent in the rules occurs through a process of eliminating emerging properties that might otherwise damage that balance.  Whatever emergent properties you believe the GM can handle can remain in the design.  This is true no matter what the game system, and whether or not the designer(s) thought about it in these terms.  It _*must be*_ true.  There is no other way to create game balance than by controlling emergent properties that would threaten that balance.

This is simple to demonstrate.  A game like checkers has the same pieces, and the same rules, for both players.  If each player were allowed to choose three “balanced” house rules that their pieces could follow from a pool of nine, the interaction between those extra rules would create synergies that would allow some combinations of three to be better than others.  Farther up the scale, one deck in Magic the Gathering may be far better than another.  

Once each player is using different game pieces (i.e., all characters and classes are not the same), emergent properties arise that threaten balance.  Controlling those properties is done, because it must be done, by making those characters all more similar to each other.  Flattening the curve between them.

Many of the limitations in 1e – racial level limits, for example – exist _*explicitly*_ to generate a specific type of game rather than to simply balance the game.  What AD&D 1e specifically allows is the creation of a number of different character types which, perforce, have different ways of handling the challenges of the game milieu.  Not different “fluff”; entirely different methodologies.  These limitations do not flatten the curve between characters – quite the opposite.  And they can be (again, explicitly) dismissed with by any given GM without the entire system falling apart.  The GM is merely advised to try to understand the system first, so that it can be rebalanced to taste.

The argument, for example, that the 1e thief is unbalanced hinges upon the idea that the thief ought to be able to do X because some other class can do Y.  However, the value of both X and Y are based upon specific approaches to the game....and not those at which the thief shines.  The thief, like the magic-user, should not be seeking out combat.  The thief player should be one who enjoys using her brain as much as the dice, because, at the end of the day, it is her brain that is going to tell her to still distrust Door A if her Find/Remove Traps roll turns up nothing.

The play experience at 8th level is different than at 1st is not evidence that the above is incorrect.  It shows, again, that the PCs are allowed to be different, and that the design has not constrained these choices for balance.

Conversely, 1e does not allow dragonborn as a choice.  I am only talking about a particular _*type*_ of choice.


----------



## Gimby

Raven Crowking said:


> The play experience at 8th level is different than at 1st is not evidence that the above is incorrect.  It shows, again, that the PCs are allowed to be different, and that the design has not constrained these choices for balance.





Ok, I think I'm understanding where you are coming from here.  

What seem to be saying is that a desire for balance as part of the rules structure limits the design elements that can be part of that rules design, correct?

So balance being important at the design stage means that the game faces more limitations at that point than a game where balance isn't important.  

The point I was (trying to, poorly apparently) make above is that while that is true, and is as you say tautological, when we move to the play stage of the game, the balance that's encoded into the rules allows for more freedom as to how the DM actually want to frame and run his game.  The DM doesn't have to rebalance the game based on his group but can run the game out of the box.  

So essentially:

Balance not important at design stage: Freedom of mechanics and systems
Balance important at design stage: Freedom of setting and framing

Would you agree?

Personally, the second is more important to me as I'm more interested in results than processes.  If you killed that goblin with astral fire I don't particularly care if it was a Vancian spell, a Sorceror spellslot, a Warlock SLA or whatever.  All I'm concerned about is describing his roasting corpse.  I do care if your astral fire is winning all the fights by itself though.

edit - As a side point, a balanced game doesn't break down if you deliberate unbalance it.  It just goes from a balanced game to an unbalanced one, much as how an unbalanced on would go to a worse balanced for the same changes.

If you put a 5th level character in a 1st level group then you will face issues of him being more powerful in any edition. If you put a 20th level character in a first level group you will face the same issues, just exaggerated and again, the same in any edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Gimby said:


> Indeed. Because starting characters above first level is something that never comes up ever and is a wild, crazy idea.
> 
> New players never join experienced parties, after all. Characters never die and are replaced. Players never get bored of characters and want new ones. No, thats all crazy talk.
> 
> edit- If your point is that new players/characters should start at 1st level, then thats fine. Its just that that represents a limitation enforced by balancing at the scale of the entire campaign.




All of these situations are possible. Characters die, characters leave the campaign, new players join, etc. 

Starting at 1st level is just a guideline. If an experienced player would like to join the game using a higher level character the DM is free to permit it. 

The older D&D rulesets were much more flexible and friendly with regard to characters of varying levels adventuring side by side. The rules didn't need to assume that the party would all be the same level together. 

The assumption of ever scaling defenses and gratuitous numbers bloat that results in lower level party members being unable to contribute or even survive is more limiting IMHO than the older systems. 

In a 1E game if my 7th level character dies, I can rejoin the game at any point between 1st and 7th without the party falling apart. Try having a 1st level party member along on a 7th level 4E adventure and see how it goes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gimby said:


> What seem to be saying is that a desire for balance as part of the rules structure limits the design elements that can be part of that rules design, correct?




Close enough for government work.



> So essentially:
> 
> Balance not important at design stage: Freedom of mechanics and systems
> Balance important at design stage: Freedom of setting and framing
> 
> Would you agree?




No.

That would require that setting and framing are enhanced by restricting the mechanics and systems available, which I would argue is self-evidently not true.  Or, at least, not if one has an expectation for the setting and frame to matter.

Otherwise, "flip a coin" would be the last wod in setting and frame.



> edit - As a side point, a balanced game doesn't break down if you deliberate unbalance it.  It just goes from a balanced game to an unbalanced one, much as how an unbalanced on would go to a worse balanced for the same changes.




If the feature that sells the game is its balance, unbalancing the game breaks down its selling feature. But otherwise, I would agree.  Indeed, for certain types of play (sandbox), I have recommended that DMs break 4e's carefully structured balance systems.

Breaking and rebuiding the 4e balance is, IMHO, the only way to make the game satisfying for certain types of setting and frame.   



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

IMHO, the biggest problem 3e has is that, while the designers flattened the curve between classes, they increased the curve between levels.  That steep curve between levels is at the root of all 3e's problems (IMHO).  I find that Pathfinder increases this curve, which came as a disappointment to me.


RC


----------



## Gimby

Raven Crowking said:


> No.
> 
> That would require that setting and framing are enhanced by restricting the mechanics and systems available, which I would argue is self-evidently not true.  Or, at least, not if one has an expectation for the setting and frame to matter.
> 
> Otherwise, "flip a coin" would be the last wod in setting and frame.




Familiar with Wushu? Does a good impression of flip a coin and you are pretty much free to set and frame as you choose.  

The point with restricting the mechanics and systems available is that it allows you to better predict what the capabilities of a given group of characters given a small number of metrics (just level and role spread in 4e, for example).  

The examples I gave in my earlier post are based on this - with a game balanced at the play stage then you can present them with any mix of challenges, start at any level, finish at any level, have any mix of archetypes and so on.  You don't have to worry so much about whether or not critical players are missing this session, or ensuring that appropriate challenges are in place for players of certain classes.  You can trust the game will handle all that on its own and focus on other aspects of the session (dungeon layout design, NPC characterisation, that kind of thing).  Thats the freedom I'm talking about.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gimby said:


> with a game balanced at the play stage then you can present them with any mix of challenges, start at any level, finish at any level, have any mix of archetypes and so on.  You don't have to worry so much about whether or not critical players are missing this session, or ensuring that appropriate challenges are in place for players of certain classes.  You can trust the game will handle all that on its own and focus on other aspects of the session (dungeon layout design, NPC characterisation, that kind of thing).  Thats the freedom I'm talking about.




Agreed.

But what happens when a game is balanced at the design stage?


RC


----------



## pawsplay

Gimby said:


> Ok, I think I'm understanding where you are coming from here.
> 
> What seem to be saying is that a desire for balance as part of the rules structure limits the design elements that can be part of that rules design, correct?




The classic example would be 4e's PC resource system. Every class has X at-wills, X-dailies, X-encounters and so forth. Apart from minor variations, every class has to follow this system or the system starts to wobble. Conversely, 3e deliberately experimented with different systems: monks and their daily stunning fists, warlocks with endless invocations, wizards with spell slots, fighters with mostly reusable but situational abilities, crusaders with random replenishing, and so forth.


----------



## Bullgrit

ExploderWizard said:
			
		

> In a 1E game if my 7th level character dies, I can rejoin the game at any point between 1st and 7th without the party falling apart. Try having a 1st level party member along on a 7th level 4E adventure and see how it goes.



A party of 7th-level PCs, one dies and is replaced with a 1st-level PC.

In every edition of D&D, such a group will be less powerful as a whole, and the new PC will very likely die in any violent confrontation that's a challenge for a full 7th-level party.

I don't see how a party would "fall apart" in any edition. I don't see how the new PC would survive long in any edition. [I've never played D&D4.]

How do you think the edition would make a significant difference ("fall apart") in the result for the party or the new PC?

Bullgrit


----------



## Gimby

Raven Crowking said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But what happens when a game is balanced at the design stage?
> 
> 
> RC




Typo/terminology failure on my part there, blame the flu .  That post is for a game thats balanced at the design stage.  If you are balancing at the play stage *and are concerned about play balance* (theres no reason you'd have to be, and if you aren't thats fine) then you have to worry about relative power levels, tailored challenges and so on.  



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> The classic example would be 4e's PC resource system. Every class has X at-wills, X-dailies, X-encounters and so forth. Apart from minor variations, every class has to follow this system or the system starts to wobble. Conversely, 3e deliberately experimented with different systems: monks and their daily stunning fists, warlocks with endless invocations, wizards with spell slots, fighters with mostly reusable but situational abilities, crusaders with random replenishing, and so forth.




Sure, thats a good example.  The issue is more that in the opinion of many people, 4e wobbles if you fiddle with the power structure, but 3e fell off the pivot before you started.  You've got to be careful with ensuring the 4e balance doesn't topple, but you need to build the 3e balance from the ground up, which is work that I at least am not interested in doing.


----------



## pawsplay

Gimby said:


> Sure, thats a good example.  The issue is more that in the opinion of many people, 4e wobbles if you fiddle with the power structure, but 3e fell off the pivot before you started.  You've got to be careful with ensuring the 4e balance doesn't topple, but you need to build the 3e balance from the ground up, which is work that I at least am not interested in doing.




That's not an issue for me. I've loved my 3e campaign, from 1st level to 18th.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Bullgrit said:


> A party of 7th-level PCs, one dies and is replaced with a 1st-level PC.
> 
> In every edition of D&D, such a group will be less powerful as a whole, and the new PC will very likely die in any violent confrontation that's a challenge for a full 7th-level party.
> 
> I don't see how a party would "fall apart" in any edition. I don't see how the new PC would survive long in any edition. [I've never played D&D4.]
> 
> How do you think the edition would make a significant difference ("fall apart") in the result for the party or the new PC?
> 
> Bullgrit




Yes the group will be less powerful as a whole. That is a given in any edition. 

The 7th level party will presumably know that they have a greenhorn with them and select opportunities that the new member can contribute to.

In 4th edition the numbers balloon up to the point where a 1st level character just doesn't have the bonuses needed to affect creatures of higher level. In practice, monsters and the DC's associated with all challenges keep in step with the party level. There is variance. A typical adventure will feature challenges both below and above party level. A difference of a level or two in the party will be noticed but not catastrophic. A difference of six levels would be. 

In a 1E game a typical unaltered monster has a much longer "shelf life". An umodified bugbear can be a viable threat from 1st all the way to name level depending on the number encountered. If the 7th level party with a greenhorn fought a band of bugbears the newbie could still contribute but it would be very dangerous for him. In a 4E party he would probably die because he would need to hit an AC designed to be challenging for 7th level characters. 

4E was not designed for such level disparity. When entities in a game world cannot meaningfully interact with one another outside of a given level range I have problems. Others may not.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gimby said:


> Typo/terminology failure on my part there, blame the flu .




OK.  But I still agree, so long as the original quote stands (error though you may think it).



> That post is for a game thats balanced at the design stage.  If you are balancing at the play stage *and are concerned about play balance* (theres no reason you'd have to be, and if you aren't thats fine) then you have to worry about relative power levels, tailored challenges and so on.




So long as you are running an AP-type game, I could see where this applies.  You need to tailor encounters; tools that help with this, er, are helpful.    If you run a sandbox, it does not, as this sort of balancing falls into the hands of the player.

As I said upthread, finding the right kind of balance for the game you want to run is important.  It doesn't mean, however, that other kinds of balance do not exist, or are "not balance".


RC


----------



## Gimby

ExploderWizard said:


> Yes the group will be less powerful as a whole. That is a given in any edition.
> 
> The 7th level party will presumably know that they have a greenhorn with them and select opportunities that the new member can contribute to.
> 
> In 4th edition the numbers balloon up to the point where a 1st level character just doesn't have the bonuses needed to affect creatures of higher level. In practice, monsters and the DC's associated with all challenges keep in step with the party level. There is variance. A typical adventure will feature challenges both below and above party level. A difference of a level or two in the party will be noticed but not catastrophic. A difference of six levels would be.
> 
> In a 1E game a typical unaltered monster has a much longer "shelf life". An umodified bugbear can be a viable threat from 1st all the way to name level depending on the number encountered. If the 7th level party with a greenhorn fought a band of bugbears the newbie could still contribute but it would be very dangerous for him. In a 4E party he would probably die because he would need to hit an AC designed to be challenging for 7th level characters.
> 
> 4E was not designed for such level disparity. When entities in a game world cannot meaningfully interact with one another outside of a given level range I have problems. Others may not.





This just isn't true though.  

Assuming some basic magic gear.

A typical 4e fighter will have 29 hit points at first level and 65 at seventh.  His attack bonus will be +8 at first level and +12 or 13 at seventh.

A comparable 1e fighter will have on average 8 hit points at first level and 53 at seventh.  His adjusted THAC0 will be 18 at first level and 11-12 at seventh

I'm not seeing that the 1e fighter is going to be better off in the 7th level party than the 4e one is.


----------



## Scribble

Raven Crowking said:


> As I said upthread, finding the right kind of balance for the game you want to run is important.  It doesn't mean, however, that other kinds of balance do not exist, or are "not balance".
> 
> 
> RC




Still think the proper way to say that is "finding the right WAY to balance your game is important." There might be multiple ways to skin a cat, but you're still skinning a cat. mmmm skinned cat.


----------



## the Jester

Gimby said:


> A typical 4e fighter will have 29 hit points at first level and 65 at seventh.  His attack bonus will be +8 at first level and +12 or 13 at seventh.
> 
> A comparable 1e fighter will have on average 8 hit points at first level and 53 at seventh.  His adjusted THAC0 will be 18 at first level and 11-12 at seventh
> 
> I'm not seeing that the 1e fighter is going to be better off in the 7th level party than the 4e one is.




The difference is, the average 4e monster that the party fights is almost unhittable by the 1st level fighter, and he will consistently take enough damage to take him out in a shot or three.

The 1e guy is going up against tougher monsters, but their damage is usually something like 1d6 or 1d8, and they prolly have about AC 5 or 3- tough, but not unhittable.


----------



## Gimby

Raven Crowking said:


> OK.  But I still agree, so long as the original quote stands (error though you may think it).




Fair enough.  We'll agree to disagree then.



Raven Crowking said:


> So long as you are running an AP-type game, I could see where this applies.  You need to tailor encounters; tools that help with this, er, are helpful.    If you run a sandbox, it does not, as this sort of balancing falls into the hands of the player.
> 
> As I said upthread, finding the right kind of balance for the game you want to run is important.  It doesn't mean, however, that other kinds of balance do not exist, or are "not balance".




I agree, there are different sorts of balance and you need to find the one thats right for you/your group, but relying on the skill and mutual understanding of the players can be hazardous at best, particularly if you are introducing new players.  

If you have a great DM and great players then great!  Everyone can get on the same page and induct newbies.  You probably don't have any problems because you are an experienced and skilled DM.  For others, getting players to enact balance at the table is more difficult, particularly if you can make an incredibly weak/strong character by accident.  If the DM is then forced to spend their time attempting to correct for this rather than world build/whatever then this can be a problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Scribble said:


> Still think the proper way to say that is "finding the right WAY to balance your game is important." There might be multiple ways to skin a cat, but you're still skinning a cat. mmmm skinned cat.




(Shrug)

Close enough for government work.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gimby said:


> Fair enough.  We'll agree to disagree then.




Of course.  



> relying on the skill and mutual understanding of the players can be hazardous at best, particularly if you are introducing new players.




90% of the fun of the game comes directly from this hazard IMHO and IME.  

And that was equally true (perhaps more true!) before I was an experienced and skilled DM.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Gimby

the Jester said:


> The difference is, the average 4e monster that the party fights is almost unhittable by the 1st level fighter, and he will consistently take enough damage to take him out in a shot or three.
> 
> The 1e guy is going up against tougher monsters, but their damage is usually something like 1d6 or 1d8, and they prolly have about AC 5 or 3- tough, but not unhittable.




See, thats not true either.  

Our first level fighter will be hitting a level 7 monster on something between an 11 and a 15 depending on role (AC = level + 12-16 vs +8 attack bonus), or pretty much exactly what you'd need to hit those 1e ACs (AC 5-3 vs THAC0 18 = 13-15).  Its true that he'd be taking two-three hits to knock out (average normal medium damage expression 12 points of damage, so around 3 hits depending on luck), but our 1e fighter is *also* taking one-three hits to knock out (average on d6 = 3.5, so around three hits dependant on luck).  

I'm not seeing the massive difference here.


----------



## Gimby

Raven Crowking said:


> 90% of the fun of the game comes directly from this hazard IMHO and IME.
> 
> And that was equally true (perhaps more true!) before I was an experienced and skilled DM.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> 
> RC




I'll certainly agree that 90% of emotional response to the game comes from those hazards


----------



## ExploderWizard

the Jester said:


> The difference is, the average 4e monster that the party fights is almost unhittable by the 1st level fighter, and he will consistently take enough damage to take him out in a shot or three.
> 
> The 1e guy is going up against tougher monsters, but their damage is usually something like 1d6 or 1d8, and they prolly have about AC 5 or 3- tough, but not unhittable.




Ninja'd but basically this. 

Using your given THACO numbers and monsters with AC's ranging from 5 to 2 the 1st level guy will hit on around a 13 to 17. The 7th level guy (THACO 12) will hit with a 7 to 11. 

The damage output per hit scored will be very close depending on weaponry and strength scores. The 7th level fighter will certainly be more effective than the 1st level guy as he should be. Defenses don't scale closely with level so an experienced fighter _actually hits way more often._(What a concept )

The 4E fighter gets to feel like a noob his whole career. When facing level appropriate challenges he is hitting around 45-55% of the time from levels 1-30.


----------



## keterys

You guys are stating an awful lot of subjective opinions as facts. Facts that can be casually disproven, but not in a way that will satisfy the original poster because they're going after something more ephemeral that is bothering them.

So, you might be a lot better dropping any edition war-y type guises and moving on proactively with things you like, rather than things you dislike about another edition (whichever edition that is) that another can casually prove wrong. Whether that's "3e was broken from the get go" or "1e can't support this" or "4e can't support this". It's all shennanigans from what I can see so far.


----------



## Ariosto

Getting back to Gimby's point: There's a simple solution to restore game balance.

Give each player a magic-user. Done and done.

The only reason one would need to make all characters equally powerful would be if one were limiting each player to but one character.


----------



## Ariosto

> There is a difference between a supplement and a house rule.
> 
> One is mass marketed and is often used in games beyond your table, the second resides pretty much soley at your table.



Yep.

However, that has _absolutely nothing at all_ to do with what Hussar was claiming.

Which was precisely my point.


----------



## keterys

I'm surprised how many people don't think they were trying for balance. Different xp charts by class, classes that start crappy and get better, nonhumans that get more bonuses but have level caps, etc all look like signs of balance. 

I mean, it's certainly not the same standard of balance that some systems are held to, but it doesn't mean that some attempt wasn't made.


----------



## Chainsaw

keterys said:


> I'm surprised how many people don't think they were trying for balance. Different xp charts by class, classes that start crappy and get better, nonhumans that get more bonuses but have level caps, etc all look like signs of balance.
> 
> I mean, it's certainly not the same standard of balance that some systems are held to, but it doesn't mean that some attempt wasn't made.




It's still not even clear to me that everyone actually means the same thing when they talk about balance, heh.


----------



## Garmorn

keterys said:


> I'm surprised how many people don't think they were trying for balance. Different xp charts by class, classes that start crappy and get better, nonhumans that get more bonuses but have level caps, etc all look like signs of balance.
> 
> I mean, it's certainly not the same standard of balance that some systems are held to, but it doesn't mean that some attempt wasn't made.



I can tell you why I did not think he was not trying for balance.  (Note: DID not do, this thread as taught me alot.)  When I first changed over from Fantasy Trip to AD&D there where so many holes in it for our playing style that house rules just to make it playable where needed.  This is what I saw for 10 or more years with each product getting worst, not better. I never would have thought that a campaign was balanced on characters moving in and out of the group. Having classes balanced over a campaign was also something I never considered, after all how long was a campaign when people moved in and left every 18 months.  (Books don't read that way.)  My group from the start was more story oriented from the start. This led to a completly different view then what lots of you seem to have had.  Remember the youngest player (me) that influnced our style in 81 when I switched was 23, another big different.


----------



## Ariosto

Garmorn, note that *The Fantasy Trip* (one of my all-time favorite games) had radically different origins. _Melee_ and _Wizard_ were published first as competitive games of gladiatorial combat.

4E is probably the closest D&D has come to that kind of balance, but (as far as I know) it was designed from the start with the default assumption of teams of players fighting against DM-controlled monsters.


----------



## Garmorn

Ariosto said:


> Garmorn, note that *The Fantasy Trip* (one of my all-time favorite games) had radically different origins. _Melee_ and _Wizard_ were published first as competitive games of gladiatorial combat.
> 
> 4E is probably the closest D&D has come to that kind of balance, but (as far as I know) it was designed from the start with the default assumption of teams of players fighting against DM-controlled monsters.




Yea, I know the orgin of Fantasy trip bough both Melee and Wizard and played them before getting Fantasy Trip.  The change from that to AD&D was a lot.  We eventually changed over to Rolemaster.  I have fond memories of all of the games but it did give me a completely different impression about AD&D at the time that stayed with me until some of these treads 'educated' about AD&D.


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:


> Yep.
> 
> However, that has _absolutely nothing at all_ to do with what Hussar was claiming.
> 
> Which was precisely my point.




However, no one actually needs those books to play 3e.  OTOH, most people DID feel the need to have tome sized books of house rules to play 1e.  To the point where few (including the primary author) actually played 1e as written.  

*Yes, I know YOU in the back did.  Sit back down.    An exception does not disprove anything*

Sure, you can add in PHB2 to your game.  But, the game certainly didn't require it.  As far as house ruling 3e, ask RC about his tome sometime.  

My point wasn't that no one ever house ruled 3e.  My point was that 3e was balanced enough at the design stage to not need extra work at the table to be a balanced game at most levels.  It wasn't until about 14th level plus that things got seriously wonky.

In the "Sweet Spot" of 3e, virtually no house rules were needed.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Hussar said:


> My point wasn't that no one ever house ruled 3e. My point was that 3e was balanced enough at the design stage to not need extra work at the table to be a balanced game at most levels. It wasn't until about 14th level plus that things got seriously wonky.
> 
> In the "Sweet Spot" of 3e, virtually no house rules were needed.



When I first started running 3E, after a reasonably brief learning/familiarization period, I had no house rules.  I had a few ideas I thought _might_ be needed but never were.  Really, even after the PC's were well past the sweet spot the game was totally by the book.  What complaints I had with the system were made fairly thin and remote - the most important and meaningful changes IMO had been incorporated.  But, it WAS the higher level play that started to bring out my dissatisfaction with the system in general.  While 3E play was plenty of fun, I DID want it to "feel" more like 1E/2E as I and my players had run it (house rules and all).  I then continued to look closer and closer at the 3E system while I was neither running nor playing a game and THAT was when I decided that for the RPG experience _I_ want, 3E was not the best means of providing it.  1E/2E was the better basis to work from - but it DOES then need "tweaking" to be what I want it to be.


----------



## Ariosto

Here is what Hussar actually wrote:


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> 3e had issues, particularly at higher levels, but, for the most part allowed you to run a very large number of different campaigns with vastly different dming styles, all without becoming a train wreck. The plethora of variant d20 systems shows how rubust d20 was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns.
> 
> I don't think the same can be said of AD&D. It contained far too many presumptions on how your world would look. Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there.




Love that double standard.

"The plethora of variant d20 systems shows how rubust d20 was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns." But somehow, when it came to AD&D ...

"Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there." What? Shouldn't those books likewise show how robust AD&D was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns?

And with AD&D, you could do it yourself, to your own specifications, without having to rely on a "pro's" packaged solutions.

What the plethora of commercial volumes of house rules for 3e actually demonstrates is that the market put a value of _at least_ so many dollars -- $29.95 plus tax, or whatever, per book, multiplied by however many books -- on the problems they proposed to solve.


----------



## pawsplay

Ariosto said:


> Here is what Hussar actually wrote:
> 
> 
> Love that double standard.
> 
> "The plethora of variant d20 systems shows how rubust d20 was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns." But somehow, when it came to AD&D ...
> 
> "Departing from those assumptions resulted in massive problems as evidenced by the tome sized binders of house rules out there." What? Shouldn't those books likewise show how robust AD&D was for running all sorts of different D&D style campaigns?
> 
> And with AD&D, you could do it yourself, to your own specifications, without having to rely on a "pro's" packaged solutions.
> 
> What the plethora of commercial volumes of house rules for 3e actually demonstrates is that the market put a value of _at least_ so many dollars -- $29.95 plus tax, or whatever, per book, multiplied by however many books -- on the problems they proposed to solve.




Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.


----------



## Witty Comeback

Ariosto said:


> What the plethora of commercial volumes of house rules for 3e actually demonstrates is that the market put a value of _at least_ so many dollars -- $29.95 plus tax, or whatever, per book, multiplied by however many books -- on the problems they proposed to solve.




Do you think that every optional gaming book published was necessarily designed to fix balance?  I think that many of them were designed to expand options - not to 'fix' anything, but to give new flavor.  Take OA for example, which I don't believe was introduced in 3rd edition .


----------



## keterys

pawsplay said:


> Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.




*stares*

*blinks*

*rereads*

Wow.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pawsplay said:


> Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.




I would have thought the double standard obvious.

The double standard is that the evidence for "train wreck" is exactly the same as the evidence for being "robust":  A lot of extra optional rules and varients used to create the campaign experience one desires.

Unless, of course, you imagine that a publshed book is somehow necessarily better than the binder of houserules at creating the sort of campaign one might want, or that selecting between those published options does not somehow constitute a plethora of houserules.


RC


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

pawsplay said:


> Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.



Interesting.  Back in the day I used to proclaim that AD&D was a superior system because it could be and was adapted to different styles of play and particularly to different genres - post apocalypse sci-fi, western, gothic/fantasy horror, modern spy stuff, etc.  Other game systems had to be built SPECIFICALLY to handle only one genre at a time or else had to be built as disgustingly flavorless, generic rules in order to BE adaptable to a variety of genres.

I don't think I was correct in saying that anymore, but AD&D can be and IS STILL played according to rules-as-written.  The fact that so many people _typically don't_ and still enjoy the hell out of it proves that AD&D does NOT typically become a train wreck when you depart from its rules.


----------



## Nikosandros

pawsplay said:


> Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck.




I've fiddled and I keep fiddling a lot with AD&D. Never had a train wreck, but rather plenty of very enjoyable experiences that make AD&D one of my favorite RPGs.


----------



## Votan

pawsplay said:


> Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.




I also think that 3E was templated so it was easy to introduce new classes whereas 1E required building new classes from the ground up (so things like the XP tables had to be redeisgned and balanced for each class).  

Both editions had issues when too many new spells were introduced.


----------



## Lanefan

pawsplay said:


> Departing from AD&D's rules typically resulted in a train wreck. Departing from 3e's rules was such a fun adventure that there was a thriving industry based on creating variations. Not seeing the double standard, Ariosto.



From my own experience, you've got those backwards.

Departing from AD+D's rules results in AD+D with different rules.  Performing said departure is relatively easy; the game is stable enough to withstand some trial-and-error experiments, and the result can be a very playable and enjoyable game.  Mine has lasted me 25 years.

Departing from 3e's rules results in, more often than not, a train wreck; mostly because competently performing said departure is - in comparison to 1e - extremely difficult.  3e's design was tight, and based around many different elements relying on each other; thus changing one potentially-unsatisfactory element (let's say, speed of level advancement) often had knock-on effects that could easily send things off the rails (wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure; and where's the fun in that?) somewhere further down the track.

That's not to say it couldn't be changed at all.  You just had to be much more careful with what you were doing.

Also, of late there has developed a "thriving industry based on creating variations" of 1e as well...look at all the retro-clones...so that point, if ever relevant at all, has become moot.   

Lanefan


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> I would have thought the double standard obvious.
> 
> The double standard is that the evidence for "train wreck" is exactly the same as the evidence for being "robust":  A lot of extra optional rules and varients used to create the campaign experience one desires.
> 
> Unless, of course, you imagine that a publshed book is somehow necessarily better than the binder of houserules at creating the sort of campaign one might want, or that selecting between those published options does not somehow constitute a plethora of houserules.
> 
> RC




I would have to agree, this argument is a non starter.  From what I have learned is that the problem was not in the balance or in the approach but in the fact that lots of people had to change 1e & 2e to fit their gaming still.  This was not true of 3.x because there was already a D&D version that fit their style. 

A contributing factor is that 3.x at least gave you some ideal how the game was meant to be balanced while 1e & 2e did not give most players a clear of picture of how and why it was balanced the way it was.  Add to this the continue growth of knowledge by the experienced  players and DMs along with the producers on how to make the rules work gave the impression that the earlier versions where just thrown together, or where bad or did not work.  Ect.  Lots of the ads I remember about other games claimed/hinted that they where superior to AD&D, now they talk about be more suited to their genren or a different play style ect.

There has been a radical change in the overall gaming community because it has grown past a very small nich to a large more robush number of like minded groups that have basic concept of RPGs in common.


----------



## Ariosto

Lanefan said:
			
		

> wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure



That's a curious difference. In 1e, slow advancement is -- by the standard rule -- a _product_ of little treasure.

That risk-reward balance is probably the most fundamental in the game. You can go safe and slow, or take high casualties (even 50% per expedition, maybe) and have the survivors rocket through the ranks.

Gary Gygax and Tim Kask quite often took to task the "Monty Haul" and "Killer" DMs. Despite the gold-piece values in the DMG, Gygax at least once stated that magic items should "almost never" be for sale.

Gary was especially concerned about too easy and rapid piling up of power. He stated his worry that it was most likely to lead to quick boredom, as people felt that they had exhausted the game's most interesting possibilities.

One problem was that the game really had not been designed or tested for very high levels. Players in the Greyhawk campaign mostly retired their characters ca. 12th-14th level, and (IIRC) Gary said that his and Rob's (and Ernie's?) most famous ones were exceptional but got only up to 16th. That would mean, for instance, no PC m-us running around with 9th-level spells.

So, if you pressed on past that point you were "on your own". Even before that point, Gygax left an awful lot of stuff up to the DM. How long does ghoul paralysis last? Spell and magic-item descriptions often require careful adjudication, what might constitute "abuse" depending greatly on the particular campaign. There's a lot of practice along the way, both for players and for DMs, in effectively taking over responsibility for creating their own game.

In a sense, the "Advanced" books might be characterized as basic training for the original game -- which offered much less "hand holding" and prescriptive or proscriptive Words From On High but was addressed to *peers*.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Lanefan said:


> From my own experience, you've got those backwards.
> 
> Departing from AD+D's rules results in AD+D with different rules.  Performing said departure is relatively easy; the game is stable enough to withstand some trial-and-error experiments, and the result can be a very playable and enjoyable game.  Mine has lasted me 25 years.
> 
> Departing from 3e's rules results in, more often than not, a train wreck; mostly because competently performing said departure is - in comparison to 1e - extremely difficult.  3e's design was tight, and based around many different elements relying on each other; thus changing one potentially-unsatisfactory element (let's say, speed of level advancement) often had knock-on effects that could easily send things off the rails (wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure; and where's the fun in that?) somewhere further down the track.
> 
> That's not to say it couldn't be changed at all.  You just had to be much more careful with what you were doing.




Quoted for truth. This is true for my direct experience and observations too, also taking into account reports of dozens and dozens of games during the 70's and 80's.

Cheers


----------



## Garmorn

Lanefan said:


> From my own experience, you've got those backwards.
> 
> Departing from AD+D's rules results in AD+D with different rules.  Performing said departure is relatively easy; the game is stable enough to withstand some trial-and-error experiments, and the result can be a very playable and enjoyable game.  Mine has lasted me 25 years.
> 
> Departing from 3e's rules results in, more often than not, a train wreck; mostly because competently performing said departure is - in comparison to 1e - extremely difficult.  3e's design was tight, and based around many different elements relying on each other; thus changing one potentially-unsatisfactory element (let's say, speed of level advancement) often had knock-on effects that could easily send things off the rails (wealth by level goes haywire in a slow-advancing 3e game unless the DM gives out very little treasure; and where's the fun in that?) somewhere further down the track.
> 
> Lanefan




Just to put a different spin on things.  My experience is again different from both of the above.  

For all of the editions I have played, the only games that did not become train wrecks where the house rules where keep to the minimum to be playable.  More for 1e than 2e which had more the 3.x but still very few.  Things like dropping level/class restrictions and some of the more obscure rules.

Every DM/GM that has tried to change a system even a little to fit his world ended up with a train wreck and new campaign.


----------



## pawsplay

Raven Crowking said:


> I would have thought the double standard obvious.
> 
> The double standard is that the evidence for "train wreck" is exactly the same as the evidence for being "robust":  A lot of extra optional rules and varients used to create the campaign experience one desires.




People are allowed to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. The evidence is not the same by any reasonable standard, since each game has its own completely unique history. You are basically claiming that a handful of raw ground beef and a McDonald's Menu are the same because a lot of rules and variants are used to create the hamburger you desire. Not even close.

Sometimes, when conclusions look "obvious" it's because we've set our minds before looking at the evidence.


----------



## keterys

pawsplay said:


> Sometimes, when conclusions look "obvious" it's because we've set our minds before looking at the evidence.




So true.


----------



## Hussar

I did not intend a double standard.

1e required tinkering in order to be playable.  Tomes of house rules simply to define baseline assumptions and make those assumptiosn playable.

3e allowed tinkering to appeal to a wider number of gamers.  Tomes of house rules to detail particular styles of games which differed from the baseline assumptions.

You certainly didn't need many house rules to play 3e.  It worked out of the box.  The same is not true of 1e.  Also, according to Raven Crowking, balance is found in a conjunction of rules and DM, not solely within the rules.  Thus the DM is forced to change the rules in order to maintain balance.  If balance wasn't an emergent property, then the DM would not be required to alter rules to fit.

Now, I disagree that balance is required to be an emergent property.  I also think that if you design a system in such a way that you require the DM to achieve balance in play, then balance cannot be much of a design imperative.  In other words, you get a system which is "close enough" and then presume that the DM will make up the difference.

This goes back to the OP and why I don't believe 1e was designed for game balance.  Design, to me, speaks to a very formal process which I do not believe 1e ever ascribed to.


----------



## Chainsaw

Hussar said:


> 1e required tinkering in order to be playable.




Come on.. really? Really?


----------



## Garmorn

Hussar said:


> I did not intend a double standard.
> 
> 1e required tinkering in order to be playable.  Tomes of house rules simply to define baseline assumptions and make those assumptiosn playable.






Chainsaw said:


> Come on.. really? Really?



For most of the people I played with - Yes.  I would be surprised that it did not need some.  Even RC has said the it left balance up to the DM.  If that is the case then the DM need to make house rules to get that balance.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pawsplay said:


> People are allowed to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.




Yes.  But that is what is meant by "double standard"



> The evidence is not the same by any reasonable standard, since each game has its own completely unique history.




Then there is something else that is evidenciary which is not presented.  It is possible to apply a double standard when describing why you believe what you believe, while your beliefs are still basically correct, because either (1) you didn't examine the evidence well enough, or (2) you didn't communicate it well enough.



> You are basically claiming that a handful of raw ground beef and a McDonald's Menu are the same because a lot of rules and variants are used to create the hamburger you desire. Not even close.




No.  I am claiming that a large number of house rules/varients cannot be used to both demonstrate robustness and a train wreck.

In Hussar's last post, he suggests that 3e allowed tinkering, while 1e required tinkering.  But the extra rules binders/books cited earlier do not actually tell you which is which.  They have no evidenciary value by themselves.

Now, I will agree with Hussar that 1e requires tinkering, if tinkering is taken to mean "selecting among options", if for no reason than that one is given a number of options within the system.  OTOH, 3e requires tinkering to have a game that I could enjoy.  So, I think that this is very much a "different strokes for different folks" thing, and not so much an objective thing.  Certainly my houserules under 3e were the most massive houserule volume I've ever created, weighing in at over 600 pages (compared to under 10 for 1e, which also included a campaign gazeteer, and ove 60 for 2e).



RC


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> 1e required tinkering in order to be playable.    (...)
> 3e allowed tinkering to appeal to a wider number of gamers.



I don't buy this distinction either.
Both versions were completely playable by raw and both versions were wide open to customization.

1e's practically random methodology of subsystems made it more likely that a 1e fan would still find something clunky they wanted to change.  But that is miles away from "required".


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes.  But that is what is meant by "double standard"



 Actually, that is not at all what "double standard" means.


----------



## keterys

Hussar said:


> This goes back to the OP and why I don't believe 1e was designed for game balance.  Design, to me, speaks to a very formal process which I do not believe 1e ever ascribed to.




So, essentially you don't believe 1e was designed at all, at least in the sense of having a true plan and process beforehand. Such an argument makes the poll results far less interesting for me, hmm. I wonder what percentage of those responding that it wasn't designed for balance aren't going "well, they didn't plan to be balanced" but instead are going "well, I didn't think they did a good job, so obviously not"

How about a slight spin, then - do you believe that 1e was created with the consideration that its parts should try to balance?


----------



## keterys

3e was clearly designed for balance, but (in the core books) still gave us Haste + Harm + Polymorph.
4e was clearly designed for balance, and still had Blade Cascade + Seal of Binding + Needlefang Drake Swarms.

Balance being the plan doesn't remove the ability to screw up or to choose to overlook something.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> Actually, that is not at all what "double standard" means.




"The application of a principle that is unequally based on arbitrary considerations."

If the evidence is the same, and you are drawing different conclusions, the basis must arbitrary.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Chainsaw said:


> Come on.. really? Really?



Quite literally.  Yes.  Surprise and combat intiative rules were HORRIBLY written, spread everywhere and extremely difficult to sort out, and since Gary didn't even use them himself he had no motivation to ever explain it all.  I tried more than once to figure out how to run combat by the book and failed.  The very least I learned in the attempt was that the system as written was pointlessly complicated.  I've never played a 1E game that did NOT have a house-rule system of combat.  It was not until I read ADDICT that I understood how it actually operated and even then there are still disagreements on some elements because of the vagueness of wording in the rules.  I was NOT alone in this.

Now this is combat - the most basic, common element that is going to be in any 1E game - and it basically requires a seperate, annotated 20-page document like ADDICT, produced thirty years after the fact, to explain fully and properly how it's supposed to work.  If I'd been cleverer in my youth or been more of a rules lawyer I might have sorted it out for myself but the mere process of making the attempt proved to me it wasn't even worth the effort.  And this is in reference to my PREFERRED edition of the game.

Despite the fact that SOME people always have played it "by the book", and even ignoring the fact that it was _expected_ that DM's would be making significant changes for their own purposes, for any practical purpose it is quite safe to insist that 1E _required_ house rules.


----------



## billd91

Raven Crowking said:


> "The application of a principle that is unequally based on arbitrary considerations."
> 
> If the evidence is the same, and you are drawing different conclusions, the basis must arbitrary.




Don't confuse differing standards with double standards. Two different people applying their own standard and coming to different conclusions is not an example of a double standard.


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> Don't confuse differing standards with double standards. Two different people applying their own standard and coming to different conclusions is not an example of a double standard.




The object at hand, though, is the same person presenting the same evidence with different conclusions.

AFAICT, he has since added evidence not in the original statement, which tends to confirm what I (and others) have been saying:  As written, the post implies a double standard, which additional evidence resolves.


----------



## pawsplay

Raven Crowking said:


> "The application of a principle that is unequally based on arbitrary considerations."
> 
> If the evidence is the same, and you are drawing different conclusions, the basis must arbitrary.




If.


----------



## pawsplay

Chainsaw said:


> Come on.. really? Really?




Maybe, maybe not. I know Mr. Gygax always played using house rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking

pawsplay said:


> If.




The object at hand, though, is the same person presenting the same evidence with different conclusions.

AFAICT, he has since added evidence not in the original statement, which tends to confirm what I (and others) have been saying: As written, the post implies a double standard, which additional evidence resolves.


----------



## pawsplay

Hussar said:


> Now, I disagree that balance is required to be an emergent property.  I also think that if you design a system in such a way that you require the DM to achieve balance in play, then balance cannot be much of a design imperative.  In other words, you get a system which is "close enough" and then presume that the DM will make up the difference.
> 
> This goes back to the OP and why I don't believe 1e was designed for game balance.  Design, to me, speaks to a very formal process which I do not believe 1e ever ascribed to.




Hmm, I did not interpret the OP as saying 1e was designed primarily for balance, but that it was designed with balance in mind, which I believe it was.


----------



## BryonD

Raven Crowking said:


> "The application of a principle that is unequally based on arbitrary considerations."
> 
> If the evidence is the same, and you are drawing different conclusions, the basis must arbitrary.



The signular "you" and the plural "people" make a critical difference.


----------



## Raven Crowking

BryonD said:


> The signular "you" and the plural "people" make a critical difference.




The object at hand, though, is the same person presenting the same evidence with different conclusions.

AFAICT, he has since added evidence not in the original statement, which tends to confirm what I (and others) have been saying: As written, the post implies a double standard, which additional evidence resolves.


----------



## Ariosto

Hussar said:
			
		

> 1e required tinkering in order to be playable. Tomes of house rules simply to define baseline assumptions and make those assumptiosn playable.



Nope. I have never seen nor heard of even a single such volume. That does not mean they don't exist; it _does_ mean they are not necessary.

Most people I knew played D&D (of which AD&D was itself just a collection, not a separate thing) pretty similarly. They tended not to use every last thing in the books -- but (per the guys who wrote, edited and published them) that was never the intent. They tended also to add whatever took the players' particular interests, which definitely _was_ the intent right from the start. In sum, I would say that most people were pretty conservative -- especially relative to the bizarre stuff power gamers came up with for 3e.

On the other hand, I personally used the _Arduin Grimoire_ trilogy, Dragon magazine, and other materials -- to create a campaign with "everything" in it (sort of like RIFTS, but about a decade earlier).

Speaking of RIFTS, of course Palladium spun off from AD&D (the compatibility having been evident starting with _The Mechanoid Invasion_). The Arcanum, Rolemaster, even Runequest had similar roots -- but grew into distinctively different games.


----------



## Ariosto

*ADDICT* does not actually take 20 pages to explain the necessary basics. Nor does it actually sort out the one very little detail I would want sorted out. It takes "20 pages" to present DM Prata's house rules.

A lot of that is blank paper.
Most of the rest is extensive examples.
Much of the rest is footnotes.
One page is a cartoon.

And, after all that padding, we come to Prata's rulings. Where he has more than a couple of sentences of those per page, it's because he's using an excruciating case format.

Also: If you started with the Advanced books because, being all of 11 years old and having absolutely no experience at all, you were obviously too cool for Basic instruction ... and you think that puts you in an authoritative position to tell those of us who had been playing since before the DMG that if we don't "use everything" or go "perfectly by the book" that we are not playing AD&D ... or even if you think E. Gary Gygax was in such a position ... 

Amscray.


----------



## Ariosto

Then, there are the folks who try to prove how "simple" 3e Attacks Of Opportunity are ... by _explaining_ them.


----------



## howandwhy99

This looks like a pretty active discussion.  Is it possible for someone to outline the different types of balance people are talking about?  I know there are multiple different kinds and probably multiple different definitions.  But any attempt at a clear outline would be appreciated.


----------



## Garmorn

howandwhy99 said:


> This looks like a pretty active discussion.  Is it possible for someone to outline the different types of balance people are talking about?  I know there are multiple different kinds and probably multiple different definitions.  But any attempt at a clear outline would be appreciated.




From my prespective we are talking about to types.  In very loose terms they are:  Level balance and Campaign balance.

Level balance it where each character is suppose to be balance with every other character at the same level with the same wealth. 3.x tried this and came close at first.  4e did a better job at the cost of having a very tight balance between characters and being harder to house rule on the character level.

1e and 2e where balance between classes when compared over the course of the campaign life it was designed for.  

The first is meant to give equal power and spot light at all levels and the second is meant to have it switch back and forth.  The first is great for pick games, tournaments, and where the campaign might or might not last even close to the design length.  The second is meant to place different classes in the lime light at different times, allows more variety between classes and a narrower spot light.  (i.e on one or two classes are in the lime light at a time.).


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Ariosto said:


> *ADDICT* does not actually take 20 pages to explain the necessary basics.



No it doesn't.  When you drop all the footnotes indicating where the particular rule comes from and reformat it (which I did) I was able to boil it down to 6 pages.



> It takes "20 pages" to present DM Prata's house rules.



Well I maybe I'm just easily impressed then.  Everything that might ostensibly be qualified as a house rule since it wasn't graven in 1E stone as gospel seemed to be backed up with as authoratative citation as was possible.

And think about all those cites.  He's trying to figure out precisely how it works and why, and look at what it took for him to do that.  Even if in your eyes he failed to accomplish the task how about you show the less-than 6 pages of rules that explains it all?



> Also: If you started with the Advanced books because, being all of 11 years old and having absolutely no experience at all, you were obviously too cool for Basic instruction ... and you think that puts you in an authoritative position to tell those of us who had been playing since before the DMG that if we don't "use everything" or go "perfectly by the book" that we are not playing AD&D ... or even if you think E. Gary Gygax was in such a position ...




My apologies.  I didn't think my gaming resume was required for participation here.  Allow me to correct your mistaken suppostions about myself.

I was born in 1961.  I started as a player with Holmes basic in... 1976 I think it was.  It's all a blur these days, it was so long ago.  As he acquired them I believe my DM added rules from additional, sources - the three little books plus Greyhawk and Blackmoor, The Strategic Review, Dragon, maybe a little from White Dwarf.  We stepped up into AD&D as each of the three core books was published.  It was maybe a year or more after that when I finally got my own PH.  I graduated high school in 1979.  I probably started running my own game as a DM in 1981 or '82.  The gaming group I was in had merged with another and at a few games we had as many as 12 players around the table.  It was certainly mid-late 80's that I actually decided to try and run a game By The Book as mentioned in previous posts.  Though that little experiment failed at least I succeeded in convincing everyone I was gaming with that the house-ruled combat system we HAD been using was every bit as inadequate to the task as what I (and everyone else in the group too) had been unable to piece together from the books themselves.  I'm proud to say I also cured them of some other bad house rules in favor of more by-the-book stuff.  Hopefully that will suffice as credentials for you.  If you need more let me know.

As for telling you personally what you should play or how that would be silly.  Though it SHOULD go without saying, all I can do is provide my opinion; tell you how _I_ perceive certain things, how _I_ handle them or how _I_ think they should be handled.  I have no particular fear of contrary views.  Any perception on your behalf that I'm playing the part of the annoying know-it-all must be accidental and even if it weren't you should IGNORE it.


> Amscray.



As a _moderator_ if you feel I have no business airing my views in this or any thread; if you think I've stepped over the line of acceptible posting behavior you are free to suspend or revoke my account here.


----------



## Filcher

In my opinion, the racial level limitations indicate a desire for game balance. As do differing HP by class and varying requirements for XP/level. 

Edit: If memory serves, there were class-specific magic items. While this might be a bit of a gray area, it also seem like an intent for a balanced game, to me.


----------



## Ariosto

Let's see, for a start ...

*"My Level X character is equal to your Level X character."* Even substituting the more accurate gauge of "X experience points", that's not really a big deal in old D&D. After all, the basic idea is that you should rack up more XP in the first place via skilled play than does some blunderer. And you're not forced to give up your levels just because a total newbie gets to experience starting from 1st (although you're probably not taking a Lord or Wizard on the same expedition!).

*"My character is just as good as your character in combat."* Nope. Magic-users and thieves are not fighters.

*"A or B or C is true of The Party."* The Party, as a constant entity, was not part of the design. Conan and the Grey Mouser might team up to rob the Tower of Eels one session, then part ways. Conan might then accompany Thongor, Elric, and Tyana and some of her pirates for a raid. Then, Thongor, Tyana and Mouser (with a shipload of Mingols) might join Fafhrd on Rime Isle.

*"Each encounter should be 'level appropriate'"* Not on the horizon. The _players'_ estimation of risk and reward is key to the game.


----------



## Ariosto

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Allow me to correct your mistaken suppostions about myself.



It is you who makes a mistaken supposition there!



> As for telling you personally what you should play or how that would be silly.



Precisely the point.



> As a _moderator_ if you feel I have no business airing my views in this or any thread ...



You read WAY too much between the lines -- starting with whatever you arbitrarily decided "must" refer to you (even though it makes no sense). I was not thinking of you, Mr. Hat; there are a LOT of other people in the world who have made more notable impressions on me!

"Amscray" means, "Aw, don't be a pest, buzz off instead of bothering me." Obviously, if someone really, really wants to be not just a little pest but a big jerk, then such a light-hearted dismissal is not going to stop him.


----------



## howandwhy99

Garmorn said:


> From my prespective we are talking about to types.  In very loose terms they are:  Level balance and Campaign balance.



Thank you.  That does help.  I still don't believe an RPG should be balanced as a simulation game or a storygame, but I understand the desires by those who want those games for it to be included.  

From my perspective, enforced equality in altering the game world means no actions are rewarded with a greater ability to do so.  Of course, no actions penalize this ability either.  For example, if my Fighter PC has a sword and yours does not, must there be an absolute balance between us if the characters were to battle each other?  If so, what's the point of having a sword?  In another way, if we find a horde of treasure and decide to give it all to one PC, then shouldn't he or she be more powerful / influential in the game than the rest of us?  

I don't care for the enforced balancing of PCs nor the removal of rewarding success with influence in the game.  I understand the alternative means the potential for unbalanced influence over the game by different players, but I don't view the game as a simulation game and therefore needing such.  

In terms of storygame balance, screen time for one, this is already built into almost every kind of D&D.  Every PC gets their Round or Turn to act.  They might sleep for 8 hours while those on watch do something else, but sleeping is their action.  If it didn't have beneficial consequences, I wouldn't do it in game.  I'm not really sure one can balance the degree of influence every single person has over a story, but I don't know all the new mechanics being created for storygames either.

I think of AD&D as a game of 1. attempting to navigate the world, 2. gaining greater influence within it, and 3. getting XP.  The first is rewarded by simply getting to where you want to go, however metaphorical that may be.  Not every PC may be able to do so the same way, but I don't see the game as placing each player in the exact same position.  Actually, I see the game as attempting to have so much variation as to put every player in a different position. 

In terms of gaining influence over the world I think of the game like any resource collecting game, get as much power as you can.  However, the players are not necessarily in a competition with each other. That potential exists, but, in fact, the game actually increases the odds for personal success down all three paths when influential allies are included in one's endeavors.  And the reverse holds true as well.  The more powerful one's allies, the greater the odds are for success.  Go it alone and you're asking for trouble.  So sharing resources between players is rewarded by the game because it pays off in greater long term benefits.  Not to mention it behooves players to assist inexperienced players in becoming better ones as this improves everyone's chances.

XP rewards are given out individually and tailored to Class.  So a certain amount of negotiation between players is required in order for each to accomplish their own XP-rewarded goals.  However, there is also a good deal of overlap between classes, a kind of synergy.  When there is no synergy between classes, we get something like the Shadowrun Decker class. They have their game in between everyone else's.  In a well designed game plenty of non-XP rewards exist to be won, which are useful trade offs in bartered negotiations between players deciding what to do.  

Plus, XP rewards lead to greater influence over the game (Class levels are not commensurate with all such influence).  The longer one plays without dying, the greater power a player gains.  Quickly getting XP or resources is indicative of skillful play and more difficult and rewarding challenges can faced earlier.  However, if a PC does die, the player starts over at the beginning.  This hurts everyone, but it also increases the desire to keep everyone alive and becoming a more powerful ally.  XP is logarithmic so new PCs gain in level faster than older ones.  It actually takes as long to level a higher ranked PC as it does for a new 0XP character to reach the level they are leaving.

Needless to say, I think there exist a number of balancing mechanisms in the game that aren't accounted as "balance" anymore.  But it does depend upon one's point of view on whether these count or not.  The game is designed upon different tenets.  It is understood there will be unequal player influence at any given point during the game.  Every class has a different focus of play, realm of influence, and reward structure.  Cooperation is greatly rewarded, but not required.  Classes are designed to succeed better in their particular domains of influence than any other.

I can't remember everything, but IMO a good deal of reflection went into creating a well designed game for the AD&D ruleset.  I don't agree with every rule or all of its' design intents, but it has enough of the good stuff to get the blood pumping.


----------



## Ariosto

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> However, if a PC does die, the player starts over at the beginning.



Not necessarily, as one might digest the advice in the DMG. As you observe, though, up to "name" level, it takes about as many XP to reach Level N as to go from N to N+1 (so it's not such a drag as it might be in 3e or 4e).



> Every class has a different focus of play, realm of influence, and reward structure. Cooperation is greatly rewarded, but not required. Classes are designed to succeed better in their particular domains of influence than any other.



Yes, and I'm pretty sure Gygax called that out explicitly (perhaps in The Dragon) as a balance he had attempted to design into the game.

"The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are all dictated by [sic] character class (or multi-class)."

Some other perspectives from the PHB:

"Even death loses much of its sting, for often the character can be resurrected, or reincarnated. And should that fail there is always the option to begin again with a new character. Thus [AD&D] is, as are most role playing games, open-ended. There is no 'winner', no final objective, and the campaign grows and changes as it matures."

"Considerable enjoyment and excitement in early play stems from not knowing exactly what is going on. Being uncertain of how a given situation will turn out, not knowing every magic item available, and so forth, adds spice to the game. Later, this knowledge simulates actual experience, for the seasoned campaigner will have learned through game play."


----------



## Garmorn

howandwhy99 said:


> Thank you.  That does help.  I still don't believe an RPG should be balanced as a simulation game or a storygame, but I understand the desires by those who want those games for it to be included.
> 
> From my perspective, enforced equality in altering the game world means no actions are rewarded with a greater ability to do so.  Of course, no actions penalize this ability either.  For example, if my Fighter PC has a sword and yours does not, must there be an absolute balance between us if the characters were to battle each other?  If so, what's the point of having a sword?  In another way, if we find a horde of treasure and decide to give it all to one PC, then shouldn't he or she be more powerful / influential in the game than the rest of us?




You took to far.  Note:  I said with the same level of wealth.  I you have a long sword and I can afford the same or its equivalent for my class. (i.e. what ever my class can use) the we should have the same (equal) affect on a combat that our party is in.  If I am a wizard then I should be able to contribute to the battle just like a fighter.  I might have to do it differently but I should still be a equal resource to the party.

For the story part we mean in the overall scope of the campaign not from one encounter (combat or not) to the next.


----------



## Bullgrit

What I think is a double standard is the idea that AD&D1 must be house ruled all to hell and to play well, but D&D3 can't be even tweaked a little without it "falling apart."

The truth is that both games can play just fine with no, light, and heavy house ruling. It's a myth that D&D3 can't take house rules and that AD&D1 requires them.

The fact that some people played AD&D1 straight by the book, and some people play D&D3 with heavy house rules should be proof. But no, it's like a conspiracy theory: proof against the belief is taken just as evidence of a cover up.

Fact: AD&D1 can be played straight by the book.

Fact: D&D3 can be played with heavy house rules.

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91

Bullgrit said:


> What I think is a double standard is the idea that AD&D1 must be house ruled all to hell and to play well, but D&D3 can't be even tweaked a little without it "falling apart."




This is not necessarily a double standard. It all depends on what your standards are. If your take on 1e is it is a collection of oddball and non-integrated subsystems that are hard to understand while your take on 3e is that it is a tightly integrated system, then it's not hard to see that conclusion.
I don't happen to agree with it entirely, but I do believe that 3e is a far more integrated system (but certainly not to the point that you can't house rule it). 1e had some rules that were very difficult to understand and highly cumbersome to use and worked _much_ better with house rules.


----------



## Garthanos

Lanefan said:


> So to *try* and drag this back somewhere vaguely closer to the original topic, would or could a 4e-style skill challenge system work in a 1e-style game, and would its presence make the game more balanced or less?
> 
> I'm not sure it'd fit at all, myself, balanced or not.




I am chasing the bad guy... The dm rules I need to make 3 successes to catch up Maybe 2 dex based but one will be a con roll otherwise I am too fatigued to fullfill the task.... but I miss at least one of them ... yet the dm lets me use my knowledge of the city to try an extra roll an intelligence based one for an extra success etc. Player 2 suggests that he try climbing a wall the dm described earlier using his upper body strength to gain extra ground...and gets to use a strength roll to supplement.

I think one could say fairly elaborate things could be accomplished with just using multiple combined attribute rolls


----------



## Ariosto

> Fact: AD&D1 can be played straight by the book.



Not quite in the literal and punctilious sense that (as seems at least to be the representation) could conceivably apply to 3e. "By the book" is a bit different when the book's instruction is to use your own best judgment! However much or little one might make of them, there are ambiguities -- such as the imponderable "whichever is applicable" -- in AD&D.

The DMG in particular was (IIRC the statement) a _huge_ typewritten manuscript. What that entails might be lost on folks not quite clear on what a typewriter was, but suffice to say that changes were not so easily made and tracked as in the digital age. There are things almost certainly omitted accidentally, or confused by typo, or just not as polished or in harmony with other parts as Gygax himself might have liked.

(TSR made some corrections in later printings. They tried moving art and the like to make room, but found that it was just not practical to fit everything in the existing space. Adding pages meant adding a whole signature, so they went ahead and added more appendices.)

Nor was the "Advanced" title just nonsense. Right from the first volume, the MM, the work was referred to as the "second part" of the new D&D releases. It was addressed primarily to people who _already knew_ how to play D&D, who _already understood_ that "it is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important."

WotC nearly reversed that maxim, and in any case devoted a great deal of effort to making the letter of the 3e rules not only comprehensive but clear. With the 3.5 revision, some things (it seems to me) were revised for greater uniformity at the expense of some "simulation" factors in the earlier formulas.

"Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game." The trouble in AD&D is that the intent is not so obvious to everyone -- and even people who get it might not like it.


----------



## Votan

Ariosto said:


> The DMG in particular was (IIRC the statement) a _huge_ typewritten manuscript. What that entails might be lost on folks not quite clear on what a typewriter was, but suffice to say that changes were not so easily made and tracked as in the digital age. There are things almost certainly omitted accidentally, or confused by typo, or just not as polished or in harmony with other parts as Gygax himself might have liked.




This is a good point and one that is easy to forget in the age of easy revision and typesetting -- just how much effort it took to put together professional work back then.  At a certain point I remember leaving sub-optimal wording in place givne the effort to retype many, many pages of work.  

So, yes, this is another reason AD&D would have ambiguity as well.


----------



## Garmorn

Ariosto said:


> Not quite in the literal and punctilious sense that (as seems at least to be the representation) could conceivably apply to 3e. "By the book" is a bit different when the book's instruction is to use your own best judgment! However much or little one might make of them, there are ambiguities -- such as the imponderable "whichever is applicable" -- in AD&D.
> 
> The DMG in particular was (IIRC the statement) a _huge_ typewritten manuscript. What that entails might be lost on folks not quite clear on what a typewriter was, but suffice to say that changes were not so easily made and tracked as in the digital age. There are things almost certainly omitted accidentally, or confused by typo, or just not as polished or in harmony with other parts as Gygax himself might have liked.
> 
> (TSR made some corrections in later printings. They tried moving art and the like to make room, but found that it was just not practical to fit everything in the existing space. Adding pages meant adding a whole signature, so they went ahead and added more appendices.)
> 
> Nor was the "Advanced" title just nonsense. Right from the first volume, the MM, the work was referred to as the "second part" of the new D&D releases. It was addressed primarily to people who _already knew_ how to play D&D, who _already understood_ that "it is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important."
> 
> WotC nearly reversed that maxim, and in any case devoted a great deal of effort to making the letter of the 3e rules not only comprehensive but clear. With the 3.5 revision, some things (it seems to me) were revised for greater uniformity at the expense of some "simulation" factors in the earlier formulas.
> 
> "Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game." The trouble in AD&D is that the intent is not so obvious to everyone -- and even people who get it might not like it.




This is one of the best written post in this tread.  I was a clerk/typist at the time so I know what you mean.  While there where ways they required a lot of time, expense and training that TSR either did not have or most likely could not afford.

I this this part of the quote is the most important and most telling in an other way also



> The trouble in AD&D is that the intent is not so obvious to everyone -- and even people who get it might not like it.



3.x changed the approach and style to fit the ones that did not get the intent of AD&D.  In doing so they caused the ones that did understand it major problems.  The changed from (for the lack of better terms) pose based thinking to block/rules based thinking.  This was one of the causes IMO the split we see.  It might be why *Ariosto* does not like it while lots of those that do don't think AD&D was as good  a product that he does.

PS ex point to *Ariosto* for a well written point.


----------



## Umbran

Ariosto said:


> Amscray.





Listen up folks!  If you don't like what someone has to say, you can ignore them (we have a function to support that), or you can choose to not respond.

But you don't get to tell people to go away.  If they are within the bounds of The Rules, you don't get to tell them where, when, or upon what topics they may post.  "Lightheartedness" is not an excuse.

The condescending "go away kid, you bother me" implication here is dismissive and rude.  Don't do that again.


----------



## Remathilis

Ariosto said:


> *"My Level X character is equal to your Level X character."* Even substituting the more accurate gauge of "X experience points", that's not really a big deal in old D&D. After all, the basic idea is that you should rack up more XP in the first place via skilled play than does some blunderer. And you're not forced to give up your levels just because a total newbie gets to experience starting from 1st (although you're probably not taking a Lord or Wizard on the same expedition!).




Viable. You conflate two different "level" balance ideas. The first is that a 12th level thief and a 12th level magic-user should has some nod to balance (options available, raw power, or spotlight time) and the second is that a 12th level thief should be equal to a 1st level fighter (who is replacing the 12th level magic-user who just died). 

The second is preposterous as it defeats the point of levels. No one, except a few interested in redesigning a game from scratch, feels 1st and 12th level should roughly the same power level. 

The first is IMHO vital. Otherwise you create a "tier" system where some classes begin (or end) simply better than others. If it was a simple as "fighters start good, but get worse while mages just the opposite) it'd be passable, but both classes can overshadow thieves, while a ranger is clearly a superior choice to a fighter, and a well-run cleric can overshadow both. 



Ariosto said:


> *"My character is just as good as your character in combat."* Nope. Magic-users and thieves are not fighters.




Combat is a ubiquitous marker to use. I still prefer the concept of "each character excels in a niche no other class can match". Balance. Fighters should dominate combat. Thieves should be the perfect scout/spy/assassin. Clerics are masters of healing/defensive magic, mages should have offensive, summoning and transportation magic bar-none. Other classes can dabble in a second role (clerics make fine 2nd fighters, mages get some defensive spells) but no class should do its role AND another role better than the class designed for it. (IE a ranger is a better scout/spy and combatant than a fighter AND thief).

Lastly, every class should have some option in combat, even if its less-superior than the fighters. Thieves get backstab, clerics are decent fighters with a bit of offense, mages have polymorphs and summons, etc. NOTHING is more boring than sitting through combat after combat doing nothing (or maybe a few points of missile damage) while your friends are having a blast hacking up goblins or throwing fire-and-lightning. 



Ariosto said:


> *"A or B or C is true of The Party."* The Party, as a constant entity, was not part of the design. Conan and the Grey Mouser might team up to rob the Tower of Eels one session, then part ways. Conan might then accompany Thongor, Elric, and Tyana and some of her pirates for a raid. Then, Thongor, Tyana and Mouser (with a shipload of Mingols) might join Fafhrd on Rime Isle.




"A good party balance would be something like 40% fighters, 30% magic-users, 20% clerics and 10% thieves." - Lawrence Schick, _White Plume Mountain._

"The optimum mix for a group is 9 characters of various classes..." Gary Gygax, _Steading of the Hill Giant Chief._

D&D has ALWAYS been about the party. Its not a collection of individuals, its a TEAMWORK-based game. A good game should challenge all players and all classes that are there; the hallmark of a poor DM is one who believes all challenges should be overcome by only magic or combat alone. 



Ariosto said:


> *"Each encounter should be 'level appropriate'"* Not on the horizon. The _players'_ estimation of risk and reward is key to the game.




Every encounter should be in a survivable range. If there is a dragon, even a powerful one the PCs have no business fighting, it should still be young enough the PCs might survive a breath-weapon strike while fleeing. Pitching a great wyrm with a blast so powerful its "save 1/2" damage is guaranteed to drop even the barbarian to -10 isn't a challenge, its a turkey shoot. If the PCs are foolish enough to want the fight the dragon, all bets are off. But having a fighting chance (even if its just to retreat) goes a long way to fostering good PC/DM will, and I find if PCs believe they will die from EVERYTHING (goblin ambushes at night, every lock a death-poisoned needle, every dragon a great wyrm) the game either slows down to the point of 45 minute argument at every door, or a group of WTF PCs kicking in every door in a moment of chaotic frenzy that would make a Toon Player proud.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Remathilis said:


> I find if PCs believe they will die from EVERYTHING (goblin ambushes at night, every lock a death-poisoned needle, every dragon a great wyrm) the game either slows down to the point of 45 minute argument at every door, or a group of WTF PCs kicking in every door in a moment of chaotic frenzy that would make a Toon Player proud.



Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing _Candyland_ with their little sister ​ - E. Gary Gygax


----------



## M.L. Martin

Gentlegamer said:


> Those that complain about real challenges might be better off playing _Candyland_ with their little sister ​ - E. Gary Gygax




  From the Old-School Demon's (Type VII) Dictionary:

*CHALLENGE* (Noun) The state of affairs in which the game is calibrated so that any move that is not painstakingly planned, meticulously detailed, utterly paranoid, ruthless and amoral, and rigorously focused on the purposes of survival and gain over drama or characterization will result in a character's swift, brutal and traumatic demise.



  Many thanks to several folks on this thread for driving me even farther away from 'true' D&D and old-school gaming.  I'll see how it goes if a local gamer gets a BECM game up and running, but the self-conscious old school is looking less and less appealing.


----------



## Remathilis

Matthew L. Martin said:


> From the Old-School Demon's (Type VII) Dictionary:
> 
> *CHALLENGE* (Noun) The state of affairs in which the game is calibrated so that any move that is not painstakingly planned, meticulously detailed, utterly paranoid, ruthless and amoral, and rigorously focused on the purposes of survival and gain over drama or characterization will result in a character's swift, brutal and traumatic demise.
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks to several folks on this thread for driving me even farther away from 'true' D&D and old-school gaming.  I'll see how it goes if a local gamer gets a BECM game up and running, but the self-conscious old school is looking less and less appealing.




"You must spread some XP around before giving to Mathew L Martin again."

Some people love Tomb of Horrors-style play where every and any miscalculation is fatal. Where 11-foot poles aren't long enough. Where every 8-hour rest includes a nightly ambush. Where every dragon's breath weapon is "Highest PCs Hp+10" damage. Where every paladin MUST fall.  I am not one of those people. If I was interested in seeing elaborate death-traps with no reasonable means of escape, I'd watch the SAW movies. 

I don't want easy fights, I want feasible fights. To put it another way, the best way to learn to box is to go to a gym and box people of your same skill and weight, not to go call Mike Tyson a sissy.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Many thanks to several folks on this thread for driving me even farther away from 'true' D&D and old-school gaming.



My little sister has an opening in her _Candyland _group. Should I tell her you're interested? 

In all seriousness, in D&D, not every seeming "combat encounter" is meant to be resolved through combat. If your low level party attacks the ancient wyrm and dies a swift, horrible death, it is neither the game nor the DM's fault for bringing an "unbalanced" encounter to completion. 

As RC remarked, part of the challenge of the game is tempting players into making "unbalanced" choices; "superior play" is recognizing and avoiding/mitigating the potential "unbalanced" circumstances for their characters. 

Part of "old school" talk is DMs acting like mock drill instructors: they don't really want to kill you, just extol you to play your best. That quote from Gary is an example. 

Here's a follow-up, from Gary again:
[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.​


----------



## Garmorn

Gentlegamer said:


> In all seriousness, in D&D, not every seeming "combat encounter" is meant to be resolved through combat. If your low level party attacks the ancient wyrm and dies a swift, horrible death, it is neither the game nor the DM's fault for bringing an "unbalanced" encounter to completion.
> 
> As RC remarked, part of the challenge of the game is tempting players into making "unbalanced" choices; "superior play" is recognizing and avoiding/mitigating the potential "unbalanced" circumstances for their characters.
> 
> Part of "old school" talk is DMs acting like mock drill instructors: they don't really want to kill you, just extol you to play your best. That quote from Gary is an example.
> 
> Here's a follow-up, from Gary again:[E]xperience has taught me that everyone has their own gaming preferences, and it is not a matter of "good" or "bad" in all, save in light of one's own preferences.​




Do really play this way?  Can the PC with any warning stumble into a lair of a monster or NPC that so powerful that even if they run they are dead?  You sound alot more experenced than that.  Or we miss communicating?  See my remakes below to my approach to things.



Matthew L. Martin said:


> From the Old-School Demon's (Type VII) Dictionary:
> 
> *CHALLENGE* (Noun) The state of affairs in which the game is calibrated so that any move that is not painstakingly planned, meticulously detailed, utterly paranoid, ruthless and amoral, and rigorously focused on the purposes of survival and gain over drama or characterization will result in a character's swift, brutal and traumatic demise.




I don't know where he got this from but if this is old school the I glad I never played it this way. First this means every players character should die the first instant they do one suboptimal action.  Real life is not this way, sure if a combat soldier makes mistakes on a continuing bases it will get him killed but not every time like that says.

For an experienced group that is playing sandbox there should be clues. For an inexperienced group or one playing a very narrow story arch then the encounters should be some thing the can hanlde even if it means by running a way.


----------



## Remathilis

Gentlegamer said:


> In all seriousness, in D&D, not every seeming "combat encounter" is meant to be resolved through combat. If your low level party attacks the ancient wyrm and dies a swift, horrible death, it is neither the game nor the DM's fault for bringing an "unbalanced" encounter to completion.




See, this type of play places all the "fault" of such an encounter on the PCs while absolving the DM of any guilt. If negotiations go poorly, if the PCs misjudge the power of the beast, or if they feel the best route is to "get the drop" on the monster, well, that's THEIR fault their characters died. Hope your smarter next time. 

(assuming of course the dragon wants to chat, rather than just sending flaming hot breath down the corridor to incinerate the would-be treasure hunters.) 

Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration? Can't the same effect come from a dragon closer to the PC's relative power? Perhaps maybe a few levels higher, rather than multiple? Is it a requirement the encounter be a TPK on legs?



Gentlegamer said:


> Part of "old school" talk is DMs acting like mock drill instructors: they don't really want to kill you, just extol you to play your best. That quote from Gary is an example.




The first DM who treats me like a green-recruit in an army is the first DM a walk-out on. D&D is supposed to be a fun past time, not boot camp. Any DM who thinks constant beatings will improve player morale is going to find themselves short of players.


----------



## Fifth Element

Remathilis said:


> The first DM who treats me like a green-recruit in an army is the first DM a walk-out on. D&D is supposed to be a fun past time, not boot camp. Any DM who thinks constant beatings will improve player morale is going to find themselves short of players.



It can definitely be seen as a paternalistic or patronizing attitude. "You guys just *think* you want balanced encounters. You just *think *they're what you find fun. I know better."


----------



## Gentlegamer

Remathilis said:


> See, this type of play places all the "fault" of such an encounter on the PCs while absolving the DM of any guilt.



Obviously our hypothetical encounter is lacking important context and detail. A good DM gives clues that can be picked up on by the players; part of "superior play" is interpreting and reacting to these clues appropriately. 

There is no real game in placing the characters in no-chance, insta-kill situations; however, I would suggest that many times if the situation seems that way it is because the players missed some clues or didn't consider other alternatives for "resolving" the matter, at least in regard to their characters' lives.

As an aside, isn't there a rather powerful surprise encounter with a comparatively powerful dragon at the moathouse in _Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil_?




> (assuming of course the dragon wants to chat, rather than just sending flaming hot breath down the corridor to incinerate the would-be treasure hunters.)



Well, for example, if you're a 5th level party exploring the 15th dungeon level, you ought to be kicking yourself for ignoring the advice your meta-game knowledge suggests be followed. 

I don't know what levels Bilbo and Smaug were, but their encounter suggests alternatives to instant TPK for player characters and a dragon of disparate power level.


> Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration? Can't the same effect come from a dragon closer to the PC's relative power? Perhaps maybe a few levels higher, rather than multiple? Is it a requirement the encounter be a TPK on legs?



As noted, our hypothetical encounter with a powerful dragon is lacking in greater context, but if the party knows they are going on an expedition against one, perhaps (for example) they should first embark on a side quest to obtain an _arrow of dragon slaying_ first. Just in case. 




> The first DM who treats me like a green-recruit in an army is the first DM a walk-out on. D&D is supposed to be a fun past time, not boot camp. Any DM who thinks constant beatings will improve player morale is going to find themselves short of players.



Players who have fun being challenged will flock to the "tough" DM. The others will schedule games of _Candyland_, at least until their skill improves at keeping the game "balanced" to their taste, regardless of potential bait the DM dangles out there. 



> If negotiations go poorly, if the PCs misjudge the power of the beast, or if they feel the best route is to "get the drop" on the monster, well, that's THEIR fault their characters died. Hope your smarter next time.



I'm glad you see my point. 

Do you want a game where victory through combat is always the "reasonably safe" fallback option? Why or why not?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Remathilis said:


> Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration? Can't the same effect come from a dragon closer to the PC's relative power? Perhaps maybe a few levels higher, rather than multiple? Is it a requirement the encounter be a TPK on legs?





I like a static game.  If there is an ancient wyrm in the Dragonspine mountains, he remains an ancient wyrm, regardless if the pcs are level 1 or 80.  If the first level pcs decide to tackle him, he will not spontaneously lose 79 levels just because they walked into his lair.


----------



## Garthanos

Gentlegamer said:


> There is no real game in placing the characters in no-chance, insta-kill situations; however, I would suggest that many times if the situation seems that way it is because the players missed some clues or didn't consider other alternatives for "resolving" the matter, at least in regard to their characters' lives.




Feh prejudice in favor of the DM on your part... the DM obviously had NPC's laughing at the players behind there back snickering at the cowardly heros.. and similar ways to "tempt" the players in to biting off more than they can chew...isnt that the word you used? tempting.  It sounds like you consider it a DM goal...

DM's are the sole source of information for the players so it seems to me jumping to the conclusion and calling the players attempting to battle something beyond there characters capacity inferior is a real sign of prejudice. And an utter cop out. 

My assumption is that TPK's are generally a miscommunication in any version of the game.


----------



## Fifth Element

Gentlegamer said:


> A good DM gives clues that can be picked up on by the players; part of "superior play" is interpreting and reacting to these clues appropriately.



My problem with this is that it means there is a "right answer." The players are *supposed* to know they can't defeat the thing in combat, which to me is just as bad as making combat the only possible result of any encounter.

If there is a right way to react to these hypothetical clues, that hampers roleplaying. That's one serious advantage of balanced encounters - the PCs can approach them in a variety of ways, rather than having some ways be instant death.



Gentlegamer said:


> Players who have fun being challenged will flock to the "tough" DM. The others will schedule games of _Candyland_, at least until their skill improves at keeping the game "balanced" to their taste, regardless of potential bait the DM dangles out there.



Or, they may schedule games of D&D with a DM they don't feel is out to get them, or out to "teach" them how to play the "right" way.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Garthanos said:


> Feh prejudice in favor of the DM on your part... the DM obviously had NPC's laughing at the players behind there back snickering at the cowardly heros.. and similar ways to "tempt" the players in to biting off more than they can chew...isnt that the word you used? tempting.  It sounds like you consider it a DM goal...



Yes. Tempting the players is one challenge that can be considered in the DM's toolbox.


> DM's are the sole source of information for the players so it seems to me jumping to the conclusion and calling the players attempting to battle something beyond there characters capacity inferior is a real sign of prejudice. And an utter cop out.



Players may seek out additional information before taking almost every action. Skilled players will use all "informational abilities" (sensory info, scouting, magical scrying, interrogation of NPCs, etc) at their disposal to this end. DMs should reward these efforts with reasonably accurate information for the players to base decisions on.


> My assumption is that TPK's are generally a miscommunication in any version of the game.



They can be, but more common I think is the TPK created by poor play.

I remember in my own campaign, the players (about 5th level) were in an dungeon area faced with three passages (transported there by a being similar to the mad-wizard Zagyg), each with an engraving suggesting what might be encountered beyond: beholder, dragon, and giant. The players chose the giant passage. As Galadriel might have said, "They passed the test."


----------



## Garthanos

Gentlegamer said:


> They can be, but more common I think is the TPK created by poor play.




Poor DMing by poor communication and using a poor game mechanic like ... but I rolled it up on the random encounter chart... are the poor play I seen result in TPK's


----------



## Gimby

Gentlegamer said:


> Yes. Tempting the players is one challenge that can be considered in the DM's toolbox.
> Players may seek out additional information before taking almost every action. Skilled players will use all "informational abilities" (sensory info, scouting, magical scrying, interrogation of NPCs, etc) at their disposal to this end. DMs should reward these efforts with reasonably accurate information for the players to base decisions on.
> 
> ...
> 
> They can be, but more common I think is the TPK created by poor play.




This is all fine, but its the kind of thing that has traditionally lead to accusations of pixel-bitching and overly cautious behaviour.  This is particularly not aided by "Gotcha" monsters and traps seemingly deliberately designed to confound information gathering techniques.  If you spend the time to evade the Ear Seekers and so on, you run the risk of running into wandering monsters.  

Poor play may indeed be poor a certain amount of the time, but other times it may simply be not reading the DM's mind.  Particularly if the PCs are caught by something the DM neglected to mention, not through malice but simply by being human.



Gentlegamer said:


> I remember in my own campaign, the players (about 5th level) were in an dungeon area faced with three passages (transported there by a being similar to the mad-wizard Zagyg), each with an engraving suggesting what might be encountered beyond: beholder, dragon, and giant. The players chose the giant passage. As Galadriel might have said, "They passed the test."




See, he'res a good example.  Three tunnels with engravings on.  They have to trust that their interpretation is correct and they weren't, say, a Gas Spore, a Pseudodragon and a Storm Giant.  They also have to trust that this actually pertains as to what is up ahead and not a trap of some sort.  The players can only make choices to demonstrate good play if the DM is actually providing enough and accurate enough information for them to make informed decisions.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Fifth Element said:


> My problem with this is that it means there is a "right answer." The players are *supposed* to know they can't defeat the thing in combat, which to me is just as bad as making combat the only possible result of any encounter.



Like I said, there should be clues, strong clues even, such as listening to the NPC wizard:

"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting."
or
"Fly! Swords are no more use here! This foe is beyond any of you!"


> If there is a right way to react to these hypothetical clues, that hampers roleplaying. That's one serious advantage of balanced encounters - the PCs can approach them in a variety of ways, rather than having some ways be instant death.



If combat is always the "safe fallback" option for an encounter, once discovered, the players will almost always choose it as the easiest option, human nature being what it is. 

Challenges are often constructed by getting someone out of his comfort zone. Games are no different.

In terms of "hopeless" combat encounters, the two players whom the Tomb of Horrors was designed to challenge, neither Ernie Gygax nor Rob Kuntz actually defeated the demi-lich; each grabbed as much treasure as possible and beat a swift retreat rather than "test" their characters against the thing in the vault. So they "beat" the tomb without fighting the "boss" at the end. On the other hand, a group playing it in a tournament came up with an unanticipated method (unanticipated by Gary even) of destroying the demi-lich (involving the crown and scepter for those who know the module): they were awarded first place. 


> Or, they may schedule games of D&D with a DM they don't feel is out to get them, or out to "teach" them how to play the "right" way.



You don't need a DM for that type of game; _Candyland _is ready to play out of the box.


----------



## Garthanos

Gentlegamer said:


> Yes. Tempting the players is one challenge that can be considered in the DM's toolbox.




Way too trivial to deceive and maniplulate.. I know my players goals and what they are after in play.  I tempt them with perfectly reasonable heroic goals.. like evidence the dragon is evil and imminent threat. And since I am eyes and ears and the better part of memories.... its easy I can give them fairy tales about dragon slayers or whatever I might need to set the stage... and if I want them to bite off more than they can chew give em a taste .. a baby dragon that isnt known by the people it is harassing to be just a baby... they kill it maybe not even easily. Then the next dragon is my tpk tool... wow what a toolbox... oh yeah... must be fun to kill player characters. Next time they play with me they will know better. I can teach them being a heros is an idiots task ... its there job to cower in fear.... like all the rest of the peasants.



Gentlegamer said:


> Players may seek out additional information before taking almost every action.



May becomes "must" way easily and you have characters listening for 10 minutes behind every door and searching for traps and tapping ahead with 11 foot poles and searching for secret doors in every room and intersection... I saw people write down a sequence of horribly boring activities both out of paranoia and because (hearing about those things became uninteresting) ... they tap the list when the dm asks them what they are doing...  

Make your world one giant deception...  one giant death trap and I for one wouldnt want to watch, play or interact with it. I haven't watched many movies or read any books where this was the case.


----------



## Garthanos

Remathilis said:


> "You must spread some XP around before giving to Mathew L Martin again."
> .




I got it covered.


----------



## Garthanos

Gentlegamer said:


> You don't need a DM for that type of game; _Candyland _is ready to play out of the box.




You seem to use it like a verbal club are you meaning it that way?  

Gygax had issues like all of us.... propagate and glorify if you like, but not all his words qualified as words of wisdom some really were just unfortunate and insulting to people who might consider different forms of play interesting...   if you are passionate about something that can happen even to heroes.


----------



## billd91

Garthanos said:


> You seem to use it like a verbal club are you meaning it that way?
> 
> Gygax had issues like all of us.... propagate and glorify if you like, but not all his words qualified as words of wisdom some really were just unfortunate and insulting to people who might consider different forms of play interesting...   if you are passionate about something that can happen even to heroes.




I think you're making too much of the Candyland quote... and yet not enough.

Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge. No player decision, other than playing in the first place, matters a whit to how the game is resolved. It's pure chance.

By contrast, Gygax is talking about playing a game in which player decisions matter and either contribute or detract from the success of the players, sometimes in substantial ways. And it's up to the DM to actually make those decisions challenging enough that bad decisions, good decisions, worse decisions, and better decisions lead to appropriate results for the players. 

In the case of players not wanting to risk the poison needle in the lock traps, death from goblin ambushes, etc, then perhaps the decision they should make is to not adventure. If the game adheres to a guideline that all encounters should be level-appropriate, then what or whose decisions are we concerned with? If all encounters are expected to be successfully fought, then the only decisions are in tactically how, not strategically whether or not the fight should be fought at all. That may not constrain the decisions as tightly as Candyland, but I would argue that it's not as broad as it should be either. It also means a degree of challenge in the game is lost, the challenge of understanding when to throw down the gauntlet and when to not and even of assessing when to disengage if the decision to fight turns out rash.


----------



## Gimby

billd91 said:


> If the game adheres to a guideline that all encounters should be level-appropriate, then what or whose decisions are we concerned with?




Its worth noting at this point that this is a guideline thats not presented in any edition of the DMG.

-edit To expand on that a little further, there are still strategic considerations even if it were - avoiding a patrol you may be able to destroy might mean that they are less likely to be missed.  Chasing a level appropriate encounter through rough terrain may delay or distract you from your main objective.  Killing an ambushing street gang will have repercussions with your relationships with other factions in a city, and so on.  All this is also true of encounters that bear no relationship to party level (as far as such a thing is a valid metric) but is meant to demonstrate there is more than just will we/won't we win as a strategic consideration.

-edit edit

To give an example of this, in the current 24th level game I'm in, we were confronted with a portal maze containing a Phane.  This was very much a level appropriate encounter.  We decided to avoid the fight and negotiate with the creature to attack the demons who were chasing us instead.


----------



## Tistur

Fifth Element said:


> My problem with this is that it means there is a "right answer." The players are *supposed* to know they can't defeat the thing in combat, which to me is just as bad as making combat the only possible result of any encounter.





Hmmm. I did not read this as saying there is a _right_ way to handle it, just that there is a _wrong_ way. Any way that is not that wrong way could be considered the "right" way.

Anyway, that interpretation is the one that makes sense to me.


----------



## Lanefan

Garthanos said:


> Make your world one giant deception...  one giant death trap and I for one wouldnt want to watch, play or interact with it.



Doesn't have to all be "one giant death trap", but the thought of a campaign world being all "one giant deception" is giving me some interesting ideas... 

Lan-"this is not the world you think it is, and it never was"-efan


----------



## Maggan

Lanefan said:


> Doesn't have to all be "one giant death trap", but the thought of a campaign world being all "one giant deception" is giving me some interesting ideas...




Check out the rpg Kult if you can find it. The premise is that the world is an illusion. 

/M


----------



## ExploderWizard

Remathilis said:


> Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration? Can't the same effect come from a dragon closer to the PC's relative power? Perhaps maybe a few levels higher, rather than multiple? Is it a requirement the encounter be a TPK on legs?




The PC's are negotiating with a dragon because they _cannot _just kill it, take its stuff, and move on. Once players sense that a situation is winnable in combat there is little to motivate them to act otherwise unless the rewards for doing so are immediate and obvious. 

Part of the balance for the game comes from being able to make decisions that pay off in a huge way and sometimes having the chance to step in a big enough mess to bring about total ruin. 

If everything is kept on an even keel and within the "beatable" range then the game can become less exciting. 

In the last session of my 4E campaign, the PC's discovered evidence of an underground tunneling creature in the area. On thier next foray out, they decided to bring along a goat as an early warning system and sacrificial bait for the beastie if it came to that. 

A little while later, the party (mostly 2nd level), was attacked by a hungry bulette (a level 9 monster). The PC's got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster. Thier attacks prove ineffectual, so they left the goat and fled across the river while the monster munched on the goat. 

The "challenge" of the encounter was for the _players _and was not one of comparative combat statistics. The players recognized the danger and took appropriate action. They did not plan thier expedition to fight a rampaging underground monster. Now that they have knowledge of the threat, they can choose to make plans for removing it. Depending on the plan and the skill of implementation, they might overcome the beast through methods outside of standard combat. 

These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.



There's some truth there, and it does illustrate how silly the cries that 4E is so gamist are. 1E is extremely gamist - it challenged the players rather than the characters.


----------



## Gentlegamer

ExploderWizard said:


> The PC's are negotiating with a dragon because they _cannot _just kill it, take its stuff, and move on. Once players sense that a situation is winnable in combat there is little to motivate them to act otherwise unless the rewards for doing so are immediate and obvious.
> 
> Part of the balance for the game comes from being able to make decisions that pay off in a huge way and sometimes having the chance to step in a big enough mess to bring about total ruin.
> 
> If everything is kept on an even keel and within the "beatable" range then the game can become less exciting.
> 
> In the last session of my 4E campaign, the PC's discovered evidence of an underground tunneling creature in the area. On thier next foray out, they decided to bring along a goat as an early warning system and sacrificial bait for the beastie if it came to that.
> 
> A little while later, the party (mostly 2nd level), was attacked by a hungry bulette (a level 9 monster). The PC's got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster. Thier attacks prove ineffectual, so they left the goat and fled across the river while the monster munched on the goat.
> 
> The "challenge" of the encounter was for the _players _and was not one of comparative combat statistics. The players recognized the danger and took appropriate action. They did not plan thier expedition to fight a rampaging underground monster. Now that they have knowledge of the threat, they can choose to make plans for removing it. Depending on the plan and the skill of implementation, they might overcome the beast through methods outside of standard combat.
> 
> These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.



What I was trying to say, only said better.


----------



## Gimby

ExploderWizard said:


> The PC's are negotiating with a dragon because they _cannot _just kill it, take its stuff, and move on. Once players sense that a situation is winnable in combat there is little to motivate them to act otherwise unless the rewards for doing so are immediate and obvious.
> 
> Part of the balance for the game comes from being able to make decisions that pay off in a huge way and sometimes having the chance to step in a big enough mess to bring about total ruin.
> 
> If everything is kept on an even keel and within the "beatable" range then the game can become less exciting.
> 
> In the last session of my 4E campaign, the PC's discovered evidence of an underground tunneling creature in the area. On thier next foray out, they decided to bring along a goat as an early warning system and sacrificial bait for the beastie if it came to that.
> 
> A little while later, the party (mostly 2nd level), was attacked by a hungry bulette (a level 9 monster). The PC's got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster. Thier attacks prove ineffectual, so they left the goat and fled across the river while the monster munched on the goat.
> 
> The "challenge" of the encounter was for the _players _and was not one of comparative combat statistics. The players recognized the danger and took appropriate action. They did not plan thier expedition to fight a rampaging underground monster. Now that they have knowledge of the threat, they can choose to make plans for removing it. Depending on the plan and the skill of implementation, they might overcome the beast through methods outside of standard combat.
> 
> These types of situations help keep the game interesting IMHO, no matter what edition/system you use. It was these types of challenges that 1E was designed and balanced for. Try and think of it as being balanced for the people at the table rather than thier characters. The game rewarded clever play more than it did having the optimal arrangement of numbers on a character sheet.




I think this is actually part of what Remathallis was looking for - the enemy monster is out of (easily) beatable range, but not massively so.  Part of the challenge is letting people step in a huge mess *but realise they have done so and make corrective action*.  

If your tunneling monster had instead been, I dunno, a level 30 Remorhaz then we get "The party got into defensive positions and tried to engage the monster, at which point they were wiped out in one round by its flaming aura.  The End."  Its about getting that balance (ah-ha!) between threat and instant lethality.


----------



## Garthanos

Gentlegamer said:


> If combat is always the "safe fallback" option for an encounter, once discovered, the players will almost always choose it as the easiest option, human nature being what it is.




In games where its the only form of conflict with a well defined methodology it seems like it is an encouraged fall back whether safe or not ...   if trickery and deciept and divine bonded oaths were well defined mechanically they might be higher on the list.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I note that, in the classic D&D format, danger levels tend to increase incrementally, so that players can (or should) be able to guage where they are on the scale if they are paying attention.

Moreover, the flatter the level curve, the easier it is to engage in situations where combat is not the best option, but characters can survive.  Only 3e, with its very steep level curve, makes this difficult -- in 1e, 2e, or (from what I understand) 4e, this shouldn't be a problem.



RC


----------



## ExploderWizard

Garthanos said:


> In games where its the only form of conflict with a well defined methodology it seems like it is an encouraged fall back whether safe or not ... if trickery and deciept and divine bonded oaths were well defined mechanically they might be higher on the list.




So the reason to approach a problem in a given manner relies more heavily on resolution mechanics than common sense or logic?

If one is playing with a DM who cannot or will not judge the game based on the merits of a given course of action instead relying on rote mechanical resolution formulae then I can see your point.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Gimby said:


> See, he'res a good example.  Three tunnels with engravings on.  They have to trust that their interpretation is correct and they weren't, say, a Gas Spore, a Pseudodragon and a Storm Giant.  They also have to trust that this actually pertains as to what is up ahead and not a trap of some sort.  The players can only make choices to demonstrate good play if the DM is actually providing enough and accurate enough information for them to make informed decisions.



Oh! I like how you think!  

I'm a rat bastard, but not _that _rat of a bastard, though, and my veteran players knew that. The party in question was 6 PCs with assorted henchmen and hirelings (total of about 12 characters), a mix of veteran players of my campaign and n00bs.


----------



## Gimby

Gentlegamer said:


> Oh! I like how you think!
> 
> I'm a rat bastard, but not _that _rat of a bastard, though, and my veteran players knew that. The party in question was 6 PCs with assorted henchmen and hirelings (total of about 12 characters), a mix of veteran players of my campaign and n00bs.




Yeah, thats pretty much my point about reading the DM's mind (or knowing their style, if you prefer).  In your game, good play is deciphering the engravings and following the clues, in my game, good play is ignoring the engravings and using other information gathering methods.  A player going from my table to yours or vice versa will result in what was previously good play becoming poor play.  

In short, "good play" or "poor play" aren't absolute player skills except where the players have full control over their situation.  There are certainly aspects that carry over from one table to another, but I don't think its a simple player skill issue.


----------



## Raven Crowking

The game includes divination spells.

When in doubt, use them.


RC


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> Only 3e, with its very steep level curve, makes this difficult -- in 1e, 2e, or (from what I understand) 4e, this shouldn't be a problem.



You do have to have characters hearty enough for this technique to have any ground (you do have it in 4e but I am not so sure about AD&D). Basically we are talking using combat at which they are failing ... as another form of communicating to the players their characters are outclassed too quick of permanent defeat is not useful.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Gimby said:


> Yeah, thats pretty much my point about reading the DM's mind (or knowing their style, if you prefer).  In your game, good play is deciphering the engravings and following the clues, in my game, good play is ignoring the engravings and using other information gathering methods.  A player going from my table to yours or vice versa will result in what was previously good play becoming poor play.



Are you saying you are in fact one of those devious DMs that like fooling and pulling "gotchas" on the players?  

My guiding principle is that while I will sometimes try to "tempt" players into making "unbalanced" or sub-optimal choices, I "reward" appropriate caution represented by reasonable information gathering given the circumstances, which is what I consider sound refereeing. I don't consider sound refereeing making sure that every potential combat encounter is "winnable" through conventional (combat) methods.

My campaign never reached the "gotcha" level that more "advanced" campaigns can reach (such as the Greyhawk campaign where the tricks Gary came up with were to challenge his expert players).  


> In short, "good play" or "poor play" aren't absolute player skills except where the players have full control over their situation.  There are certainly aspects that carry over from one table to another, but I don't think its a simple player skill issue.



Information gathering is an absolute player skill in every RPG I can think of.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garthanos said:


> You do have to have characters hearty enough for this technique to have any ground (you do have it in 4e but I am not so sure about AD&D). Basically we are talking using combat at which they are failing ... as another form of communicating to the players their characters are outclassed too quick of permanent defeat is not useful.




And, yet, hundreds or more have managed to do just that.


RC


----------



## Gimby

Raven Crowking said:


> The game includes divination spells.
> 
> When in doubt, use them.
> 
> 
> RC




Absolutely.  Thats included in "other information gathering methods".

Still though, its a matter of DM style as to whether or not they are useful in obtaining your objective and can be considered good play or not.  They may simply confirm what you've already figured out, which can be seen as poor play due to wasting time and resources.  They can be exactly what's needed, so would be good play.  They may delay you sufficiently to cause wandering monsters to attack, which is clearly counterproductive.  And so on. 

*Requiring* class and level (and possibly already spent resource) constrained abilities comes back to the different limitations thing we discussed earlier.  I don't think we're going to budge on that one though


----------



## ExploderWizard

Gentlegamer said:


> Information gathering is an absolute player skill in every RPG I can think of.




This is certainly true.

This skill can be underdeveloped for several reasons:

1)The player is not invested enough in the game to care.

2) The DM refuses to reward thoughtful actions with any benefit. 

3)The game system rewards character resource allocation over creative thought ( dice pounding solves all)

4)The player has experienced enough poorly run games that he/she just doesn't bother anymore


Not all of these are the fault of the player.


----------



## Raven Crowking

"Good play" is defined, IMHO, by its results, and the players involved are the only one whose subjective opinions as to those results matter.  Getting the results you were hoping for?  That is good play.  Not getting the results you were hoping for?  Not so much good play.  No more evidence is needed.

It should be noted, too, that good play in this context includes choosing a Game Master capable of providing a good game.

OTOH, it is true that what some people want is ego validation, and what they are hoping for is a GM who will run a game in which their decisions are always the right ones.  Well, there is "good play" in this sort of game too, but it doesn't translate so well into "good play" when confronted by a more challenging game environment.  It is important to know what it is you are after from a game to which so much time and energy is devoted, and to realize that sometimes what you want might change the nature of the game into something completely different.


RC


----------



## Gimby

Gentlegamer said:


> Are you saying you are in fact one of those devious DMs that like fooling and pulling "gotchas" on the players?




Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not.  How's your mind-reading these days? 



Gentlegamer said:


> My guiding principle is that while I will sometimes try to "tempt" players into making "unbalanced" or sub-optimal choices, I "reward" appropriate caution represented by reasonable information gathering given the circumstances, which is what I consider sound refereeing. I don't consider sound refereeing making sure that every potential combat encounter is "winnable" through conventional (combat) methods.




Yes, I'd agree, not every encounter should be winnable through direct conflict - its notable that this is pretty much the DM advice given in every DMG I've read.  

The gotcha's I prefer though are ones where the players can figure it out, but if they don't they don't run into instant destruction - No "Forgot to cast Death Ward on everyone? Suprise Bodak!" more the Bullete situation described above.  The TPK arises not from a single poor decision (which may or may not be clear to be poor) but either from repeated action in a clearly poor direction or clearly suicidal actions  - "Yes, throwing yourself from a catapault resulted in your death, what were you thinking?".  In that example though, if the answer was "Something like that bit in Robin Hood, you know, like the rest of the game has been run" then I, and not the players, am guilty of poor play. 

But even then, what I think of as appropriate caution and rewards will differ from yours.   



Gentlegamer said:


> Information gathering is an absolute player skill in every RPG I can think of.




Information gathering as a broad category yes, actual implementation of that in relation to skills/spells/time/clues available I'd argue is very table dependant.


----------



## Ariosto

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Here's a different question. Why has the game reached a point the PCs are negotiating with an ancient wyrm far above their power level to avoid incineration?



I think you have implied that the answer is that the DM must unfairly have imposed upon the players. Are you not appealing to the specter of such hypothetical encounters as evidence for the necessity of ad hoc "encounter balancing" by the DM?

Others assume that the DM ought to set up a game such that players can make strategic choices -- and take the consequences. That's the kind of D&D game I like to play, and there have always been plenty of fellows with whom to do so.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The players are *supposed* to know they can't defeat the thing in combat, which to me is just as bad as making combat the only possible result of any encounter.



Except that it would not be a case of impossibility! What the players should know, if it is the case, is that an open fight (as opposed perhaps to a carefully prepared ambush) is likely to go against them. If they don't know that -- which it is part of play to learn -- then they should know that they *don't know*. If they choose to gamble that the best defense is a good case of willful ignorance, then they are due whatever the dice decree. That _could_ be a surprise victory for them. 







> That's one serious advantage of balanced encounters - the PCs can approach them in a variety of ways, rather than having some ways be instant death.



That is not in fact the logical dichotomy; that some ways are instant death does *not* mean that there are not a variety of viable approaches! In any case, *advantage* is -- in the nature of a _game_ -- most customarily something for players to pursue, not to take for granted. The foundation that makes strategy possible is the fact that some ways are more advantageous than others.

Perhaps it is not clear to you that a basic assumption of the game is that _the players_ choose their paths through the environment as much as you and I choose our courses through the real world.

That kind of game may not be to one's taste, but it is most certainly an actual game form admitting of actual balances.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge. No player decision, other than playing in the first place, matters a whit to how the game is resolved. It's pure chance.



Although my acquaintance with the game is fleeting, IIRC that is not precisely true -- as it would be in the case of, e.g., Snakes (or Chutes) and Ladders. Also, one might observe that chance plays a profound role especially in survival of a character to 2nd level. However, the point is well taken that AD&D was designed to put a premium on managing that chance factor by _avoiding_ it as much as possible. That's a radically different aim than the _dependence upon_ prescribed default probabilities that figures so prominently in, for instance, 4e.


----------



## Ariosto

In recent months, I have been frustrated as a player by the "encounter balance" routine.

The obvious corollary to making a "too hard" fight easier is what?

Why, making arbitrarily harder one that has turned out to be "too easy"!

As a *game player*, I prefer to have my strategies actually make decisive differences.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ariosto said:


> In recent months, I have been frustrated as a player by the "encounter balance" routine.
> 
> The obvious corollary to making a "too hard" fight easier is what?
> 
> Why, making arbitrarily harder one that has turned out to be "too easy"!
> 
> As a *game player*, I prefer to have my strategies actually make decisive differences.




If I discovered a GM doing that, it would be a deal-breaker for me.  I don't want hard encounters made easier, or easy encounters made harder.  If the GM made a mistake and misjudged the difficulty of an encounter, well, chalk that up to a learning experience.....but let it stand!


RC


----------



## Bullgrit

Ariosto said:
			
		

> billd91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge. No player decision, other than playing in the first place, matters a whit to how the game is resolved. It's pure chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although my acquaintance with the game is fleeting, IIRC that is not precisely true -- as it would be in the case of, e.g., Snakes (or Chutes) and Ladders.
Click to expand...


Having young children, I can affirm that Candyland has absolutely no challenge, and no player decision-making, just like with Chutes and Ladders. That's why a 2 year old can "play" and "win" the game "against" adults.

Bullgrit


----------



## ExploderWizard

Ariosto said:


> In recent months, I have been frustrated as a player by the "encounter balance" routine.
> 
> The obvious corollary to making a "too hard" fight easier is what?
> 
> Why, making arbitrarily harder one that has turned out to be "too easy"!
> 
> As a *game player*, I prefer to have my strategies actually make decisive differences.




My problem with encounter balance is similar. A game is played by _people. _A game structured as part of well balanced mechanical breakfast seeks to challenge collisions between sets of statistics rather than the _person_ playing the game. My character sheet is an object. The numbers written there have no need or care to be challenged. 

Connected with this is the terrible evil known as DM fiat. To those who would question why they should put any trust of success into the DM's hands I say this: As a player do you think your ideas and plans should have any influence on the outcome of your action? 

If the answer is yes then rulings/ DM fiat is your friend. Anyone who has ever played in a game and succeeded due to a well executed plan when the numbers said you should have crashed and burned knows this. 

So it comes down to degrees of mechanics vs. rulings. The heavier the mechanics and statistics get the less relevant the people on either side of them are.

So a balanced rules-heavy system supposedly allows inexperienced DMs to run smooth games, at least thats what I keep hearing. A smooth running game does not always equal a rewarding or satisfying game.


----------



## Gentlegamer

ExploderWizard said:


> If the answer is yes then rulings/ DM fiat is your friend. Anyone who has ever played in a game and succeeded due to a well executed plan when the numbers said you should have crashed and burned knows this.








"I love it when a plan comes together!"


----------



## Ariosto

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I think I got Candy Land confused with another game involving cards. Or maybe there was a "house rule" version of CL. Mostly just an unreliable memory, though!


----------



## Ariosto

AD&D did not stand out to me as notably "unbalanced"; if anything, it was notable for giving *more* attention to weighting factors certain ways.

Compare it for instance with _RuneQuest_. What replaces classes and levels is a really wide open system with essentially no guarantees. I recall that being a pretty common model, before _Champions_ put the points system (as seen in _The Fantasy Trip_) into a context even more rigorously mechanistic than D&D's.

Then there were the SF games -- _Traveller_, _Metamorphosis Alpha_ and _Gamma World_ -- in which initial conditions (with big element of chance) largely determined differences likely to last throughout characters' careers. Players might overshadow those numerical factors with attainments in play not dictated by them, but that seems only to make matters "worse" from a more "modern" perspective.


----------



## Gimby

ExploderWizard said:


> My problem with encounter balance is similar. A game is played by _people. _A game structured as part of well balanced mechanical breakfast seeks to challenge collisions between sets of statistics rather than the _person_ playing the game. My character sheet is an object. The numbers written there have no need or care to be challenged.




True, but those numbers are generated and manipulated by a person.  Plus in some cases it's more appropriate to challenge the entity created and defined by those numbers, depending on how much you want the play to be about the players-as-characters rather than the players-as-themselves.

Theres also an irony in that this can be read as "I don't like balanced encounters as the game isn't *enough* of a tactical wargame".



ExploderWizard said:


> Connected with this is the terrible evil known as DM fiat. To those who would question why they should put any trust of success into the DM's hands I say this: As a player do you think your ideas and plans should have any influence on the outcome of your action?




DM fiat is, in my experience, a tool.  It can be used well or badly.  If I have crunched the numbers and set up my abilites such to execute a plan well and it is fiat-failed, then this is probably a bad use of it.  If I am setting a situation up to deliberately fail (maybe its a appropriate to my characterisation) and it fiat-succeds, this is also a probably a bad use of it.  

You have to trust your DM, and part of that is trusting them to rule consistently.  Otherwise you risk playing Mother-May-I.



ExploderWizard said:


> If the answer is yes then rulings/ DM fiat is your friend. Anyone who has ever played in a game and succeeded due to a well executed plan when the numbers said you should have crashed and burned knows this.




Honestly, I don't agree.  If, in fiction, a plan has a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then it will always work.  In the game, if the players make a plan with a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then surely they should either a) ride those odds, its their plan after all and to do otherwise is to negate thier choices and actions or b) come up with a plan with a better chance of success.  



ExploderWizard said:


> So it comes down to degrees of mechanics vs. rulings. The heavier the mechanics and statistics get the less relevant the people on either side of them are.
> 
> So a balanced rules-heavy system supposedly allows inexperienced DMs to run smooth games, at least thats what I keep hearing. A smooth running game does not always equal a rewarding or satisfying game.




No, it doesn't.  But a game that does not run smoothly does not always equal a rewarding or satisfying game either.  

As an analogy, lets take motorbikes.  

My father owns two.  One is a Norton Commando.  Its a classic British bike and the ride and engine tone are incredible.  You can fiddle with the engine to your heart's content and so on.  

The other is a Kawasaki, and compared to the Commando its a souless hunk of metal.  Engine is all black boxes and it sounds awful.  

However, if you go out touring, the Norton is much more likely to break down, less fuel efficient and doesn't handle as well.  You need to be sure you are carrying spares and the kick start, while fun, stands a good chance of skinning your shins.  The Kawasaki on the other hand, is a much less stressful ride - it just works so you can spend your time enjoying the scenery and relaxing into the ride.  

So, which is more satisfying/fufilling? Matter of taste.  If you are interested in the visceral experience of the ride, the Norton, hands down, no contest.  If you are more interested in the journey and destination, then probably the Kawasaki.  If you were starting out in bikes, then the Kawasaki is probably a better choice for you too as it's vastly less work.

Essentially, thats why I prefer a balanced/smooth running game - I'm more interested in the journey than the mechanics.  If I can trust the game to run with minimal input from me, then I can spend more time worrying about worldbuilding or whatever.


----------



## Ariosto

Gimby said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't agree. If, in fiction, a plan has a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then it will always work. In the game, if the players make a plan with a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then surely they should either a) ride those odds, its their plan after all and to do otherwise is to negate thier choices and actions or b) come up with a plan with a better chance of success.



I am afraid I really cannot follow this.

With what are you disagreeing?

What does (a) mean, at all? Can you put it in different words? Are there some predicate assumptions not stipulated here?

Whatever that meaning is, how does it coexist with (b)?

How do (a) and (b) relate to the preliminary statement regarding fiction?


----------



## Gimby

Ariosto said:


> I am afraid I really cannot follow this.
> 
> With what are you disagreeing?
> 
> What does (a) mean, at all? Can you put it in different words? Are there some predicate assumptions not stipulated here?
> 
> Whatever that meaning is, how does it coexist with (b)?
> 
> How do (a) and (b) relate to the preliminary statement regarding fiction?




The idea that DM fiat is good for players because it allows unlikely (but cool) plans to work.

The fiction comment comes from that Discworld quote - "Million to one chances pop up nine times out of ten".  The heros come up with an impropable, desperate plan and it works, not due to the inherent probabilities but due to narrative neccesity.  

But in a game with dice rolls, if the players have a plan that has an inherent low probability of success, it is not likely to succeed (by definition).  If you, out of a desire to let this plan succeed because it is cool, give fiat success to it then you have essentially negated their strategic decisions - as you say here: 



			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> As a *game player*, I prefer to have my strategies actually make decisive differences.




As this surely applies to both good (high probability of success) and to bad (low probability of success) strategies.  

If your plan is actually good, then you *haven't* beaten the overwhelming odds.  You have adjusted the odds until they are in your favour and then beaten those new, favourable odds.  This should require no fiat-success.


----------



## Garthanos

So the non-charismatic player doesn't get to experience the power of being charismatic .... even if his character is conceived a charismatic because the game doesn't include mechanics for it... he has to rely on DM fiat to give him it ... because the game designers didnt consider that to be a valid goal (he is supposed to be here to kill monsters and take there stuff thats what all the challenge and rewards are defined in terms of if not he must be an "inferior player" who doesnt want to be challenged).


----------



## ExploderWizard

Gimby said:


> True, but those numbers are generated and manipulated by a person. Plus in some cases it's more appropriate to challenge the entity created and defined by those numbers, depending on how much you want the play to be about the players-as-characters rather than the players-as-themselves.




The characters aren't real. The character won't recognize or appreciate being challenged. The player might appreciate it.



Gimby said:


> Theres also an irony in that this can be read as "I don't like balanced encounters as the game isn't *enough* of a tactical wargame".




What has balance (or lack of it) got to do with using (or not using) tactics?




Gimby said:


> DM fiat is, in my experience, a tool. It can be used well or badly. If I have crunched the numbers and set up my abilites such to execute a plan well and it is fiat-failed, then this is probably a bad use of it. If I am setting a situation up to deliberately fail (maybe its a appropriate to my characterisation) and it fiat-succeds, this is also a probably a bad use of it.
> 
> You have to trust your DM, and part of that is trusting them to rule consistently. Otherwise you risk playing Mother-May-I.




Mechanics are also tools that can either aid gameplay or interfere with it.





Gimby said:


> Honestly, I don't agree. If, in fiction, a plan has a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then it will always work. In the game, if the players make a plan with a one-in-a-million chance of succeeding, then surely they should either a) ride those odds, its their plan after all and to do otherwise is to negate thier choices and actions or b) come up with a plan with a better chance of success.




If that was a roundabout way of saying the players have a chance to pull off the caper of a lifetime or go down in flames depending on the merits of the plan and its execution then I agree.




Gimby said:


> No, it doesn't. But a game that does not run smoothly does not always equal a rewarding or satisfying game either.
> 
> 
> Essentially, thats why I prefer a balanced/smooth running game - I'm more interested in the journey than the mechanics. If I can trust the game to run with minimal input from me, then I can spend more time worrying about worldbuilding or whatever.




This is where we differ. I don't plays these games to passively sit back and enjoy the ride. Thats what a movie or a book is for. RPGs are interactive shared entertainment which, to me, means the more interacting and participation by all involved the more fun and rewarding the experience can be. 

We simply have different expectations/goals of play.


----------



## Ariosto

Thanks, Gimby!

Although I obviously cannot speak for ExploderWizard, that kind of "DM fiat" -- a kind I have seen called "the rule of cool" -- is probably not what's meant by 'rulings' in that context. The rules-litigation argument against the "terrible evil" is much more often one-sided, casting the DM as a villainous foe of players whose only defense is the dice and quotation of chapter and verse from The Book. It would be extraordinary for a rules lawyer to argue _against_ a "rule of cool" ruling; possibly dangerous as well, considering the likely reception from fellow players!

EW's point, I think, was that the field of things permitted by rigidly quantified rules is necessarily as a drop in the ocean next to all that cunning players might conceive. That is, I think, not only one of the reasons for having a Game Master in the first place but a key distinction between the basic assumptions of the RPG field and those of the wargame hobby from which it emerged. A wargame GM might also permit actions unanticipated in the written rules, but that is much less central to the game form.


----------



## Garthanos

By the way DM fiat works fine even for melee combat stuff (if your DM knows what he is doing).


----------



## ExploderWizard

Garthanos said:


> So the non-charismatic player doesn't get to experience the power of being charismatic .... even if his character is conceived a charismatic because the game doesn't include mechanics for it... he has to rely on DM fiat to give him it ... because the game designers didnt consider that to be a valid goal (he is supposed to be here to kill monsters and take there stuff thats what all the challenge and rewards are defined in terms of if not he must be an "inferior player" who doesnt want to be challenged).




Why do you assume the attributes of the character are not considered in the resolution of things unless they are prepackaged into the results of predictable dice fests?

Reaction bonuses based on the CHA of the _character_ don't count as rules now?

What part of player driven challenges and rewards are you not getting?
The game designers let the participants determine what were valid goals. 

The original intended goals of treasure and fame can be obtained through means other than combat if the players decide that the use of wits and charm will be thier primary methods used in achieving these goals. 

Ironically, a player who wanted to do nothing but kill monsters and take thier stuff _was _the inferior player because the law of averages would make for a short lifespan.

Meanwhile the superior players were figuring out all kinds of ingenious ways to take stuff without having to bleed for it.


----------



## Ariosto

Gimby said:
			
		

> If your plan is actually good, then you *haven't* beaten the overwhelming odds. You have adjusted the odds until they are in your favour and then beaten those new, favourable odds. This should require no fiat-success.



I have no idea where you get this notion that I have any concern with "beating overwhelming odds". The simple fact is that either

(A) you permit the DM to make rulings; or
(B) you are stuck getting told, "No, you can't do that. It may make sense, but there's no rule for it."

The thicker you make your rules-book in response, the greater the handling time -- and the greater the role of the rules-lawyer. At the end of the day, you will still be left with a world of things not pinned down precisely.


----------



## Garthanos

ExploderWizard said:


> The characters aren't real. The character won't recognize or appreciate being challenged. The player might appreciate it.




You missed the point... Players wanting to vicariously experience the abilities of characters with abilities that do not correspond to there own.... are un supported by DM fiat based on player ability.


----------



## Plane Sailing

I see some people using "DM fiat" or "Mother may I?" in what appears to be a derogatory sense, and they really shouldn't.

It presupposes a heavily antagonistic playstyle where players can't trust DMs to make good decisions and ensure the game remains enjoyable for all.

It is almost a case of using (inventing?) terminology to rule out the possibility of DMs using their narrative control to support players/characters/smart ideas/whatever.

Taken to its logical extreme, you would replace a DM with a computer, and let it run all the numbers because it is frankly unable to effectively make narrative decisions that are worth anything.

So rather than allow the discussion to end up being framed as 'mother may I' on one side and 'just play a CRPG' on the other, can we avoid using loaded terms.

Thanks


----------



## Gimby

ExploderWizard said:


> The characters aren't real. The character won't recognize or appreciate being challenged. The player might appreciate it.




 Some players appreciate their characters being challenged, but not themselves being challenged.  Its the old wanting to play character substantially different from self idea.



ExploderWizard said:


> What has balance (or lack of it) got to do with using (or not using) tactics?




 In that the challenge in a tactical wargame is always the player being challenged, rather than the units.  



ExploderWizard said:


> Mechanics are also tools that can either aid gameplay or interfere with it.




 Indeed, I'll certainly agree.  The only advantage that they have over fiat is that they are written down and accessible to all participants in the game.  Disadvantage being inflexibility, of course.



ExploderWizard said:


> If that was a roundabout way of saying the players have a chance to pull off the caper of a lifetime or go down in flames depending on the merits of the plan and its execution then I agree.




 Yes, on the merits of the plan, not on whether or not the DM likes it.  Fiat doesn't need to come into that scenario.




ExploderWizard said:


> This is where we differ. I don't plays these games to passively sit back and enjoy the ride. Thats what a movie or a book is for. RPGs are interactive shared entertainment which, to me, means the more interacting and participation by all involved the more fun and rewarding the experience can be.
> 
> We simply have different expectations/goals of play.




If I took the Kawasaki out and passively sat back, I'd crash at the first corner.  Its not the difference between actively and passively experiencing to the game, its between enjoying the game for the game's sake and enjoying what results from the game.  

The Norton is interesting as a machine, but focuses attention on the machine.  The Kawasaki is boring as a machine, so allows focus on other things.  

Personally, I've found that a game balanced/siloed so that a player may always make a meaningful contribution at any point promotes participation more than individual spotlights, but I'm aware this isn't universal.

I do expect we've got different goals/expectations though, yes.


----------



## Ariosto

> So the non-charismatic player doesn't get to experience the power of being charismatic ..



Says who?

What's wrong with just getting a charisma bonus the same as you get a strength or dexterity bonus for attacking with a weapon? 

Why is it so horrible an imposition to expect a player to specify what he's _doing_ just as much in a parley as in a melee?

The logical response, of course, is that combat should likewise present no chance for choices. After all, we can't have players performing _better_ than the statistical models of their characters, either, can we?

Why, indeed, do we put up with this nonsense of having 'players' at all? That was well and good back before we had ubiquitous computers to take the place of dice-rollers -- but it's not the 1970s any more!


----------



## Gimby

Plane Sailing said:


> I see some people using "DM fiat" or "Mother may I?" in what appears to be a derogatory sense, and they really shouldn't.




Sure, sorry.  As I see it, DM fiat has a useful place in a game, "Mother-May-I" is the degenerate case where it's overused to the detriment of the game.  Doesn't happen under ideal conditions, but we were all bad/new/tired at some point.

-edit 



			
				Arisoto said:
			
		

> It would be extraordinary for a rules lawyer to argue _against_ a "rule of cool" ruling; possibly dangerous as well, considering the likely reception from fellow players!




Lawful Good rules lawyers do exist, even if they are rare 



			
				Arisoto said:
			
		

> EW's point, I think, was that the field of things permitted by rigidly quantified rules is necessarily as a drop in the ocean next to all that cunning players might conceive. That is, I think, not only one of the reasons for having a Game Master in the first place but a key distinction between the basic assumptions of the RPG field and those of the wargame hobby from which it emerged. A wargame GM might also permit actions unanticipated in the written rules, but that is much less central to the game form.




Very much so - but I'm of the opinion that it should be reserved for those cases where there are no rules already in place or similar ones where the rule can be reasonably extrapolated.  That includes the game context as well as "common sense" - a good example of this would be a chap recently on RPG.net attempting to figure out the damage for a steampunk weapon on some kind of impulse/HP conversion rate.  IMO, you should stick to something "level appropriate" because of the rest of the game context.  "Realistically" your weapon should be really powerful, but "realistically" if I stick a sword in you you die.  Thus we should look to existing rules rather than appeal to "realism", if you see what I mean.



			
				Arisoto said:
			
		

> I have no idea where you get this notion that I have any concern with "beating overwhelming odds". The simple fact is that either
> 
> (A) you permit the DM to make rulings; or
> (B) you are stuck getting told, "No, you can't do that. It may make sense, but there's no rule for it."
> 
> The thicker you make your rules-book in response, the greater the handling time -- and the greater the role of the rules-lawyer. At the end of the day, you will still be left with a world of things not pinned down precisely.




Its not your idea really, its just a pet peeve - kill 500 guys in a shooter? 500-1 odds, right? No. likely 500x 1-1 odds where you had a massive mechanical advantage.  Not really applying that to you.

So yes, a DM must make rulings, but I think its best if they have a framework to make them in.  Helps keep things consistent and better allows players to formulate plans that are likely to work.


----------



## Garthanos

ExploderWizard said:


> Why do you assume the attributes of the character are not considered in the resolution of things unless they are prepackaged into the results of predictable dice fests?




I normally argue dice are not needed for anything... did I say dice I say mechanics...for instance experience points...  do I get experience points by any other way than rolling those dice and killing things and taking there stuff? Can I earn followers any other way than gaining the levels associated with those experience points or do you house rule because that wasnt the idea of the game?


----------



## Ariosto

Gimby said:
			
		

> Yes, on the merits of the plan, not on whether or not the DM likes it.  Fiat doesn't need to come into that scenario.



I am afraid it does. That is what has routinely been _meant_ by "DM fiat": a ruling by the DM, exercising the *judgment* necessary to distinguish "merits" from "flaws".


----------



## Gimby

Ariosto said:


> I am afraid it does. That is what has routinely been _meant_ by "DM fiat": a ruling by the DM, exercising the *judgment* necessary to distinguish "merits" from "flaws".




Possibly (probably) I'm misunderstanding what you are meaning by DM fiat then.   

If you have a resolution mechanic already in place, (so in 4e this would be combat, skill challenges or application of page 42, for example) then you just use that.  My perception of fiat is more "This fails" or "That succeeds" based on the DM's understanding of the plan.  

Where I worry about that application of fiat is that perfect communication of the both the plan (from the players) and the context of the plan (from the DM) is impossible due to issues with communication.  What the players may think is an excellent plan may be flawed from the DM perspective because of some factor that would be obvious to the characters but has, for whatever reason, eluded the players.  

My feeling is that its a useful, powerful tool and should be used sparingly with that in mind.


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos said:


> I normally argue dice are not needed for anything... did I say dice I say mechanics...for instance experience points...  do I get experience points by any other way than rolling those dice and killing things and taking there stuff? Can I earn followers any other way than gaining the levels associated with those experience points or do you house rule because that wasnt the idea of the game?



Garthanos, you are obviously talking about a different game, with a different idea.

Yes, you can earn followers by any means that a person can earn followers. You can recruit henchmen, and hire hirelings, regardless of your level.

*In addition*, you may acquire followers when your character is of a certain level and establishes a stronghold. Your DM has guidance on such matters in the _Dungeon Masters Guide_, as well as advice on adjudicating experience point awards. The essential advice is:



> You must weigh the level of challenge -- be it thinking or fighting -- versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it. ... Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with the level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Garthanos said:


> You missed the point... Players wanting to vicariously experience the abilities of characters with abilities that do not correspond to there own.... are un supported by DM fiat based on player ability.




OK, I confess:

 To impress an NPC the _player_ has to give a performance on par with a Broadway actor.

To hit an orc in combat requires a demonstration of proper sword technique.

Magic is kept in check by forcing the player to cast any spell before his character can.

OK I lied.


----------



## Garthanos

ExploderWizard said:


> OK, I confess:




If DM logic and common sense is the dominant method for resolving something you will get people who play no impressing unless you impress me... and I think your battle plan sucks so you are screwed. Isnt that what all this "superior" player talk is about?


----------



## Ariosto

> If you have a resolution mechanic already in place, (so in 4e this would be combat, skill challenges or application of page 42, for example) then you just use that. My perception of fiat is more "This fails" or "That succeeds" based on the DM's understanding of the plan.



Yes; the 4e method screws you *without consideration* of your plan. 

The 4e method also leaves the number-crunching that keeps things predictable in whose hands? CL's? EN's?


----------



## Gimby

Ariosto said:


> Yes; the 4e method screws you *without consideration* of your plan.
> 
> The 4e method also leaves the number-crunching that keeps things predictable in whose hands? CL's? EN's?




See, we were having a productive discussion up till this point.  Since it's back to the edition bashing I'm out.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gimby said:


> See, we were having a productive discussion up till this point.  Since it's back to the edition bashing I'm out.




How is that edition bashing?  Really?  AFAICT, it does nothing more than point out the problem with the line of reasoning being responded to.  

I.e., doesn't Page 42 require the DM to determine the feasibility of a plan before determining how to apply the mechanics given?  If so, then DM Fiat is an important factor in those mechanics.  If not, then Ariosto would be correct, and the in-game decisions aren't actually important at all.  One cannot have it both ways.


RC


----------



## Ariosto

Gimby said:
			
		

> Where I worry about that application of fiat is that perfect communication of the both the plan (from the players) and the context of the plan (from the DM) is impossible due to issues with communication. What the players may think is an excellent plan may be flawed from the DM perspective because of some factor that would be obvious to the characters but has, for whatever reason, eluded the players.



Perfection communication is impossible? I don't think any such impossible 'perfection' is necessary. In practice, I find that adequate communication is the norm.

I certainly don't see how your claimed superior design is any improvement.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> Yes; the 4e method screws you *without consideration* of your plan.
> 
> The 4e method also leaves the number-crunching that keeps things predictable in whose hands? CL's? EN's?





Do you have a page reference for this continued tripe? There are *many* ways in 4E to succeed _in consideration_ of your plan. A good plan can earn you a circumstance bonus of +2 to +4 to your roll(s). A great plan can earn you automatic successes in the context of a skill challenge. An extraordinary plan can earn you total success by DM Fiat just as it has in all previous editions.


----------



## howandwhy99

Plane Sailing said:


> I see some people using "DM fiat" or "Mother may I?" in what appears to be a derogatory sense, and they really shouldn't.
> 
> It presupposes a heavily antagonistic playstyle where players can't trust DMs to make good decisions and ensure the game remains enjoyable for all.
> 
> It is almost a case of using (inventing?) terminology to rule out the possibility of DMs using their narrative control to support players/characters/smart ideas/whatever.
> 
> Taken to its logical extreme, you would replace a DM with a computer, and let it run all the numbers because it is frankly unable to effectively make narrative decisions that are worth anything.
> 
> So rather than allow the discussion to end up being framed as 'mother may I' on one side and 'just play a CRPG' on the other, can we avoid using loaded terms.
> 
> Thanks



I'm unsure on whether or not to take this as a moderator warning, but I can answer with my own concerns as a fellow poster.  It is a good call for peace, but I disagree with the assumptions.

I don't use narrative control in my games.  That is a loaded term IMO in regards to RPGs.  The known rules for all players includes the referee not being allowed to cheat, meaning he or she does not improvise at the table.  DM fiat is considered improvisation in my book and not what I desire when I run or play in a game.  Rather a referee creates a hidden ruleset ahead of time, the script from which they follow, but once the game begins they cannot deviate from it.  

"Mother may I" is actually a game in its' own right, but by my understanding it is now a derogatory Forge term meant to label all pre-storygame RPGs as "dysfunctional".  It includes all pre-4E D&D as well as Pathfinder in its' scope.  Of course I also disagree with their definition and and it may be wiser not to include this term either in civil conversation.

There is no possible means for me to play my game as a computer game, but neither is it a game of improvisation by all involved.  It is not antagonistic between players, but does in fact require a large degree of trust by the players.  If you are using "narrative control" to refer to enforcing the rules of any game rather than improvisation, then that control is exclusive to the referee who is the only one who definitively knows them.


----------



## Ariosto

> See, we were having a productive discussion up till this point.  Since it's back to the edition bashing I'm out.



YOU brought up the alleged superiority of 4e!


----------



## billd91

Garthanos said:


> If DM logic and common sense is the dominant method for resolving something you will get people who play no impressing unless you impress me... and I think your battle plan sucks so you are screwed. Isnt that what all this "superior" player talk is about?




No.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> How is that edition bashing?  Really?  AFAICT, it does nothing more than point out the problem with the line of reasoning being responded to.




It's edition bashing because, unlike you, Ariosto did not state "if there is no fiat, then X." Instead he stated a fallacy attributed to a particular edition.

If you want an admission that DM Fiat still exists. Yes it does. But there are more rules in place now than at the beginning of the game to help the DM adjudicate common occurances without mainly having to rely on DM Fiat.


----------



## Ariosto

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> An extraordinary plan can earn you total success by DM Fiat just as it has in all previous editions.



Oh, dear. "The game remains the same." But it's a new, improved Fiat, isn't it? Bigger tail fins, more chrome?


----------



## Ariosto

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I.e., doesn't Page 42 require the DM to determine the feasibility of a plan before determining how to apply the mechanics given? If so, then DM Fiat is an important factor in those mechanics. If not, then Ariosto would be correct, and the in-game decisions aren't actually important at all. One cannot have it both ways.



Unless one is "edition bashing" AD&D, apparently. Then, logic does not apply.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Gimby said:


> Some players appreciate their characters being challenged, but not themselves being challenged. Its the old wanting to play character substantially different from self idea.




Well that explains all the blogging, web surfing, and tweeting going on at so many games today. It must be incredibly boring playing a game where a written set of statistics is all that get challenged while the bored drone of a player waits to roll the dice.

Last I checked, I was neither an elf nor a holy priest of Pelor. I guess I'm not playing myself then.




Gimby said:


> In that the challenge in a tactical wargame is always the player being challenged, rather than the units.




Once again it would seem silly to try and get those little minis to respond to a challenge of any sort.



Gimby said:


> Yes, on the merits of the plan, not on whether or not the DM likes it. Fiat doesn't need to come into that scenario.




Taking into account not only the plan but also any countermeasures the PCs are unaware of and also the resources that the _characters _have at thier disposal.

How can you forget about the characters?



Gimby said:


> Personally, I've found that a game balanced/siloed so that a player may always make a meaningful contribution at any point promotes participation more than individual spotlights, but I'm aware this isn't universal.
> 
> I do expect we've got different goals/expectations though, yes.




If by "meaningful contribution" you really mean the ability to toss a die without needing to think, then I disagree.


----------



## Rel

Don't make me come in here.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's edition bashing because, unlike you, Ariosto did not state "if there is no fiat, then X."




I believe that this was intended to be implied.  I.e., "If what is said in what I am quoting is true, then this is the logical result".  The InterWeb makes it hard to give other posters the benefit of the doubt, I know.  Especially when one feels that one is not being given the same benefit.  As I've said before, after 10 minutes in a pub (or other social setting for the non-drinkers), most of these things would sort themselves out.



> If you want an admission that DM Fiat still exists. Yes it does. But there are more rules in place now than at the beginning of the game to help the DM adjudicate common occurances without mainly having to rely on DM Fiat.




I am not at all certain that this is a good thing.  

I will certainly agree that it helps a mediocre GM be a better GM, but I think it has a tendency to drag down good GMs as well.  YMMV on this; it is my opinion.  

At the back of the 1e DMG, Gary Gygax admonished the DM to consider what is best for the game first, best for an individual campaign second, and best for any given player(s) third.  As time has gone on, I am more and more of the mind that Gygax knew what he was talking about.

More rules over rulings may be good for individual players, or individual campaigns (those with mediocre or poor GMs), but I don't think that it is what is best for the game.

Again, this is heavy YMMV and IMHO country I am walking in here!  


RC


----------



## Garthanos

I think AD&D had very few choices in combat so there is and was a habit of emphasizing that one significant choice (whether to join the fight or not). When it becomes the defining feature of "superior play" I think it has become over blown .. why isnt presenting your characters actions in a unique and interesting fashion so that the other players can really visualize what you  are doing "superior" play.


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> Oh, dear. "The game remains the same." But it's a new, improved Fiat, isn't it? Bigger tail fins, more chrome?




Actually yes... it does still have the benefits of the old way... did you want them removed? It also has far more guidelines and presents the concepts of multistage tasks in a mechanical way.


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> What's wrong with just getting a charisma bonus the same as you get a strength or dexterity bonus for attacking with a weapon?




So how much influence do i get per attempt at persuasion and do I get bonuses depending on the gambit I use? And while im chosing my parley methods can I choose things about which I am inspired and get bonuses on those? How much discipline do I have to overcome so the guard will let us pass? Do I get something like the armor type versus weapon type tables based on my verbal strategies?


----------



## Garthanos

Gimby said:


> DM fiat is, in my experience, a tool.  It can be used well or badly.  If I have crunched the numbers and set up my abilites such to execute a plan well and it is fiat-failed, then this is probably a bad use of it.  If I am setting a situation up to deliberately fail (maybe its a appropriate to my characterisation) and it fiat-succeds, this is also a probably a bad use of it.




DM fiat is an awesome tool in the hands of an awesome DM (doing something he knows fairly well) and the worst possible one in the hands of many many more DM's. DM Fiat can manage normal melee combat better than just about every game mechanic I have seen so far.


----------



## Garthanos

billd91 said:


> I think you're making too much of the Candyland quote... and yet not enough.
> 
> Candyland is a game with absolutely no challenge.




How many adult games are challenge free? and aside from exercising ones arrogance why does one compare your game to a childs game?

I have known way too many folk whose desire to roleplay has so little to do with the types of challenges that float the gygaxian boat and some of them exceed expectations and contribute to the game to a degree I cant even measure... lets just say his ideas of "superior" players I find primitive narrow and condescendingly presented.


----------



## Ariosto

DM fiat is exactly the recommended procedure in 4e! "Set the complexity based on how significant you want the challenge to be."

The only distinction Gimby drew was that in AD&D the odds are based on the DM's judgment of the players' plans. That is indeed the advice given. It is also true that the instructions for a skill challenge in 4e start a priori with the DM specifying the overwhelmingly decisive factors: The DCs and numbers of rolls.

By definition, "when an obstacle takes only one roll to resolve, it's not a challenge." Ergo, neither is resort to no rolls at all. It requires a minimum of two rolls to fail a challenge, at least four to pass.

The DM also determines which skills apply. Given the standard, that is relatively trivial in terms of probability variation. "Give some thought to which skills you select here, keeping in mind the goal of involving all the players in the action." Note that it is DM selection of factors -- not awaiting a player plan -- that takes priority, and that "the action" is defined as making those dice-rolls.

There are several pages of advice, quite excellently suited to the stated goal -- and to the mathematically evident goal of making outcomes conform to an expected distribution. The challenge procedure meshes with the character construction rules in the PHB and with the other encounter, experience and "page 42" material in the DMG.

Might a DM allow a player plan to "spoil" a challenge? Perhaps, but if there is any mention of the possibility of aborting the procedure then it is well buried. What _is_ suggested is that, "if a player wants to use a skill you didn't identify as a primary skill in the challenge, however, then the DC for using that secondary skill is hard. ... In addition, a secondary skill can never be used by a single character more than once in a challenge."

Love it or not, the character of the undertaking is very hard to mistake. The clear methodology is not surprisingly in keeping with the explicitly stated ends. The 4e DMG is no anthology of abstruse High Gygaxian!


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> Garthanos, you are obviously talking about a different game, with a different idea.




Amnesia Ariosto...(conflating an earlier version that lacked even the handwaving to allow other sources of xp) combined with actual play where no DM i knew used that bit you quoted to allow experience points for accomplishing things.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> At the back of the 1e DMG, Gary Gygax admonished the DM to consider what is best for the game first, best for an individual campaign second, and best for any given player(s) third.  As time has gone on, I am more and more of the mind that Gygax knew what he was talking about.
> 
> More rules over rulings may be good for individual players, or individual campaigns (those with mediocre or poor GMs), but I don't think that it is what is best for the game.
> 
> Again, this is heavy YMMV and IMHO country I am walking in here!
> 
> 
> RC




While, on the other hand, I think this is absolutely backwards.  IMO (and only my opinion) the Gm should be focused on the players first, the campaign second and what happens to be "good for the game" third.  If attention to what is good for the game is primary in the minds of the GM, then the Gm must constantly be tweaking, adjusting and making sure that the game runs smoothly.

In my mind, putting that responsibility on the heads of the GM is just lazy design.  "We can't be bothered coming up with something that works most of the time, so, here's something that works, kinda/sorta, it's now up to you to keep it running."

Personally, I'd much prefer a system that works the majority of the time, so it can run in the background and not need constant patching and adjustment, necessitating a very long learning curve to find out what works and what doesn't.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Garthanos said:


> I think AD&D had very few choices in combat so there is and was a habit of emphasizing that one significant choice (whether to join the fight or not). When it becomes the defining feature of "superior play" I think it has become over blown .. why isnt presenting your characters actions in a unique and interesting fashion so that the other players can really visualize what you are doing "superior" play.




It is curious that would say that AD&D had few choices. Does everything need to be a pre-defined mapped hotkey in order to qualify as a choice. 

Every choice does not need to be of equal power or value to remain a choice. AD&D being a roleplaying game featured several different roles. Combat was not the forte of every role so why would it be suprising that characters of lesser combative ability don't have the same options open to them as the more militant members of the party. 

Damnit Jim I'm a doctor!!



Garthanos said:


> So *how much influence* *do i get* per attempt at persuasion and *do I get* *bonuses* depending on the gambit I use? And while im chosing my parley methods can I choose things about which I am inspired and *get bonuses* on those? How much discipline do I have to overcome so the guard will let us pass? *Do I get* something like the armor type versus weapon type tables based on my verbal strategies?




Typical mechanical obsessive gimmieitis.
Everything is me me me. What do I get? How much do I get? When do I get what? When does X apply?

I hate to get all Yoda on this hyper-obsessiveness but it has to be said of players like this:

_Never his mind on where he was! What he was doing!!_

If players spent half the time thinking about the situation and approaches as they did doing mental mechanical gymnastics then the game would probably be a lot more engaging.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hussar said:


> Personally, I'd much prefer a system that works the majority of the time, so it can run in the background and not need constant patching and adjustment, necessitating a very long learning curve to find out what works and what doesn't.




*Hey, it's straight up edition warring! Folks, please use this post as an object lesson in what not to write here - and please don't respond to it. Thanks.  ~ Piratecat* 

Really? I don't think 4E would be for you.

Welcome to 4th Edition (build 4.013222)

Patch notes:
Fixed persistent bug occasionally leading to play without die rolls

Replaced the only 2 interesting magic items with appropriate drek

Fixed bug which allowed class X to produce 4.5 more dpr than class Y when activating [up,down,shift,shift,alt]

Watch for build 4.013223 next week.


----------



## Garthanos

ExploderWizard said:


> Typical mechanical obsessive gimmieitis.
> Everything is me me me. What do I get? How much do I get? When do I get what? When does X apply? .




Physical combat has all those things... D&D is hyper obcessive with combat... so lets takeaway all those and watch the fun sky rocket.


----------



## Garthanos

Seriously no hit points .. .all weapons eaither kill the enemy or its just a miss no differentiation no armor distinctions.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Garthanos said:


> Physical combat has all those things... D&D is hyper obcessive with combat... so lets takeaway all those and watch the fun sky rocket.




Your game may be hyper obsessive with combat. The same cannot be said with any certainty about everyones D&D game. Combat is one activity that may or may not make up the bulk of play for all groups.


----------



## Garthanos

ExploderWizard said:


> Your game may be hyper obsessive with combat. The same cannot be said with any certainty about everyones D&D game. Combat is one activity that may or may not make up the bulk of play for all groups.




The games mechanics feature all those... and very nearly none for anything else... wonder if that is a clue.


----------



## Ariosto

Stuffed in between "skill challenges" and "traps and hazards" in the 4e DMG is a potential third kind of "noncombat encounter": puzzles. (Of course, all three are reducible to the first kind.)

"Puzzles in a D&D game," according to 4e, "present a unique form of challenge, one that tests the capabilities of the players at the table instead of their characters." The paragraph goes on to identify combat, traps and skill challenges as involving plenty of die rolling.

"Furthermore, puzzles present a challenge to players that's usually independent of their experience with the game." There is indeed a degree to which skill is not synonymous with experience, even in matters dealing directly with peculiarities of the game. Some people learn more quickly than others. I have seen common sense trump purely rules-focused "tactical expertise" often enough. That said, experience at problem solving can be as instructive if arrived at in the game as without.

"The basic nature of puzzles -- that they rely on player ability -- is the reason that some people love puzzles in the game and some people dislike them." Some wisdom there, perhaps? And maybe not just coincidence that different games have been designed with different emphases?

Rather curiously (to an old hand), this is as close as the "Noncombat Encounters" chapter gets to treating what I would call a plain _role-playing_ interaction with a character, or with any aspect of the environment. The apparent reason is in technical redefinition of old D&D terminology: "An encounter, by definition, involves a meaningful risk of failure." Just what that means is suggested in that other puzzles "might be obstacles in the characters' path, but *ones they can find other ways around*. As a rule of thumb, you can treat a puzzle as an encounter if there's a definite time limit or other serious risk to failing to solve the puzzle in that time. Otherwise, it's not an encounter." (Emphasis added.)

And, of course, "you can always set up a puzzle as a skill challenge." That would make it a _non_-puzzle, by the earlier definition, but what the hey.


----------



## billd91

Garthanos said:


> I have known way too many folk whose desire to roleplay has so little to do with the types of challenges that float the gygaxian boat and some of them exceed expectations and contribute to the game to a degree I cant even measure... lets just say his ideas of "superior" players I find primitive narrow and condescendingly presented.




Readers bring their own biases to whatever they read. Perhaps it is not Gygax's ideas that are narrow but the baggage you bring to the reading that makes them seem narrow.
For me, Gygax's ideas of a challenging game are very broad indeed, incorporating multiple types of play from combat, to exploration, to social interaction, but all involving consequences for decisions, some more significant than others.


----------



## Hussar

ExploderWizard said:


> Really? I don't think 4E would be for you.
> 
> Welcome to 4th Edition (build 4.013222)
> 
> Patch notes:
> Fixed persistent bug occasionally leading to play without die rolls
> 
> Replaced the only 2 interesting magic items with appropriate drek
> 
> Fixed bug which allowed class X to produce 4.5 more dpr than class Y when activating [up,down,shift,shift,alt]
> 
> Watch for build 4.013223 next week.




Did you really need to bring edition warring into this? 


I should also point out that regardless of how well or poorly 4e balances, is irrelavent to the conversation at hand.


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos said:
			
		

> I think AD&D had very few choices in combat so there is and was a habit of emphasizing that one significant choice (whether to join the fight or not).



I think (in line with Gygax's own statements) that the case was just the opposite:

Whether to fight or not, and the consequences, were most significant; _therefore_, resolution of the outcome was not bogged down in minutia that "have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure."

That view has never been universal among fantasy gamers -- but neither has its opposite!



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> While, on the other hand, I think this is absolutely backwards.



I can dig that, having had a similar response as a knee-jerk reaction once upon a time. Taking it in fuller context, I see the good sense -- but it is very much a contextual matter. If indeed one _has_ nothing to do with "the game as a whole", then that is disposed of in a moment, eh? If your campaign is identical with this or that set of participants, then there may indeed be no distinction (especially if one plans for the campaign to have a short life in any case).


----------



## Garthanos

billd91 said:


> Readers bring their own biases to whatever they read.  .



Right  ... you no like challenges my game presents .... you mus wan play kindergartener game. ... yeah I guess I could give benefit of the doubt and assume the challenges of roleplay included some of the following.

I find the ability to differentiate player knowledge and character knowledge and fire wall the two so a players characters are distinct from them-self and other characters they play an awesome player ability. I find the ability to present there characters actions vividly a great player ability. I find the ability to create real feeling goals for their characters and hooks to allow the DM to put a handle on a great player ability. I find the the ability to decide quickly and pay attention another great ability.

Whether the player wants to solve riddles?


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> I think (in line with Gygax's own statements) that the case was just the opposite:
> 
> Whether to fight or not, and the consequences, were most significant; _therefore_, resolution of the outcome was not bogged down in minutia that "have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure."




But there are loads of minutia in AD&D combat. just very very few that allow choices in fight itself ... the kind of choices that help visualize how things are happening are left out especially for the fighter... the one most likely to want choices in combat. See mus for a character type with choices.


----------



## the Jester

ExploderWizard said:


> Really? I don't think 4E would be for you.
> 
> Welcome to 4th Edition (build 4.013222)
> 
> Patch notes:
> Fixed persistent bug occasionally leading to play without die rolls
> 
> Replaced the only 2 interesting magic items with appropriate drek
> 
> Fixed bug which allowed class X to produce 4.5 more dpr than class Y when activating [up,down,shift,shift,alt]
> 
> Watch for build 4.013223 next week.




What does this have to do with anything?

Thanks for the threadcrap. Why don't you save the edition wars crap for some other forum where it's acceptable or encouraged, instead of explicitly against the rules?

That said, those who are arguing that anything that challenges player skill is against the rules in 4e simply hasn't played it under a good dm.


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:
			
		

> I can dig that, having had a similar response as a knee-jerk reaction once upon a time. Taking it in fuller context, I see the good sense -- but it is very much a contextual matter. If indeed one has nothing to do with "the game as a whole", then that is disposed of in a moment, eh? If your campaign is identical with this or that set of participants, then there may indeed be no distinction (especially if one plans for the campaign to have a short life in any case).




Well, you can brush it off as knee jerk reactionism if you like.  I don't.  1e sets up a very pyramidal structure with the Dm at the top and the players at the bottom.  This is certainly one way to structure things, but hardly the only way.  And, it depends on how long you consider to be a "short life".  I consider an 18-24 month campaign to be pretty successful.

Although I do stand in awe of those who manage to have multi-year campaigns.  I would not base my game on the assumption that we'll all be playing together ten years from now.

To me, the reality is that groups change membership pretty often.  Every couple of years for the most part.  I think it shows Gygax's own assumptions that groups would be much longer lived that leads him to put the game first.  If your group is going to game together for ten years, then you better get that game nailed down for that group.

OTOH, if your group will only survive about two or three years, then the game better work out of the box.


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos said:
			
		

> But there are loads of minutia in D&D combat. just very very few that allow choices in fight itself ...



What, pray tell, is your basis for comparison? Certainly you are free to add as much as you like -- the fundamental reason that it seems odd to speak of not "allowing choices" -- but all the bells and whistles in the PHB and DMG are hardly on par with the detailed, blow-by-blow mechanics in contemporary games to which Gygax was pointedly referring. None of those that come to my mind hold a candle in complexity to WotC-D&D.


----------



## Ariosto

> Well, you can brush it off as knee jerk reactionism if you like.



Of course I can; I am the expert on my own response, which was the sole subject of that statement.

I will repeat that, so that there should be no excuse for misrepresenting my words: the only knee-jerk reaction to which I referred was my own.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Hussar said:


> Did you really need to bring edition warring into this?
> 
> 
> I should also point out that regardless of how well or poorly 4e balances, is irrelavent to the conversation at hand.






the Jester said:


> What does this have to do with anything?
> 
> Thanks for the threadcrap. Why don't you save the edition wars crap for some other forum where it's acceptable or encouraged, instead of explicitly against the rules?
> 
> That said, those who are arguing that anything that challenges player skill is against the rules in 4e simply hasn't played it under a good dm.




It wasn't entirely a threadcrap. I was responding to Hussar's desire for a system that doesn't require "constant patching".  His words. 

As a DM of a 4E campaign currently running I can say that challenging the player is far from impossible. My adventures feature such challenges quite often. They are not a part of the game as presented but they can included in a campaign anyway.


----------



## Ariosto

Here is my understanding of those priorities:

*The game as a whole:* How does one represent the hobby as an emissary for it in the wider world? Some who took the title of Dungeon Master brought disrepute, by association, upon far more than themselves.

*Your campaign:* As Hussar mentioned, "the reality is that groups change membership pretty often". It is thus not conducive to a campaign's longevity to cater too much to particular players. Favoritism for one over another is perhaps an obvious mis-step, but the more general error of Monty Haul-ism was Gygax's perennial target. Players who get too much treasure and level advancement for too little challenge tend quickly to tire of the exercise, and that is one way to do disservice to "the game as a whole".

Gygax thus saw the continuation of the game as a whole as an appealing pastime, and the individual DM's campaign as an appealing venue for participating in it, as contributing to the greater benefit of a growing number of D&D players and potential players.



> The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert _en masse_ for something more challenging and equitable. Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to become no longer *"AD&D".* They are isolated and will usually wither.


----------



## Hussar

ExploderWizard said:


> It wasn't entirely a threadcrap. I was responding to Hussar's desire for a system that doesn't require "constant patching".  His words.
> 
> As a DM of a 4E campaign currently running I can say that challenging the player is far from impossible. My adventures feature such challenges quite often. They are not a part of the game as presented but they can included in a campaign anyway.




HOwever, it shows a number of presumptions on your part.  First, you presume that I play 4e, which I don't.  You presume that 4e, in order to be playable, must include the patches that WOTC puts out.  Something that I have no idea if true or not.

My comment was not intended in any way as a potshot in edition wars.  It was an obvservation that I LOATHE rules tinkering.  I want games that work out of the box so I get down to playing and not have to constantly tweak.  This goes far beyond any edition of D&D.


----------



## FireLance

Ariosto said:


> *Your campaign:* As Hussar mentioned, "the reality is that groups change membership pretty often". It is thus not conducive to a campaign's longevity to cater too much to particular players. Favoritism for one over another is perhaps an obvious mis-step, but the more general error of Monty Haul-ism was Gygax's perennial target. Players who get too much treasure and level advancement for too little challenge tend quickly to tire of the exercise, and that is one way to do disservice to "the game as a whole".



While I don't disagree with the general point, one observation I have made recently is that preferences of challenge and reward can vary greatly between individual players and groups of players. I would suggest that the game is better served by the DM being sensitive to what the players' actual preferences of risk and reward are (and not necessarily what they _say_ their preferences are) and adjusting his campaign accordingly, instead of sticking with what he considers to be the "ideal" standard regardless of player preference.


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos said:
			
		

> I find the ability to differentiate player knowledge and character knowledge and fire wall the two so a players characters are distinct from them-self and other characters they play an awesome player ability.



It would be hard to get more of that brand of "awesome" than the player of a tabletop war game, a video game, etc., who has no thought at all of confusing self and game-pawn.

The notion that _not_ putting oneself "in those shoes" is so much more to be desired in a role-playing game periodically rises to haughty eminence, generally to the detriment of the game as anything but a sort of mock theater.

The way it figures presently is in the vogue to elevate mathematical 'simulation' of a character to such absurd priority as nearly to reduce 'players' to robotic random-number generators.

There is certainly room for what Gygax termed (IIRC) "role emulation", but not to the exclusion of the "role assumption" that he held (if with corresponding bias) to be the more mature form. 

A *balance* of the various modes is, I think, most desirable. Different players start from different aptitudes and interests. The synergies in which we can grow in skill together are among the benefits of long-lasting associations accommodating diverse styles. The game is richer for that breadth and for that depth.


----------



## Ariosto

FireLance said:
			
		

> preferences of challenge and reward can vary greatly between individual players and groups of players. I would suggest that the game is better served by the DM being sensitive to what the players' actual preferences of risk and reward are (and not necessarily what they _say_ their preferences are)



One might note that the Gygaxian D&D books never attempted to lay down any quantified, "one size fits all" standards -- not by the remotest measure relative to the pronouncements in WotC-D&D! The _Dungeon Masters Guide_ began and ended with those same broad, general principles. In between, there was a whole lot of advice based on experience, and a whole lot of rumination on the thinking behind the game structure described.


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> It would be hard to get more of that brand of "awesome" than the player of a tabletop war game, a video game, etc., who has no thought at all of confusing self and game-pawn.




Not treating the game character as a character is an independent thing... you are confusing the two in order to belittle. 

Since when is playing me in a mask a challenge or a skill?


----------



## Ariosto

> Since when is playing me in a mask a challenge or a skill?



Since the first Game Master said, "Here's the situation you face --what will you do?"


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> Since the first Game Master said, "Here's the situation you face --what will you do?"




My children must have awesome levels at it then....


----------



## Garthanos

Deciding what I would do.. well that is fairly easy isnt it its making a normal choice... deciding what well defined character Herssian the fell slayer, will do is where the challenge comes in.


----------



## Ariosto

Gygax played D&D with his children. There is a keenness of observation and flexibility of intellect that lets us learn and adapt with remarkable rapidity when young. The imagination in particular seems to act freely.


----------



## Ariosto

I can only wonder what sort of D&D game you must play if all your decisions are "easy, just a normal choice"! Are you normally in the habit of being a hobbit, or of daring dungeons in which may lurk dragons? Are you a knight in shining armor, a spell-casting sorcerer, a banisher of the undead and unholy, a Jack of Shadows?

"No, but I play one on TV!" That is fine; a touch of the amateur dramatist is certainly not amiss, and many players find that an easier way to start than vicarious participation. Ideally, I think, one should eventually encompass both abilities and be able to apply either as appropriate -- and "number-crunch gaming" and "story telling" to boot. A Dungeon Master in particular can make good use of every kind of skill in the game.

The thing is, the purely thespian touch is something one can add to any game -- and so too tight a focus on it is to lose focus on what is special about a _role-playing_ game. Going further, one can lose sight of the _game_ element altogether, and then one really might as well be on stage before an audience.


----------



## Garthanos

Not playing oneself ... means actually paying attention to the
 differences between a hobbit and me...many people seem to
fail at this or fail to communicate it.


----------



## FireLance

Ariosto said:


> One might note that the Gygaxian D&D books never attempted to lay down any quantified, "one size fits all" standards *-- not by the remotest measure relative to the pronouncements in WotC-D&D*! The _Dungeon Masters Guide_ began and ended with those same broad, general principles. In between, there was a whole lot of advice based on experience, and a whole lot of rumination on the thinking behind the game structure described.



Aside: One wonders why the bolded portion in the quoted post was necessary. I do not think your point would have been diminished if you had left it out.

Now, to address the actual point raised: Arguably, treasure types and treasure tables are exactly that: "one size fits all" (albeit random) standards. Individual DMs may choose to populate their campaign with monsters that have more or less treasure, but I doubt there was advice given in either the Monster Manual or the DMG to tailor the rate of rewards to the preferences of the players (as I recall, most of the advice seemed to be exactly the opposite: never give the players everything they want). It is entirely possible that I missed it or misinterpreted it when I read the 1E DMG though (back when I was playing 1E). Are there any passages that advise the DM to bear his players' preferences in mind in a positive way?


----------



## Garthanos

Thespianship is the communcation element of what I just mentioned I suppose..
it isnt necessarily different under the hood (method acting is a popular term)
 by storytelling I take it you mean examining the character from a third person
 perspective or something like that? after the fact -- or preplanning the characters evolution?


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> I can only wonder what sort of D&D game you must play if all your decisions are "easy, just a normal choice"! Are you normally in the habit of being a hobbit,




But that is the point isnt it I said differentiating me from the character I am different I have to make different choices and most people dont not "really" their characters think like modern people with modern moralities and make thoroughly modern non-hobbit like choices based around the game rewards usually.


----------



## Ariosto

> Ahh but that is not me now is it?



Then who? If you end up referring to yourself in the third person, that's a bit odd; having a conversation with yourself in the second is probably not a good sign! Your "character" has no mind, no personality, no real existence at all. It is no more than a _persona_, like the masks that actors wore in the ancient Greek theater.

But D&D is not really theater, or puppetry, or a novel. It's not just a war-game, either -- certainly not in the sense of an algorithmic model that chugs away on automation and spits out a report!

If one's only purpose is to "put on a show" that has no real effect on the game, then how really is it a game? If there is simultaneously something separate that is a game, then how is that different from performing one's "Hoppy the Hobbit" routine while playing Canasta or Command and Colors?

_Integration_ is key. D&D brought forward a game form in which playing a role was *how* one played the game!

Again, it's fine and dandy if you happen to like "acting the part" to an appropriate degree. Of course, Hoppy the Hobbit is not exactly the same as you! But don't put down the guy who imagines "himself, as he likes to think he might be" in Hoppy's place. There in fact is nobody else to motivate that imaginary frame, to see through those eyes and feel the chills that might be but dungeon drafts or ... something ominous. There is no other will to make Hoppy's choices, no other heart to feel his feelings.

Hoppy the Hobbit cannot _play a game_. A mere collection of numbers cannot _be challenged_. That takes a real person.


----------



## Ariosto

FireLance said:
			
		

> I do not think your point would have been diminished if you had left it out.



I think it emphasizes the point if one appreciates how mutable the designers openly consider even those offerings.


----------



## Lanefan

howandwhy99 said:


> I don't use narrative control in my games.  That is a loaded term IMO in regards to RPGs.  The known rules for all players includes the referee not being allowed to cheat, meaning he or she does not improvise at the table.  DM fiat is considered improvisation in my book and not what I desire when I run or play in a game.  Rather a referee creates a hidden ruleset ahead of time, the script from which they follow, but once the game begins they cannot deviate from it.



Keeping in mind the ideals of "game first, campaign second, player third" as mentioned elsewhere, making rulings up on the fly when there's no otherwise-functional guideline for a given situation is not only desireable, but essential.  And situations where there is no written guideline come up with alarming frequency in all editions (though I'll confess to guessing this is the case with 4e, having not played it); if for no other reason that nobody can ever sort out how, for example, every spell or effect is going to interact with every other spell, effect, or combination thereof in every possible condition.  Is there a written rule, for example, in *any* edition that defines what happens if I try to cast a spell while in free fall?  

Through darkness?  

While tumbling slowly end over end?

Of course not, and that sort of thing is where DM fiat, or DM improvisation, comes in real handy-like.  But by your definition, if a DM hasn't already thought of this specific situation and come up with a pre-ordained ruling to cover it, she is not allowed to come up with something on the fly...and then what?



> "Mother may I" is actually a game in its' own right, but by my understanding it is now a derogatory Forge term...



You know, the more I hear of this "Forge" thing and its definitions, the less I like it.  The whole thing seems to be about creating antagonism, and then giving weapons (via loaded definitions) for antagonists to fight with.

Lanefan


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos, I hope you can see that it need not come down to an "either/or" choice. If I had to choose one or the other, though, then I would choose the very approach that you repeatedly put down -- in order to avoid the very mechanization and dissociation you advocate. (That's really a bizarre development to my mind, as the Thespians Over All crowd used to have such disdain for "roll" playing.)

There was amateur theater long before D&D! The one simply does not deliver what I desire from the other.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> 1e sets up a very pyramidal structure with the Dm at the top and the players at the bottom.  This is certainly one way to structure things, but hardly the only way.  And, it depends on how long you consider to be a "short life".  I consider an 18-24 month campaign to be pretty successful.
> 
> Although I do stand in awe of those who manage to have multi-year campaigns.  I would not base my game on the assumption that we'll all be playing together ten years from now.



I don't.  I base my assumptions on that I'll *still be running the campaign *ten years from now, and that while some of the players may be the same as those who start out, some or all of them may not.


> To me, the reality is that groups change membership pretty often.  Every couple of years for the most part.  I think it shows Gygax's own assumptions that groups would be much longer lived that leads him to put the game first.  If your group is going to game together for ten years, then you better get that game nailed down for that group.
> 
> OTOH, if your group will only survive about two or three years, then the game better work out of the box.



I suspect Gygax's assumptions were similar to my own: that the campaign will be fluid enough and robust enough to handle some player turnover during its lifespan, and will go on long enough that said turnover is pretty much inevitable.

My last long campaign went almost 12 years and had a total of 21 players involved at some point or other.  One of those players went from start to finish.  Several others - maybe 10 - were in for 5 or more years (some of whom I'd never even met when the campaign started!).  The rest were in for varying lengths of time ranging from a few sessions to a few years.

And, coming back to topic, this does affect the balance of the game.  Long-term players are likelier (though not guaranteed) to have long-term characters, who have had much more opportunity to amass wealth etc. than a rookie.  And this is one balance issue I have yet to find a good means of addressing, other than by the most undesireable method of giving new characters loads of wealth coming in.  

Lanefan


----------



## Ariosto

Lanefan said:
			
		

> You know, the more I hear of this "Forge" thing and its definitions, the less I like it.



Some are just confusing, as they are at odds with more widely accepted usage. 

Then there's "Vanilla". What might one think to call the Not-Vanilla? Take a guess.

Take at least 30 more guesses.

[SBLOCK]*"Pervy"*[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> Then who?




Why Hoppy the hobbit ofcourse.... 
If I pay attention to our differences I will make decisions... different than I would make them for me.. because he is not a modern american technophile with a wife and 2 kids and liberal democratic political bent and sceptical agnostic religious tendencies...  If I fail and do not pay attention he will just act like me in a different place  



Ariosto said:


> Your "character" has no mind, no personality, no real existence at all.



except what I give it and that can be very elaborate, and creative and become even moreso when it develops over the course of our experiences  in the game. If I choose in a discussion to refer to hoppy as third person it is to help me, remember the difference in our backgrounds and pov nothing more... dont paranoia  over it.



Ariosto said:


> Again, it's fine and dandy if you happen to like "acting the part" to an appropriate degree.



Presentation is independent of adjusting ones thinking based on the character
Elaborate descriptions are my personal preferred presentation layer and I havent had enough thespianites in my games, (unless you count my sons budding inclinations) to be used to it myself.



Ariosto said:


> Of course, Hoppy the Hobbit is not exactly the same as you!
> But don't put down the guy who imagines "himself, as he likes to think he might be" in Hoppy's place. .




Actually I am bolstering up the person who does more than that... as it seems a real skill (and I admit sometimes I do indeed just want to me in the game -- as actively invoking that otherness is harder work).


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> Garthanos, I hope you can see that it need not come down to an "either/or" choice. If I had to choose one or the other, though, then I would choose the very approach that you repeatedly put down -- in order to avoid the very mechanization and dissociation you advocate. (That's really a bizarre development to my mind, as the Thespians Over All crowd used to have such disdain for "roll" playing.)




Sorry probably some miscommunication has occurred I was channelling a bit of  split personality a part of me really enjoys mechanics for there simulation elements independent of impact on actual play and I was pointing out that our game here is providing mechanics like hit points,  armor classes weapons tables and etc that are no more necessary for physical conflict than "somebody" might want or envision for other forms of interaction, Therefore the game creates combat heavy expectations through its design. Other games with lighter hands do indeed govern other forms of conflict mechanically in ways that are not horribly objectionable there is a thread about it somewhere ... but for me voluntary buy in mechanics are the most actually appealing .... Aspects/fate points...  from Fate for instance act as a sort of bribe/award  system the dm can use to reward players when they allow there characters stronger personality features to inconvenience the character.


----------



## Njall

ExploderWizard said:


> It wasn't entirely a threadcrap. I was responding to Hussar's desire for a system that doesn't require "constant patching".  His words.




Well, his point was that he'd like a system that doesn't require to be constantly patched *by the DM*. 
Since Errata is usually issued by WotC rather than DM's, I don't really see how this would be the case


----------



## Umbran

ExploderWizard said:


> Really? I don't think 4E would be for you.
> 
> Welcome to 4th Edition (build 4.013222)





Welcome to the "Don't start the edition warring" warning.  

You could have just said, "Yeah, I know how you feel - me too." Instead, in going overboard, what you've done is release yet more negativity into EN World.  We don't appreciate this sort of thing anymore.

Listen, folks are allowed to have opinions on games.  But there comes a point where all you're doing is showing off how creatively or vehemently you can take a mallet to something.  This doesn't actually help anyone do anything.  Please don't do it.  Thank you.


----------



## Piratecat

Woo, simul-mod!


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> I don't.  I base my assumptions on that I'll *still be running the campaign *ten years from now, and that while some of the players may be the same as those who start out, some or all of them may not.
> I suspect Gygax's assumptions were similar to my own: that the campaign will be fluid enough and robust enough to handle some player turnover during its lifespan, and will go on long enough that said turnover is pretty much inevitable.
> 
> My last long campaign went almost 12 years and had a total of 21 players involved at some point or other.  One of those players went from start to finish.  Several others - maybe 10 - were in for 5 or more years (some of whom I'd never even met when the campaign started!).  The rest were in for varying lengths of time ranging from a few sessions to a few years.
> 
> And, coming back to topic, this does affect the balance of the game.  Long-term players are likelier (though not guaranteed) to have long-term characters, who have had much more opportunity to amass wealth etc. than a rookie.  And this is one balance issue I have yet to find a good means of addressing, other than by the most undesireable method of giving new characters loads of wealth coming in.
> 
> Lanefan




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.


----------



## Hussar

Gonna try to avoid the wall of text this time.

Let me rephrase.  If a game is designed such that it presumes that the GM will achieve balance, can we really say that game balance was a design goal?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> It is also true that the instructions for a skill challenge in 4e start a priori with the DM specifying the overwhelmingly decisive factors: The DCs and numbers of rolls.
> 
> The DM also determines which skills apply. Given the standard, that is relatively trivial in terms of probability variation. "Give some thought to which skills you select here, keeping in mind the goal of involving all the players in the action." Note that it is DM selection of factors -- not awaiting a player plan -- that takes priority, and that "the action" is defined as making those dice-rolls.
> 
> Might a DM allow a player plan to "spoil" a challenge? Perhaps, but if there is any mention of the possibility of aborting the procedure then it is well buried. What _is_ suggested is that, "if a player wants to use a skill you didn't identify as a primary skill in the challenge, however, then the DC for using that secondary skill is hard. ... In addition, a secondary skill can never be used by a single character more than once in a challenge."
> 
> Love it or not, the character of the undertaking is very hard to mistake. The clear methodology is not surprisingly in keeping with the explicitly stated ends. The 4e DMG is no anthology of abstruse High Gygaxian!




I will readily admit that the advice on skill challenges as presented in the 4E DMG was underwhelming. Better advice surfaced _before_ 4E hit the shelves and better advice has emerged since the release of the 4E DMG. Much discussion here has occurred on improving the use of the skill challenge tool. Picking out the bad advice from the DMG doesn't make the skill challenge tool flawed. In fact, much of the advice takes the methods of "High Gygaxian" and overlays it onto the framework the skill challenge mechanic provides.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Ariosto said:


> Some are just confusing, as they are at odds with more widely accepted usage.
> 
> Then there's "Vanilla". What might one think to call the Not-Vanilla? Take a guess.
> 
> Take at least 30 more guesses.
> 
> [SBLOCK]*"Pervy"*[/SBLOCK]




I only needed one guess, but that's because I have friends who lead "alternative lifestyles." I didn't know that Forgies were swingers!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> 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.




No, no, no, no.

That is a misreading of what I am saying.  

In 1e, it is explicitly up to the players to seek the level of challenge they are comfortable with -- and, if they are successful, reap the rewards thereof.

In the Gygaxian model if a group of 5th level characters has a vorpal sword, it is because they earned it.  If a group of 10th level characters has little more than a +1 spoon, it is because they did not.  Both groups might be active within the same campaign milieu, playing under the same GM.  They may have had the same opportunities.  They might mix-n-match in some game sessions.  In fact, in the Gygaxian model, it is likely that their careers will intersect from time to time.

The GM does not, and should not, "bump" challenges up or down, or perform any changes _in situ_ to make things easier, harder, more rewarding, or less rewarding for the players.  The only admonishment Gygax makes in this regard is that the GM consider what the players are attempting, and how well they going about it, when making various die rolls.  Moving quietly and quickly toward your objective, therefore, should result in fewer wandering monsters (as a specific example from the DMG 1e).  Likewise, combats and loud arguing can and should call for an extra roll to see if wandering monsters come to investigate.

It is not incumbent upon the GM to balance character against character, characters against encounter, etc., etc., except in broad terms over the course of the entire campaign.  Thus, the GM balances the total sum of opportunities, and balances how the rules are applied.  No other balance is needed, and (in Gygaxian D&D) no other balance is desireable.

I will certainly agree that even 1e was not always played in the Gygaxian mode....the advent and sale of modules, tournaments, etc., prevented this to some degree.  DragonLance was about as anti-Gygaxian as one can get within the 1e framework.  

But it is the Gygaxian model that 1e is balanced for, and for that model it is balanced well.


RC


----------



## Hussar

RC said:
			
		

> In the Gygaxian model if a group of 5th level characters has a vorpal sword, it is because they earned it. If a group of 10th level characters has little more than a +1 spoon, it is because they did not.




How is random treasure generation "earning" anything?   If I kill monster X, it should have treasure type Y (well maybe not Y specifically, but, Y as a variable... ah hell.  ;p)  That gives me a certain percentage chance of various types of rewards.  A single lucky roll nets me a vorpal sword.  Since the GM should never "perform any changes in situ to make things easier, harder, more rewarding, or less rewarding for the players", my rewards are entirely random.

It is quite possible that with a couple of lucky die rolls, I wind up with an artifact.  Now, since the GM should never make any changes, how does that work with "Gygaxian" balance?

And, hang on.  How can a GM possibly maintain balance if he is not allowed to make any changes?  If the system requires GM intervention to achieve balance, which you have repeatedly argued, then how can the GM then be barred from interfering?

If the GM never needs to intervene, then the system is designed for balance before play.  But, you argued that the opposite is true - that 1e is designed for balance IN play.

So, which is it?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> How is random treasure generation "earning" anything?   If I kill monster X, it should have treasure type Y (well maybe not Y specifically, but, Y as a variable... ah hell.  ;p)  That gives me a certain percentage chance of various types of rewards.




Reread the book.....it gives an opportunity to earn that treasure, but it does not mean that you do so.  A single lucky roll does not net you a vorpal sword, because when the GM set up the encounter, either the vorpal sword was used against you (in which case, you needed to be lucky!) or it is well hidden/guarded/trapped.

Your rewards are not random.  That



> the GM should never "perform any changes in situ to make things easier, harder, more rewarding, or less rewarding for the players"




means that the GM should be prepping these things, not changing them on the fly.  Nor are your rewards entirely random, as Gygax repeatedly admonished the GM to not use what is rolled if it makes no sense, or is something that the GM does not wish in the game.



> It is quite possible that with a couple of lucky die rolls, I wind up with an artifact.  Now, since the GM should never make any changes, how does that work with "Gygaxian" balance?




It says that you did not understand what was meant by "_in situ_".  It is meant to refer to "in game play", not "when prepping the game".



> And, hang on.  How can a GM possibly maintain balance if he is not allowed to make any changes?




"Unask the question."

Hopefully, what I wrote above will help you to see the answer.  The line of reasoning you are following here, though, is counterproductive.  The GM should make changes in prep, not in play.  The GM should balance the game on the macro level, the players on the micro.


RC


----------



## Hussar

Ok, so, basically, it's perfectly okay for the GM to fudge die rolls in prep, but not during play in order to maintain balance.

See, to me, the books say if I kill a given monster, it should have a particular treasure.  That treasure gives a certain percentage chance of various coinage and magic items.  It does not say anything about burying 25% (an arbitrary number I picked out of the air) of the value in some out of the way vault that the PC's are expected never to find.

So, despite the fact that I'm given no guidance as to how much wealth is actually a "reasonable amount", I'm just supposed to know, somehow, how much treasure I should make unavailable for the players.  

Because:



> A single lucky roll does not net you a vorpal sword, because when the GM set up the encounter, either the vorpal sword was used against you (in which case, you needed to be lucky!) or it is well hidden/guarded/trapped.




appears no where in the description of the vorpal sword.  I'm not exactly sure how that wyvern is supposed to be using the vorpal sword, or why the wyvern has a very well hidden vault.  I guess if I roll a particular treasure for my wyvern, I'm supposed to have magically inherited the ability to know how much treasure is the right amount to make available.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> Ok, so, basically, it's perfectly okay for the GM to fudge die rolls in prep, but not during play in order to maintain balance.




It is not "perfectly okay" in the Gygaxian system; *it is the GM's job*.



> See, to me, the books say if I kill a given monster, it should have a particular treasure.




Which books are those?  When was the last time you read the 1e DMG?  I am guessing it is a long, long time ago (if ever).  Because if, after reading the 1e DMG, you still come to that conclusion, there is nothing I can do to help you.

If I had the book here at work with me, I could quote the relevant sections.  But it would be a very long post.


RC


----------



## Votan

Hussar said:


> Ho
> It is quite possible that with a couple of lucky die rolls, I wind up with an artifact.  Now, since the GM should never make any changes, how does that work with "Gygaxian" balance?




I actually saw this happen, more than 20 years ago, playing 1E.  It was the Ring of Gaxx on a random Orc.  There was a round table discussion of "could an Orc be carrying an artifact by chance alone?".  

It ended poorly as low level characters are not designed to handle protecting powerful magic items.  But I did see it in play!  [while it's possible it was a DM error, it really has been > 20 years, I am pretty sure if it was an error it was a subtle one]


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar,

Right now, if I understand correctly, you are immersing yourself in new games and systems.  If you live close to anyone who is running an OS, Gygaxian game, I would recommend you try it for a few sessions to a few months.  It is a different take on the game than what WotC, or even 2e TSR, provides, and is worth trying so that you can, at the very least, reject it from an informed perspective.

Clearly, my description isn't conveying it to you.  If you ever decide to move to Toronto, I'll be happy to give you a chance at a firsthand experience.  It might not be for you (it isn't for everyone), but the experience may well expand your viewpoint!

(I am currently eagerly awaiting getting the new Dr Who rpg, which is, I understand, narrative-heavy, and will certainly expand my viewpoint.)


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> If you live close to anyone who is running an OS, Gygaxian game, I would recommend you try it for a few sessions to a few months.  It is a different take on the game than what WotC, or even 2e TSR, provides, and is worth trying so that you can, at the very least, reject it from an informed perspective.
> 
> Clearly, my description isn't conveying it to you.  If you ever decide to move to Toronto, I'll be happy to give you a chance at a firsthand experience.  It might not be for you (it isn't for everyone), but the experience may well expand your viewpoint!




Would that really accomplish anything? Your accounts of what a 1E "Gygaxian" game don't match my accounts when I ran the game. They don't match the accounts of other DMs I played 1E AD&D with. And they don't match the accounts of local games run by those who played directly with EGG. My point isn't that the experience you would give Hussar is wrong, but that there is no "right way" and any single experience one gets to plat 1E will be a singular experience that has no far-reaching implication on "how the game was played."


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> How is random treasure generation "earning" anything?   If I kill monster X, it should have treasure type Y (well maybe not Y specifically, but, Y as a variable... ah hell.  ;p)  That gives me a certain percentage chance of various types of rewards.  A single lucky roll nets me a vorpal sword.  Since the GM should never "perform any changes in situ to make things easier, harder, more rewarding, or less rewarding for the players", my rewards are entirely random.
> 
> It is quite possible that with a couple of lucky die rolls, I wind up with an artifact.  Now, since the GM should never make any changes, how does that work with "Gygaxian" balance?




This is a significant misreading of the DMG. The DM is expected to place treasure appropriately. The treasure tables are a guideline for how much a creature of that type can be expected to amass (most likely in his lair) but the DM is not at all expected to take any random treasure result without eyeballing it first.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Would that really accomplish anything?




It would be fun!



> And they don't match the accounts of local games run by those who played directly with EGG.




Linky link linkeroo?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> This is a significant misreading of the DMG. The DM is expected to place treasure appropriately. The treasure tables are a guideline for how much a creature of that type can be expected to amass (most likely in his lair) but the DM is not at all expected to take any random treasure result without eyeballing it first.




Moreover, the Treasure Types assume the maximum number of creatures, according to the 1e DMG, with small numbers having correspondingly less treasure.


RC


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Ok, so, basically, it's perfectly okay for the GM to fudge die rolls in prep, but not during play in order to maintain balance.




Or, more appropriately, it's up to the DM to design the challenges and rewards ahead of time and then let the players interact with them as they will and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards) of their play as it unfolds on the table.



Hussar said:


> I guess if I roll a particular treasure for my wyvern, I'm supposed to have magically inherited the ability to know how much treasure is the right amount to make available.




The treasure will be distributed or used based on the creature's ability to do so. In the wyvern's case, a lot of loot will probably be in a lair somewhere hard to reach except by flying or making a dangerous climb. In fact, almost certainly all of it would be there. By contrast, an ogre mage would be wielding a good magic weapon that would come up in his treasure horde, the rest hidden away in a room that maybe he only can get to via gaseous form.


----------



## Doug McCrae

> You should sharply limit the
> amount of gear and treasure they [the PCs] can bring
> to the village (as you will understand when
> you read the adventure). If your group of
> players has had exceptional luck, simply
> engineer a minor encounter or two along the
> way—light-fingered leprechauns, a thief or
> two, or perhaps some brigands—to rid them
> of a few of those cumbersome gems, coins,
> and magical items.



 - Temple of Elemental Evil, page 5

It's hard to say with certainty what 'Gygaxian' actually is. Gary said different things at different times. I recall reading elsewhere that he greatly regretted deliberately taking a powerful magic item away from a PC, and the reason he gave (for the regret) was that the player had 'earned it' fairly. Presumably at the time Gary regarded the item as unbalanced however and that it had been a mistake to put it in the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Doug McCrae said:


> - Temple of Elemental Evil, page 5
> 
> It's hard to say with certainty what 'Gygaxian' actually is. Gary said different things at different times. I recall reading elsewhere that he greatly regretted deliberately taking a powerful magic item away from a PC, and the reason he gave (for the regret) was that the player had 'earned it' fairly. Presumably at the time Gary regarded the item as unbalanced however and that it had been a mistake to put it in the game.




Perhaps.

But the 1e DMG is pretty clear, as well, that there will be those willing to take from the PCs.  This is part of the meta-level setup.  What happens if the PCs defeat the brigands, and manage to loot the leprechaun's gold?  In Gygaxian D&D, the DM balances at the meta level.

It should also be noted that, simply because Gary didn't always live up to his ideal, that it wasn't the ideal he strove toward.  He certainly never proclaimed himself to be a perfect DM, or even a great or good one.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> It would be fun!




Very true.



Raven Crowking said:


> Linky link linkeroo?




No, sorry. I live less than an hour from Lake Geneva and am friends with a former Dragon regular from the EGG days who played with Gary for some time. My points were all personal experience.

I wish I had taken Gary up on his invition to play in his game before his passing so I could have experienced "Gygaxian" play firsthand. I mistook his invitation at the time as a polite decline to the invitation we extended him to participate in my wife's special D&D birthday one-shot. I only realized after his death that he was very open to inviting people into his home to play and that my wife and I should have made the short trip to Lake Geneva.


----------



## Raven Crowking

VB, I am sorry you lost the opportunity.


RC


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> This is a significant misreading of the DMG. The DM is expected to place treasure appropriately. The treasure tables are a guideline for how much a creature of that type can be expected to amass (most likely in his lair) but the DM is not at all expected to take any random treasure result without eyeballing it first.




But, how do you judge "appropriately"?  What guidelines exist that tell me what is appropriate?

And, I'm curious, if I have killed the creature(s), have I not "earned" the treasure that the creature has?  Why do I suddenly need to go play hide and seek with the loot?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> And, I'm curious, if I have killed the creature(s), have I not "earned" the treasure that the creature has?  Why do I suddenly need to go play hide and seek with the loot?




The same reason you don't get a checkmate by moving a single pawn in chess -- the reward doesn't come from less than a full game.


RC


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> The same reason you don't get a checkmate by moving a single pawn in chess -- the reward doesn't come from less than a full game.
> 
> 
> RC




So define a full game in D&D.  Is it when the campaign is over, or are you talking about when the module/adventure is done?  

Are you saying that the players should not expect any treasure before the end of a module/adventure?  I don't understand how this works with 1e.  I DM 1e for 10 years and was under the impression that the treasure should be there after the fight.  They might have to search for it.  Get past a trap or two but at end of the fight/encounter they had earned it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Sorry, but I cannot tell if you are being intentionally obtuse for comedic effect, or if you seriously don't understand the point I was making.


EDIT:  In case you were serious, the game of "get the treasure" in Gygaxian D&D requires dealing with any particular guardians or traps (which does not necessarily mean defeating them in combat), locating the treasure, recognizing that it is treasure, and then moving it to a secure location such as the character's home base.  At this point, and only at this point, the character receives XP for the treasure earned.  The challenge in getting the treasure may contain some, or of all, of these elements.  I refer you to the 1e DMG, which contains discussion of all of the above.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> All monsters would not and should not possess treasure!  The TREASURE TYPES given in the *MONSTER MANUAL* are the optimums and are meant to consider the maximum number of creaures guarding them.  Many of the monsters shown as possessing some form of wealth are quite unlikely to have any at all.  This is not a contradiction in the rules, but an admonition to the DM not to give away too much!




Etc.

Read pages 91-93 of the 1e DMG for more specifics; it is too late for me to type all of it out!


RC


----------



## Hairfoot

Raven Crowking said:


> At this point, and only at this point, the character receives XP for the treasure earned.




Some DMs ruled that XP was only received when the treasure was _spent_, giving the players a choice between having a treasury or having levels.


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> At this point, and only at this point, the character receives XP for the treasure earned.




Anybody actually get why you gain experience points from treasure? Did d20 still do it? its really so left field... I had issues with hit points but have really completely changed my mind on those... But this bit I just don't get. 
Was a rationale ever provided?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hairfoot said:


> Some DMs ruled that XP was only received when the treasure was _spent_, giving the players a choice between having a treasury or having levels.




RCFG does this.



Garthanos said:


> Anybody actually get why you gain experience points from treasure? Did d20 still do it? its really so left field... I had issues with hit points but have really completely changed my mind on those... But this bit I just don't get.
> Was a rationale ever provided?




The rationale is in the 1e DMG.  Probably the best RPG book ever written.  Useful bits in there for any game, any edition, any time.  IMHO, of course.


RC


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> But, how do you judge "appropriately"?  What guidelines exist that tell me what is appropriate?
> 
> And, I'm curious, if I have killed the creature(s), have I not "earned" the treasure that the creature has?  Why do I suddenly need to go play hide and seek with the loot?




Appropriate is what's right for your game and the way you want it paced and run and what works for your players.  There's no right amount that can be defined by an outside source.

And _maybe_ you've earned the treasure by killing what owns it, maybe not. Depends where he keeps it. Not all monsters walk around with their treasure in their pockets. They do things normal animals and people do. They squirrel it away to protect it from thieves, they leave it sitting around in a variety of places rather than in a tidy stack ready to be picked up, maybe they even keep it in a gizzard or tied up in real estate. Do you seriously expect it to suddenly appear in your treasure account with a *ding* just because you killed something?


----------



## Votan

Hairfoot said:


> Some DMs ruled that XP was only received when the treasure was _spent_, giving the players a choice between having a treasury or having levels.




What a really clever idea!  The best way I have heard in  ages to make players have "watrel" characters (as, for example, Conan was in the comics).


----------



## Hairfoot

Garthanos said:


> Anybody actually get why you gain experience points from treasure?




To discourage combat as the solution to everything.  When the mechanism for gaining levels is getting the loot out intact, rather than building a body count, players get very crafty and innovative.


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> To discourage combat as the solution to everything.  When the mechanism for gaining levels is getting the loot out intact, rather than building a body count, players get very crafty and innovative.




That really only works as a reason if you get noticeably more xp for gold than killin things  ... I am almost liking the idea that spending the loot is where you gain experience(s). --> It has a sort of logic to it. Though not all expenditures seem equal.

If the goal is saving the princess that might require that killing monsters bit anyway. And snagging the loot is a failure too.


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> The rationale is in the 1e DMG.




"because X said so" is only a reason if you are talking to 4 year olds ... or something like that. (you might guess I am not religious).


----------



## billd91

Garthanos said:


> "because X said so" is only a reason if you are talking to 4 year olds ... or something like that. (you might guess I am not religious).




Except that if you want to know 1e AD&D's rationale for giving XPs for treasure, there's not many better sources than the 1e rulebooks. But ultimately, this has nothing to do with any kind of religiously slavish approach to a sacred book. This is about researching primary sources. And the primary sources on 1e AD&D are obviously the rulebooks.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Hairfoot said:


> Some DMs ruled that XP was only received when the treasure was _spent_, giving the players a choice between having a treasury or having levels.




This is what I always did in D&D, probably one of my first ever house rules!

It worked nicely in terms of getting treasure back out of the PCs hands and into the campaign world. I didn't care whether the player spent it on training, on access to a library or on ale and ladies of ill repute, but if they spent it, they got the xp.

It also allowed me to make up a nice little table of NPC level by age and profession; I assumed how much 'weekly spending gp' they would have by profession (peasants least, nobles most) and then see what level they would be at what age. It was just a useful little rule of thumb so that I could judge what age a particular noble or peasant should be for his level.

Cheers


----------



## Hairfoot

Plane Sailing said:


> This is what I always did in D&D, probably one of my first ever house rules!




Now that you mention it, you're probably the "some DMs" I'm remembering.

I don't quite understand what you mean about the NPC age/profession chart.  How do you transfer the PC's spending of treasure into a standard for NPCs?


----------



## Nikosandros

Garthanos said:


> That really only works as a reason if you get noticeably more xp for gold than killin things



Which is exactly the case in AD&D 1e.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garthanos said:


> "because X said so" is only a reason if you are talking to 4 year olds ... or something like that. (you might guess I am not religious).






billd91 said:


> Except that if you want to know 1e AD&D's rationale for giving XPs for treasure, there's not many better sources than the 1e rulebooks. But ultimately, this has nothing to do with any kind of religiously slavish approach to a sacred book. This is about researching primary sources. And the primary sources on 1e AD&D are obviously the rulebooks.




Indeed.  Having asked if a rationale was ever given, and having been referred to where it was given, one would think "thank you" a more appropriate as a response.


RC


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, the Treasure Types assume the maximum number of creatures, according to the 1e DMG, with small numbers having correspondingly less treasure.
> 
> 
> RC




Unfortunately, the Monster Manual specifically states that the treasure type is based on the _mean_ number of monsters (equal to the average in this case).

Cheers!


----------



## Plane Sailing

Hairfoot said:


> Now that you mention it, you're probably the "some DMs" I'm remembering.
> 
> I don't quite understand what you mean about the NPC age/profession chart.  How do you transfer the PC's spending of treasure into a standard for NPCs?




I forget the details but it was something like

Peasants spend 10gp/week (equivalent)

Townsmen spend 30gp/week

Nobles spend 100gp/week

After giving an arbitrary starting age of 16 at 1st level, I could see that a peasant fighter who was 3rd level and needed (say) 4000xp would have taken 400 weeks to reach that level, and would thus be about 24 years old. The noble fighter who was 3rd level would have only taken 40 weeks and would be about 17.

A 40 year old peasant could have spent his way to 13,520 xps. A 40 year old townsman could be at 40,560 and a 40 year old noble at 135,200 xps

I made a little chart with level along the top and social class down the side, and the intersection gave me an approximate age.

Not all NPCs would have spent the maximum amount, but (especially with the way the xp charts went in 1e) it was quite possible for nobles to be 'name level' NPCs, although it almost impossible to "spend" their way past that.

Cheers


----------



## Raven Crowking

MerricB said:


> Unfortunately, the Monster Manual specifically states that the treasure type is based on the _mean_ number of monsters (equal to the average in this case).
> 
> Cheers!






There were a lot of changes to the system between the publication of the MM and the DMG, though, weren't there?  A corrected version of the MM would have been nice.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Votan said:


> What a really clever idea!  The best way I have heard in  ages to make players have "watrel" characters (as, for example, Conan was in the comics).




Or, for example, if a PC earns a reward, but chooses not to accept that.  That counts as money squandered in RCFG.  So, the mechanic can be used to create wastrels or more traditionally "good" characters.


RC


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> There were a lot of changes to the system between the publication of the MM and the DMG, though, weren't there?  A corrected version of the MM would have been nice.
> 
> 
> RC




Honestly, in this case I think the MM is correct. 

Cheers!


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> Indeed.  Having asked if a rationale was ever given, and having been referred to where it was given, one would think "thank you" a more appropriate as a response.
> 
> 
> RC




No  "The DMG" would have been where I would have assumed it was (if there was a reason ). So the answer was not particularly useful and is less so because any access I may have had has long passed... 

If the rationale is something obscure/lame enough that it isnt quotable..  AND "to encourage theft" sounds like an honest answer to what it actually was... did the DMG own up to that?


----------



## Raven Crowking

MerricB said:


> Honestly, in this case I think the MM is correct.




Much like the 4e DMG1 description of skill challenges should take precedence over the later 4e DMG2?  



Garthanos said:


> No  "The DMG" would have been where I would have assumed it was (if there was a reason ). So the answer was not particularly useful and is less so because any access I may have had has long passed...
> 
> If the rationale is something obscure/lame enough that it isnt quotable..  AND "to encourage theft" sounds like an honest answer to what it actually was... did the DMG own up to that?




You asked if there was a rationale.  The answer is yes, in the 1e DMG.  The rationale is longer than I feel like typing.  It is gamist, if that helps, based upon providing players with motivation to interact with the game world.  

If you want to read it, you might be able to check a copy out of your local library.  If not, the 1e DMG is a very useful book, in terms of its lists of features, unexplained sounds, etc., even if you are not playing the edition it was written for.  Also, there is discussion of many topics, many of which can provide real inspiration regardless of the game you are playing.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garthanos said:


> Was a rationale ever provided?






Raven Crowking said:


> The rationale is in the 1e DMG.






Garthanos said:


> "because X said so" is only a reason if you are talking to 4 year olds ... or something like that. (you might guess I am not religious).






Raven Crowking said:


> Having asked if a rationale was ever given, and having been referred to where it was given, one would think "thank you" a more appropriate as a response.






Garthanos said:


> No










Perhaps this is not the way you meant to sound?


RC


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> Perhaps this is not the way you meant to sound?
> 
> 
> RC




Excessively literal ... take the first one and add "if so what was it?"

Then realize "in the DMG" is a really big location... you just said read the bible to find out what it is.(this time the reference is book size).'

Ever ask?
"Can I go to the store" and the answer was "Sure you can! your legs aren't broke, but you will have to get permission from me first"

I guess I shouldnt have assumed you were being intensionally uninformative because you didnt catch the implied question (regarding what the authoritative reasoning was). You did subsequently "characterize" it .


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> Much like the 4e DMG1 description of skill challenges should take precedence over the later 4e DMG2?




No, because I think that Gygax was at his worst when compiling the DMG. There's much that is good in the DMG, but there's a lot of it which is pretty lousy - mostly anything to do with explaining rules.

I'd trust that quote more if Gygax was in the middle of explaining hard and fast rules about treasure distribution, but he isn't. 

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garthanos said:


> Excessively literal ... take the first one and add "if so what was it?"




It seems odd to me that you have such a firm opinion of a work you have so loose a grasp on.



> Then realize "in the DMG" is a really big location... you just said read the bible to find out what it is.(this time the reference is book size).'




And this isn't the first time you've brought religion into it.  It seems to me that, perhaps, there is some other issue which is as formulative to your opinion of 1e as anything related to 1e itself.



MerricB said:


> No, because I think that Gygax was at his worst when compiling the DMG. There's much that is good in the DMG, but there's a lot of it which is pretty lousy - mostly anything to do with explaining rules.




So, despite obviously being aware of what is written in the MM, and despite obviously being aware that this was going to be seen by some as a contradiction in the rules, you feel that Gygax wasn't aware of what was written in the MM and didn't intend the advice in the DMG to take precedence over that in the MM?  



We will have to agree to disagree on this one.



> I'd trust that quote more if Gygax was in the middle of explaining hard and fast rules about treasure distribution, but he isn't.




No, he is in the middle of explaining the spirit of the rules.  The thing which, repeatedly, he admonishes the DM to consider as more important than hard and fast rules.

I have to admit that I find your position here more than a little strange.


RC


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> No, he is in the middle of explaining the spirit of the rules.  The thing which, repeatedly, he admonishes the DM to consider as more important than hard and fast rules.
> 
> I have to admit that I find your position here more than a little strange.
> RC




RC, is that what he was tying to do?  He only confused and bored me. I skipped any thing that was not a clear rule because of his tendency to use pose in stead of the more established and for me any technical approach.  I had the same problem with him as I do with you.  We seem to think and write very differently.

For example your response to my last post.  I thought it was clear I really was confused.  It seemed different to you. 

Most of my problems with 1e is the gaming style and Gygax's approach to what makes a good game.  I will admit I did not play it often. 

(I am reading this thread to learn.  20 years ago I had completely different take and experience you what you people had.  I for a long considered Gygax over pretentious.)


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos said:
			
		

> If the goal is saving the princess ...



then the princess is the loot. That's simple and flexible, eh?

"But what if my character has no interest in wealth?" Can you say "corner case"? Why has he or she any interest in "gaining levels"? That's pursuit of power, and wealth is power. Why should his or her other interests be the cause of gaining levels?

The treasure-score method works very neatly to give the game a clear structure, and is thematically in keeping with the main fictional inspirations. It neither dictates methodologies nor requires action-by-action bookkeeping as do some alternatives; the summed value of actions is elegantly indicated in the value of treasure secured! It does not set up risk _as_ reward, as may happen when "bypassing an encounter" (a trap, monster or other dangerous obstacle) gets penalized. It does penalize aimless wandering that uses up resources. It facilitates players' assessment of objectives in quantified terms even in character.

Some of those features may be flaws in some eyes. A DM who wants to take players out of the loop, for instance, might prefer hidden values to the open token. That loop of information and choice, though, is fundamental to the game Gygax was designing.


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> The treasure-score method works very neatly to give the game a clear structure, and is thematically in keeping with the main fictional inspirations..




Seems a thematic bust with the Baggins boys and Elric of Melnibone.. And I think quite a few others.


----------



## Ariosto

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It worked nicely in terms of getting treasure back out of the PCs hands and into the campaign world.



As it did in Blackmoor -- as described in Dave Arneson's _The First Fantasy Campaign_.



> It was just a useful little rule of thumb so that I could judge what age a particular noble or peasant should be for his level.



Going the other way -- assuming that all characters _have_ classes and levels in the first place -- would be quite a departure from Original and Advanced D&D assumptions. Of course, the Judges Guild tended to do just that (famously in the City State of the Invincible Overlord) to sometimes bizarre effect.


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos said:
			
		

> Seems a thematic bust with the Baggins boys and Elric of Melnibone.. And I think quite a few others.



Does not look so to me. Bilbo was hired for an expedition to get Smaug's gold, and picked up a certain magical Ring along the way -- then he retired! Frodo was (or so the man said) not much of an inspiration to Gygax, but his evident rise in level seems hardly unwarranted by the value of his contribution to defeating Morgoth's lieutenant Sauron and thereby saving all the capital of the Free Peoples from the Evil One and his armies. Elric? He obtained Stormbringer, led the sack of Imryrr, and went on, variously as mercenary and pawn, to serve the ends of Chaos as regarded the entirety of one of the Million Spheres.

In each case, the character in question was the fulcrum of issues concerning kingdoms (at the least!). Farting about the farm, or continual petty murders of vagrants by a likewise no-account thug, are hardly the stuff of the high sword-and-sorcery adventure Arneson and Gygax had in mind.


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> then the princess is the loot. That's simple and flexible, eh?



could indeed be.. or she rewards you after you rescue her... does she use gold or other things to reward you with... do they need translated in to gold value to give experience points?


Ariosto said:


> "But what if my character has no interest in wealth?" Can you say "corner case"? Why has he or she any interest in "gaining levels"? That's pursuit of power, and wealth is power.
> Why should his or her other interests be the cause of gaining levels?



Wealth is "a form" of power not the only form nor necessarily what any given power mongering character is interested in.... becoming skilled (see god bent wizards) is its own form of goal and not necessarily so corner case.

levels as skill makes sense that time "may" be used as a increment for gain. But where a component of "levels" are heroic luck even more than skill perhaps nothing ummm needs to make sense.



Ariosto said:


> The treasure-score method works very neatly to give the game a clear structure, and is thematically in keeping with the main fictional inspirations.



Bilbo saw the treasure as an after bonus to the adventure itself, Frodo.. said what treasure.. and Elric said oh I walked away from more of that than you can imagine....  



Ariosto said:


> It neither dictates methodologies nor requires action-by-action bookkeeping as do some alternatives;



action by action book-keeping has some real negatives...  though in most cases it is used to advance action by action competence.


----------



## Votan

Garthanos said:


> Seems a thematic bust with the Baggins boys and Elric of Melnibone.. And I think quite a few others.




Actually, I like the Baggins example; both Bilbo and Frodo either gave away or destroyed a fair amount of wealth.  Especially Bilbo (although the one ring was clearly not without value).  If you gave XP for disposing of wealth, Bilbo was a pure XP play example.

Even if not, both gained many important treasures that were major points.

As for Elric, Stormbringer was clearly valuable and he did help sack is home city.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I truly believe that the InterWeb skews communication.  Five minutes in a pub clears up more problems -- and gets more across clearly -- than 500 posts.  On average, anyway!  



Garthanos said:


> Seems a thematic bust with the Baggins boys and Elric of Melnibone.. And I think quite a few others.




Sure.  1e is not a perfect game, and it is not perfect for emulating all types of play.


RC


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> Farting about the farm, or continual petty murders of vagrants by a likewise no-account thug, are hardly the stuff of the high sword-and-sorcery adventure Arneson and Gygax had in mind.




Yeah and so what does that have to do with gold giving you skill.


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> So, despite obviously being aware of what is written in the MM, and despite obviously being aware that this was going to be seen by some as a contradiction in the rules, you feel that Gygax wasn't aware of what was written in the MM and didn't intend the advice in the DMG to take precedence over that in the MM?




Obvious?

When it comes to AD&D, the game that is described in the books is not the game that Gary had been playing. It, however, contains much that he had been using for several years. The Treasure Type tables debuted in the original release of D&D, where there was no advice given as to their use - thus, the vorpal swords for 1st level characters and such. 

So, I take it as given that Gary was aware of the Treasure Tables, but not of the advice that he wrote in the MM about their use. The basic advice - being small groups of monsters have less treasure - is identical. The point that differs is whether he meant the treasure to work for the mean or maximum, and, honestly, comes down more to personal preference.

The treasure tables tend to be of far more use in wilderness and lair encounters rather than dungeon encounters, where the monsters rarely appear in such numbers as given in the MM! So, nice though they are, they tend to be of more limited usefulness that you might immediately think.

Consider then the random dungeon tables and their own treasure tables... It is interesting to note that their was treasure by level tables in the original D&D books, and they migrated over to Basic D&D, but not directly to AD&D. My assumption is that Gary thought (by this point) that the random dungeon tables provided that material.

Cheers!


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> I truly believe that the InterWeb skews communication.  Five minutes in a pub clears up more problems -- and gets more across clearly -- than 500 posts.  On average, anyway!



Acknowledged... cant distinguish dismissive tone of voice versus something else so easily.  I probably should have assumed more positively.


----------



## Ariosto

Any argument from _particulars_ of fiction, that AD&D ought therefore to be thus and so, is to miss the goal of design and contradict the designer's own statements. The game was most definitely not intended as a "Tolkien simulation" or "Moorcock model". What Arneson and Gygax borrowed from those sources were ingredients to add to a stew, the flavor of which was distinctively its own but that pretty clearly emphasized players taking the initiative and pursuing ambitions.

Per Gygax, "the most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, HPL and A. Merritt." It is in the areas of overlap among those, I think, that one might most fruitfully expect to find themes given prominent expression.

On the other hand, although AD&D was very clearly Gygaxian it was not solely that. Much by other hands had been woven into the fabric of D&D, and the Advanced books included some things more on the merits that others saw in them. The basic structure was still the same modular one, more a trimming of what had "organically grown" than a truly systematic "design" (along the lines of Hussar's  observation). The influence of Tolkien and Moorcock on the _market_ for the game was due a tip of the hat, as were the interests of other parties (such as those enjoying the various weapon factors, or psionics). It was easy enough to dispense with whatever one happened not to find indispensable!


----------



## Raven Crowking

MerricB said:


> Obvious?




Given that he refers to them in the section of the DMG under discussion, I would have to say "Yes, obvious".



> The Treasure Type tables debuted in the original release of D&D, where there was no advice given as to their use - thus, the vorpal swords for 1st level characters and such.




He talks about this too.

So, again, yes.....obvious.  Very, very, blindingly obvious.



Garthanos said:


> Acknowledged... cant distinguish dismissive tone of voice versus something else so easily.  I probably should have assumed more positively.







RC


----------



## Ariosto

Garthanos, all I see from you are objections on the basis either of 

* "Realistic" grounds -- which I don't think are nearly so sensible by the alleged standards, and in any case were very specifically "in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!"

* "Simulation" of this or that fiction, especially of fictions other than those high on the list of influences. "It does little to attempt to simulate anything either."

As Gygax wrote, "A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires."

* Misrepresentation -- perhaps really founded in misunderstanding of what real wealth means. Money in the game -- as in real life -- is just a symbolic token. You can award x.p. without the token of g.p., but then in what terms (if any) will you conduct the dialog of the game? If you come up with a satisfactory (for you) answer, then go ahead and implement it.

* Wrong Game -- pretty much what every argument seems to boil down to. "D&D sucks, I'd rather play T&T ... or C&S ... or Runequest ... or Champions ... or Milton Bradley Hero Quest". That's fruitful dissatisfaction, a creative dynamic that enriches the hobby/industry, when it is in fact applied in a way that diversifies the offerings. Playing Monopoly, "One Rule to Ring Them All", is something else.


----------



## Hairfoot

Ariosto said:


> The game was most definitely not intended as a "Tolkien simulation" or "Moorcock model".




I don't think early D&Ds cater too well to high-fantasy sagas of epic hero-ness.  They start from a pulp ideal in which the PCs are presumed to be money-grubbing mercenaries whose contribution to the greater good is largely coincidental or the product of later character development (which I think covers the cast of The Hobbit, but not LotR).

In that case, the experience-for-gold mechanic is reliable, but the player preference for princess-saving good-guy characters that emerged later may have driven the kill-villains-for-advancement model that reigns today.


----------



## Ariosto

Why use "x.p. for g.p."? Why not? A serious answer, consistently pursued, is likely to raise other questions. Why "experience points" in the first place; why "character classes" and "levels"?

I am not surprised that so many thoughtful designers -- including those at WotC -- who set out to do "D&D, but better" actually end up with something radically _different_ in much more than that one fundamental. They have different goals, and so quite sensibly pursue them with different means.

Nor am I dismayed that the designers of RuneQuest -- very much concerned with "realism" and "simulation" -- cut out the whole business of x.p. and went to converting treasure *directly* into bonuses to fighting, magic, and other abilities!


----------



## Ariosto

What does the "x.p. for slaughter" crowd make of Frodo and Samwise, I wonder? Or of _The Lord of the Rings_, really, as a model for D&D? (See the "DM of the Rings" Web-comic, please!)

*The Hobbit*, on the other hand, has always seemed to me as natural a source of inspiration as *Swords Against Wizardry* and *The Swords of Lankhmar*.

_Smaug the magic dragon lived on the heath,
And in the Lonely Mountain lay with treasure underneath.
Little Bilbo Baggins set off one summer day
With Gandalf and a bunch of dwarves to steal that gold away.

[ ... ]

The Mountain King Returned, the river flowed with gold,
And Mr. Baggins turned at last back toward his hobbit hole.
Returning from adventure, from war and dragon's lair,
He found Lobelia walking off with all his silverware._


----------



## M.L. Martin

Ariosto said:


> What does the "x.p. for slaughter" crowd make of Frodo and Samwise, I wonder? Or of _The Lord of the Rings_, really, as a model for D&D? (See the "DM of the Rings" Web-comic, please!)




  This Tolkien fan sees it as 'proof D&D isn't really well-suited to Tolkien-style fantasy, despite superficial elements of the rules and trends in that direction during 2E (including an article by Eric Noah himself in DRAGON #212)." 
  If one adopts the 'XP for challenges/goals' model, or the more abstract advancement of non-D&D systems a la SAGA or True20, they make more sense for that model of fantasy. But then, I prefer abstract wealth systems, too (at least in theory). 
  On a side note, does anyone know how to get the attention of some of the late 2E-era designers? _Thirty Years of Adventure_ makes some references that suggest there was a push in some quarters for a more story-focused 3E until management decided to go Super-Advanced, and I'd love to know what it was going to look like, as a curiosity if nothing else.



> *The Hobbit*, on the other hand, has always seemed to me as natural a source of inspiration as *Swords Against Wizardry* and *The Swords of Lankhmar*.




  OTOH, if Bilbo had been an old-school D&D hero, he would have taken the Arkenstone, put on the Ring, and hightailed it back to the Shire, letting everyone else get slaughtered in the Battle of Five Armies. Bonus XP if he sells the corpses to the Necromancer, lets him slaughter the remnants, and then loots the rest of the Lonely Mountain. He also backstabs Lobelia and steals back his spoons.


----------



## Garthanos

Ariosto said:


> Why use "x.p. for g.p."? Why not? A serious answer, consistently pursued, is likely to raise other questions!



And questions are bad apparently? I saw some very interesting ideas about how spending the gold / distributing the wealth could be seen to result in experience(s). 

Why not? hmmm because it pressures a motivation on the characters that I find distasteful and which doesn't conform to a lot of the fantasy heroes I find interesting (wow somebody doesn't want to play Conan).  Encouraging a broader variety of character motivations seems to be "a good thing".  Does it need to be a bloody different game for that? 

And yes we certainly could diverge... if its about gaining fame and fortune... track fame and fortune separately isn't that closer to form?


----------



## Hairfoot

Garthanos said:


> Why not? hmmm because it pressures a motivation on the characters that I find distasteful and which doesn't conform to a lot of the fantasy heroes I find interesting (wow somebody doesn't want to play Conan).



Conversely, the pressure is now to slaughter everything in sight, and players who want to be Conan the thief rather than Conan the killer aren't catered to.


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> Conversely, the pressure is now to slaughter everything in sight, and players who want to be Conan the thief rather than Conan the killer aren't catered to.




Evil vampire comes slaughtering villagers run away Conan he isnt carrying any gold.

Note the gold didnt become magically worthless.. he can still buy anybody who will follow the worthless toad that ran away to let the village die.

Caricatures arent they fun?


----------



## Hairfoot

Garthanos said:


> Evil vampire comes slaughtering villagers run away Conan he isnt carrying any gold.
> 
> Note the gold didnt become magically worthless.. he can still buy anybody who will follow the worthless toad that ran away to let the village die.
> 
> Caricatures arent they fun?




Without punctuation and sentence structure it's hard to understand what that post is, but you seem to be saying that a Conan has no incentive to save villagers from a vampire unless it's carrying gold.

If that's what you mean, it's incorrect for several reasons:

1. Vampires are worth a hefty chunk of XP in any edition of D&D, so he's always rewarded for fighting it.

2. As Ariosto pointed out, a GP value can be put on saving the village or on Princess McGuffin if that's what the DM wants to do, so Conan is still rewarded.

3. If Conan is specifically the character you have in mind, he just _may _leave the villagers to the vampire.  He's not suicidal.

I'm not sure what you believe is being caricatured.

Alternatively, if Conan has a choice between fighting the vamp or saving the villagers without conflict, and he's being run in a system that gives XP primarily for kills, what incentive does he have to be crafty and clever rather than violent?


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> Without punctuation and sentence structure it's hard to understand what that post is, but you seem to be saying that a Conan has no incentive to save villagers from a vampire unless it's carrying gold.



A specialized conan you made up who just wanted to steal and didnt value any of the results .... like a slaughter conan who wasnt killing for a reason.

That supposition is in conformance to those claiming XP for gold was really the driving element of experience point rewards in AD&D (it wasn't my experience I thought they were relatively balanced with gold contributing small amounts a DM with tight purse strings afraid of Monty Haul designations may have caused this feeling I think and he was also one who loved monsters with level draining).



Hairfoot said:


> 2. As Ariosto pointed out, a GP value can be put on saving the village or on Princess McGuffin if that's what the DM wants to do



Why a GP value and not a XP value instead... what convoluted silliness requires gold in there?


----------



## Garthanos

I am also puzzled exactly what modern game is being postulated which only provides XP for killing things.


----------



## FireLance

At the risk of derailing the thread further, this is why I tend to prefer an "XP for overcoming challenges" model instead of an "XP for finding/spending gold" model or an "XP for killing" model on the occasions that I want to track XP in the first place.

"XP for finding/spending gold" generally does not gel with the way many people envision how a character grows in skill and power, and "XP for killing" tends to incentivise fighting as a solution to overcoming challenges as opposed to non-violent means of doing so.

"XP for overcoming challenges" includes "XP for killing", but also allows the PCs to earn XP for bypassing a combat encounter through stealth, trickery, persuasion, etc. as well as rewarding the PCs for overcoming structured and unstructured non-combat challenges.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Matthew L. Martin said:


> OTOH, if Bilbo had been an old-school D&D hero, he would have taken the Arkenstone, put on the Ring, and hightailed it back to the Shire, letting everyone else get slaughtered in the Battle of Five Armies. Bonus XP if he sells the corpses to the Necromancer, lets him slaughter the remnants, and then loots the rest of the Lonely Mountain. He also backstabs Lobelia and steals back his spoons.




My god, I SO want to read this book!


----------



## Hairfoot

Garthanos said:


> A specialized conan you made up who just wanted to steal and didnt value any of the results .... like a slaughter conan who wasnt killing for a reason.




Well, the Conan who just wants to steal was made up by Robert E. Howard.  I only used him as an example.

But he might not be a good example, since there now seems to be some confusion between character advancement mechanics in roleplaying games and the moral code of a pulp-fantasy book character.




			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> That supposition is in conformance to those claiming XP for gold was really the driving element of experience point rewards in AD&D (it wasn't my experience...




I can't recall playing 1e with gold for XP either.  I just gave a rationale for it upthread, and that's why it's in the discussion.  I do like it, though.




			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> Why a GP value and not a XP value instead... what convoluted silliness requires gold in there?




None at all.  An XP value works equally well, but if I were running on a GP=XP basis, I'd be tempted to think of things in gold just to keep it uniform.




			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> I am also puzzled exactly what modern game is being postulated which only provides XP for killing things.




Has anyone said "only"?  I've talked about "primarily", but I can't think of any games that are strictly XP for kills.

The "advancement through combat" model picks up around 2e, IMO, becomes the standard in 3e, and is enshrined in 4E.

Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, would you agree that characters in 3E and 4E receive most of their XP for combat encounters?


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> I can't recall playing 1e with gold for XP either.  I just gave a rationale for it upthread, and that's why it's in the discussion.  I do like it, though.



1 gp gained gave you 1 xp ... find it on the street get an xp. 

What firelance describes If I understand correctly
 is only slightly different than the 4e rules RAW.
4e skill challenges built in provide xp no DM hand waving required
4e traps provide xp no DM handwaving required. 
4e non-combat encounters provide xp no DM handwaving required.
The idea that 4e enshrines killing to get XP is incredibly weird to me.

My players just saved a village from being magically radiated it wasnt laid out identically as a skill challenge or a trap in part because I like many tend towards informality in that regard (hand waving allowed but not required ;-)). A little more like a multi stage trap with some ingenuity to figure out it was even happening. So boom experience points for this "encounter."


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, would you agree that characters in 3E and 4E receive most of their XP for combat encounters?



Cant say anything about 3e... 
No I dont agree at all with regards to 4e my players do not gain most of there XP for combat encounters ... and by the rules every encounter combat or other wise with significant risk of failure provides xp.

The DMG defines puzzles really broadly too and they are 1 source of experience points 
DMG1 : "Other puzzles are a matter of the players figuring something out in the context of the adventure. "

The nature of what the characters chose to do probably determines where most of their xp come from.


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> Well, the Conan who just wants to steal was made up by Robert E. Howard.




You left out the ending... "and didnt value the results? ". 
Just like slaughtering  "for no reason" 

I think that doesn't conform to the literary Conan.


----------



## Lanefan

Sorry for the delayed response; I don't always get in here every day...







Hussar said:


> 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.



I've said it many times, but once more never hurts: WotC's market research (what they used going in to 3e) was badly-enough flawed to be close to garbage.

I don't know if it's still out there, but there was an article booting around online for a long time by Ryan Dancey regarding that research and how it was conducted.  The salient points for this discussion were:

The research was done in the 1998-99 period.  If you put your age down as higher than a certain amount (I think it was 35, it might have been lower) your response was thrown out.  Which means, all the responses from older gamers, including:
- those who got in during the late '70's-early '80's while in college and stayed in, thus around 20 years old then and mostly too old for the late '90's survey criteria
- those who simply got into the game later in life
- me
were invalidated...yet simple logic dictates that older, more settled players are very likely going to have longer, more settled games and campaigns.  But settled campaigns don't represent a high-buy market...

By excluding these responses, they tailored the survey to produce the results they wanted (i.e. to indicate shorter, less stable campaigns as the norm) and then designed the game to suit those results.


> 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.



Too bad.  But if you ever settle down in Victoria BC, join my game and I'll convince you otherwise. 


> 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.



But, even to that extent, you admit it was a consideration. (see below)  







> They didn't sit down and work from the position that the game should work at most tables.



And nor should they, really.  It was more "here's what works for us, and we know it works; but if it doesn't work for you then tweak it till it does".  Quite a different approach than pretty much any edition since...  


> 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.



Which contradicts what you say above.  Balance *was* a design goal, as defined by how balance worked at EGG's table and-or the tables of others with whose games he had experience or knowledge.  And even if that balance was intended to be similar to RC's balance-in-play, it's still balance by design.

Lanefan


----------



## da chicken

1E, as a game system, was not balanced at all.  The entirity of game balance was established at the most basic level by class restrictions (fighters can't use wands, etc.) but the sole balancing "mechanic" of the game was DM intervention.

The game system itself was pretty ridiculous.  3d6 straight six times for stats?  How many characters would you have to roll before you got to play the class you even wanted?  You were doing average if all your stats were 9's and 10's for goodness sake.  A level 9 Paladin having the same total XP as a 10/11 mage/thief?  You're going to honestly argue that those two characters are equally powerful?

D&D 1E was designed around the idea that you'd play lots and lots of characters and through a process of natural selection and good die rolling you'd end up with a character that could survive to level 4 or 5.  Anybody who played the game significantly was well aware of the fact that PCs were simply not intended to be higher than level 9.  You were never supposed to gain a level where you weren't rolling a die for hit points.

The existence of psionics and the Bard at the back of the book was just ludicrous.  Yes, the book clearly said they resulted in more powerful characters, but, again, the only balancing mechanic in place was *the DM*.

1E, and 2E along with it -- while beloved as a game system -- were atrocious role playing games.  I'm glad they're dead and gone.


----------



## Hairfoot

Garthanos said:


> 1 gp gained gave you 1 xp ... find it on the street get an xp.




I really don't know what to say to that.  Have you ever met a DM so retarded they would allow such silliness?  The cult of literalist rules obedience is a matter for another thread, but getting XP for coins found in the street isn't a serious consideration in this discussion.




Garthanos said:


> My players just saved a village from being magically radiated it wasnt laid out identically as a skill challenge or a trap in part because I like many tend towards informality in that regard (hand waving allowed but not required ;-)). A little more like a multi stage trap with some ingenuity to figure out it was even happening. So boom experience points for this "encounter."




That sounds like a cool scenario.  What proportion of the adventure was resolved through combat, and what incentive did the PCs have to avoid fights and find other ways around problems?

Remember, this isn't an edition war.  The thread is about 1e, and this segment of it is about the value of awarding XP for treasure.

4e isn't a universal or perfect system.  It can't provide every type of game to every type of player, and you don't need to defend it as though it can.



			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> I think that doesn't conform to the literary Conan.




Conan?  _The_ Conan?  Can I ask how much Conan you've read?

He never killed without reason, but he was a completely amoral thief.  And that's rather the point: killing has greater consequences - physical and real - than stealing, and XP for gold encourages players to weigh up the value of hacking through foes versus using cunning to secure goals.



			
				da chicken said:
			
		

> The game system itself was pretty ridiculous. 3d6 straight six times for stats? How many characters would you have to roll before you got to play the class you even wanted? You were doing average if all your stats were 9's and 10's for goodness sake. A level 9 Paladin having the same total XP as a 10/11 mage/thief? You're going to honestly argue that those two characters are equally powerful?




That's a misconception of the philosophy behind early D&D character generation.

These days, of course, you write up a 3-page background of your fighter, about how he's a dispossessed demon prince seeking the magical sword of his father to challenge the gods, rah, rah, rah.  Then you go and build that  character with the justified expectation that he'll have a decent shot at living out the story you've planned for him.

When 1e was written, you rolled up your character, looked at his/her abilities, then decided who that person is.  Most members of a party are normal, if talented, people, and if, through sheer luck, they happen to have a paladin, then he is an _awesome_ addition to their power that they are grateful for.

1e wasn't modelled for parties of superhumans in an epic saga, but for bands of brave mortals taking their chances with fate.


----------



## Raven Crowking

In the 1e DMG, it is stated quite clearly that the 1 gp = 1 xp formula should be adjusted on the basis of the challenge of gaining that 1 gp.  So, following the rules, 1 gp found on the street would be worth, say, 0 XP.  However, if a character took on a monster far more powerful than himself, and defeated it through a combination of tactics, planning, and luck, 1 gp might be worth more than 1 xp.


RC


----------



## Nikosandros

Raven Crowking said:


> However, if a character took on a monster far more powerful than himself, and defeated it through a combination of tactics, planning, and luck, 1 gp might be worth more than 1 xp.



IIRC, there are provisions for lowering the XP value of gold, in case the challenge was easy, but not for increasing it.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Someone toss Lanefan some XP for me.


----------



## Plane Sailing

da chicken said:


> 1E, as a game system, was not balanced at all.  The entirity of game balance was established at the most basic level by class restrictions (fighters can't use wands, etc.) but the sole balancing "mechanic" of the game was DM intervention.
> 
> The game system itself was pretty ridiculous.  3d6 straight six times for stats?  How many characters would you have to roll before you got to play the class you even wanted?  You were doing average if all your stats were 9's and 10's for goodness sake.  A level 9 Paladin having the same total XP as a 10/11 mage/thief?  You're going to honestly argue that those two characters are equally powerful?
> 
> D&D 1E was designed around the idea that you'd play lots and lots of characters and through a process of natural selection and good die rolling you'd end up with a character that could survive to level 4 or 5.  Anybody who played the game significantly was well aware of the fact that PCs were simply not intended to be higher than level 9.  You were never supposed to gain a level where you weren't rolling a die for hit points.
> 
> The existence of psionics and the Bard at the back of the book was just ludicrous.  Yes, the book clearly said they resulted in more powerful characters, but, again, the only balancing mechanic in place was *the DM*.
> 
> 1E, and 2E along with it -- while beloved as a game system -- were atrocious role playing games.  I'm glad they're dead and gone.




See, this is an excellent example of a threadcrap.

Comes in after goodness knows how many pages explaining different levels on which things may be balanced (enough that some posters have revised their opinions). Contains foolish assertions of fact which don't make sense, insults the game and by extension all those who still enjoy it, and then ends up with the assertion that they are dead and gone when, in actual fact they are still played and enjoyed by lots and lots of people.

Booted from this thread, and if da chicken decides to continue in this manner, he/she will find a longer vacation from ENworld coming.


----------



## Plane Sailing

JRRNeiklot said:


> My god, I SO want to read this book!




Seven years and I've only just noticed the origin of your username 

I feel so dense!


----------



## Garthanos

You outright claimed to not know the rule equating GP with XP apparently you mispoke (were you referring to your variant rule for XP gained by distributing the gold?). Nobody I knew cared enough about 1 xp extra you might gain if a gold piece was found on the floor of the bar. (because it was so overshadowed by the other coins gained more extremely) It would have been thrown in the sacks of treasure along with everything else (tallied by the group accountant in no way different).



Hairfoot said:


> That sounds like a cool scenario.  What proportion of the adventure was resolved through combat, and what incentive did the PCs have to avoid fights and find other ways around problems?



they avoided physical conflict with the beings surrounding the village which turned out to be victims of the same kind of magic that was going to affect the village (foreshadowing) but had been attacked by a couple groups earliery



Hairfoot said:


> Remember, this isn't an edition war.




yet you claimed 4e enshrines combat for experience points? how exactly did that contribute? figured you were sadly miss-enformed.


----------



## Hairfoot

Garthanos said:


> You outright claimed to not know the rule equating GP with XP apparently you mispoke (were you referring to your variant rule for XP gained by distributing the gold?). Nobody I knew cared enough about 1 xp extra you might gain if a gold piece was found on the floor of the bar. (because it was so overshadowed by the other coins gained more extremely) It would have been thrown in the sacks of treasure along with everything else (tallied by the group accountant in no way different).




Hard to say what you mean here.  I wasn't having a dig earlier about punctuation and sentence structure.  I honestly can't understand your posts.

Can you explain in more detail what I outright claimed not to know?

Incidentally, "nobody I knew" doesn't demonstrate anything objective.  It's what's know as confirmation bias.




			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> they avoided physical conflict with the beings surrounding the village which turned out to be victims of the same kind of magic that was going to affect the village (foreshadowing) but had been attacked by a couple groups earliery



That's not really enough information to know whether it addresses the question.

What percentage of the game time was spent in combat, by your reckoning, and what proportion of the party's XP derived from kills?  How often do your adventures come down to a fight with a BBEG?



Garthanos said:


> yet you claimed 4e enshrines combat for experience points? how exactly did that contribute? figured you were sadly miss-enformed.




I don't understand why you're getting defensive.  You tried to put words in my mouth, and I corrected that by giving my opinion on the XP philosophy for 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e.

You can go ahead and dispute my perception of XP throughout editions (though it may go off-topic), but it was a direct contribution to the topic at hand.

Exactly what am I misinformed about?


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> Can you explain in more detail what I outright claimed not to know?






Hairfoot said:


> "I can't recall playing 1e with gold for XP either. I just gave a rationale for it upthread, and that's why it's in the discussion. I do like it, though."




I read the above as xp gained for each gold gained which was what was being discussed as it was from the rules. We are not communicating very well either direction as I assumed the above was claiming ignorance of the rule?



Hairfoot said:


> Incidentally, "nobody I knew" doesn't demonstrate anything objective



True its not objective I think that the DM is supposed to make that adjustment (tracking that lonely gp found on the street so you dont get xp for it?) could be just a RAW argument for academia... rather than a difference seen in real life play.



Hairfoot said:


> That's not really enough information to know whether it addresses the question.
> 
> What percentage of the game time was spent in combat, by your reckoning, and what proportion of the party's XP derived from kills?  How often do your adventures come down to a fight with a BBEG?



Sorry didnt address your question. The percentages for this one were about 4/5 non-combat experience... though because combat can take a bit longer play time was higher than 1/5 for the combat and there was combat that was just incidentals in a chase scene.  

In this particular case there isnt even a BBEG... the person responsible accidentally created the issue. I feature a lot of  "man against the environment" things and have my kids roleplaying with me, so I like mystery where it is about figuring out what has gone wrong.

None of this means it will be typical any more than my experience with AD&D is necessarily typical. (I think the last play I did may have actually been doing 2e ) 

hmmmm say is there an actual chart showing actual differences between 1e and 2e? < ---  never mind I can web hunt that my self



Hairfoot said:


> You can go ahead and dispute my perception of XP throughout editions.



I think we are so diverged from the balance in AD&D question it is silly if you feel like positing it in a different thread.... 

AD&D was created with balance in mind. I actually wonder why this poll was put up?


----------



## Hairfoot

Garthanos said:


> I read the above as xp gained for each gold gained which was what was being discussed as it was from the rules. We are not communicating very well either direction as I assumed the above was claiming ignorance of the rule?




Why would you assume that not using a rule equals not knowing it exists?



Garthanos said:


> Sorry didnt address your question. The percentages for this one were about 4/5 non-combat experience... though because combat can take a bit longer play time was higher than 1/5 for the combat and there was combat that was just incidentals in a chase scene.
> 
> In this particular case there isnt even a BBEG... the person responsible accidentally created the issue. I feature a lot of  "man against the environment" things and have my kids roleplaying with me, so I like mystery where it is about figuring out what has gone wrong.




Sounds cool. I love wilderness challenges.  My question's pointless.  No-one would admit to using an XP structure they deny exists, so it was never going to be enlightening.



Garthanos said:


> I think we are so diverged from the balance in AD&D question it is silly




I agree.



Garthanos said:


> AD&D was created with balance in mind.



I disagree, but 40 pages in I don't think there's much left to be turned over.

If you spend the time to insert punctuation and re-read sentences to make sure they're clear, you'll actually save time getting caught up in miscommunication.


----------



## Lanefan

Garthanos said:


> I read the above as xp gained for each gold gained which was what was being discussed as it was from the rules. We are not communicating very well either direction as I assumed the above was claiming ignorance of the rule?
> 
> 
> True its not objective I think that the DM is supposed to make that adjustment (tracking that lonely gp found on the street so you dont get xp for it?) could be just a RAW argument for academia... rather than a difference seen in real life play.



There's a *big* difference in any edition...any game, for that matter...between a) ignorance via not knowing a rule and b) knowing a rule but intentionally not using it, or changing it.

I've been running 1e since 1984; and while I know the ExP-for-g.p. rule is in the book I've yet to give a party ExP for treasure found, no matter how* they got it.

* - exception: on rare occasions, Thieves get ExP for gold stolen when operating independently and not in a party.

Lanefan


----------



## Garthanos

Lanefan said:


> There's a *big* difference in any edition...any game, for that matter...between a) ignorance via not knowing a rule and b) knowing a rule but intentionally not using it, or changing it.



Blindly using rules (which were not meant to be used that way) because micromanaging them is too much like work is also different and common.(hence the vorpal sword in low level hands mentioned and all the big discussions about Monty Haul gaming... or TPK because random encounter tables were used)

And he did say... didnt recall playing with it (somebody chose not to or missed the rule?) but that he liked it (which usually means one didn't chose not to use it).... but it could mean a DM made that choice for him or that he has changed his mind.

 It was used in the groups I played in but I didn't remember gold being a dominant source of experience points.


----------



## Garthanos

Lanefan said:


> * - exception: on rare occasions, Thieves get ExP for gold stolen when operating independently and not in a party.
> 
> Lanefan




Kin to ideas like Ariosto mentioned in other games where you received experience points on an action by action basis.  (Class by Class differences in how you gain experience is more AD&D style)


----------



## Garmorn

Garthanos said:


> Kin to ideas like Ariosto mentioned in other games where you received experience points on an action by action basis.  (Class by Class differences in how you gain experience is more AD&D style)




Not completely.  Rolemaster had something similar but it also had action based ex awards.  Heck the original one give ep for simply traveling.  More unfamiliar the terrain the more ep.


----------



## Hussar

Ok, this has died down a bit, but, I think I just have to give one last go.    This is going to be a wall of text, so, you might want to skip to the bottom.

*Why Hussar Thinks 1e Was Not Designed for Game Balance*

There are two examples I can think of that explain, to me anyway, why I don't think the game was designed with balance in mind.  The first has been talked about here - the distribution of treasure guidelines.  I'll get to the second in a moment.

I think that it's fair to say that if a system is designed for balance, then using that system should not give unbalanced results.  Yet, if I use the treasure system in AD&D, there is a very good chance I will get unbalanced results.  Now, it has been mentioned that the DMG is very much aware of this.  Guidelines are given that say that you should not follow the rules slavishly as they will give unbalanced results.  

The GM is required to balance the rules in other words.  

Also, no one can actually answer my question of "what is reasonable?"  The closest I get is "Well, reasonable for your campaign."  But, that presupposes a fair amount of expertise on my part in runnign a campaign.  How will I know if a given item is too much before I try it in the game.  So, basically, I have to learn through trial and error.

How is that evidence of design balance?  Is that not evidence of a system being not designed for balance?

Take 3e as an example.  I think we can agree that 3e was designed for balance.  ((I hope we can agree on that anyway))  In 3e, I know within a pretty well defined range, what treasure is appropriate for a given level of character.  There is no trial and error.  The game tells me that if I want to give out treasure X, it is appropriate for level Y character.  I can ignore those guidelines, certainly, but, I know that in doing so, I am now in uncharted territory and it's on my own head to maintain balance in the game.

Take a second example.  A basic system that all players must use:  Character generation.

System 1 in AD&D is 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste.  Ok, fine.  Now, take two hypothetical groups.  The first one gets average results - a couple of 15's between the characters, nothing below 9, most of the rolls between 10 and 14.  Group B gets a lot luckier.  Each PC has one 18 and one 16 and the rest of the rolls tail off from there.

Now, the power disparity between these two groups is pretty significant.  Group A cannot take advantage of various sub-classes (no paladins, probably no monk, ranger or druid) and multi-classing is very difficult.  Group 2 can choose pretty much any class or multi-class and is likely getting xp bonuses along the way for high stats, meaning it advances significantly faster..

Now, let's compare two fighters from the two groups.  Fighter A has a 15 strength - no bonuses.  Fighter B has an 18 percentile strength, at least a +3 to damage.  Fighter A has about a 50% chance of killing an average 1 HD monster.  Fighter B kills 100%.  That's a pretty wide divide.

In a system designed for balance, how can you get two groups with such a massive disparity of power?  And, how can a system be considered designed for balance when there are no guidelines whatsoever for dealing with this power disparity?  After all a module doesn't say, "For Characters Levels X to Y with ability scores in Z range".  It only refers to levels.

---------------

To summarize.  IMO, and this is obviously only my opinion, a system cannot be considered designed for balance when using the system gives wildly disparate results.  And, not only do you get wildly disparate results, but the rules acknowledge that you will get very different results but give no real guidelines for dealing with it.  The system basically dumps it all on the GM and tells him to balance the results "for his own campaign".  

Are there elements of game balance in 1e?  Of course.  You cannot design a game with no balance at all, that would probably be very difficult and completely unplayable.  But, was 1e "designed for game balance"?  IMO, no, it wasn't.  Beyond including what worked at Gygax and co's tables, game balance was left to the individual tables to determine.


----------



## Lanefan

To answer Hussar: I think it all depends on the scale at which you are viewing the system looking for balance.  Yes, two parties might be somewhat disparate at initial roll-up...but who's to say those parties won't each have 50% character turnover during their first adventure and each pull back sharply toward the overall average when the replacements are rolled up?

The same goes for treasure.  If you're using the random treasure tables 100% of the time (and thus using only homebrew adventures), you're going to get some rich hauls and some poor ones...and in the end they'll balance out; it just might take a while.

It's called chaos theory.  Viewed up close, it's skewed all to hell.  Viewed from a distance, however, it's balanced to a 't'.

And that's how 1e was designed...for long-term balance, ignoring the day-to-day variances.  And it's the day-to-day variances that make it fun.

Lanefan


----------



## Hairfoot

After this many pages there's little hope of saying anything new, but what "balance" means in D&D has changed radically since 1e was published.

From a 4e point of view, 1e is hopelessly unbalanced.  Each class is different, XP tables are out of sync, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of classes change drastically during the progression of levels.

From a 1e point of view, 4e is hopelessly bland.  Each class is the same, XP tables are identical, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of classes are static during the progression of levels.

There's really no one answer to the thread's core question.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Lanefan said:


> It's called chaos theory...




Actually, it sounds like you mean the Law of Large Numbers (probability theory).


----------



## Garmorn

I think Gygax aimed for balance in 1e but did not know what made a balanced RPG.  The only information he had was how wargames where balanced and his on games.  There was not enough feed back, or customer base to do the very costly market research on.

As a result he went what looked like a good approach.  Balance the classes over what seems to be the average levels of a campaign. The first version came out in 74.  It was less then 3 years that afterwards that AD&D came out.  He would have been writing, editing and printing the first book for about a year.  (Based on the normal time require to currently put a book in print today.)  How many campaigns did he play to completion in 2 years?

That he came close is great.  But the approach was wrong for a large number of gamers.


----------



## howandwhy99

Sadly, I think one of the features now called balance is an equal ability to affect the game at any given time.  This will never happen in AD&D, except perhaps by a million to 1 fluke.  This is how 4E is "balanced" though, a sort of imposed equalitarianism upon any who play the game.  Nothing you do will improve your ability to affect a situation, so levels, items, knowledge, and almost everything else largely become meaningless.


----------



## Garmorn

howandwhy99 said:


> Sadly, I think one of the features now called balance is an equal ability to affect the game at any given time.  This will never happen in AD&D, except perhaps by a million to 1 fluke.  This is how 4E is "balanced" though, a sort of imposed egalitarianism upon any who play the game.  Nothing you do will improve your ability to affect a situation, so levels, items, knowledge, and almost everything else largely become meaningless.




Can I just say huh?  How is having unequal chance to affect things good for the game?   Are you saying that one player should have the right to more of the spotlight then all of the rest of the player?

Please clarify what you are saying.


----------



## howandwhy99

Garmorn said:


> Can I just say huh?  How is having unequal chance to affect things good for the game?   Are you saying that one player should have the right to more of the spotlight then all of the rest of the player?
> 
> Please clarify what you are saying.




?? Okay, so very basic.  Every player has a Turn. These can be taken individually or collectively by the players.  (here's your equal spotlight time)  But pretty clearly not every player can affect every single situation to the exact same degree.  The game doesn't even begin that way, but starting PCs are relatively equal.  Once play has started everything gained is gained individually.  Therefore it actually matters what you as a single player choose to do.  The group's decisions don't invalidate your own by rewarding or penalizing one's own decisions simply because they are with smarter or dumber people.


----------



## Garmorn

howandwhy99 said:


> ?? Okay, so very basic.  Every player has a Turn. These can be taken individually or collectively by the players.  (here's your equal spotlight time)  But pretty clearly not every player can affect every single situation to the exact same degree.  The game doesn't even begin that way, but starting PCs are relatively equal.  Once play has started everything gained is gained individually.  Therefore it actually matters what you as a single player choose to do.  The group's decisions don't invalidate your own by rewarding or penalizing one's own decisions simply because they are with smarter or dumber people.




Ok, we are miss communicating. (Common for me when talking to a person in a younger generation like Diablo or RC).

Let me see if I have figured this out.  You are saying that every character starts out even and there is no chance for the player that plays smart to gain or improve past the players that don't play smart?


----------



## howandwhy99

Garmorn said:


> Ok, we are miss communicating. (Common for me when talking to a person in a younger generation like Diablo or RC).
> 
> Let me see if I have figured this out.  You are saying that every character starts out even and there is no chance for the player that plays smart to gain or improve past the players that don't play smart?



 I don't care for computer games myself, but I do sometimes go back and play ones from my youth.  Many are free now on the internet anyways.

Every player starts out with the same chances to affect the game similarly.  Then they roll the dice and receive a nice distribution for ability scores and money.  They also get to make a few choices that determine further abilities for them in the game, like race, buying equipment, height, weight, etc.  Most importantly they choose a class.  This is the role they will be playing and defines the entire scope of the game for them.  So even though there is some chance for equality at start, no enforced equalitarianism occurs at the beginning of a game either.  This is good.  Variety is the spice of life. If a player makes another level 1 character later in the same game, then there will be even less equality amongst characters campaigning together. 

So, in AD&D playing intelligently rewards individuals with greater ability to affect the gameworld.  This is a good thing IMO.  If it doesn't matter what you choose to do because you will always receive the same reward regardless, or worse, no rewards or penalties are every received, then the game is making choices meaningless.


----------



## howandwhy99

I should point out that AD&D is a cooperative game, meaning it rewards players for working together.  It does not reward players collectively however.  Characters do not share an XP party total, but rather have individual totals.  If it did this, then I could choose to play poorly and still be rewarded for it because of other players' actions.  

One important element to note in cooperative games is their rewarding of cooperation by enabling interdependency, not enforced dependency.  Players must have the choice to work separately as well as together if cooperation is to ever be a rewarded behavior by the game.

An non-RPG example of this can be found in Reiner Knizia's boardgame "Lord of the Rings".  Players are not required to work together. However, if they don't, their chances of winning the game are vastly reduced.  Resources, cards in that game, are received individually.  Player explicitly can not swap cards.  This forces them to take individual actions rather than working as a group playing the game from a single perspective.  It is not a 1 player game.

What the rules don't say is whether or not you can show your cards to other players.  Believe me, it's much easier if you do.  This is similar to D&D in that Player Record Sheets are the province of each individual players, but by sharing information and resources they improve their chances for success.

In D&D pretty much every single resource and ability can be swapped with another player, though depending upon the resource involved this is more or less easy to do.  Swapping years of life?  Very difficult and not possible at all, if you've not found a means to do so.  Swapping weapons?  Yeah, pretty easy.  This is good.  If success for everyone is most greatly rewarded by piling on everyone's resources to one PC in a given situation, then that should be possible.  A game that does not change PC ability because of enforced character abilities regardless of actions in the game makes these choices meaningless.


----------



## MerricB

howandwhy99 said:


> What the rules don't say is whether or not you can show your cards to other players.




They do, actually: you can't show your cards to the other players. You may, however, talk about what you have in hand as much you want.

Cheers!


----------



## howandwhy99

MerricB said:


> They do, actually: you can't show your cards to the other players. You may, however, talk about what you have in hand as much you want.
> 
> Cheers!



Dang it. I forgot that. But yeah, essentially the same ability is offered the players, but you never know whether or not your fellow players are lying.  I like that.  It rewards trust, another component to cooperation games.


----------



## MerricB

howandwhy99 said:


> Sadly, I think one of the features now called balance is an equal ability to affect the game at any given time.  This will never happen in AD&D, except perhaps by a million to 1 fluke.  This is how 4E is "balanced" though, a sort of imposed equalitarianism upon any who play the game.  Nothing you do will improve your ability to affect a situation, so levels, items, knowledge, and almost everything else largely become meaningless.




That's so not true.

4E certainly reduces the variance in how much you can affect the situation: in combat, everyone is always useful. (Out of combat, it varies more). However, they are useful in different ways, and there are times when you really need one person's abilities more than another.

In AD&D, you would have combats where the magic-user or cleric could basically end it all with one spell. (Sleep being the classic low-level option). Against that, you'd have combats where the magic-user would be very limited in usefulness (no spells, or spells that just weren't worth casting).

In 4E, a character is very unlikely to be using "I win" effects or be in a "I suck" position. However, depending on the situation, certain characters are more effective than others. When you're being attacked by swarms of minions, the ability of the wizard to cast Scorching Burst and kill many each turn is far superior than that of the rogue whose extra damage against one target is wasted. Then, against the solo or elite creatures, the rogue comes into his own.

Out of combat, things are less clear. I think it is safe to say that the 4e skill system allows each character to have clear areas of competence, and areas where they're not particularly useful. Thus, if there is a challenge that requires an athletics check, then some characters will be able to do it easily and others won't. Rituals also change the parameters, but do all characters have access to all rituals? Of course they don't!

So, the assertion that every character can contribute equally to out-of-combat challenges is also false.

The skill challenge system (which is not used for every out-of-combat challenge) is intended to allow a wider variety of characters to participate, but it would be still false to say that every character can participate equally. There are times when your character just doesn't have any applicable skill; there are times when you can blitz it with your particular skill set.

With regard to player challenges as opposed to character challenges, there even is a section in the Dungeon Master's Guide about them (more than in previous DMGs). Yes, it also offers advice as to making them character challenges, but this is not mandatory: it really does depend on your group.


----------



## Garmorn

howandwhy99 said:


> So, in AD&D playing intelligently rewards individuals with greater ability to affect the gameworld.  This is a good thing IMO.  If it doesn't matter what you choose to do because you will always receive the same reward regardless, or worse, no rewards or penalties are every received, then the game is making choices meaningless.




This is a false statement.  Your ability to affect the game world is directly controlled by the DM.  As far as having one character for an entire campaign, that to is not unwavering.  I allow an encourage a character stable.  How you create your character and how you use your resources during the campaign will also affect the your characters abilities.  This is true of all RPGs


----------



## Beginning of the End

Hussar said:


> Take a second example.  A basic system that all players must use:  Character generation.
> 
> System 1 in AD&D is 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste.  Ok, fine.  Now, take two hypothetical groups.  The first one gets average results - a couple of 15's between the characters, nothing below 9, most of the rolls between 10 and 14.  Group B gets a lot luckier.  Each PC has one 18 and one 16 and the rest of the rolls tail off from there.
> 
> Now, the power disparity between these two groups is pretty significant.  In a system designed for balance, how can you get two groups with such a massive disparity of power?




I'm picking this example because it's the easiest demonstration of the false set of principles you're working from.

Let's take a simple game: Shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Each player draws one. High card wins.

This is game is, prime facie, balanced: Assuming proper randomization of the cards, everyone has an equal chance to win the game.

Player 1 draws a Queen. Player 2 draws a Three. 

This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!

Balance is about having an even playing field. The paradigm shift, howver, is about where the even playing field starts and ends:

(1) AD&D1 says that the even playing field starts before character creation even begins. And, as far as character power is concerned, ends as soon as your first stat is rolled.

(2) You're saying that the playing field should be even after character creation ends. In fact, you're going even further in your other examples: The playing field should remain even forever.

Take this far enough and you end up with, "The playing field should be even forever, no matter what choices the players make." (Which is basically the ideal the designers of 4th Edition say they were aiming for.)

You may not see that as a problem, so let's take a moment and push the paradigm even further: The playing field should be even at all moments of the game. So even after 20 rounds of combat, the PCs and their opponents should still be exactly evenly matched.

AD&D1 was designed for balance. It just wasn't designed for balance using the paradigms you (apparently) prefer.



MerricB said:


> Sadly, I think one of the features now called balance is an equal ability to affect the game at any given time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so not true.
> 
> 4E certainly reduces the variance in how much you can affect the situation
Click to expand...



It's not true because it's certainly true? Intriguing debate tactic.


----------



## Fifth Element

Beginning of the End said:


> This is game is, prime facie, balanced: Assuming proper randomization of the cards, everyone has an equal chance to win the game.
> 
> Player 1 draws a Queen. Player 2 draws a Three.
> 
> This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!



This is a false analogy. It is analogous to individual d20 rolls in a game of D&D, but not to something with as wide-reaching implications as the ability score disparity mentioned before.

What if the player who drew the three was only subsequently allowed to draw from a deck without face cards? This gives the player who drew the Queen a significant advantage in future draws.


----------



## MerricB

Beginning of the End said:


> It's not true because it's certainly true? Intriguing debate tactic.




Intriguing lack of comprehension.

4E has pretty much removed the "you can't affect this combat at all" feature of 1E, but it hasn't removed the "you might not affect this combat as much as your friends" feature.


----------



## Garmorn

Beginning of the End said:


> I'm picking this example because it's the easiest demonstration of the false set of principles you're working from.
> 
> Let's take a simple game: Shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Each player draws one. High card wins.
> 
> This is game is, prime facie, balanced: Assuming proper randomization of the cards, everyone has an equal chance to win the game.
> 
> Player 1 draws a Queen. Player 2 draws a Three.
> 
> This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!
> 
> Balance is about having an even playing field. The paradigm shift, howver, is about where the even playing field starts and ends:
> 
> (1) AD&D1 says that the even playing field starts before character creation even begins. And, as far as character power is concerned, ends as soon as your first stat is rolled.
> 
> (2) You're saying that the playing field should be even after character creation ends. In fact, you're going even further in your other examples: The playing field should remain even forever.
> 
> Take this far enough and you end up with, "The playing field should be even forever, no matter what choices the players make." (Which is basically the ideal the designers of 4th Edition say they were aiming for.)
> 
> You may not see that as a problem, so let's take a moment and push the paradigm even further: The playing field should be even at all moments of the game. So even after 20 rounds of combat, the PCs and their opponents should still be exactly evenly matched.
> 
> AD&D1 was designed for balance. It just wasn't designed for balance using the paradigms you (apparently) prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true because it's certainly true? Intriguing debate tactic.





When was gaming become about being more powerful then the other players?  When did it change from a cooperative game to a competitive one?  I first thought you meant the world out side of the party.  Instead you are wanting to make it a competition between players.

The way I learned to play D&D is more like player one draws a Queen and Player two draws a 3.  The total is nor 15 points for the group.  Not player one crushes player 2.


----------



## MerricB

Beginning of the End said:


> This is madness! In a game designed for balance, how can you get two players with such a massive disparity in power? The Queen completely crushes the Three!




I assume you have a point? Because you're not making one. Currently you're saying that "if you flip a coin, sometimes it comes down heads and sometimes it comes down tails". Such is completely obvious, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Perhaps you meant: Each player draws a card, then for every game from then on, whoever drew the higher card in that first draw wins.


----------



## Lanefan

Garmorn said:


> When was gaming become about being more powerful then the other players?  When did it change from a cooperative game to a competitive one?  I first thought you meant the world out side of the party.  Instead you are wanting to make it a competition between players.
> 
> The way I learned to play D&D is more like player one draws a Queen and Player two draws a 3.  The total is nor 15 points for the group.  Not player one crushes player 2.



While the way I learned (using the same analogy) is that player 1 draws a queen and player 2 draws a three, but both die; so then player 1 draws a 5 and player 2 pulls an 8.  The 5 goes on to a long career, while the 8 soon dies only to be replaced by an equally short-lived jack and then a 7, which lasts a while....and so on...

Result: overall approximate balance.

And, balancing the characters *is* a stated goal of 4e design; one assumes to reduce the "competition between players" you refer to above, whether such reduction is really needed or not.

Lan-"a three dressed up as a nine"-efan


----------



## Garmorn

Lanefan said:


> While the way I learned (using the same analogy) is that player 1 draws a queen and player 2 draws a three, but both die; so then player 1 draws a 5 and player 2 pulls an 8.  The 5 goes on to a long career, while the 8 soon dies only to be replaced by an equally short-lived jack and then a 7, which lasts a while....and so on...
> 
> Result: overall approximate balance.
> 
> And, balancing the characters *is* a stated goal of 4e design; one assumes to reduce the "competition between players" you refer to above, whether such reduction is really needed or not.
> 
> Lan-"a three dressed up as a nine"-efan




Yes, but he is not talking about balance of that type.  He is complaining about the complete inability of one character to become stronger than another. He, it seems to me saying because 4e does not allow him to be better than other players, is not D&D at all.  For him it seems being more powerful than other characters is very important.

I understand the 1/2e approach.  I just don't think it works as well as the new approaches across a large number of styles.  While the most common style of those that like 1/2e fits the every changing balance there a lots of styles that don't.  Neither are better.  

It is like the difference in how treasure is handed out in the different editions.  Further you go back more you had to rely on DM' call.  As a DM, I hated this. Others loved it.  I don't like the current system as it stands.  I prefer some random treasure creation so I house ruled it.


----------



## MerricB

Lanefan said:


> While the way I learned (using the same analogy) is that player 1 draws a queen and player 2 draws a three, but both die; so then player 1 draws a 5 and player 2 pulls an 8.  The 5 goes on to a long career, while the 8 soon dies only to be replaced by an equally short-lived jack and then a 7, which lasts a while....and so on...
> 
> Result: overall approximate balance.




There's something missing in that analogy. 



> And, balancing the characters *is* a stated goal of 4e design;




Is there someone saying it isn't? Just curious. 

Mind you, there's a difference between balancing the characters and making them identical, as I've tried to demonstrate above. Gary was certainly engaged in it in AD&D, even if emphases were in different places.

Cheers!


----------



## enw320

I preffer to  voted other.
Because I also  believe that there was some intended balance but it was not based on a point in time.


----------



## Votan

Garmorn said:


> I understand the 1/2e approach.  I just don't think it works as well as the new approaches across a large number of styles.  While the most common style of those that like 1/2e fits the every changing balance there a lots of styles that don't.  Neither are better.




True.  I admit that the 4E style works better when the focus is on character power (which seems to be a major element of modern role-playing).  I like the 1/2E approach better for organic games as there tends to be more variety of characters and each has an effective niche.  Variety doesn't work so well in the modern environment as trade-offs can easily lead to imbalances if one's play style is too focused on one extreme or the other.  

So the best bet is to generally balance character and try to make the flavor different.  For all of the things that I am ambivalent about 4E for, the ability to do these well (Ranger and Rogue -- both effective martial strikers with a completely different feel) really does count as brilliant design.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Fifth Element said:


> What if the player who drew the three was only subsequently allowed to draw from a deck without face cards? This gives the player who drew the Queen a significant advantage in future draws.




But that's not the case in AD&D: When I go to roll up the ability scores for a new character, the ability scores of my previous character have absolutely no impact on the ability scores of my new character.

This, of course, stops working at the point where the assumption becomes that each player will, in general, play only a single PC over the course of a lengthy campaign. In that scenario there is no second draw to balance the initial Q/3 disparity.

But, of course, that's not the paradigm AD&D was designed for.

This seems like a relatively simple point to grasp. What part of it aren't you understanding?


----------



## Garthanos

Beginning of the End said:


> But, of course, that's not the paradigm AD&D was designed for.




I didnt like low investment characters "hey who cared if your pawn built in 10 minutes was killed. So no you didn't want to put a background on the character .. it would likely be a waste of time.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garthanos said:


> I didnt like low investment characters "hey who cared if your pawn built in 10 minutes was killed. So no you didn't want to put a background on the character .. it would likely be a waste of time.




Don't like it =/= don't grasp it.

Don't like 1e's balance =/= 1e was not balanced.

In my current campaign, more than one player has more than one active, living character, even when they can only use one at a time.


RC


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> Don't like it =/= don't grasp it.




Nothing tricky about war game heritage shining through creating disincentive to participate in the new element "roleplay".


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> Don't like 1e's balance =/= 1e was not balanced.




good point actually... the reason people say it wasn't balanced is the method used to balance created other things they didn't enjoy.

The natural response was hey... I will house rule this thing I don't enjoy.  I saw DMs who allowed players free reign in picking initial spells... this removed the spell learning lottery balance factor.


----------



## Fifth Element

Beginning of the End said:


> But that's not the case in AD&D: When I go to roll up the ability scores for a new character, the ability scores of my previous character have absolutely no impact on the ability scores of my new character.



You misinterpreted my post. The player drawing the Queen (rolling ability scores) has a significant advantage over the player drawing the three on future rolls, such as attack rolls or hit point rolls or what have you. An ability score roll has lasting effects over the life of a character.


----------



## Garthanos

Fifth Element said:


> You misinterpreted my post. The player drawing the Queen (rolling ability scores) has a significant advantage over the player drawing the three on future rolls, such as attack rolls or hit point rolls or what have you. An ability score roll has lasting effects over the life of a character.




Similar to somebody using high optimization on 3e (so I have heard) 
or even to a much lesser extent on 4e character design process.

edit - kind of beside the point as those arent balanced by random
chance destruction of your fragile playing piece .. you can always
create a new uber=optimized character.


----------



## billd91

Fifth Element said:


> You misinterpreted my post. The player drawing the Queen (rolling ability scores) has a significant advantage over the player drawing the three on future rolls, such as attack rolls or hit point rolls or what have you. An ability score roll has lasting effects over the life of a character.




Sure, it can. But in a party that cooperates well together, you'll see magic going to compensate for weaknesses, not just to push at the knife's edge. That's one difference I've observed between parties that roll stats compared to buying them with points. The characters who aren't as lucky with rolls actually get sympathy and compensatory benefits to bring them up to par with the higher stats. I don't see that very often with point buy, in part, because you have to choose to put yourself into that position.

Look at it this way. Which character gets the gauntlets of ogre power in 1e - the fighter with a strength of 18/78 or the one with a strength of 16? Remember that in this edition, the gauntlets take the character's strength to 18/00 and don't simply add +2. The strongest case is for the latter to get it. Then the party will have two powerhouses rather than one.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Garthanos said:


> I didnt like low investment characters "hey who cared if your pawn built in 10 minutes was killed. So no you didn't want to put a background on the character .. it would likely be a waste of time.




That's your personal issue. It has very little or nothing to do with AD&D.



Fifth Element said:


> You misinterpreted my post. The player drawing the Queen (rolling ability scores) has a significant advantage over the player drawing the three on future rolls, such as attack rolls or hit point rolls or what have you. An ability score roll has lasting effects over the life of a character.




Look, I could extend the simple analogy thusly: Instead of the winner being determined by the first draw, the game proceeds for 10 draws and whoever wins the most draws wins the game. While it is true that winning the first draw will make it more likely that you will win the game after that point (since you now have to win 5-out-of-9 while your opponent needs to win 6-out-of-9), this doesn't actually change the fact that the game is 100% perfectly balanced.

But that doesn't actually change my point or improve the analogy in any way. And I'm guessing you're still not getting it, right?


----------



## Fifth Element

Beginning of the End said:


> But that doesn't actually change my point or improve the analogy in any way. And I'm guessing you're still not getting it, right?



You still seem to be missing my point. In my example, the first draw affects the results of subsequent draws. So it's not balanced. The player who wins the first draw gains an unbalancing advantage in subsequent draws.


----------



## howandwhy99

AD&D is not a combat simulation game.  It is a roleplaying game.  If you attempt to make it a simulation game, then you get 4e DDM.  The 4e RPG is a small storygame RPG. It is a different category of game than AD&D, one which uses a different definition of roleplaying.  Within the 4e storygame rules is a siloed off card-based, miniatures combat game.  This is most of the rules.  These are rightly balanced as a simulation game, but it is not a roleplaying game.  It is a poor combat game as it is neither a competitive game nor a cooperation game, but a game of enforced cooperation.  If you steal from or kill your fellow PCs, there is no penalty or reward.  I can choose to play as badly as I wish in this simulation game and I will still be rewarded if everyone else plays well.  This is bad cooperation game design.  All my comments were in regards to the cooperation aspect of the game, about how cooperation is meaningless within it because there is no choice but to cooperate.  It is a rule telling me how I must play a simulation game meant for competition rather than one letting me follow the rules and end up winning or losing based upon the strategies I use.  The "Lord of the Rings" boardgame should be a primer for RPG designers as almost every storygame is now designed as enforced "cooperation" games.   How on earth can you tell if a person is following the rule "cooperate"?? It is a bad rule and only bad games include it.



MerricB said:


> That's so not true.
> 
> 4E certainly reduces the variance in how much you can affect the situation: in combat, everyone is always useful. (Out of combat, it varies more). However, they are useful in different ways, and there are times when you really need one person's abilities more than another.



Honestly, out of combat it varies virtually not at all.  If a DM uses rules so every PC has the same number of skill points, then there is virtually no variation in the game at all.  It becomes the skill challenge game of guess a option from the list and hope it's a low DC for your roll.  Guess which ones I will always guess first?  The ones I have the highest number and I'll work down from there.  Any other strategy is a poorer one.  If I can use the same skill more than once, guess what? I will now explode to the maximum one skill and always use it whenever a skill check or Skill Challenge occurs.

Moreover, far worse the game gives a choice to the DM enabling him or her to penalize or benefit individual players as they see fit.  This is a +2 or -2 whenever they want on whomever the want. I don't like Bob, so he gets a -2 on every roll.  My girlfriend? She gets a +2 on every roll.  There is no rule against this, simply advice that a DM should not play the p.42 game according to their own desires.  Personally, that's horrible game design. It is sheer player fiat built in for one player to give other players a bad day.  Games requiring players to not play within the full scope of the rules, but rather asks them to always play a certain strategy otherwise the game will not be "fun" are bad games.  Page 42 removes impartiallity from the DM role and is built in discrimination.



> In AD&D, you would have combats where the magic-user or cleric could basically end it all with one spell. (Sleep being the classic low-level option). Against that, you'd have combats where the magic-user would be very limited in usefulness (no spells, or spells that just weren't worth casting).



Thank god AD&D does not expect anyone but the fighter classes to excel in combat.  It means they actually included more game for those who don't care for combat.  If you don't want fighters in your game you can drop the combat system from AD&D and still play.  I mean, no class is designed to excel at combat in AD&D other than the fighter classes. They are the only reason this system is in there. This is a good thing.  Otherwise other classes can make another class irrelevant.  A roleplaying game with multiple classes needs niche protection.  In 4e, all characters are fighters.  And all characters may be wizards too, if they have the spellcasting feat.  Clerics have been removed from the game completely.



> In 4E, a character is very unlikely to be using "I win" effects or be in a "I suck" position. However, depending on the situation, certain characters are more effective than others. When you're being attacked by swarms of minions, the ability of the wizard to cast Scorching Burst and kill many each turn is far superior than that of the rogue whose extra damage against one target is wasted. Then, against the solo or elite creatures, the rogue comes into his own.
> 
> Out of combat, things are less clear. I think it is safe to say that the 4e skill system allows each character to have clear areas of competence, and areas where they're not particularly useful. Thus, if there is a challenge that requires an athletics check, then some characters will be able to do it easily and others won't. Rituals also change the parameters, but do all characters have access to all rituals? Of course they don't!
> 
> So, the assertion that every character can contribute equally to out-of-combat challenges is also false.
> 
> The skill challenge system (which is not used for every out-of-combat challenge) is intended to allow a wider variety of characters to participate, but it would be still false to say that every character can participate equally. There are times when your character just doesn't have any applicable skill; there are times when you can blitz it with your particular skill set.
> 
> With regard to player challenges as opposed to character challenges, there even is a section in the Dungeon Master's Guide about them (more than in previous DMGs). Yes, it also offers advice as to making them character challenges, but this is not mandatory: it really does depend on your group.



Almost everything you say here is about simulation games, not RPGs.  In regards to character versus player challanges, all games are player challenges.  Characters can not be challenged.  They do not exist.  If something in a game occurs without human intervention, then it is not part of the game.  It is simply art on the gameboard.  Players don't play Agricola because they like farming.  Farming is just color.  In a roleplaying game where one can play the role of farmer, then farming is the entire scope of the game for players in that role. 



			
				Garmorn said:
			
		

> This is a false statement. Your ability to affect the game world is directly controlled by the DM. As far as having one character for an entire campaign, that to is not unwavering. I allow an encourage a character stable. How you create your character and how you use your resources during the campaign will also affect the your characters abilities. This is true of all RPGs



Garmon, it sounds like you have a DM who is cheating. A DM has no choices at the game table.  If they did, then they would be neither impartial nor a referee. For running more than one PC at the same time, that is certainly okay, but it is not the norm.  It is like making "Lord of the Rings" a one-player, single perspective game.  It is possible, but then cooperation between those characters is irrelevant because it is all just one person. It stops being a cooperation game as a person cannot choose to cooperate with his or her self. Cooperation games require multiple players and in an RPG the referee doesn't count. They never cooperate.

The point in the text of mine you quoted is that individual choices are not rewarded as all rewards are received collectively no matter how any one individual plays.  That is the context of the last sentence and refers to how cooperation can be made meaningless as in many current RPGs.  See the first paragraph of this post for more info.


----------



## Garthanos

Beginning of the End said:


> That's your personal issue. It has very little or nothing to do with AD&D.



It is indeed a personal issue (though the bit about not coming up with a character background was echoing somebody else who once named there characters Mikel and Mikel the second, so it was kind of evil of me to mention),

But actually the low investment and fragility resulting in casual disconnect with the characters is directly fuelled by human nature. And directly relates to this discussion, since running through a bunch of characters has been given as one of the sources of balancing in AD&D. 

It resulted in quotable quotes like this one
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ld-times-hardships-obstacles.html#post3631222

And this one.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ld-times-hardships-obstacles.html#post3631829

NOTE: In spite of what the above sounds like, I think AD&D was already trending away from this balance on the backs of piles of steaming pc corpses ... see the starts of that trend of changes in D&D by comparing OD&D to AD&D ... 

Are there more choices during character creation (far more classes, and classes and races now being separate) ? 
Are the characters immediately dead at zero hit points? or is there a buffer where they sink down to -10 (or was that added in AD&D2) 
Are the characters created using straight 3d6 and you get what you get? or are you already starting to get choices like where to put that lucky 17 (which now has some actual impact compared to OD&D) .

Did Gygax think of high character attrition one of the tools his game employed to achieve balance?

There is more reason to invest in characters in AD&D than there was in earlier D&D. Yes still fragile but less so than before...still easy to create a character but more choices/options already introduced.


----------



## howandwhy99

Garthanos said:


> Did Gygax think of high character attrition one of the tools his game employed to achieve balance?



In a way.  I believe he correctly saw the need for the challenges coming from the referee needing to be more difficult than those coming from other players.  A cautious group of 1st level players can have their PCs survive if they work together.  Players creating conflict within the player group are simply hurting their own chances for advancement and other forms of success.  To be a cooperative game this unevenness is required to tip the balance in favor of cooperative strategies rather than competitive ones.


----------



## Lanefan

Fifth Element said:


> You still seem to be missing my point. In my example, the first draw affects the results of subsequent draws. So it's not balanced. The player who wins the first draw gains an unbalancing advantage in subsequent draws.



OK, let's define things a bit differently here.

Your initial draw of a hand (well, one card in this case) obviously affects how you play that hand.  But it does not affect your next *draw*; which in this analogy 1e assumes you will have.  Repeatedly.

Another thing to keep in mind from a 1e perspective is that there were ways to somewhat mitigate a bad "draw" - they were called henches, hirelings, followers - or second characters where the DM allowed such.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

howandwhy99 said:


> Garmon, it sounds like you have a DM who is cheating. A DM has no choices at the game table.  If they did, then they would be neither impartial nor a referee. For running more than one PC at the same time, that is certainly okay, but it is not the norm.



Speak for yourself... 


> Cooperation games require multiple players and in an RPG the referee doesn't count. They never cooperate.



Er...wha...?  Not everything the party (or single character) meets is automatically an opponent, and it's also perfectly sound strategy to go and recruit an NPC to fill a hole in the party's composition: 

"OK, you're a magic user and I'm a locks-and-infiltration specialist...crap, we need some muscle!  And some healing!  Let's ask around town and see if anyone like that wants to join us on our quest."  Which means the DM can (and in this case probably should) lob at least one NPC into the party to cover one or both of those bases...and from that point on, the DM has a reason to co-operate (or not) within the party.



			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> NOTE: In spite of what the above sounds like, I think AD&D was already trending away from this balance on the backs of piles of steaming pc corpses ... see the starts of that trend of changes in D&D by comparing OD&D to AD&D ...
> 
> ***Are there more choices during character creation (far more classes, and classes and races now being separate) ?
> 
> ***Are the characters immediately dead at zero hit points? or is there a buffer where they sink down to -10 (or was that added in AD&D2)
> 
> ***Are the characters created using straight 3d6 and you get what you get? or are you already starting to get choices like where to put that lucky 17 (which now has some actual impact compared to OD&D) .



All true.  Death at -10 was, I think, originally optional in 1e but very quickly became the norm; there were all kinds of houserule options for what happened if you were between 0 and -9.  And the 1e PH had something like 6 different methods for rolling stats, including 4d6-drop-lowest 6 times then rearrange to suit.

However, all this does nearly nothing to slow the death rate! 

Lan-"there's always more room in the body bag of holding"-efan


----------



## Beginning of the End

Fifth Element said:


> Look, I could extend the simple analogy thusly: Instead of the winner being determined by the first draw, the game proceeds for 10 draws and whoever wins the most draws wins the game. While it is true that winning the first draw will make it more likely that you will win the game after that point (since you now have to win 5-out-of-9 while your opponent needs to win 6-out-of-9), this doesn't actually change the fact that the game is 100% perfectly balanced.
> 
> But that doesn't actually change my point or improve the analogy in any way. And I'm guessing you're still not getting it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still seem to be missing my point. In my example, the first draw affects the results of subsequent draws. So it's not balanced. The player who wins the first draw gains an unbalancing advantage in subsequent draws.
Click to expand...



You are joking, right? I mean, you _must_ be.

Or maybe not. Perhaps you'd care to cite the rule in which the ability scores for your previous character has an effect on the ability scores for your next character.



Garthanos said:


> It is indeed a personal issue (though the bit about not coming up with a character background was echoing somebody else who once named there characters Mikel and Mikel the second, so it was kind of evil of me to mention),




Reminds me of Herbert the Second in an OD&D game I was playing in last year. Rapid character death, followed by the predictable "Son of Herbert" replacement character.

The catch? Herbert was a dwarf. Herbert the Second was a human... who had been adopted by dwarves... and now thought he was a dwarf.

Much hilarity and some great roleplaying ensued.

Character mortality can be an opportunity or a liability. Depends on the context.

Looking beyond this to the wider issue: High PC mortality rates isn't the only way for players to have multiple PCs in the same campaign. Gygax's and Arneson's players frequently had multiple PCs in the same campaign at the same time.


----------



## Garmorn

howandwhy99 said:


> Garmon, it sounds like you have a DM who is cheating. A DM has no choices at the game table.  If they did, then they would be neither impartial nor a referee.




What?  A DM created the world.  He could easily run a killer campaign and or he could run a milk run campaign.  The DM determined the pace of advancement by placement of treasure, how the world reacted to the party and the amount of magic in the campaign.  He could control the players gaming style by punishing or rewarding behaviour that he disliked/liked.  He chose and made the house rules on everything.



howandwhy99 said:


> AD&D is not a combat simulation game. It is a roleplaying game. If you attempt to make it a simulation game, then you get 4e DDM. The 4e RPG is a small storygame RPG. It is a different category of game than AD&D, one which uses a different definition of roleplaying




AD&D was not a roleplay game as orginaly designed.  It was just a different type of game.  Gygax and crew did not design it as a roleplaying game.  They were just making up a new type as they went.  AD&D shows lots of the traits of a table top war game.  Balance by armies (mulitple characters over the lenght of the campaign) not individuals.  It had less support for out of combat activities the any RPG since.  Gygax him self spoke up against large number of character deaths, so that was not an intentional part of the balance.  Sure some character death and changing was.  He even recommened that you rolled until you got stats that allowed the character you wanted.


----------



## Fifth Element

Beginning of the End said:


> You are joking, right? I mean, you _must_ be.
> 
> Or maybe not. Perhaps you'd care to cite the rule in which the ability scores for your previous character has an effect on the ability scores for your next character.



Read my previous posts. That's not what I'm suggesting.

It's not the ability score rolls for subsequent characters that are affected, it's subsequent rolls made by that character that are affected. A fighter who rolled an 18/00 Strength has a very significant advantage over a fighter who rolled a 16 Strength. Attack rolls, hit point rolls, anything that's affected by a character's ability scores is affected by that first draw of the cards.

I understand that you're arguing that over the course of many characters, it's balanced. But if you roll a character with several high ability scores, you're less likely to need to roll new characters, since that character's surivivability is affected by its ability scores.


----------



## Fifth Element

howandwhy99 said:


> A DM has no choices at the game table.  If they did, then they would be neither impartial nor a referee.



You are joking, right? I mean, you _must_ be.

A DM is not a computer who takes inputs from the players and outputs appropriate responses from the NPCs. A DM makes choices at the table _all the time_. He has to. Players constantly come up with ideas that the DM did not anticipate, and he has to react to those. Impartiality may be a desirable quality, but to suggest that there's one right way to DM is ridiculous.


----------



## Jhaelen

Garmorn said:


> AD&D was not a roleplay game as orginaly designed.  It was just a different type of game.  Gygax and crew did not design it as a roleplaying game.



I think you're making stuff up. AD&D was an RPG from the very beginning.

Have you been thinking of Chainmail or something?


----------



## howandwhy99

Lanefan said:


> Speak for yourself...   Er...wha...?  Not everything the party (or single character) meets is automatically an opponent, and it's also perfectly sound strategy to go and recruit an NPC to fill a hole in the party's composition:
> 
> "OK, you're a magic user and I'm a locks-and-infiltration specialist...crap, we need some muscle!  And some healing!  Let's ask around town and see if anyone like that wants to join us on our quest."  Which means the DM can (and in this case probably should) lob at least one NPC into the party to cover one or both of those bases...and from that point on, the DM has a reason to co-operate (or not) within the party.



Lanefan, you're right that NPCs can be assets, but they are not PCs played by the DM.  They are fully scripted unlike the players.  Cooperation games occur when two more people are better off choosing to compete against an outside challenge rather than one another.



Garmorn said:


> What?  A DM created the world.  He could easily run a killer campaign and or he could run a milk run campaign.  The DM determined the pace of advancement by placement of treasure, how the world reacted to the party and the amount of magic in the campaign.  He could control the players gaming style by punishing or rewarding behaviour that he disliked/liked.  He chose and made the house rules on everything.



This is all prior to play.  Not at the table as I said.



> AD&D was not a roleplay game as orginaly designed.  It was just a different type of game.  Gygax and crew did not design it as a roleplaying game.  They were just making up a new type as they went.  AD&D shows lots of the traits of a table top war game.  Balance by armies (mulitple characters over the lenght of the campaign) not individuals.  It had less support for out of combat activities the any RPG since.  Gygax him self spoke up against large number of character deaths, so that was not an intentional part of the balance.  Sure some character death and changing was.  He even recommened that you rolled until you got stats that allowed the character you wanted.



AD&D was not designed as a storygame.  It was labeled a roleplaying game by Mr. Gygax as he was in a crowd of wargamers who already roleplayed regularly.  That they engaged in convergent Roleplay Simulation as that practice was retitled in the 1990's does not invalidate AD&D as an RPG or our hobby as a one about roleplaying.



Fifth Element said:


> You are joking, right? I mean, you _must_ be.
> 
> A DM is not a computer who takes inputs from the players and outputs appropriate responses from the NPCs. A DM makes choices at the table _all the time_. He has to. Players constantly come up with ideas that the DM did not anticipate, and he has to react to those. Impartiality may be a desirable quality, but to suggest that there's one right way to DM is ridiculous.



No, I am not joking.  You are right that a DM cannot be a computer.  However, in AD&D there is an expected behavior for every DM.  Unfortunately, Mr. Gygax desired for everyone to additionally follow only his hidden rules for the DM when he published AD&D.  That is why I prefer OD&D.  Please understand, I am not going to tell anyone they cannot play any game however they wish, but the rules for D&D are not freeform storytelling.  Considering the number of rule options printed over the decades in our hobby, I find this position mind boggling.


----------



## Garmorn

Jhaelen said:


> I think you're making stuff up. AD&D was an RPG from the very beginning.
> 
> Have you been thinking of Chainmail or something?




No, it evolved into a role playing game. There is a vast difference.  Gygax had to create and/or adapt things as he went along.  He could not just sit down one day and say I am going to design a RPG.  No one even knew what and RPG was.  To say that his orginal creation is the end all of what is a role play game is like saying a Wright Brothers Flyer is the end all of what a aircraft is.




howandwhy99 said:


> This is all prior to play.  Not at the table as I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is done at the table also.  I have seen it and rarely have done it my self.  One example where I would have used it follows.
> 
> A Ranger and a Paladin are on guard with bows.  They here the approach of a unknown group.  We are not expecting an attack.  With out warning or cause they attack the source of the sound with their bows.  If I was the DM (due to previous out of characters I would have immediately change the encouter to three or four high level clerics and paladins of the paladins religion and striped him of his powers.)  This is a the table top action not before.  Are do you believe that the DM has no choice?  Or does role playing have nothing to do with this?
> 
> 
> 
> Jhaelen said:
> 
> 
> 
> AD&D was not designed as a storygame.  It was labeled a roleplaying game by Mr. Gygax as he was in a crowd of wargamers who already roleplayed regularly.  That they engaged in convergent Roleplay Simulation as that practice was retitled in the 1990's does not invalidate AD&D as an RPG or our hobby as a one about roleplaying.[qoute]
> 
> Yes AD&D evolved into a role playing game. Fine but that does not invalidate 4e also being a role playing game.  There are several games that rely on player cooperation to work right.  Since that don't have competition between characters/players they are not role playing games?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jhaelen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not joking.  You are right that a DM cannot be a computer.  However, in AD&D there is an expected behavior for every DM.  Unfortunately, Mr. Gygax desired for everyone to additionally follow only his hidden rules for the DM when he published AD&D.  That is why I prefer OD&D.  Please understand, I am not going to tell anyone they cannot play any game however they wish, but the rules for D&D are not freeform storytelling.  Considering the number of rule options printed over the decades in our hobby, I find this position mind boggling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am understanding you the DM is suppose to completely stay out of any thing but creating the module? And running the monster as close to there abilities as possible?  What is the DM suppose to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## BryonD

Beginning of the End said:


> You are joking, right? I mean, you _must_ be.
> 
> Or maybe not. Perhaps you'd care to cite the rule in which the ability scores for your previous character has an effect on the ability scores for your next character.



Didn't the original Oriental Adventures have something related to this?  It has been a VERY long time, so I may be mixing things up.  But it seems like OA had a rule regarding character honor and basically let replacement characters have boosted stats based on the honor of a prior character.


----------



## howandwhy99

Garmorn said:


> No it is done at the table also.  I have seen it and rarely have done it my self.  One example where I would have used it follows.
> 
> A Ranger and a Paladin are on guard with bows.  They here the approach of a unknown group.  We are not expecting an attack.  With out warning or cause they attack the source of the sound with their bows.  If I was the DM (due to previous out of characters I would have immediately change the encouter to three or four high level clerics and paladins of the paladins religion and striped him of his powers.)  This is a the table top action not before.  Are do you believe that the DM has no choice?  Or does role playing have nothing to do with this?



Certainly many people do as you say, but I don't. I'm not calling to stop this, but we are talking about how AD&D was balanced not how individual DMs choose to run their own games.  I've pointed out how it was designed for cooperative play and niche protection by class.  You mentioned how these did not matter as everything is up to the whim of the DM and I denied that.  You are free to view the game's design as you wish, I am stating my understanding as to why AD&D is designed and balanced as it is.

Yes, I believe the DM has no choice at the table.  This does not mean he or she is not roleplaying.  Roleplaying does not require improvisation for all participants.  Claiming all roleplaying is improvisation is a misinterpretation of the act embedded in one current theory pushing for all RPGs to be storygames.  Storygame design has virtually nothing to do with the first 25 years of RPG design.  If you remember D&D in the 80's there was a belief that the DM did not roleplay.  I don't believe this as the DM is taking part in the activity.


----------



## Garmorn

howandwhy99 said:


> Certainly many people do as you say, but I don't. I'm not calling to stop this, but we are talking about how AD&D was balanced not how individual DMs choose to run their own games.  I've pointed out how it was designed for cooperative play and niche protection by class.  You mentioned how these did not matter as everything is up to the whim of the DM and I denied that.  You are free to view the game's design as you wish, I am stating my understanding as to why AD&D is designed and balanced as it is.
> 
> Yes, I believe the DM has no choice at the table.  This does not mean he or she is not roleplaying.  Roleplaying does not require improvisation for all participants.  Claiming all roleplaying is improvisation is a misinterpretation of the act embedded in one current theory pushing for all RPGs to be storygames.  Storygame design has virtually nothing to do with the first 25 years of RPG design.  If you remember D&D in the 80's there was a belief that the DM did not roleplay.  I don't believe this as the DM is taking part in the activity.




No, we were miss communicating.  

You and I where also talking past each other about the role of a DM.  I was speaking of the role about game control, providing hooks, story line, setting up the campaign world so the players could run in dungeon or what ever.  The DMs responsibility to keep the game flowing, making house rules or what ever is needed.  The DM responsibility to provide the environment.  I meant that the players in a RGP should and normally do not have control of the environment.  They can only affect it to the extend of the character abilities and what the DM allows.  (A good DM can allow a lot even in a 'Railroaded' game, a poor one give up to much or not near enough control.)

You seems to think I was saying that 1/2e was not balanced.  I would agree that 1/2e was balanced different. None of my statements where meant to mean that.  You had to me seem to state that competition between players was required to make a game a RGP and was important to balance.  Again we seem to have been miss comunicating.


You seemed to be saying that 4e is not a RPG but a story game which is not true. Amber is a story telling game.  There having balance between character types is not related to a game being a role playing or not.  What is important is do the rules laid down concert (simple or other wise) rules that allow some one who is not part of the game to compare the characters to non player character/monsters.  Most games that are called RPG's concentrate on combat rules because they are the most concrete and were details rules pay of the most at the current state of the arts.  D&D in all of it forms does this.  Sure the early ones don't have social skills but that was not part of the early RGP experience.  In Amber there is no means but that used to compare the players and even then it is a mean ranking system.


----------



## howandwhy99

I acknowledge we are not clearly communicating with each other.  There doesn't appear to be much more to talk about though, so I am going to bow out.  Take care.


----------



## Lanefan

howandwhy99 said:


> Lanefan, you're right that NPCs can be assets, but they are not PCs played by the DM.  They are fully scripted unlike the players.



An NPC within the party - at least, those I run - is no more nor less scripted than the PCs are.  Sure, it has a basic characterization going in, but then pretty much all PCs do as well.  But it still has a personality, and a brain, and is allowed to use both.


> No, I am not joking.  You are right that a DM cannot be a computer.  However, in AD&D there is an expected behavior for every DM.  Unfortunately, Mr. Gygax desired for everyone to additionally follow only his hidden rules for the DM when he published AD&D.  That is why I prefer OD&D.  Please understand, I am not going to tell anyone they cannot play any game however they wish, but the rules for D&D are not freeform storytelling.  Considering the number of rule options printed over the decades in our hobby, I find this position mind boggling.



Yet even with that, one of the true beauties of the system is that it is flexible enough to support a freeform storytelling type of game if so desired.  It's also flexible enough to support some pretty hard-core rules mongering, if that's the type of campaign you and your players are looking for.

An example: today during an unusually rough ferry crossing I got to thinking about how I've handled water-walking in the past in situations where the water is not calm.  Up till now I've hand-waved it, sometimes asking for a dex check or just saying outright it's too rough; but sitting on the ferry looking out at the whitecaps I came up with a basic system for what one can hope to do (and by what mechanic) given differing water conditions.

So consider this: I might never use this new system and instead just continue with on-the-fly rulings, or I might tighten my ideas up and bring them in to the campaign: my point is that the game system can support either option.

That flexibility is, arguably, achieved at some cost in game balance; but I can live with that.

Lanefan


----------



## Rel

howandwhy99 said:


> i acknowledge we are not clearly communicating with each other.  There doesn't appear to be much more to talk about though, so i am going to bow out.  Take care.




lol


----------



## Hairfoot

Garmorn said:


> Gygax had to create and/or adapt things as he went along.  He could not just sit down one day and say I am going to design a RPG.  No one even knew what and RPG was.  To say that his orginal creation is the end all of what is a role play game is like saying a Wright Brothers Flyer is the end all of what a aircraft is.




That's a category error.  Games don't progress linearly the way technology does, which is why Monopoly, Scrabble and Trivial Pursuit are nearly identical today to their original incarnations.

A better comparison is with sport.  You could say that Gygax invented sprinting, and that many modern sports now include a sprinting component along with other, more complex rules.  But would anyone really argue that, say, NFL football is a direct, linear improvement on athletics which renders sprinting obsolete as an event?


----------



## Jhaelen

Garmorn said:


> No, it evolved into a role playing game. There is a vast difference.  Gygax had to create and/or adapt things as he went along.  He could not just sit down one day and say I am going to design a RPG.  No one even knew what and RPG was.  To say that his orginal creation is the end all of what is a role play game is like saying a Wright Brothers Flyer is the end all of what a aircraft is.



LOL.
Let's see: 
He knew what roleplaying was.
He knew what a game was.
So all he did was combine two well known things to create a roleplaying game.

You're right about one thing though:
It wasn't really Gary Gygax who first thought about roleplaying. That was Dave Arneson's contribution. Check out the wikipedia entry for some background info.

But my main point is this: AD&D was released in 1977. That's three years after OD&D and six years after Chainmail. And you claim that after all these years he still hadn't intended it to be an rpg?! Have you even read any of the AD&D books?

P.S.: Please be more careful when you're quoting people. Your above posts attributes several things to me that I did not write.


----------



## BryonD

Lanefan said:


> An NPC within the party - at least, those I run - is no more nor less scripted than the PCs are.



I agree 100%.  
If someone told me that my npcs are scripted, I'd find that quite boggling.  This applies even to npcs that are not part of the party.  I know their story and motivations to the extent they are relevant.  But how they will end up interacting with the party is frequently unknown until the moment arrives.  And quite often it is far different than what I would have guessed.

Pretty exactly the same as when I run a PC.


----------



## BryonD

Jhaelen said:


> But my main point is this: AD&D was released in 1977. That's three years after OD&D and six years after Chainmail. And you claim that after all these years he still hadn't intended it to be an rpg?! Have you even read any of the AD&D books?



I think Garmorn must be confused on his timeline or something.
The general concept of how RPGs evolved is reasonable.  But you are exactly right.  The idea of actual RPGs was established well before AD&D 1E came along.


----------



## Garthanos

Hairfoot said:


> That's a category error.  Games don't progress linearly the way technology does, which is why Monopoly, Scrabble and Trivial Pursuit are nearly identical today to their original incarnations.
> 
> A better comparison is with sport.  You could say that Gygax invented sprinting, and that many modern sports now include a sprinting component along with other, more complex rules.  But would anyone really argue that, say, NFL football is a direct, linear improvement on athletics which renders sprinting obsolete as an event?




I would say Gygax added peanut butter with chocolate, both existed formalized rules for conflict resolution and role playing. His recipe was chocolate with a peanut butter frosting ... OD&D had only a glaze of peanut butter. D&D3 had the peanut butter as shell on the outside and 4e its a chocolate cup..... Note with any recipe there are enough cooks variations that they are sometimes more important than the original recipe.


----------



## Garmorn

Hairfoot said:


> That's a category error.  Games don't progress linearly the way technology does, which is why Monopoly, Scrabble and Trivial Pursuit are nearly identical today to their original incarnations.
> 
> A better comparison is with sport.  You could say that Gygax invented sprinting, and that many modern sports now include a sprinting component along with other, more complex rules.  But would anyone really argue that, say, NFL football is a direct, linear improvement on athletics which renders sprinting obsolete as an event?




No NFL football was an out growth of an earlier sport.  The whole concept of an regulated contest we call sports evolved out of activities that did not have rules then very vague rules.  

I am not belittling Gayax and crew.  It took a lot of work and imagination to create RPG's.  For another example closer to home.  Table Top War games grew out of military training programs.


----------



## Hairfoot

Garmorn said:


> No NFL football was an out growth of an earlier sport.  The whole concept of an regulated contest we call sports evolved out of activities that did not have rules then very vague rules.
> 
> I am not belittling Gayax and crew.  It took a lot of work and imagination to create RPG's.  For another example closer to home.  Table Top War games grew out of military training programs.




For that to work as an anology, the precursors of NFL would have had to spring into existence in sedentary societies that had no history of running, which is of course impossible.

The point is that it's inaccurate to portray games as a technology that gets objectively better with time.  Newer variants of a game may become popular, but they don't supercede related but different games.

NFL, for example, came from Rugby, which is less complex but still the more popular of the two, while Rugby came from a whole mishmash of contact ball games that include hurling, which is still played, Calcio Storico, which is still played, and Shrovetide football, which is still played.  Additionally, those proto-footballs have now divided into games such as NFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union, soccer, Australian Rules, Gaelic football, and XFL (shudder).

As with RPGs, fans of those games will argue for their superiority over the others, but their very existence indicates that each has its own merits which appeal to different groups of people.

I don't think you were belittling Gygax and co, but that the game he created originally is superceded by subsequent editions and similar games in the way the Wright's plane was rendered obsolete by more effective aircraft.  I think that's obviously not the case.

It's also worth noting that Gygax made AD&D because _he_ didn't think OD&D did the job he wanted it to, yet there's a thriving community of gamers who prefer his original to later editions.  Goes to show.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Fifth Element said:


> Read my previous posts. That's not what I'm suggesting.




What your posts make clear is that you Just Don't Get It(TM). Every time you repeat the exact same fallacy because you simply refuse to understand that your premises are false you make it clear that you are Never Going To Get It(TM).

You don't think the game starts until after characters are rolled up. AD&D doesn't agree with you, but you just keep punching the dead horse of your false premise. This is why you're exactly like the guy who thinks that High Card Draw should be balanced after the cards have already been drawn.

Admin here. Hey, please don't go from discussing a subject to attacking a person. It's fine if you don't (and never will) agree with him, but taking personal shots isn't something we ever want to see. Thanks - PM me with any questions.  ~ Piratecat


----------



## Hussar

The problem I'm seeing here is the presumption that your PC's would die frequently.  Why is that a presumption?  Where in the guidelines does it state that you should be switching out PC's every two or three levels?

And, doesn't that balance go out the window anyway?  A higher stat character is more survivable than a lower stat one.  The higher the stats, the longer the character will survive, and the less it will be switched out.  Thus, you still lack balance, because your presumed method of balance - character death - isn't occuring.

But, back to what my original point was, which I think got lost in the scrum:

How can a system be considered designed for balance when, if I use the mechanics of the system, not only will I get unbalanced results, but the guidelines actually WARN me that I will get unbalanced results but then fail to tell me what a balanced result actually is?

The DMG tells me, in no uncertain terms, if I use the treasure guidelines, I will get unbalanced results.  But, they don't tell me what is actually considered a balanced result.   Is a +3 Frost Brand reasonable for a 3rd level character?  How about 7th?  9th?  What about Gauntlets of Ogre Power?  What level adventure should I put those in?

In thirty plus years of 1e gaming, NOT ONE of you can answer me that.  The best answer I can get is, "Well, it depends on your campaign".

And that's my point.  If balance depends on something other than the mechanics, then the mechanics are designed for balance.  Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing.  People keep dragging poor 4e into this conversation and I have no idea why.  It doesn't matter to this conversation what 4e has done.  Or any other edition for that matter.

To repeat, if maintaining balance requires something other than the mechanics, how can you consider that system designed for balance?


----------



## Garmorn

Hairfoot said:


> It's also worth noting that Gygax made AD&D because _he_ didn't think OD&D did the job he wanted it to, yet there's a thriving community of gamers who prefer his original to later editions.  Goes to show.




Gygax wrote OD&D because he wanted something new.  If he knew every thing about what he wanted he would have written AD&D.  He didn't he created a new game.  Saw the possibilities and then added to it.  Eventually he got AD&D. Later he made other changes and created other games.  It is a natural growth.  It was not planned from the start nor did he have a complete understanding of how things worked.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> The problem I'm seeing here is the presumption that your PC's would die frequently.  Why is that a presumption?





That wasn't necessarily the presumption.  Rather, the assumption was that the GM would have a group of players that didn't always all play together all of the time.

Thus, if Character X is on quest Y with Characters A, B, and C, and at the time the _players_ of Characters D and E want to go with Character X's _player _to Dungeon J, then that player would naturally use a different character.


RC


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> That wasn't necessarily the presumption.  Rather, the assumption was that the GM would have a group of players that didn't always all play together all of the time.
> 
> Thus, if Character X is on quest Y with Characters A, B, and C, and at the time the _players_ of Characters D and E want to go with Character X's _player _to Dungeon J, then that player would naturally use a different character.
> 
> 
> RC




But, this isn't what's being talked about here though.  Several posters have referred to the idea that the game will be balanced because the player will be changing characters constantly.  I suppose that could be because he's playing with another bunch once in a while, but the gist of people's posts has been that it is character death which maintains balance.  Thus the whole sidebar on drawing cards.

But, even so, that still doesn't maintain balance in a given campaign.  Multiple points of imbalance do not make for balance.  

And, honestly, to me, it comes back to my basic question:

How can a system be considered designed for balance when using that system will give me unbalanced results AND the game designers recognize this fact AND the game designers do not give any guidelines on what actually constitutes a balanced game?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar,

Perhaps you would be better able to explore these questions if you first realized that many people have had experiences with AD&D 1e that were both fun and balanced.  How did they achieve this balance?  IMHO and IME it is pretty easy to do, and almost always does itself through player interaction.

RC


----------



## Aus_Snow

'Designed for game balance?' Yes, without a doubt. It even tells you so, in plain speak (these quotes are from the AD&D 1e PHB):

'Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play *balance*.'

'The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and *balanced* to give each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game.'

(emphasis mine)

And that's without even looking at the DMG. 

(sorry if I've missed these quotes being brought up already - it's a loooong thread!  )


----------



## Fifth Element

Beginning of the End said:


> What your posts make clear is that you Just Don't Get It(TM). Every time you repeat the exact same fallacy because you simply refuse to understand that your premises are false you make it clear that you are Never Going To Get It(TM).



What fallacy? You've demonstrated that you don't understand my point, by arguing that a character's ability score rolls are not affected by a previous character's ability score rolls. Which is true, but is also not what I was talking about.



Beginning of the End said:


> You don't think the game starts until after characters are rolled up.



Nope. I'm arguing that the random generation of ability scores can produce an imbalanced result.


----------



## Fifth Element

Raven Crowking said:


> Perhaps you would be better able to explore these questions if you first realized that many people have had experiences with AD&D 1e that were both fun and balanced.  How did they achieve this balance?  IMHO and IME it is pretty easy to do, and almost always does itself through player interaction.



I have no trouble believing this to be true, despite never having experienced it myself.

But the question being discussed is whether the AD&D system is itself balanced. If it relies on player interaction to remain balanced, then the system itself is not balanced.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Fifth Element said:


> But the question being discussed is whether the AD&D system is itself balanced.



At times, yes. However, tHe question that was _asked_ is this: 'Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?'

A necessary distinction, I believe.


----------



## Fifth Element

Aus_Snow said:


> At times, yes. However, tHe question that was _asked_ is this: 'Was AD&D1 designed for game balance?'
> 
> A necessary distinction, I believe.



A distinction surely, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful one. Your question addresses the intent of the designer, which we cannot have first-hand knowledge of, and so long as Mr. Gygax claimed that he designed the game with balance in mind, there's no discussion to be had. The more interesting question, to my mind, is if the game actually is balanced.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> Hussar,
> 
> Perhaps you would be better able to explore these questions if you first realized that many people have had experiences with AD&D 1e that were both fun and balanced.  How did they achieve this balance?  IMHO and IME it is pretty easy to do, and almost always does itself through player interaction.
> 
> RC




Actually, no.  That you, as the DM, can balance the system is irrelevant to the conversation.  It doesn't change things in the slightest.  A system can be designed for balance and the DM can screw it up and unbalance it.  Does that mean the system is no longer designed for balance?  Of course not.  It means the DM did something to unbalance the system.

Conversely, a system can be designed without balance as a consideration, yet the DM can achieve balance, probably through experience and trial and error.

Are there elements of balance in the AD&D system?  Sure.  I won't deny that.  But, was it designed for balance?  IMO, no it wasn't.  I cannot see how a system can be designed for balance when it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) KNOW it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) WARN the players that it will give unbalanced results and cannot provide examples of balanced results.

For some reason, no one seems to want to touch this.  The systems TELLS you that it will give you unbalanced results.  How can you consider the system to be designed for balance?

That you can achieve balance is irrelevant.

--------------

A later thought occurs.  I would like to say that I had a blast playing 1e D&D.  The implication of RC's post is that I'm some huge hater of 1e and all things AD&D.  That is totally not true.  I liked 1e and I liked 2e.  Between the two of them I certainly played enough hours of them, both behind the screen and in front.  So, I would certainly include myself in the group that enjoyed 1e D&D.  However, that does not blind me to looking at what I see as facts.  I've been very, very careful throughout this to not voice any value judgement, good or bad, on the balance in 1e.  What I happen to think of the balance is not germane to this discussion.  

To me, the facts speak for themselves.  Gygax can make all the claims he wants in the books, but, the mechanics speak much louder.  The mechanics are, for the most part, imbalanced.  Using these mechanics will give me unbalanced results.  And, most telling, there is no example given of what actually consitutes a balanced result.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Fifth Element said:


> A distinction surely, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful one. Your question addresses the intent of the designer, which we cannot have first-hand knowledge of, and so long as Mr. Gygax claimed that he designed the game with balance in mind, there's no discussion to be had. The more interesting question, to my mind, is if the game actually is balanced.



That's reasonable enough, most likely. For all I know, the question itself has been well and truly answered, some time ago. I'm not reading this whole damn thing to find out, _that's_ for sure. 

So yeah, never mind. And I'll throw your 'more interesting question' to the too hard basket.  Except maybe to say, _somewhat_. Or, that there is game balance to be found in AD&D 1e, and there is game imbalance to be found in AD&D 1e.

To address the OP directly ('Do you think AD&D1 was designed with game balance? Do you think EGG and his cohorts intended the AD&D1 game to be a balanced system?

I'm not asking if it was/is balanced, just if it was intended to be balanced.') - well, the answer is clearly and evidently, 'yes'. But not to the _n_th degree. That is, game balance (in the commonly used modern RPG sense) wasn't the _primary_ concern, IMO. But sure, it was there. Undeniably.

And beyond that, I guess I don't quite get all the angst. Maybe I don't even want to. . .


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> To me, the facts speak for themselves.  Gygax can make all the claims he wants in the books, but, the mechanics speak much louder.  The mechanics are, for the most part, imbalanced.  Using these mechanics will give me unbalanced results.  And, most telling, there is no example given of what actually consitutes a balanced result.




Depends entirely on what you consider balanced. But ultimately, your standards are a fool's errand at best. Game mechanics alone cannot achieve "balance" in actual play. A 4e game could be unbalanced if, for example, one player manages to browbeat or manipulate the rest into letting him have all the decent magic items. 
The two games offer different tools toward achieving balance because they're looking at fundamentally different emphases on the whole idea of mechanical balance.


----------



## Garmorn

Hussar said:


> Are there elements of balance in the AD&D system?  Sure.  I won't deny that.  But, was it designed for balance?  IMO, no it wasn't.  I cannot see how a system can be designed for balance when it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) KNOW it gives you unbalanced results, the designer(s) WARN the players that it will give unbalanced results and cannot provide examples of balanced results.
> 
> sniped
> 
> To me, the facts speak for themselves.  Gygax can make all the claims he wants in the books, but, the mechanics speak much louder.  The mechanics are, for the most part, imbalanced.  Using these mechanics will give me unbalanced results.  And, most telling, there is no example given of what actually consitutes a balanced result.




While reading this a third possibility accrued to me.  Gygax could have tired to design for balance but knew that he had not achieved his goal.  He came as close as he could or as close as he wanted. He might have wanted a close but not fully balance to allow for other playing styles.  Personally I believe he came as close as he could.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> The problem I'm seeing here is the presumption that your PC's would die frequently.  Why is that a presumption?  Where in the guidelines does it state that you should be switching out PC's every two or three levels?
> 
> And, doesn't that balance go out the window anyway?  A higher stat character is more survivable than a lower stat one.  The higher the stats, the longer the character will survive, and the less it will be switched out.  Thus, you still lack balance, because your presumed method of balance - character death - isn't occuring.



A few months ago, out of a chat amongst our crew, I ran some numbers on just this.  I dug up lots and lots of old dusty character sheets and checked the starting stats (after racial adjust), then checked how long their careers were (measured by number of adventures appeared in).  I did not cross-correlate deaths whether revived or not.

To avoid getting into too much number-crunching, I just used the average of the 6 starting stats.  We've always used 5d6 drop lowest 2, so our stats are on the high side; but within that the data is very consistent.  An average of 11 is awful, an average of 16 is spectacular.

At the time, we'd had something like 72 characters appear in 10 or more adventures (remember, this is over almost 30 years) - amazingly, I was able to find character sheets for 69 of them.  I then pulled a control group of 70-odd random characters from various of the same campaigns, whose careers had been less than 10 adventures.

The difference was surprisingly small.  And, among the control group, the only real difference was between those of 3 or more adventures and those of less than 3; the stat average for the very short-lived was about .6 lower.  The stat average for the 3-9 group and for the 10+ group was essentially the same.  Individually, there was wide variance in all groups.

So, while the rest of the system may or may not have been designed for balance, random stat generation plays little if any role in unbalancing things at least from the data I've seen.



> The DMG tells me, in no uncertain terms, if I use the treasure guidelines, I will get unbalanced results.  But, they don't tell me what is actually considered a balanced result.   Is a +3 Frost Brand reasonable for a 3rd level character?  How about 7th?  9th?  What about Gauntlets of Ogre Power?  What level adventure should I put those in?



One oft-forgotten balancing mechanism here over the long term is that magic items were much easier to break in 1e than in 3-4e.  I can chuck a +3 Frost Brand into a low-level dungeon in the safe knowledge that sooner or later the chances are high that it'll break, or melt, or blow up; and in the meantime someone's gonna have a rockin' weapon!  (that said, you're right about not much guidelines; I think many DMs just used the published modules as a rough guide)

Which reflects the general system-wide idea of short-term imbalance, long-term balance.

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> Conversely, a system can be designed without balance as a consideration, yet the DM can achieve balance, probably through experience and trial and error.




Or the GM can achieve balance through design.



> For some reason, no one seems to want to touch this.  The systems TELLS you that it will give you unbalanced results.  How can you consider the system to be designed for balance?




I would enjoy reading the sections you refer to.  Could you quote or give references, please?



> The implication of RC's post is that I'm some huge hater of 1e and all things AD&D.




Definitely not my intent.  

I just think that the approach you are taking narrows the range of your vision.  Not so different from the way that the approach I take sometimes narrows the range of my vision on other topics (example, some parts of 4e).  Just as I do better if I try to view things from the point of view of folks who enjoy something I do not, you might do better to try to understand the viewpoint of folks who see something you do not.

Because I know that you are a smart individual.  And I know that trying to defend your POV sometimes blinds you, as trying to defend my POV sometimes blinds me.



Garmorn said:


> While reading this a third possibility accrued to me.  Gygax could have tired to design for balance but knew that he had not achieved his goal.  He came as close as he could or as close as he wanted. He might have wanted a close but not fully balance to allow for other playing styles.  Personally I believe he came as close as he could.




Also, this remains a possibility that is worthy of consideration?


RC


----------



## Hussar

Aus_Snow said:


> /snippage
> 
> To address the OP directly ('Do you think AD&D1 was designed with game balance? Do you think EGG and his cohorts intended the AD&D1 game to be a balanced system?
> 
> I'm not asking if it was/is balanced, just if it was intended to be balanced.') - well, the answer is clearly and evidently, 'yes'. But not to the _n_th degree. That is, game balance (in the commonly used modern RPG sense) wasn't the _primary_ concern, IMO. But sure, it was there. Undeniably.
> 
> And beyond that, I guess I don't quite get all the angst. Maybe I don't even want to. . .




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.



billd91 said:


> Depends entirely on what you consider balanced. But ultimately, your standards are a fool's errand at best. Game mechanics alone cannot achieve "balance" in actual play. A 4e game could be unbalanced if, for example, one player manages to browbeat or manipulate the rest into letting him have all the decent magic items.
> The two games offer different tools toward achieving balance because they're looking at fundamentally different emphases on the whole idea of mechanical balance.




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.



Raven Crowking said:


> Or the GM can achieve balance through design.
> 
> 
> 
> I would enjoy reading the sections you refer to.  Could you quote or give references, please?




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.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> :
> Originally Posted by Garmorn View Post
> While reading this a third possibility accrued to me. Gygax could have tired to design for balance but knew that he had not achieved his goal. He came as close as he could or as close as he wanted. He might have wanted a close but not fully balance to allow for other playing styles. Personally I believe he came as close as he could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, this remains a possibility that is worthy of consideration?
Click to expand...



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.


----------



## howandwhy99

4e is right to balance magic items by level.  I think they balance all things by level which is also a good thing.  AD&D does not balance between classes because it is not a simulation game, so items can be distributed across the full spectrum of a level without worry.  I do agree they should have been listed more accurately according to the spectrum of class level they were in, but that would also require a breakdown by every class and then every subclass TSR decided to publish.  This is for every item published.

AD&D is balanced by cooperation and class.  The game is intentionally unbalanced in the DM's favor so the players are rewarded for working together to succeed.  Classes are not balanced against each other but according to the challenges each can be expected to face by class level and dungeon level.  Every resource including equipment and magic items are also balanced by class, class level, and dungeon level.  Niche protection (balance) by class is built into the rules, but I don't think AD&D balanced these very well.  This is simply something indicative to Mr. Gygax. I think he really liked magic-users.  A DM does not have to use these rules anyways as they are merely guidelines. AD&D does do okay with this on reflection as it also includes differing XP requirements by class too.  While magic-users had the largest offering in terms of rules in the book they also had the highest XP requirements.  Fighters a had a little less with combat rules, clerics even less, and thieves had the least.  Thieves leveled earliest, but they also had fewer opportunities and fewer rules in their niche with which to engage.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> You quoted it.  The treasure mechanics flat out state that if used, they will give you unbalanced results.




Not "if used", only without judicious and intelligent useage.  There is a difference.


RC


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> 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 know what balance looks like _to the 4e design team_. How does it look to _you_? That's one difference between 1e's concept of balance and 4e's when it comes to treasure distribution and challenges. There are a good many of us who, when we read you writing "I have no real idea what balance should look like" in contrast to your knowing what it _should_ look like in 4e, say *YES*! *That's* the way it should be!

If this were music, 1e more like jazz or musical exploration compared to 4e's more strictly constrained musical form. It's not to everyone's taste. Not everyone "gets" it. But there are musicians and afficionados who prefer that sort of personal artistic license even when certain musical avenues the artist explores don't pan out. To use an example, I love Pink Floyd's _The Wall_, but by the time that album came out the Floyd had mastered the form of classic rock, producing an album with a lot more tracks playable by the fairly reactionary radio stations that dominate the landscape even today. The Floyd albums I prefer to play more often are _Piper at the Gates of Dawn_ and _Saucerful of Secrets_, albums with tracks based more on experimentation with musical avenues and jams than on classic rock forms and radio playability (even if I'm playing them from more recent equipment like my CDs). 
And that's the way I kind of look at D&D as well. I prefer the openness of 1e's sensibilities and approach even if I'm using 3e, and now PF, rules.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Lanefan said:


> So, while the rest of the system may or may not have been designed for balance, random stat generation plays little if any role in unbalancing things at least from the data I've seen.




I don't have all the old character sheets, but I can offer up my anecdotal memories. Player savvy had much more bearing on a character's survivability than the character's stats.

While I was running my 1E campaign at the LFGS I allowed, per the owner's request, anyone to join my game. One person that I wouldn't normally tolerate was a rampant cheater. He constantly showed up with stat arrays full of 18's. My other regular players asked why I kept allowing him to cheat. I told them that while I appreciated the ability to trust them not to cheat, this person did so due to a lack of common sense. This lacking proved itself out over many months and repeated character deaths.

[sblock]The ones I remember are:
1. Taking off his armor and sneaking off by himself in the dark of night to scout groups of orcs involved in a siege of the keep the characters were protecting. His character was an elf and very successfully made his rounds to see spread out groups of half a dozen orcs each camping fireside. That was until he decided to attack a group of orcs all by himself. The first of the 6 ors was very surprised and ended up very dead. The other 5 5 smiled wickedly at the unarmored lone elf before they hacked him to pieces.
2. While the group stayed at a roadside inn, attacks started to occur during the night leaving patrons of the inn dead, drained of all their blood. After getting bored searching, he decided his character would go sleep alone away from the rest of the party and the patrons who had all holed up together.
3. After the Driz'zt phenomenon began, he really wanted to play a drow. He was even able to convince me of a good disguise so he could hide his true race from the rest of the party. Another player had written a strong hatred of drow into his character's background story. This player's character confronted the disguised drow when he pulled out a drow crossbow. The drow player lied, saying that he had found it. The drow-hating character calmed down and was ready to continue, apologizing for her outburst. Then, for reasons still unbeknownst to all involved, he decided to remove his disguise in front of the drow-hater. She became incensed and cast sleep?!? Everybody laughed until the drow player rolled a 99 on his 90% chance to resist sleep. The elven wizard then proceeded to leap upon the sleeping drow, intending to kill him before the party pulled her off him and calmed her down.

I never had to do anything to get him killed or in trouble. Not only was I impartial to the cheater, I went along with some of his craziness.[/sblock]


----------



## Aurumvorax

I really don't understand the scramble to achieve "balance" in a system is.  We're talking about an RPG here, not a player-vs-player game.  If D&D were indeed a board game like Monopoly then certainly I expect balance.  I'd be pretty pissed if the car got to roll 4d6 every turn but the thimble could skip squares he didn't like etc.  

Perhaps I have a different conception of what balanced means but when I hear people discussing it it's usually in relation to the player characters, races, and classes.  Frankly, I couldn't care less about power differences among my fellow players.  So what so-and-so rolled high so he got to be a paladin.  The fact is, early D&D was deadly enough that no character was assured to survive even to level 2.  The power difference between characters and monsters was also less profound compared to 3E so an *average* character (10s across the board, level 1 fighter) was capable enough to contribute and not twiddle his thumbs.

I guess the point of this is that "No" I don't think early editions were "balanced" and I really couldn't care any less.  We were facing the DMs challenges, not each other.  Some times challenges were way over our head, which was uncommon, but in situations like that there was usually an avenue of escape and escape we did.  

A lot.



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I don't have all the old character sheets, but I can offer up my anecdotal memories. Player savvy had much more bearing on a character's survivability than the character's stats.
> 
> While I was running my 1E campaign at the LFGS I allowed, per the owner's request, anyone to join my game. One person that I wouldn't normally tolerate was a rampant cheater. He constantly showed up with stat arrays full of 18's. My other regular players asked why I kept allowing him to cheat. I told them that while I appreciated the ability to trust them not to cheat, this person did so due to a lack of common sense. This lacking proved itself out over many months and repeated character deaths.




This, this, and more of this.  Attributes and dice rolls had their place but the beauty of AD&D was that you were encouraged to improvise.  A simple pot of lantern oil was cheap, easily portable, and could be turned into a deadly weapon that was effective from level 1 to level 20.


----------



## Votan

Fifth Element said:


> A distinction surely, but I'm not sure it's a meaningful one. Your question addresses the intent of the designer, which we cannot have first-hand knowledge of, and so long as Mr. Gygax claimed that he designed the game with balance in mind, there's no discussion to be had. The more interesting question, to my mind, is if the game actually is balanced.




I also think that the nature of balance is worth thinking about.  Using a purely modern sense of balance (which seems based around individual character effectiveness and tight comparability between characters) it isn't.  But that wasn't the only option to balance characters.  Strong niche building and class restrictions can do an enormous amount to make a game functionally engaging for all players.  

In my opinion, unified mechanics usually undermine this because they ask obvious questions that lead to erosion of this sort of game balance.  Once you decide that you can string together enough things (without forced restrictions) then balance goes away.  If the pixie rogue/wizard is more effective than the rest of the party put together (at all tasks) then it becomes less fun to play in that sort of game.  These issues are not exclusive to D&D -- find old world of darkness had a lot of the same balance issues which made it important to start all characters off dead even (allowing one to play a 5th generation Assasmite did poor things to game balance).  

But a 1E rogue can do things that can (at best) be duplicated by a rare (and requiring a planned in advance) spell slot.  A party of all wizards would be lucky to ever get a spell off.  This is the same sort of balance that Shadowrun tries to have between Deckers, Street Samurai and Mages.  It's a valid approach to design and balance.


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, this remains a possibility that is worthy of consideration?
> 
> 
> RC




Actually after thinking a while I think trying and failing (but coming real close) is the most likely.  Why?  Simple he had no model or data to work with except what he learned at the games he and his friends played.  There was very little feed back.  He took the closest model he could find (see below) and worked a great system out of it.  If he had waited until he had a game with out flaws it might never have been published. 

The best of the old military board games never went for a the moment balance because it would prevent a good and realistic game.  It was balanced over the length of the game.  This is the model of most early RPG's.  It fits the war game bias of 1/2e and the loose concept that it is the player that makes the game.  Characters are just tools.  

This is very different where later versions and games changed to the character is the center of the game and balance between characters is important in the short and medium range, not the long haul.  (A major shift in the style of play for the majority).

Even if he had tried for a 4e approach he had no feed back or information to get a tight balance.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garmorn said:


> _t is the player that makes the game._



_


I believe that Mr. Gygax held onto this philosophy even until the end, although his later systems might demonstrate otherwise?  I am not overly familiar with them, and am going by posts only.  

In which case, the balance sought was the balance achieved (or, if not, then very nearly achieved).


RC_


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> I believe that Mr. Gygax held onto this philosophy even until the end, although his later systems might demonstrate otherwise?  I am not overly familiar with them, and am going by posts only.
> 
> In which case, the balance sought was the balance achieved (or, if not, then very nearly achieved).
> 
> 
> RC




I would not presume to say what is style was beyond 1e (where he wrote a lot of statements, articles, ect on or about his view about gaming.  

I not sure how close he actually came.  I don't think he achieved it to his satisfaction but I can argue that as that is more of an impression then any thing.  

He put a lot of weight on the new DM most who had no experience and no knowledge of how to run a game.  This does not lead to balance when the balance is controlled by the DM.  In the early 80 most DM did not have more then 1 or 2 years of playing if that much.  Not a good design decission.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> You know what balance looks like _to the 4e design team_. How does it look to _you_? That's one difference between 1e's concept of balance and 4e's when it comes to treasure distribution and challenges. There are a good many of us who, when we read you writing "I have no real idea what balance should look like" in contrast to your knowing what it _should_ look like in 4e, say *YES*! *That's* the way it should be!/snip




But, isn't "what balance looks like to the design team" the definition of "designed for balance"?  

I suppose you could argue that dumping everything into the lap of the GM is designing for balance, but, to me, it's not.  It's solving the problem by passing the buck.

Not that that's a bad thing.  There's nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with passing responsibility for game balance off to the GM.  That's fine.  I've got no problem with that.

But, don't then turn around and pretend that the mechanics are designed for balance.  They aren't really.  They're designed around what worked at a small number of very specific tables and around some pretty specific play styles.  

Whether it should be or not is, quite frankly, not the question.  

---------------

On character stats.

Ok, I know people are offering up annecdotes for why it's not much of a difference with stats.  But, come on, really?  Take a fighter with an 18/51 Strength (+2 to hit +3 to damage) and a 16 Con.

By 3rd level, he's averaging 21 hit points.  Better than the average for a 4th level fighter and he's attacking 1 better.  A pretty clear 1 level advantage.  By 7th level, he's averaging 49 hit points, 1 shy of a TENTH level fighter, and his attacks are only 1 point of THACO less.  At least a two level advantage, and almost three.

Or a cleric with an 18 wis and 16 con.  By 7th level, he's got 1 extra 4th, and 3rd level spell, and two extra 1st and 2nd levels spells.  He's averaging 42 hit points, two points better than a tenth level cleric.  The only way he's not a 9th level cleric is because he's missing a 5th level spell.

Way back when this sidebar on character stats started, I posited two groups, one with no stat over 15 and the other with 1 18 and 1 16 stat.  There is a HUGE difference between these two groups.  Group B is operating at least 1 level, if not two or three above what it says on their character sheet.  Plus, group B now has access to all of the classes, including the more powerful ones like Ranger or Paladin.  Plus they have access to multiclassing quite easily.

Now, how is the DM supposed to design adventures?  The random dungeon generators, and the charts for stocking the dungeons don't take any of this into consideration.  IIRC, there isn't even guidelines for how many characters there are assumed to be.

All of these are elements you need to consider *if* you are designing for balance.  I don't believe 1e was though.  I believe that 1e placed the responsibility for balance in the DM's lap and pretty much washed its hands of it.

That is not designed for balance.  Which is not to say it's poor design or badly designed or anything else.  It's just not designed with balance as a major consideration.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> But, isn't "what balance looks like to the design team" the definition of "designed for balance"?
> 
> I suppose you could argue that dumping everything into the lap of the GM is designing for balance, but, to me, it's not.  It's solving the problem by passing the buck.
> 
> Not that that's a bad thing.  There's nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with passing responsibility for game balance off to the GM.  That's fine.  I've got no problem with that.
> 
> But, don't then turn around and pretend that the mechanics are designed for balance.  They aren't really.  They're designed around what worked at a small number of very specific tables and around some pretty specific play styles.
> 
> Whether it should be or not is, quite frankly, not the question.




It's not simply passing the buck. It's recognizing that the designers _can't_ design for all contingencies. It's recognizing that every game table will be a little different, have different emphases in their play. If anything, it's sharing the buck with a responsible game master, which as I've alluded to before, is the way I think it should be.

The mechanics _are_ designed for balance, just not to the degree you prefer. There's a lot more give in the gears, on the other hand, there's a lot more tolerance as well. That's why 1e games run a heck of a lot better with significantly mixed levels than more tightly "balanced" games like 3e and 4e do. Big differences in combat or save bonuses mean a lot less when the ACs and saves never spread more than about 20 points and when most PC classes advance in combat or save abilities in staged jumps on the table rather than level-by-level. Big Constitution bonus differences mean a lot less when you run out of hit dice (and thus Con bonuses) in 9-11 levels compared to gaining a hit die every level. Big differences in damage mean a lot less when monsters don't have their own Constitution bonuses (driven up by their size) adding to their hit points, or multipliers to their hit points. All your arguments about the differences between PCs who get hot on their stat rolling dice are a lot less significant in 1e/2e than in either 3e or 4e.


----------



## Votan

Hussar said:


> Or a cleric with an 18 wis and 16 con.  By 7th level, he's got 1 extra 4th, and 3rd level spell, and two extra 1st and 2nd levels spells.  He's averaging 42 hit points, two points better than a tenth level cleric.  The only way he's not a 9th level cleric is because he's missing a 5th level spell.




I think the argument here is not that stats did not make a big difference but that they make a much bigger difference in 3E.  

Take a comparison of a 7th level cleric in 3E who started with a 12 wisdom versus one who started with an 18.  The character with a 12 wisdom (who bumped wisdom up by one at 4th) cannot even cast 4th level spells without a magic item.  The spells she does cast have a DC 3 points lower (equal to a spell slot three levels higher).  They still have one fewer 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 3 fewer 4th -- mthe base spell, the domain spell and the bonus spell) compared to the wisdom 18 character.  The uncapped nature of stats means that the 18 always has a +3 DC advantage with equal gear.  

Meanwhile, the 16 CON now gives +3 hp/level compared with a 10 CON.  At 7th level that's an even bigger hit point advantage.  

Fighter exceptional strength is, admittedly, the weakest point in this argument but it's not convincing worse in 1/2E than 3E.

4E looks to be similar and is clearly tightly balanced around a stat purchase level.  So many powers feed off the bonus that very weak stats are a serious handicap.

In contrast, Castles and Crusades or BECMI seems to make stats slightly less important than 1/2E.  

I think that the less influential stats are for everything, the easier is to to decide to roll them.  The more influential they are then the less appealing rolling is.  I liked AD&D because it seemed to balance well with rolled stats but that could jsut be my personal view.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> It's not simply passing the buck. It's recognizing that the designers _can't_ design for all contingencies. It's recognizing that every game table will be a little different, have different emphases in their play. If anything, it's sharing the buck with a responsible game master, which as I've alluded to before, is the way I think it should be.
> 
> The mechanics _are_ designed for balance, just not to the degree you prefer. There's a lot more give in the gears, on the other hand, there's a lot more tolerance as well. That's why 1e games run a heck of a lot better with significantly mixed levels than more tightly "balanced" games like 3e and 4e do. Big differences in combat or save bonuses mean a lot less when the ACs and saves never spread more than about 20 points and when most PC classes advance in combat or save abilities in staged jumps on the table rather than level-by-level. Big Constitution bonus differences mean a lot less when you run out of hit dice (and thus Con bonuses) in 9-11 levels compared to gaining a hit die every level. Big differences in damage mean a lot less when monsters don't have their own Constitution bonuses (driven up by their size) adding to their hit points, or multipliers to their hit points. All your arguments about the differences between PCs who get hot on their stat rolling dice are a lot less significant in 1e/2e than in either 3e or 4e.




But, where is the sharing?  What work is the mechanics doing in order to achieve balance when, if I use the mechanics, I get unbalanced results and have to over rule those results as the DM?  Again, I do not believe that multiple points of imbalance=balance.  All that means is you have multiple points where the game is out of balance and needs to be adjusted by the GM.

Sure, you can dress it up nicely and say it has more "give" or is more "tolerant" and that's fine.  You prefer it this way.  I can totally get behind that.  No problems at all.  But, don't pretend that it's something that it's not.  There's no shared responsibility here.  Everything is on you the GM to make sure it works and the mechanics give you little or no guidance whatsoever.  

I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:

1.  How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party? 
2.  What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
3.  What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
4.  How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?

These are all basic game balance issues.  These aren't bizarre corner case questions, but questions that pretty much every DM has to answer at some point.  Now, can you point to me where, in the 1e AD&D DMG or PHB that I can find the answer to these questions?



Votan said:


> I think the argument here is not that stats did not make a big difference but that they make a much bigger difference in 3E.
> 
> Take a comparison of a 7th level cleric in 3E who started with a 12 wisdom versus one who started with an 18.  The character with a 12 wisdom (who bumped wisdom up by one at 4th) cannot even cast 4th level spells without a magic item.  The spells she does cast have a DC 3 points lower (equal to a spell slot three levels higher).  They still have one fewer 2nd and 3rd level spells (and 3 fewer 4th -- mthe base spell, the domain spell and the bonus spell) compared to the wisdom 18 character.  The uncapped nature of stats means that the 18 always has a +3 DC advantage with equal gear.
> 
> Meanwhile, the 16 CON now gives +3 hp/level compared with a 10 CON.  At 7th level that's an even bigger hit point advantage.
> 
> Fighter exceptional strength is, admittedly, the weakest point in this argument but it's not convincing worse in 1/2E than 3E.
> 
> 4E looks to be similar and is clearly tightly balanced around a stat purchase level.  So many powers feed off the bonus that very weak stats are a serious handicap.
> 
> In contrast, Castles and Crusades or BECMI seems to make stats slightly less important than 1/2E.
> 
> I think that the less influential stats are for everything, the easier is to to decide to roll them.  The more influential they are then the less appealing rolling is.  I liked AD&D because it seemed to balance well with rolled stats but that could jsut be my personal view.




But, how stats effected characters in other editions or other games is also irrelavent.  It could have MASSIVE effects in 3e but it does't matter.  The claim on the table is that high stats had little effect on characters, which I've shown to be pretty false.  

For example, I would point out that a 1e cleric with a 12 wis has very limited spell casting abilities, to the point where he has no bonus spells and actually has a chance (albeit a small one - 1%) of spell failure every time he casts.  A wizard with a 12 Int gets a max of 7 spells per level, and only has a 45% chance of actually learning a new spell.

Low ability scores in AD&D were just as crippling as any other edition.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:
> 
> 1.  How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?
> 2.  What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
> 3.  What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
> 4.  How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?
> 
> These are all basic game balance issues.  These aren't bizarre corner case questions, but questions that pretty much every DM has to answer at some point.  Now, can you point to me where, in the 1e AD&D DMG or PHB that I can find the answer to these questions?




_You_ think they're basic game balancing questions. I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, for example, there's no particular level that a PC should have a +2 sword in a balanced game. The character's level is pretty irrelevant (a mistake that both 3e and 4e make by assuming there's an appropriate answer). But in 1e/2e, if I want to include +2 weapons in treasures, I certainly can and should if I expect to make a lot of monsters that can only be hit by +2 or better weapons.


----------



## MerricB

howandwhy99 said:


> AD&D does not balance between classes *because it is not a simulation game*




Emphasis mine.

How does being a simulation game or not relate to balance between classes?

I've seen the use of "Gamist", "Simulationist" and "Narrativist" as part of the GNS theory of RPG design - I might not agree with all implications of the theory, but the terms seem to have little relation to what you're using them for.

Could you explain what you mean by "simulation game"?


----------



## MerricB

billd91 said:


> _You_ think they're basic game balancing questions. I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, for example, there's no particular level that a PC should have a +2 sword to in a balanced game. The character's level is pretty irrelevant (a mistake that both 3e and 4e make by assuming there's an appropriate answer). But in 1e/2e, if I want to include +2 weapons in treasures, I certainly can and should if I expect to make a lot of monsters that can only be hit by +2 or better weapons.




It's pretty clear that Gygax disagreed with you with regard to AD&D - his notes on Monty Haulism make that clear.  Not that Gary would have said "this level, you should get a +2 weapon", but that he certainly saw that too many or too powerful magic items would break the system, making monsters pushovers and causing the party to spiral out of control.


----------



## MerricB

Raven Crowking said:


> Not "if used", only without judicious and intelligent useage.  There is a difference.




With regard to the rules, there isn't, unfortunately. While AD&D is a secure enough system to withstand quite a bit of over-rewarding (or under-rewarding, as the case might be), there comes a time when it is definitely detrimental to the game.

However, there is almost nothing in the AD&D books to indicate what that point might be. "Judicious and intelligent usage" works, but only for DMs with enough experience of actual play to make such judgements. This isn't to say that the prescriptive nature of 4E with regard to magic items is a good thing, but just to agree that AD&D as written gives little guidance on what are proper rewards for PCs with regard to magic items.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB

Hussar said:


> I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:




*1.  How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party? *

There isn't one. To quite some extent, this is irrelevant to a lot of AD&D. Either the DM balances encounters based on the group, or the group balances encounters themselves - either by adventuring in less dangerous areas, or by hiring men-at-arms and henchmen.

*2.  What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?*

The answer to what Gygax considered this an average encounter can be found in the XP rules: you got full XP only for an encounter where the Hit Dice balanced (with the monster HD being adjusted by their special abilities). I don't have the DMG with me at present, but it's probably in the range of 28-32 levels balances that encounter.

However, I don't know how much Gary used that rule, nor do I really consider it a good estimation of balance. (For vanilla creatures, it's not that bad). Still, in early D&D, 1 level balances 1 Hit Die does make quite a bit of sense... insofar as balanced might mean that either side could win!

*3.  What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
4.  How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?*

Heh. I agree totally that AD&D fails to give good answers to those questions. Indeed, it's one of my chief points of contention with AD&D as written. However, I do wonder how relevant the questions are - and I wonder if there's a good answer to them.

4E, for example, uses a very prescriptive system for assigning magic items. It preserves balance, but would a +3 sword instead of a +1 sword really wreck balance that much? I doubt it. 

However, if you add a set of +4 plate and a +3 shield to that sword at a low level, then you suddenly gain a problem. It's not something that can be easily ruled upon. Relying on the judgement of the DM? Yes, that's a solution that allows for the massive number of variables the rules can throw up, but for an inexperienced DM, a poor answer.

In my opinion, AD&D - and the DMG in particular - suffers from Gary assuming a more experienced brand of Dungeon Master than often was reading the book. A notable exception to this his essay on why not to use monsters as PCs, which, although it directly contradicts his statements in oD&D, shows the signs of playtest experience. When it comes to treasure, a novice DM can understand the twin traps of Killer Dungeons and Monty Haulism, but knowing what the path is that leads between them? That's very unclear from the rulebooks.

It should be noted and emphasised that the concept of balance between PCs and monsters is one that depends greatly on the group. As the challenges are selected by the DM, and can be often avoided by the players, the concept of a strict challenge level is irrelevant. (Consider when it become relevant and the style of the campaign then).

Far more important to the AD&D player is the balance between the character classes. Does that exist? Yes, although it may not be as precise as what occurs in later editions. AD&D _characters_ are not so balanced, with the addition of ability scores, but it should noted that even a character with (relatively) low ability scores can take advantage of the demihuman races and multiclassing to distinguish themselves from other PCs.

Thus, although one fighter might have an 18/73 strength, the other fighter with a 15 strength might choose to become an elf fighter/magic-user and gain abilities that way. 

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking

MerricB said:


> With regard to the rules, there isn't, unfortunately.




I obviously disagree.  When I started playing D&D, it was through Holmes Basic, then reading the AD&D1 books.  No one taught me how to play; I had no prior experience with either wargames or rpgs.



> However, there is almost nothing in the AD&D books to indicate what that point might be.




I obviously disagree.  There is no hard-and-fast point given, but neither is there a hard-and-fast point inherent in the rules to be given.  There is a sliding scale, with "too much" at one end and "too little" at the other.  There is a lot of information about why systems are as they are, and there is a lot of advice given as to how to run a game.  Follow the advice, and you are very likely to be in the comfortable middle, neither "too much" nor "too little".

That is what I, and dozens of others like me, did, to my certain knowledge.  And I am not talking about dozens I grew up with, but people I met through the U.S. Army and, later, moving to California and Canada.

I am sure that there are many thousands who did the same, who I have never had the good fortune to meet.



> "Judicious and intelligent usage" works, but only for DMs with enough experience of actual play to make such judgements.




You must think that I, and others who have managed to apply "judicious and intelligent usage" from Game 1, through the medium of reading the books and understanding what was therein, have some kind of inherent genius to be able to do so.  I thank you for the compliment.

However, I don't believe that there is anything at all difficult to applying "judicious and intelligent usage" to the AD&D1 game.  It is only a matter of attitude and approach.  Anyone could do it, and nearly anyone could learn how to do it merely by reading the books and then following the advice therein.  IME, anyway.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:
> 
> 1.  How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?
> 2.  What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
> 3.  What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
> 4.  How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?
> 
> These are all basic game balance issues.  These aren't bizarre corner case questions, but questions that pretty much every DM has to answer at some point.  Now, can you point to me where, in the 1e AD&D DMG or PHB that I can find the answer to these questions?





Oh, that's easy.  The problem you are having is that you assume that it is the DM who answers these questions.

1.  There is no standard party side.  How many PCs are on the expedition?  How many henchmen and hirelings do they have?  That is the party size.  Party size is determined by the players, not the DM.

2.  There is no standard _*character*_ level.  Players determine the amount of risk they are willing to undergo.  If you look in the encounter charts in the 1e DMG, you can find what dungeon level 4 gargoyles is likely to be found on.  When the PCs are on that _*dungeon*_ level, regardless of their character level, 4 gargoyles is (potentially) a standard encounter.  The players determine, through their choices, when they are ready for such encounters.

3.  The level at which the player earns the sword.  If there is a +2 sword in Castle Greyhawk, it is possible (though unlikely) that a 1st level expedition will find it.  It is possible (and far more likely) that it will never be found.  The character level isn't really all that important; what is important is that the treasure found is balanced by the effort taken to find it.

4.  A 7th level PC should have as many magic items as he or she can locate, convince the party to allow him or her to take as a fair share, and preserve (both from use, from loss, and from destruction).  However, intelligent useage (on the part of the player, which is part of the convincing & preserving mentioned) would indicate that, in some cases, these items should nonetheless be spread about to make the party stronger (even if on loan), which increases overall survivability and maximizes future profit.

The amount of magic items a 7th level NPC should have, or a new PC created at 7th level, is given in the 1e DMG.


Hope that helped.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Raven Crowking said:


> There is no hard-and-fast point given, but neither is there a hard-and-fast point inherent in the rules to be given.  There is a sliding scale, with "too much" at one end and "too little" at the other.





One more thing about this:

As it is easier to balance upon four legs than one, it is easier to achieve balance with a sliding scale than with a single point.  

A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is *notably less well balanced* than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.

AD&D 1e has *legs*.  It is still an ongoing gaming concern.  Arguably, it still has more players today than any other version of the game.  How has 3e fared now that there are new editions (4e, Pathfinder)?  Not so well as 1e, it seems.  Will as many people still be playing 3e when as many years have passed since 1e was first "upgraded"?

So much for the vaunted importance of "balance" being defined as "standing on the head of a pin"!  

(And AD&D 1e is not my game of choice.....if it were, RCFG wouldn't have so many elements of later editions.  There is great value in [some] later mechanics, but the claim that 1e wasn't designed for balance, *as the designers defined proper balance*, is crazy talk.)


RC


----------



## FireLance

Raven Crowking said:


> One more thing about this:
> 
> As it is easier to balance upon four legs than one, it is easier to achieve balance with a sliding scale than with a single point.
> 
> A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is *notably less well balanced* than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.



Then it's good thing that no edition of D&D _requires_ that a "standard" adventuring party face "standard" challenges and receive "standard" rewards, right? 

Certain editions of D&D may advise that the balancing work is (mostly) done for you if you follow certain standard assumptions, but the DM is otherwise free to do what he wants and use his own judgement to balance the game however he likes - just as in every edition of D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

FireLance said:


> Then it's good thing that no edition of D&D _requires_ that a "standard" adventuring party face "standard" challenges and receive "standard" rewards, right?




Indeed it is! 



> Certain editions of D&D may advise that the balancing work is (mostly) done for you if you follow certain standard assumptions, but the DM is otherwise free to do what he wants and use his own judgement to balance the game however he likes - just as in every edition of D&D.




IMHO, the ease of doing so is inversely correlated to the steepness of the power curve.  Flattening the power curve makes this far easier, say, in 4e than in 3e.

IMHO.  YMMV.

If one considers "tolerance to variables" as a fundamental function of balance, then 4e is clearly more balanced than 3e, and 1e is clearly more balanced than either.


RC


----------



## Jhaelen

Raven Crowking said:


> A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is *notably less well balanced* than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.



Hear, hear. Now, I don't know what game you're talking about here, actually.

I'll just say one thing about my personal experience with 1e:
If a game was balanced or not depended entirely on the DM (nothing new there, hey!). Most DMs I played with didn't have a clue (or cared) about balance. So it wasn't only difficult to find a DM, it was, that it was difficult to find a DM that managed to properly judge what was easy, what was challenging and what was overpowering.

Bad experience with DMs ultimately led me to abandon AD&D. So, I was overjoyed when 3e came along with the promise of an objective system that would allow a DM to judge the difficulty of planned encounters with a minimum of effort.

The CR system was intended as a protection from bad (or simply inexperienced) DMs. For DMs that were actually interested in providing a fun game for their players it was a tool to measure if their encounter ideas would provide an appropriate challenge or not.

It was supposed to be an additional tool that DMs may find helpful but never a straightjacket. The idea was that providing DMs with better tools would allow more DMs to become good DMs.

Now, we know that the CR system was far from perfect but it was _something_.

Ultimately, I don't care for anyone's definition of balance but mine. I want my game to be balanced in the way that I find appropriate. My 2e Darksun Campaign used a different 'balance' than my 'Standard' campaign.
There is a time for easy encounters and a time for overwhelming encounters. But I, as the DM, want to be able to plan them that way.

Every tool that can help me to judge if an encounter will represent the kind of challenge I'm looking for is welcome.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jhaelen said:


> Every tool that can help me to judge if an encounter will represent the kind of challenge I'm looking for is welcome.





Sure, and the steeper the power curve, the more tools you need.  Where the difference is between X and X+1, encounter design is more forgiving than when it is between X and X+10.


RC

EDIT:  Despite the tools provided, IME, the % chance that a 3e DM is a bad DM is roughly the same as with 1e.  I would certainly agree, though, that I've never seen a 3e DM *as bad as* a few 1e DMs I have known, so the tools seem to be doing _*something*_.  

Of course, the CR system is the Monster Level system from 1e, just made grainier to deal with the increased power curve.


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure, and the steeper the power curve, the more tools you need.  Where the difference is between X and X+1, encounter design is more forgiving than when it is between X and X+10.
> 
> 
> RC
> 
> EDIT:  Despite the tools provided, IME, the % chance that a 3e DM is a bad DM is roughly the same as with 1e.  I would certainly agree, though, that I've never seen a 3e DM *as bad as* a few 1e DMs I have known, so the tools seem to be doing _*something*_.
> 
> Of course, the CR system is the Monster Level system from 1e, just made grainier to deal with the increased power curve.




I would have to disagree about the percentage of bad DM but only because you had more experienced good DM at the start as a percentage of the DM's.

I would say that the CR system was the Monster level system improved by adding more weight to the non hd strengths and weakness of a monster.  4e exp system is similar but more accurate simple do the closer ties to all of the monsters abilities.  

Should not the statement about fines be: 

It is easlier to control and judge when X+10 is now equal to the old X+1 so you have more and finer steps to tweak things?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garmorn said:


> I would have to disagree about the percentage of bad DM but only because you had more experienced good DM at the start as a percentage of the DM's.




As I said, I started as DM without a background in rpgs or wargames.

AFAICT, I was the first DM in my area, and I was directly responsible (I later learned, through bringing the Holmes book to school) for the second.  About 1/3 of my initial D&D experiences (2 out of the first 6, myself not included) were with bad DMs, and I can say without a doubt that the bad ones then were also the worst I ever experienced.  

In both cases, wanting to direct the player characters, and decide how encounters "should" go was the cardinal sin, and 3e does little, if anything, to prevent this!

Over the years, though, I have met many more good DMs than bad.



> I would say that the CR system was the Monster level system improved by adding more weight to the non hd strengths and weakness of a monster.  4e exp system is similar but more accurate simple do the closer ties to all of the monsters abilities.




The 1e Monster Level system gives more weight to the non-HD strengths of monsters AFAICT.  The exact formula is given in the 1e DMG, and one can see that special abilities can quickly outweigh hit dice in terms of XP value (and, therefore, Monster Level).

The CR system reverses the process somewhat.  In 1e, monster hit dice + monster abilities = XP Value, which in turn determines Monster Level.  In 3e, monster hit dice + monster abilities are used (in some undisclosed method) to determine CR, and CR in turn determines a far less granular XP value.

While the CR system is far more granular than Monster Level overall, the fact is that in 1e, much higher granularity in the XP Value of a monster can allow the experienced DM to get a better idea of how big a threat a monster is than the CR system allows for.

Thus, where 1e gives you Monster Levels 1 to 10, 3e gives you CR 1/6 to 20+, greatly increasing the granularity.  However, underlying ML 1-10 is an XP system running from under 5 to over 10,000, that offers by far the most granularity any system ever has for determining the relative challenge a monster represents.



> Should not the statement about fines be:
> 
> It is easlier to control and judge when X+10 is now equal to the old X+1 so you have more and finer steps to tweak things?




No, because we are talking about the quanta of change.  

In 3e at least, the power curve doesn't actually have a high level of granularity.  The step between one level and the next (or one CR and the next) is far greater than that in TSR-D&D.  

When increase in power occurs gradually, it is possible to vary the number and levels of characters without having to rewrite challenges to compensate.  Which is why you see so many TSR modules say "For 4-6 characters between levels X and Y".  

Likewise, a DM's work in 1e is usable for longer than it is in 3e.  Say that the DM has four characters in his game, each of which is 3rd level.  He then creates three potential adventures, and allows them to choose which to follow up on.

In 1e, both because levelling is slower, and because the power curve is shallower, it is possible to use all of this work with the same characters without any redesign whatsoever.  Moreover, it is possible to do so without the last area being too easy or the first area being too hard.

Conversely, in 3e, adventures need a scaling sidebar in case there are relatively minor variances in character levels or numbers.

Thus, when the power curve uses a granularity of X+1, X+2, X+3, you have less varience than when the power curve is X+10, X+20, X+30, X+50, etc.  It is easier for first level 1e characters to handle a ML 2 monster than it is for 1st level 3e characters to handle a CR 2 monster, even though CR 2 includes creatures that are ML 1 in the 1e system.  The margin of error (i.e., where the DM can misjudge difficulty without sinking the boat) in 1e is far, far greater than it is in 3e.

WotC recognized this, and explicitly took steps to deal with it in 4e.  "Flattening the power curve" was a stated design goal.  Whether they were successful or not is, of course, another topic.



RC


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> As I said, I started as DM without a background in rpgs or wargames.
> [\quote] missed that sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAICT, I was the first DM in my area, and I was directly responsible (I later learned, through bringing the Holmes book to school) for the second.  About 1/3 of my initial D&D experiences (2 out of the first 6, myself not included) were with bad DMs, and I can say without a doubt that the bad ones then were also the worst I ever experienced.
> 
> In both cases, wanting to direct the player characters, and decide how encounters "should" go was the cardinal sin, and 3e does little, if anything, to prevent this!
> [\quote]
> 
> Mine was about 2/3 bad to good but that ratio went down as I met more experienced DM's.
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over the years, though, I have met many more good DMs than bad.[\quote]
> 
> Mine is still about 50/50 overall. Might be one reason I am far more skeptical about DM's being good about balance.  One blazing example: House rule Spellcasters could  use spell points (You total level of spells lvl castalbe per day) to cast any spell from a wand, rod or staff that they carried. (No back failure chance).  Each casting cost one spell point regardless of spell level if cast from an item.
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1e Monster Level system gives more weight to the non-HD strengths of monsters AFAICT.  The exact formula is given in the 1e DMG, and one can see that special abilities can quickly outweigh hit dice in terms of XP value (and, therefore, Monster Level).
> 
> The CR system reverses the process somewhat.  In 1e, monster hit dice + monster abilities = XP Value, which in turn determines Monster Level.  In 3e, monster hit dice + monster abilities are used (in some undisclosed method) to determine CR, and CR in turn determines a far less granular XP value.[\quote]
> 
> Miss remembered.
> 
> 
> 
> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we are talking about the quanta of change.
> 
> In 3e at least, the power curve doesn't actually have a high level of granularity.  The step between one level and the next (or one CR and the next) is far greater than that in TSR-D&D.
> 
> When increase in power occurs gradually, it is possible to vary the number and levels of characters without having to rewrite challenges to compensate.  Which is why you see so many TSR modules say "For 4-6 characters between levels X and Y".
> 
> Likewise, a DM's work in 1e is usable for longer than it is in 3e.  Say that the DM has four characters in his game, each of which is 3rd level.  He then creates three potential adventures, and allows them to choose which to follow up on.
> 
> In 1e, both because levelling is slower, and because the power curve is shallower, it is possible to use all of this work with the same characters without any redesign whatsoever.  Moreover, it is possible to do so without the last area being too easy or the first area being too hard.
> 
> Conversely, in 3e, adventures need a scaling sidebar in case there are relatively minor variances in character levels or numbers.
> 
> Thus, when the power curve uses a granularity of X+1, X+2, X+3, you have less varience than when the power curve is X+10, X+20, X+30, X+50, etc.  It is easier for first level 1e characters to handle a ML 2 monster than it is for 1st level 3e characters to handle a CR 2 monster, even though CR 2 includes creatures that are ML 1 in the 1e system.  The margin of error (i.e., where the DM can misjudge difficulty without sinking the boat) in 1e is far, far greater than it is in 3e.
> 
> WotC recognized this, and explicitly took steps to deal with it in 4e.  "Flattening the power curve" was a stated design goal.  Whether they were successful or not is, of course, another topic.
> 
> RC[\quote]
> 
> Right.  What I meant is that in AD&D monster A is level X+2 and is twice thice as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster.  In 3.x monster A is level X+2 and is 10 times as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster.
> 
> As you say it make using AD&D monsters easlier to work with as a DM designing encounters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garmorn said:


> Right.  What I meant is that in AD&D monster A is level X+2 and is twice thice as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster.  In 3.x monster A is level X+2 and is 10 times as powerfull as monster B, a level X monster.
> 
> As you say it make using AD&D monsters easlier to work with as a DM designing encounters.





Then we agree.  

I like tools.  I think that any tool the DM is given is worthwhile, so long as it remains a viable tool.  The way that tools are apporached within the framework of a game, though, can alter how they are perceived and used.

The Wealth-per-Level guidelines, for instance, in 3e were intended to be exactly this, but (unfortunately) the power curve made the game act wonky (or so I have heard it said) for some folks when they differed from this guideline.  Coupled with the "taking the DM out of the equation" philosophy of 3e (which Monte Cook is on record as saying was taken too far, and even farther in 3.5), one began to hear (on the InterWeb, at least), that the players were "owed" a certain amount of wealth by level.

I know that, in my case, allotting treasure is a lot more fun in a game without expected wealth by level.  I understand why some people lose interest in figuring out what is there to find in recent editions of the game.  There is little thrill of discovery when discovery is certain.  There is little joy in choosing treasure that will just be converted into the best bonus ASAP (because of a philosophy that says PCs should be able to customize their equipment).  There is little fun in designing treasures when doing so is nothing more than accounting.

On the surface, Wealth by Level guidelines are a useful tool.  The way they are approached, though, can be more damaging than beneficial.  This is similar to by-the-book 3e monster templates vs. the far easier, equally rewarding quick-n-dirty methods of modifying monsters that have existed since 1e at least.

Somewhere between the approach of 1e and 3e, there is probably a golden mean, but I don't think anyone has found it yet!  



RC


----------



## AllisterH

1. Stats and balance.

Again, it should be pointed out.


RIGHT ON the beginning of th 1e PHB, there is an EXPLICIT mention by Gygax that if you're character doesn't have at LEAST 2 starting stats above 15 (one in your prime req), the character is looking at VERY long ends of survival.

Honestly. to me anyway, that passage on page 8 explicitly means you were NOT supposed to play with non-superhero stats.

2. Wealth level a.k.a 2e _IS_ AD&D.

People seem to forget that 2e _IS_ AD&D and 2e does have the fighter companion chart which lists magic items for a high level fighter. The assumption I always worked under was that at a MINIMUM, a character should be at least equal in gear to that fighter NPC companion.


----------



## Garmorn

Raven Crowking said:


> Then we agree.
> 
> I like tools.  I think that any tool the DM is given is worthwhile, so long as it remains a viable tool.  The way that tools are apporached within the framework of a game, though, can alter how they are perceived and used.
> 
> The Wealth-per-Level guidelines, for instance, in 3e were intended to be exactly this, but (unfortunately) the power curve made the game act wonky (or so I have heard it said) for some folks when they differed from this guideline.  Coupled with the "taking the DM out of the equation" philosophy of 3e (which Monte Cook is on record as saying was taken too far, and even farther in 3.5), one began to hear (on the InterWeb, at least), that the players were "owed" a certain amount of wealth by level.
> 
> I know that, in my case, allotting treasure is a lot more fun in a game without expected wealth by level.  I understand why some people lose interest in figuring out what is there to find in recent editions of the game.  There is little thrill of discovery when discovery is certain.  There is little joy in choosing treasure that will just be converted into the best bonus ASAP (because of a philosophy that says PCs should be able to customize their equipment).  There is little fun in designing treasures when doing so is nothing more than accounting.
> 
> On the surface, Wealth by Level guidelines are a useful tool.  The way they are approached, though, can be more damaging than beneficial.  This is similar to by-the-book 3e monster templates vs. the far easier, equally rewarding quick-n-dirty methods of modifying monsters that have existed since 1e at least.
> 
> Somewhere between the approach of 1e and 3e, there is probably a golden mean, but I don't think anyone has found it yet!
> 
> 
> 
> RC




I have been trying your approach of hidden and other wise protected treasure with 4e packets.  It is simple and quick.  I have pre chosen/random rolled all of the wealth for level.  To prevent the (must find all syndrome), I am using an alternate treasure approach.  There will be a few extra magic items and sell back will be higher. The standard method is great for a new/inexperienced group/DM.  This method gives me more lead way and gives the 1e feel with out the large swings in wealth that 1e system could generate.

I love tools that:  a) speeds up prep, b) reduces guesses work, c) is simple to understand, and d) gave consistent results.  1e unfortunately did not have any that match all four requirements.  Most did not even match 2 of the requirements for lots of DMs.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garmon, 

I like the cut of your jib.  I hope the changes to treasure work for your group, and would be interested to hear how things go.


RC


----------



## howandwhy99

MerricB said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> How does being a simulation game or not relate to balance between classes?
> 
> I've seen the use of "Gamist", "Simulationist" and "Narrativist" as part of the GNS theory of RPG design - I might not agree with all implications of the theory, but the terms seem to have little relation to what you're using them for.
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by "simulation game"?



Starting last and working upwards.  Simulation games are perhaps the most common form of game.  Computer simulations, wargame miniatures simulations, etc.  That is what I mean by simulation game, not GNS or Big Model Theory.  Simulation games are not a type of RPG, they cannot be.  Computer RPGs are often taken as RPGs because of their similarity in design to some published classic RPG designs.  They are not RPGs.  A person cannot roleplay with a computer.  Both storygame theories and Mr. Gygax agreed on the last point.

AD&D is not balanced by class as it is not a competitive game between the players, but a game every individual plays alone with the option for each to work with other players at the table.  This is how cooperation games work.  Class balance would not matter in AD&D anyways as everything would become "unbalanced" between players once one achieved a different class level than the others.  

It is not balanced at all as a simulation game or player vs. player competition game.  It is balanced as a cooperative game, but that is only one way to run D&D.  As D&D is in the category of a pattern finding games cooperative design simply works better for most groups.  See here for a basic explanation about this category of games.  The author of that site calls player groups: cooperative learning groups, though it does not specifically refer to RPGs.  I can't find anywhere on the internet that properly recognizes RPGs as pattern finding games, but in all my experience and study of the first 30 years of RPG design and of the 90 year history of roleplaying it is clear to me they are.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> I mean, can you answer the following basic questions:
> 
> 1.  How many characters is a "standard" adventuring party?
> 2.  What level is an encounter with 4 gargoyles an average encounter?
> 3.  What level should a PC have a +2 sword?
> 4.  How many magic items should a 7th level PC have?



1. Cannot be answered; there is no inherent "standard" in 1e.
2. Cannot be answered; what is "average" to one party might be killer to a second and a pushover for a third; all of the same level. (and with Gargoyles in particular, much will depend on how much magic the party's got in its scabbards)
3. At whatever level he or she finds one and is able to keep it.
4. How many, or how powerful?  I've seen 7th-level characters who poured all their wealth into one really spectacular item; I've also seen 7ths who collect all the minor magics everyone else doesn't want - they might have 25 items, but only 2 are worth more than 2000 g.p. and most of the rest are but a few hundred each.

Also, in 1e more so than later editions a second variable rears its ugly head: item destruction.  One good fireball and subsequent meltdown can ruin your whole bank account!  And, for the recond and speaking as one who's been on the wrong end of many a meltdown, that's the way I like it.

So there's no real good answer for that one either.



> But, how stats effected characters in other editions or other games is also irrelavent.  It could have MASSIVE effects in 3e but it does't matter.  The claim on the table is that high stats had little effect on characters, which I've shown to be pretty false.
> 
> For example, I would point out that a 1e cleric with a 12 wis has very limited spell casting abilities, to the point where he has no bonus spells and actually has a chance (albeit a small one - 1%) of spell failure every time he casts.  A wizard with a 12 Int gets a max of 7 spells per level, and only has a 45% chance of actually learning a new spell.
> 
> Low ability scores in AD&D were just as crippling as any other edition.



There's low, and then there's hopeless.  A Cleric with Wis. 12 comes under hopeless; and if the 12 is its highest stat it should be scrapped and re-rolled.  3e to its credit actually put that in the book: nothing higher than 13, or total bonus adding to 0 or less, means scrap and start over.

As AllisterH pointed out already, the 1e game sort of assumes you're going to have at least one 15...and that's not a problem.

My personal preference for a character is to have one real high stat to make it rock, one real low stat to make it fun, and the rest can be whatever unless I'm trying for a specific class that has multiple stat requirements e.g. Ranger.

That said, having played both I'll say that starting stats make less difference to a PC's projected career length in 1e than 3e; but as 3e has so many ways to change stats both temporarily and permanently once the game gets going any comparison after the first few levels is kinda pointless.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> 2. Wealth level a.k.a 2e _IS_ AD&D.
> 
> People seem to forget that 2e _IS_ AD&D and 2e does have the fighter companion chart which lists magic items for a high level fighter. The assumption I always worked under was that at a MINIMUM, a character should be at least equal in gear to that fighter NPC companion.



That's a guideline for Fighters, but what about all the other classes?

I never played 2e; was the magic acquisition rate expected to be about the same as 1e?

Lan-"I never met a +2 sword I didn't like"-efan


----------



## Beginning of the End

Raven Crowking said:


> A game that requires you to have a "standard" adventuring party, set up encounters with 4 gargoyles only at a given character level, make the aquisition of a +2 sword possible only at a given level, and which predetermines how many magic items a 7th level PC should have, all so that the game system can function within workable parameters, is *notably less well balanced* than a system that can stand up without forcing so many playstyle assumptions down your throat.




Agreed. But 3E operates just like 1E in this regard. It assumes a baseline in order to give you some additional tools that operate along that baseline; but it's trivial to abandon the baseline.

(This is notably no true in 4E, however, was specifically designed to formalize the fetishization of balance that consumed certain segments of 3E fandom.)



> AD&D 1e has *legs*.  It is still an ongoing gaming concern.  Arguably, it still has more players today than any other version of the game.




I assume this is a definition of "arguably" which includes "almost certainly not true"?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Beginning of the End said:


> I assume this is a definition of "arguably" which includes "almost certainly not true"?




Not sure about that.

I haven't run the numbers myself, but I am told that a combination of the TSR sales data, the WotC sales data, and the WotC pre-3e survey suggested that it may well be true that 1e has more adherents than 2, 3, or 4.  

Hence "arguably".  As I said, I haven't run the numbers, or even been presented with the full argument, so it is quite possibly a poor argument.  Unless you have access to information I do not have, though, the reverse is equally potentially true.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Oh, and I ignored the baseline of 3e, too.  The power curve makes this somewhat more difficult than with 1e, but it can certainly be done.  3e's main problem in play (IMHO) is that combats take too long to resolve.  This is something that was recognized early in the 4e design process, but fixing it was abandoned in favour of having longer combats to use all your encounter powers.  Go figure.


----------



## Bullgrit

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> I assume this is a definition of "arguably" which includes "almost certainly not true"?



I can't give you more xp yet, so let me quote you, and say, "LOL!"

Bullgrit


----------



## billd91

AllisterH said:


> 2. Wealth level a.k.a 2e _IS_ AD&D.
> 
> People seem to forget that 2e _IS_ AD&D and 2e does have the fighter companion chart which lists magic items for a high level fighter. The assumption I always worked under was that at a MINIMUM, a character should be at least equal in gear to that fighter NPC companion.




Where is that chart? It isn't coming to mind...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> 3. The character level isn't really all that important; what is important is that the treasure found is balanced by the effort taken to find it.






Lanefan said:


> 3. At whatever level he or she finds one and is able to keep it.




I think you are both assuming that Hussar is asking when a 1E DM is _obligated_ to dole out a +2 sword. The better question, and one that was quite relevant in EGG's discussion of avoiding Monty Haulism, is what levels are considered to be too early to hand out a magic item of this power?

Because a character will _never_ find a +2 sword until the DM decides to place it as loot. RC's answer comes closer to answering the question, but for us non-genius DMs back in the day this wasn't a simple answer from "Game 1."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Beginning of the End said:


> Agreed. But 3E operates just like 1E in this regard. It assumes a baseline in order to give you some additional tools that operate along that baseline; but it's trivial to abandon the baseline.
> 
> (This is notably no[t](?) true in 4E, however, was specifically designed to formalize the fetishization of balance that consumed certain segments of 3E fandom.)




I disagree. 4E has the same baseline assumptions as 3E, just presented in a different way. And due to the flattening of the power curve you can deviate from that baseline with less effort to adjust than in 3E. Guidelines have also been officially provided in 4E for throwing out the baseline completely and running a campaign with no magic items at all.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> RC's answer comes closer to answering the question, but for us non-genius DMs back in the day this wasn't a simple answer from "Game 1."




I don't think genius is required.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> And due to the flattening of the power curve you can deviate from that baseline with less effort to adjust than in 3E.




Agreed.  And, again, I don't think genius is required.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> I can't give you more xp yet, so let me quote you, and say, "LOL!"
> 
> Bullgrit




Yes, I am certainly put into my place.  

Clearly, your metric for evidence hasn't changed.


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't think genius is required.




I got bettah!

As a young DM I read the books. I read about avoiding the pitfalls of Monty Haulism or being a Killer DM. Yet I fell into both until I had the experience not to. So, either the advice was not as strong as it could have been or I was more lacking in my comprehension than those who "got it right from Game 1."


----------



## Garthanos

Perhaps I should start a thread about the similarities between AD&D and 4e.(RC you mention the power curve)?

While wrapping my head around 4e and realizing that a first level character was a first level hero... not the same as a 1st level AD&D character. I started figuring out a translation ... when a 4e player has a level 1 it is closer in most regards to a 4 to 6th level AD&D character. For instance it will take another 4 levels or so before the character will have twice the hit points he started with and If you are a spell caster you have regular impact on the combat which seemed true as spell caster got a little more advanced in 1/2e as well... and some other details align, though I am mostly talking about feel. I vaguely remember starting characters at 4 to 6th level wasnt an entirely uncommon house rule. 

People  concentrating on differences I find myself seeing similarities

There has been mention that 4e feels like a throwback, I didnt see it maybe that was indeed because I skipped version 3? The more I absorb on the interweb about 3e the more I may be agreeing.

new thread? too old of topic?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So, either the advice was not as strong as it could have been or I was more lacking in my comprehension than those who "got it right from Game 1."




No doubt the advice could have been better -- this is always true, regardless of how good the advice is!    But Gygax wrote the DMG in a stream-of-consciousness style that one either "got" or did not.

At least it is fair to say that he increased many people's vocabularies!  



Garthanos said:


> Perhaps I should start a thread about the similarities between AD&D and 4e.(RC you mention the power curve)?




Sounds like a fine topic.  Link if you fork it.


RC


----------



## AllisterH

re: low ability scores
1e, at least under Gygax, assumed you would have at LEAST 2 stats at a minimum of 15.

Again, where are people getting this idea that in 1e it was possible to play "weak" characters when Gygax explictly mentions, "No, you have to have at least two stats of 15+"

The only issue is why did the ability generation system have methods which would not result in such an outcome

re: Fighter followers.

If you look under the followers a 9th level fighter got, there was the troops and his personal guard. The leader of the personal guard was always a lower level fighter and he came with gear and the gear was better the higher the level the captain of the guard was.

To me anyway, that was a clear example of not so much as "WBL" but really just what the minimum amount of gear the melee classes would have.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Raven Crowking said:


> No doubt the advice could have been better -- this is always true, regardless of how good the advice is!    But Gygax wrote the DMG in a stream-of-consciousness style that one either "got" or did not.




Or, as in my case, one eventually "got" it.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Or, as in my case, one eventually "got" it.




As you say.  

Our perspectives change with time and experience.


RC


----------



## howandwhy99

Raven Crowking said:


> No doubt the advice could have been better -- this is always true, regardless of how good the advice is!    But Gygax wrote the DMG in a stream-of-consciousness style that one either "got" or did not.
> 
> At least it is fair to say that he increased many people's vocabularies!



I'll agree Gygax was a better game designer than author.  And far from a technical writer.  But the DMG does have a specific outline to it.  Its' chapters are ordered as addenda to the PHB's.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

howandwhy99 said:


> I'll agree Gygax was a better game designer than author.  And far from a technical writer.  But the DMG does have a specific outline to it.  Its' chapters are ordered as addenda to the PHB's.




Yeah, but then you'd get what looked like a side thought. "Oh, by the way, creatures with thick hides are immune to the poison from the bites of fanged creatures..." That passage of the 1E DMG was my first (or at least most memorable) experience with rules lawyering as my snake bit the boar that a player had pulled from his Bag'O'Animals and directed me to this hidden nugget. I wondered why such information wouldn't be organized with the creature information in the MM.


----------



## howandwhy99

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Yeah, but then you'd get what looked like a side thought. "Oh, by the way, creatures with thick hides are immune to the poison from the bites of fanged creatures..." That passage of the 1E DMG was my first (or at least most memorable) experience with rules lawyering as my snake bit the boar that a player had pulled from his Bag'O'Animals and directed me to this hidden nugget. I wondered why such information wouldn't be organized with the creature information in the MM.



Oh yeah.  _Far_ from a technical writer.


----------



## Garmorn

AllisterH said:


> re: low ability scores
> 1e, at least under Gygax, assumed you would have at LEAST 2 stats at a minimum of 15.
> 
> Again, where are people getting this idea that in 1e it was possible to play "weak" characters when Gygax explictly mentions, "No, you have to have at least two stats of 15+"
> 
> The only issue is why did the ability generation system have methods which would not result in such an outcome




Because for many of us with out any Dragon Mags, or other ways of learning any thing but from the DMG and PH only had what was in them.  I don't remember any thing in either that says any thing but roll 3d6 once for each stat in order.  My first group was also one of those rare ones who did not have any posed base learners. We were all technically trained 20+ year old's over seas.  One of my early wizards was made by the book 1st level 1 hit die int of about 14 - his highest stat who offensive spell was enlarge.


----------



## MerricB

Garmorn said:


> I don't remember any thing in either that says any thing but roll 3d6 once for each stat in order.




Strangely enough, that's one instruction that AD&D _doesn't_ have in it. The PH instructs players to ask the DM what ability score generation system they're using, and the DMG gives several systems, none of which is as simple as "3d6 six times". 

Personally, I tended to use the system that said "roll 3d6 six times for each stat, taking the best roll each time". 

Cheers!


----------



## Garmorn

MerricB said:


> Strangely enough, that's one instruction that AD&D _doesn't_ have in it. The PH instructs players to ask the DM what ability score generation system they're using, and the DMG gives several systems, none of which is as simple as "3d6 six times".
> 
> Personally, I tended to use the system that said "roll 3d6 six times for each stat, taking the best roll each time".
> 
> Cheers!




Thanks, I was getting feeling.  All of the games I played in 1e used that method.  Of course I had 3 DM for 1e.

I never DMed 1e.  I played it but never ran it because my game of choice was Rolemaster.  I could wing it with out any prep at all for 10 hours straight and have my players beg for more.


----------



## Lanefan

Garmorn said:


> Because for many of us with out any Dragon Mags, or other ways of learning any thing but from the DMG and PH only had what was in them.  I don't remember any thing in either that says any thing but roll 3d6 once for each stat in order.



From the 1e DMG, p. 11, paraphrased:

Method I
Roll 4d6 for each stat, drop lowest, rearrange to suit

Method II
Roll 3d6 12 times, take the highest 6 scores, rearrange to suit

Method III
Roll 3d6 6 times for each stat and take the highest, do not rearrange

Method IV
Roll 3d6 once for each stat, do not rearrange; repeat 12 times, choose one set

A very long time ago, we started using Method I except with 5d6, and it's worked great ever since! 

Lanefan


----------



## vagabundo

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I got bettah!
> 
> As a young DM I read the books. I read about avoiding the pitfalls of Monty Haulism or being a Killer DM. Yet I fell into both until I had the experience not to. So, either the advice was not as strong as it could have been or I was more lacking in my comprehension than those who "got it right from Game 1."




I went the opposite way and never gave out very much magical loot - my players called me stingy. 

I learned the game just from reading the books; I did not see a game played until I was much older.


----------



## Hussar

Heh, we were pretty heavily into Monte Haul territory.  Ran far too many modules.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Lanefan said:


> From the 1e DMG, p. 11, paraphrased:
> 
> Method I
> Roll 4d6 for each stat, drop lowest, rearrange to suit
> 
> A very long time ago, we started using Method I except with 5d6, and it's worked great ever since!




We used Method I with an added "reroll 1's once" and that seemed to work for us. Of course the players wanted to use Method VI(?) from UA (even for their non-human PCs). Nothing like rolling 9d6, drop the 6 lowest to get that 18 you want.


----------



## Raven Crowking

What Gygax lacked as a technical writer, he more than made up as an inspirational writer, IMHO.  I can read and reread those books with great enjoyment every time.  There are far too many recent gaming books that are as dry as dirt to read.  



Hussar said:


> Heh, we were pretty heavily into Monte Haul territory.  Ran far too many modules.




That's not the fault of the modules.  



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> We used Method I with an added "reroll 1's once" and that seemed to work for us. Of course the players wanted to use Method VI(?) from UA (even for their non-human PCs). Nothing like rolling 9d6, drop the 6 lowest to get that 18 you want.




We used Method I, no reroll on 1s.


RC


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Heh, we were pretty heavily into Monte Haul territory.  Ran far too many modules.




We ran a lot of modules too and, though we had plenty of stuff, none of it was particularly unearned though lack of challenge and most of it was redundant, thus preventing the "being decked out like an Xmas tree" phenomenon. So I wouldn't call it Monty Haul territory.
In fact, most of the redundant stuff ended up being sold for level advancement training.


----------



## Garmorn

Lanefan said:


> From the 1e DMG, p. 11, paraphrased:
> 
> Method I
> Roll 4d6 for each stat, drop lowest, rearrange to suit
> 
> Method II
> Roll 3d6 12 times, take the highest 6 scores, rearrange to suit
> 
> Method III
> Roll 3d6 6 times for each stat and take the highest, do not rearrange
> 
> Method IV
> Roll 3d6 once for each stat, do not rearrange; repeat 12 times, choose one set
> 
> A very long time ago, we started using Method I except with 5d6, and it's worked great ever since!
> 
> Lanefan




Man!  This make me hate house rules even more.  I don't think I even came close to any of these as a player of 1e.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> We ran a lot of modules too and, though we had plenty of stuff, none of it was particularly unearned though lack of challenge and most of it was redundant, thus preventing the "being decked out like an Xmas tree" phenomenon. So I wouldn't call it Monty Haul territory.
> In fact, most of the redundant stuff ended up being sold for level advancement training.




Damn, how much were you paying for level advancement?  IIRC it was like 1500 gp/level for training no?  Considering the general consensus is that people gained far more xp from treasure than kills, you should have had lots of gold to flog for training.  

Then again, we sold off the buckets of magic for the xp AND the training.  

Well, no matter how you slice it RC, the fact that there is OVER a million GP in the G series of modules is pretty hard to avoid.  And that doesn't count magic items at all.  Heck, even if you're forcing your players to develop spontaneous cataracts every time they find treasure, they're likely to pick up a bit of flash once in a while.  

But hey, to each his own.  To me, when you're outfitting all of your followers (and I played a cleric!) with magic weapons because you just can't be bothered selling them, well, that's pretty Monte Haul to me.  

I still loved ending up with the trifecta of the girdle, gauntlets and hammer of thunderbolts in the hands of my paladin.  Wahoo.  Blowing away dragons in a single round was just fun.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> Well, no matter how you slice it RC, the fact that there is OVER a million GP in the G series of modules is pretty hard to avoid.




Not if the DM is competent.  

It is telling, perhaps, that the winner of the Origins tournament in which the G series first appeared did not gain any of the major treasures from G1, being forced instead to use _speak with dead_ to learn where to go next.

(We are not told how they fared in G2, and only that they were unable to complete -- and the judges thought that they would not survive -- G3.  They thought they would survive it, however.   )


RC


----------



## Undermountain

Our games were mostly homebrew back then - I love established settings, but there's something about a good homebrew campaign that really brings the story out!


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> But hey, to each his own.  To me, when you're outfitting all of your followers (and I played a cleric!) with magic weapons because you just can't be bothered selling them, well, that's pretty Monte Haul to me.




I always made sure my followers were outfitted first, before I even thought of selling anything.  Well, after the ale and whores, of course.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Damn, how much were you paying for level advancement?  IIRC it was like 1500 gp/level for training no?  Considering the general consensus is that people gained far more xp from treasure than kills, you should have had lots of gold to flog for training.




1500 per level (current level, not level you're obtaining) per week. When you figure that superior play means 2 weeks of training, it's not cheap. To go from 4th to 5th level, you're cashing in 6000 gp/week or about 12,000 gp. That's cashing in about 6 +1 swords per character training, assuming you're getting full value.
Not cheap at all, particularly when your average fighter moving to 5th level has 18,000 xp and had to spend probably 10-15,000 gp in training costs already.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> 1500 per level (current level, not level you're obtaining) per week. When you figure that superior play means 2 weeks of training, it's not cheap. To go from 4th to 5th level, you're cashing in 6000 gp/week or about 12,000 gp. That's cashing in about 6 +1 swords per character training, assuming you're getting full value.
> Not cheap at all, particularly when your average fighter moving to 5th level has 18,000 xp and had to spend probably 10-15,000 gp in training costs already.




Hang on, I thought good role playing meant you had to train for only one week.  It wasn't until you started screwing up that you got punished.  Are you saying that you were forcing your players to spend that much cash for superior play?

Ok, well, that would explain why you guys had no money.  

But, one question though.  Why would you not get full value for selling your magic weapons?  Or is this another rule I am unfamiliar with?  I didn't know that there were any rules for magic weapons getting cheaper to sell.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Not if the DM is competent.
> 
> It is telling, perhaps, that the winner of the Origins tournament in which the G series first appeared did not gain any of the major treasures from G1, being forced instead to use speak with dead to learn where to go next.
> 
> (We are not told how they fared in G2, and only that they were unable to complete -- and the judges thought that they would not survive -- G3. They thought they would survive it, however. )
> 
> 
> RC




Nice.  If the players are skilled (in your own definition of player skill) and get the treasure, then it automatically follows that the DM is incompetent.  

There is a world of difference from tournament play and home play.  In a tournament, I'm not about to spend a couple of hours of game time stripping down the walls of the dungeon.  Then again, I never played with time limits at home.  Perhaps you did?

Of course, the existence of a single group that didn't find a lot of the treasure automatically means that ALL groups going through the modules would never find a lot of the treasure.

The truth is, there is over a MILLION gp in those modules.  A half assed search of the area will reveal probably about half of that.  Or, are you now saying that players will only find maybe 10% of the treasure in an adventure?


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> Nice.  If the players are skilled (in your own definition of player skill) and get the treasure, then it automatically follows that the DM is incompetent.







Strawman.


----------



## Votan

Raven Crowking said:


> Not if the DM is competent.
> 
> It is telling, perhaps, that the winner of the Origins tournament in which the G series first appeared did not gain any of the major treasures from G1, being forced instead to use _speak with dead_ to learn where to go next.




I am actually curious about this "not if the DM is competent bit", myself.  It has been about 20 years since we played G1-G2-G3 and then all died off in the D series (I read about the Demonweb pits after the fact as our hardy band of giant killers was annihilated by the underdark).  

But, when reading the modules, I remember seeing treaure we missed but not tons of it (especially in the Hill Giant portion where we stuck around so long the DM improvised a raid to get us moving).  

It's possible we had an incompetent DM.  I don't think so -- he made the game fun and had no trouble with a fearsome TPK later on (some sort of energy draining lances weakened us enough to get finished off).  We had some house rules (our wizards cast like sorcerers rather than memorize spells).  Replacements happened -- in particular I hated the Elf F7/W 11 I had who could not advance.  

But we sure got at least half of the treasure.  We were doing worse in the underdark because the random encounters were tougher and we could not fall back and rest so easily.  

I don't want to dismiss your point of view nor are duelling ancedotes very helpful but I think you might have a high threshold for DM competence if getting half the treasure is evidence (and I know we got more than half as the gotcha moments only really showed up in the D-series).


----------



## Bullgrit

> I am actually curious about this "not if the DM is competent bit", myself.



Yeah. Some consider the DM an antagonist whose job it is to keep the PCs from defeating monsters, finding treasure, and advancing. So a competent DM in this vein is one who sees PCs killed often, most treasures unfound, and advancement glacially slow.

Bullgrit


----------



## Raven Crowking

Votan,

Let me ask you.  Imagine that you find all of the treasure in G1.  How much does it weigh?  Now let us assume that you find all of the treasure in G2.  Again, how much does it weigh?  Finally, the same question for G3.

Of the three modules, G1 assumes the closest route to civilization.  Assuming that you are not going directly through the module series (in which case, you need to carry all the treasure from G1, G2, and G3 at the same time), how do you recover it all?  

On top of that, complete treasure recovery requires finishing the module before the giants have the chance to escape with their treasure into the next module of the series.  Eventually, you might discover a bigger load of treasure in G3 (if subsequent giants escape), but not only is G3 now reinforced, but you have the problem of transporting said loot.

If the DM has been so generous with _bags of holding_ and the like that you have no problem with this, I call the DM incompetent.  If the DM handwaves this, and then complains because the module gave away too much treasure, again the DM is incompetent.



			
				Gary Gygax said:
			
		

> In like manner, the hoard of a draon could destroy a campaign if the treasure of Smaug, in *THE HOBBIT*, were to be used as an example of what such a trove should contain.  Not so for the wise DM!  He or she will place a few choice and portable items, some not-so-choice because they are difficult to carry off, and finally top (or rather botton and top) the whole with mounds, piles, and layers of copper pieces, silver, etc.  There will be much there, but even the cleverest of players will be more than hard put to figure out a way to garner the bulk of it after driving off, subduing, or slaying the treasure's guardian.  Many other avaricious monsters are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to help themselves to an unguarded dragon hoard, and news travels fast.  Who will stay behind to mind the coins while the rest of the party goes off to dispose of the better part of the loot?  Not their henchmen!  What a problem . . .




Not so the wise author, either!  What Gygax suggests as problems with a D&D dragon's hoard are exactly the problems that Bilbo & Company are forced to deal with after Smaug's death -- slaying the dragon is not even close to the end of the matter.

Player skill is not merely defeating the guardians, and not merely locating the treasure -- it is also knowing what is smart to take and smart to leave behind.  DMing skill is not merely reading a module text or running combats, but it using the rules to ensure that the campaign milieu stays within the golden mean between Monty Haul and the Killer Dungeon.  The DM who says "I'm not going to enforce encumbrance or logistics because it makes things too hard for the players" and then rewards the characters as though logistics were taken into account has only himself to blame.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> Yeah. Some consider the DM an antagonist whose job it is to keep the PCs from defeating monsters, finding treasure, and advancing. So a competent DM in this vein is one who sees PCs killed often, most treasures unfound, and advancement glacially slow.
> 
> Bullgrit




...yeah. See moderator warning below, please. ~ PCat



Straw man.



Par for the course, and fully in keeping with your agenda.


----------



## Votan

Raven Crowking said:


> Votan,
> 
> Let me ask you.  Imagine that you find all of the treasure in G1.  How much does it weigh?  Now let us assume that you find all of the treasure in G2.  Again, how much does it weigh?  Finally, the same question for G3.
> 
> Of the three modules, G1 assumes the closest route to civilization.  Assuming that you are not going directly through the module series (in which case, you need to carry all the treasure from G1, G2, and G3 at the same time), how do you recover it all?
> 
> On top of that, complete treasure recovery requires finishing the module before the giants have the chance to escape with their treasure into the next module of the series.  Eventually, you might discover a bigger load of treasure in G3 (if subsequent giants escape), but not only is G3 now reinforced, but you have the problem of transporting said loot.
> 
> If the DM has been so generous with _bags of holding_ and the like that you have no problem with this, I call the DM incompetent.  If the DM handwaves this, and then complains because the module gave away too much treasure, again the DM is incompetent.
> RC




Well, remember we are going back 20 years in memory so not all details are sharp (sadly, old age gets all of us).  But I do remember both a train of pack mules (and the screams/annoyance when the mules got killed) as well as frequent use of teleport.  We also had an elf F/MU early on (that I was playing) who could also teleport.  There was also a psionist (dragon mag) and some melee types.

Things went terribly wrong when after the elf died (on a teleport, if I recall correctly -- no joke, only a 2% chance) and was replaced (with the very sad and sub-optimal choice of a monk -- boy was I not thinking).  We tehn encountered some silly Drow that could drain up to 4 levels from the wizard (per hit!!!!).  

Without using magic cleverly it all went wrong.  We needed to advance the psionist (who was really close) so he could cast Restoration (by reaching a high enough level to have that power).  That was a terrible mistake.  

Coming back as a non-caster was a bad idea on my part (especially as I came back a few levels lower than the fighter [who I think was a fighter/theif but memory is fuzzy] and Paladin so was incompetent on the front lines).  There was also some sort of Druid type but I didn't know that person well (but I think they did the pack train).

I'm not 100% sure why we were not using teleport without error as I think that was in the PHB but maybe the wizard was hoarding spells.  He was definitely the highest level party member before he got drained.


----------



## Hussar

As I recall, in at least one of the G modules, there's a Portable Hole.  

A 10x10x10 space with zero weight holds a HELL of a lot of treasure.  Plus, there were more than a few bags of holding in the module as well.

Never minding, of course, the multiple rings of three wishes that can be found in the modules.

Of course, that ignores teleport as well as Leomund's Secret Chest and various other methods as well.

Getting the treasure home was never really all that hard IMO.  

But, isn't it funny how the song has now changed from "The players will never find a majority of the treasure" to "The players will never get that treasure back to civilization".  These goalposts just keep moving further and further back.


----------



## Umbran

Raven Crowking said:


> Straw man.
> 
> 
> 
> Par for the course, and fully in keeping with your agenda.





Once again, it is time to note - if you don't like what someone has to say, you are free to ignore it.  Or, you can counter the argument with detailed logic in a civil and respectful manner.  But this getting dismissive, snarky and accusatory is not what we want to see around here.


----------



## Hussar

Just a further point that occured to me.

How is it realistic that the giants in G1 would actually flee to G2?  I mean, one, IIRC, only the Hill Giant leader knows about the secret room with the magic gate, so, if he dies in the opening encounter, could they actually retreat.  But, also, there is the issue of would the hill giants actually go there?  I mean, how likely is it that the fire giants, upon seeing hill giants laden with their treasure suddenly popping up through the gate that they're NOT supposed to use, will welcome them with open arms and not kill them on sight?

Plus, how realistic is it that the hill giants, not the brightest of creatures in the first place, will not panic after being hurt enough to consider retreating, but rather will remain calm and tactical and gather up all their treasure most carefully, leaving little or nothing behind, then proceed through the gate that they're not supposed to use in the first place?

Since when do hill giants suddenly turn into special forces members, keeping a cool head at all times and make the perfect tactical decision?

How is that remotely more realistic or believable than the PC's mow down the giants who might scatter to the four winds carrying only what they could grab on the way through?  (Of course, that ignores the fact that the PC's could pretty easily TRACK the hill giants down if they wanted to.)

I suppose if the DM is taking the position that the players MUST NOT get the treasure at any cost, this is a good idea, but, I gotta admit, not a DM I want to play with.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Just a further point that occured to me.
> 
> How is it realistic that the giants in G1 would actually flee to G2?  I mean, one, IIRC, only the Hill Giant leader knows about the secret room with the magic gate, so, if he dies in the opening encounter, could they actually retreat.  But, also, there is the issue of would the hill giants actually go there?  I mean, how likely is it that the fire giants, upon seeing hill giants laden with their treasure suddenly popping up through the gate that they're NOT supposed to use, will welcome them with open arms and not kill them on sight?




The module assumes that most of them won't flee to G2 (or to G3 in the case of the frost giants). But the leadership may if it gets the chance and is the one most likely to take as much loot as possible (giant leaders being what they are). The hill giants are expected to go down in a disorganized fashion. They're partying after all...
But would the fire giants welcome fleeing giants arriving? Why not? They're supposed to be working together and the fire giants are both the most organized and disciplined as well as with advisers closest at hand.

The real risk of retreat is when the PCs have to make multiple forays to clear out the giants. In G2 and G3, the likelihood of that is considerable.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Hang on, I thought good role playing meant you had to train for only one week.  It wasn't until you started screwing up that you got punished.  Are you saying that you were forcing your players to spend that much cash for superior play?




That's the rule. Superior = 2 weeks. Exceptional at 1 week is a step *above* superior. The rules are designed to bleed a lot of cash out of the PCs for leveling up. 



Hussar said:


> But, one question though.  Why would you not get full value for selling your magic weapons?  Or is this another rule I am unfamiliar with?  I didn't know that there were any rules for magic weapons getting cheaper to sell.




Check out the section in the DMG under *Duties, Excises, Fees, Tariffs, Taxes, Tithes, and Tolls*.  You could typically expect to lose 5-10% of the value of any treasure used in an economic transaction. More in particularly troublesome places you may find yourself in like Suderham.


----------



## MerricB

billd91 said:


> That's the rule. Superior = 2 weeks. Exceptional at 1 week is a step *above* superior. The rules are designed to bleed a lot of cash out of the PCs for leveling up.




One of the biggest problems I have with the training rules is that Gary Gygax admitted that he usually didn't use them. Indeed, for many AD&D modules, there will be no opportunity to use them!

Can you imagine taking 2-3 weeks out of the middle of Cult of the Reptile God to train whilst the cultists advance their plans? Even in the Temple of Elemental Evil it seems a long time to be gone.

Every time I've tried using training rules, I've quickly abandoned them because they just don't work once you move into games that have events reacting to the heroes. They work fine in the dungeon-based campaign where the heroes go into the dungeon many times and there isn't a sinister force plotting to overtake the world, but drop a hint of story into the game and watch training become completely inconvenient.

It should be noted that once money is gained in AD&D is somewhat irrelevant. Yes, you want it to gain and pay henchmen and later to build your stronghold, but it's not like 3E where you'd be spending it on magic items.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> But, isn't it funny how the song has now changed from "The players will never find a majority of the treasure" to "The players will never get that treasure back to civilization".  These goalposts just keep moving further and further back.




Nah, the goalposts haven't changed.  If you go back to the Q thread, the problem with the assumptions Q made was that the PCs would recover the majority of treasure.

Recovery of treasure consists of two parts:  1.  Locating said treasure (further subdivided into dealing with guarding creatures, dealing with traps, recognizing treasure for what it is, and, very often, determining whether it is worth carrying out based on its value vs. bulk, as well as some things I am undoubtably forgetting) and 2.  Getting said treasure home (which, according to the DMG, includes dealing with any taxes, bribes, etc., as well as encumberance and monsters/characters who want a slice of the pie).

Because I was willing, for the sake of argument, to grant the first part does not imply that the goalposts have changed.  It is merely to demonstrate that, even were it granted, you would still have a job ahead of you.

I am pointing out that your dismissal of one roadblock doesn't come close to fully eliminating the problem.  I am not saying that your dismissal of that roadblock is in any way correct.  Indeed, as I pointed out, the winners of the Origins tournament - the people who did best playing the game as it was intended to be played - found it a significant roadblock indeed!

BTW, if the DM says "You find a _bag of holding_" every time you do (or any time you do), that DM is incompetent.  What a _portable hole_ and multiple _bags of holding_ really imply is a good chance that a _bag_ will eventually be put into the _hole_, and your 10 cubic feet of treasure will be lost.

Again, if the DM doesn't use the rules, it is not the fault of the rules that he encounters problems.  Your Monty Haulism was not due to the modules.

This is rather like saying that 4e sucks because the combat encounters aren't balanced, because I am not using the tools provided.  It is a non-starter of an argument.



RC


EDIT:  And because Mr. Gygax was experienced enough to ignore certain rules doesn't mean that you should *if you are not getting the same results*.  This is no different than learning to write effectively -- stick to the rules of grammar until you know them well enough to break them effectively.  Jumping to "breaking the rules" because you can't be bothered to learn them first, or because James Joyce can get away with stream-of-consciousness, is not the sign of a competent writer.....or DM.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hussar said:


> Since when do hill giants suddenly turn into special forces members, keeping a cool head at all times and make the perfect tactical decision?




Do you have a copy of this module available to you, or are you in need of the relevant parts?


----------



## Raven Crowking

MerricB said:


> One of the biggest problems I have with the training rules is that Gary Gygax admitted that he usually didn't use them. Indeed, for many AD&D modules, there will be no opportunity to use them!




As was pointed out in Q's thread, as another example of why all XP would not be likely to be recovered.

"Do we stop to train, or do we stop these guys now?" is one of those things that AD&D 1e players have to decide.  The game wasn't designed to be a rocket to 20th level.


RC


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Raven Crowking said:


> And because Mr. Gygax was experienced enough to ignore certain rules doesn't mean that you should *if you are not getting the same results*.  This is no different than learning to write effectively -- stick to the rules of grammar until you know them well enough to break them effectively.  Jumping to "breaking the rules" because you can't be bothered to learn them first, or because James Joyce can get away with stream-of-consciousness, is not the sign of a competent writer.....or DM.




I don´t know. That would mean whe have to condense what we learned from this thread by saying _"AD&D wasn´t designed with game balance in mind, but with elitism"_


----------



## Raven Crowking

Keefe the Thief said:


> I don´t know. That would mean whe have to condense what we learned from this thread by saying _"AD&D wasn´t designed with game balance in mind, but with elitism"_




Well, insofar as knowing how to speak or write well enough to get paid%2


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> Do you have a copy of this module available to you, or are you in need of the relevant parts?




Well, considering that Bill91 agrees with me, that the giants actually won't flee, perhaps some rereading wouldn't hurt.  Just saying.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> BTW, if the DM says "You find a bag of holding" every time you do (or any time you do), that DM is incompetent. What a portable hole and multiple bags of holding really imply is a good chance that a bag will eventually be put into the hole, and your 10 cubic feet of treasure will be lost.




Umm, how hard is it to figure out that this hankerchief I've got is a 10x10x10 space?  Or that the bag I just picked up is bigger on the inside than the outside?

I'll buy you might not know that the sword is a +1 sword (unless it glows), but a Bag of Holding?  How incompetent are your players?

Besides that, we just piled everything in one big pile and hit it with detect magic.  When a bag glows, well, you've really only got two choices by and large - bag of holding or devouring.  A quick bit of testing generally reveals it.

So, no, not once in any D&D game I've ever played has a bag of holding been unintentionally placed inside another extra-dimensional space.  Intentionally?  Well, that's a whole 'nother story.  

But, at the end of the day, I think you're arguing in a circle.  A good player, with good player skills, will get the treasure.  That's what defines, according to you, a good player.  A good DM will prevent the player from getting the treasure, again, according to you.

So, if you have good players, you automatically must have a bad DM - because a good DM would never let the players get the treasure back to town.  If you have bad players, you automatically have a good DM.  Funny how that definition becomes a trifle self serving no?


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Well, considering that Bill91 agrees with me, that the giants actually won't flee, perhaps some rereading wouldn't hurt.  Just saying.




Oh, I'm not saying none of them will flee, just that there's not going to be any any organization to it, and most won't even try to get to G2. They're far too disorganized and busy partying to even really try. But I had a bunch of mine in the outer rooms take to the hills the last time I ran G1 once the party had quelled the giants in the main hall.

Edit: Nor are the giants in G3 likely to flee. They're too likely to put up a spirited defense even when their chances are crumbling. Giants in G2, they're likely to be pretty good cut-and-runners.


----------



## MerricB

Hussar said:


> Besides that, we just piled everything in one big pile and hit it with detect magic.  When a bag glows, well, you've really only got two choices by and large - bag of holding or devouring.




You forgot the Bag of Tricks. 

But, yes - the portable hole/bag of holding implosion happens _once_ (because you haven't read the DMG, have you, my players?) and then a bag never goes into a hole or vice-versa again.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking

I did some rereading last night....the notes about the giants fleeing were still there.  Odd that.

What I had a really hard time finding were the bags of holding and the portable hole you mentioned.  Could you give me a reference?  Doubtless, I simply missed them......?

(The module does give the volume for some of that treasure, making me wonder just how much even a single hole would be worth, even were it there.  Also, the teleport between adventures allows only six man-sized figures, making it unlikely that a wagon train of mules could be used unless the party went overland....and experienced encounters as a result thereof.)


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

How about we open a thread called "Is 4e designed for game balance?"

In it, I can describe how, though neither following the rules, nor following module text as written, I achieved unbalanced results, and then blame the designers.  Because, AFAICT, that is what this thread has boiled down to.


RC


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Raven Crowking said:


> How about we open a thread called "Is 4e designed for game balance?"
> 
> In it, I can describe how, though neither following the rules, nor following module text as written, I achieved unbalanced results, and then blame the designers.  Because, AFAICT, that is what this thread has boiled down to.
> 
> 
> RC




Why not? Then as soon as you complain about the balance in 4e and cite an adventure to support your position, people can say stuff like "you changed the rules without being as experienced as Mike Mearls!"

That would be like that mirror universe from Star Trek: people arguing that the 4e white box killed characters as soon as you rolled their stats, Diaglo eating Burning Wheel pages for breakfast, etc. 

Of course, we could also - after trazillion pages of arguing - just agree to disagree, and move on.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Keefe the Thief said:


> Why not? Then as soon as you complain about the balance in 4e and cite an adventure to support your position, people can say stuff like "you changed the rules without being as experienced as Mike Mearls!"




And they would be right!  I certainly don't have the experience with 4e necessary to change the rules and know that my changes will not have unintended consequences.

One would hope that the designers have enough insight into the rules to change them with fewer problems than the average player/DM would.  I would wonder why I am paying for a product that the average player/DM can revise with little consequence.

After all, that is the source of the admonition in the 1e DMG:  That you can change the systems if you like, but they are as they are for a reason, and if you change them, it helps to first understand them well enough to know what your changes are actually going to do to game play.  (Paraphrased -- I don't have the 1e DMG with me here at work.  I am sure someone could pull the exact quote.)

And, while I am sure that there are folks who can change 4e without problems, I have little sympathy for those who make changes, then blame 4e when those changes don't pan out the way they expected!

I mean, look at how many early 4e threads revolved around "problems" that people who liked 4e were not having.  4e doesn't provide what I want, but it does provide its own thing.  Not understanding what that "own thing" is led to a lot of poorly-thought-out posts, including my own, which I have little sympathy for in retrospect.  As my understanding of 4e grows, my respect for it as a system grows as well.  I still don't want to run it, but I can see why people enjoy it.  And some of my earlier opinions were flat-out wrong.

Is that the fault of 4e, or is that my fault?

You don't need to answer -- that is my fault.

If you neither follow the rules, nor following module text as written, achieve unbalanced results, and then blame the designers, that is your fault.  It doesn't matter what game system it is.

(That the rules in 1e are hard to follow [sometimes in both a literal and figurative sense], though, is Gary's fault.  Let blame fall where blame is due.)



> Of course, we could also - after trazillion pages of arguing - just agree to disagree, and move on.




We could even, perhaps, do so before we reach a trazillion pages.  


RC


----------



## Witty Comeback

Hussar said:


> But, at the end of the day, I think you're arguing in a circle.  A good player, with good player skills, will get the treasure.  That's what defines, according to you, a good player.  A good DM will prevent the player from getting the treasure, again, according to you.
> 
> So, if you have good players, you automatically must have a bad DM - because a good DM would never let the players get the treasure back to town.  If you have bad players, you automatically have a good DM.




I think that is a slight mischaracterization.  I interpret RC as saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that a good DM will place treasure such that good play will be rewarded with that treasure, and poor play will not.  Making treasure impossible to retrieve is bad DMing, because neither good play nor bad play will be distinguishable.  Making all the treasure easily retrieved is bad DMing, because both good play and bad play will be rewarded.  The trick, then, is to set up the challenges such that skilled players can reap benefits that poor players cannot (or do not).

Furthermore, the important part (according to his posts) is that the entire retrieval process be carried out, i.e. finding it, recognizing it as valuable, actually being able to remove it from the dungeon, etc.

Edit: Also, your summary reminded me of one of my favorite Yogi Berra quotes: "Good hitting will defeat good pitching very time, and vice versa."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Witty Comeback said:


> I interpret RC as saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that a good DM will place treasure such that good play will be rewarded with that treasure, and poor play will not.  Making treasure impossible to retrieve is bad DMing, because neither good play nor bad play will be distinguishable.  Making all the treasure easily retrieved is bad DMing, because both good play and bad play will be rewarded.  The trick, then, is to set up the challenges such that skilled players can reap benefits that poor players cannot (or do not).
> 
> Furthermore, the important part (according to his posts) is that the entire retrieval process be carried out, i.e. finding it, recognizing it as valuable, actually being able to remove it from the dungeon, etc.




I only wish I had said it that well.  

Add to this the idea that you could rank player skill on a level from 1 to 10, with 1 being rank amature and 10 being the most skilled a player can be.  Most players will rank 4-6.  With me?

A good DM will include rewards that can be obtained by each of these ranks, with the harder rewards only being obtainable by the higher ranking players.  In addition, the more difficult it is to obtain a reward, the greater the reward will be.  Thus, while most characters will gain a significant amount of treasure, few will gain close to all of it, and what is gained will actually vary from party to party based upon their actions in the fictional gamespace.

A good example of this is the Ring of Three Wishes in Module G2.  It is only obtainable if one defeats a remorhaz without using any fire magic (fireball, flame strike, etc.).  Arguably, the players have to realize that the killing field probably contains treasure, and that fire spells will melt a portion of the glacier, thus removing that treasure from their reach.  In addition, they have to search the area effectively, and then figure out what the ring is.  A challenge, if played properly, for players ranking about 7-8 (IMHO).

This is similar to the major treasure near the Giant Crayfish in T1; it players prod the water with anything other than their hands, it slips away and is lost.

In G3, there is another Ring of Three Wishes hidden in a box with 71 other rings, none of which is immediately distinguishable from the others.  This is part of a larger treasure hoard that will take work to identify the important treasures therein, and figure out a way to transport them.  One of the rings has contact poison (no save) on it, so that incautious players will have a death as well as three wishes (thus presumably using up one of the wishes).  This is, I estimate, a challenge for players ranking 4-6 to get the ring, about 6-7 to get the ring without someone dying while examining the treasure (there are other traps).

These are only estimates, mind, and my ideas are hardly the be-all and end-all of how hard it should be to obtain X, Y, or Z.


RC


----------



## Votan

Raven Crowking said:


> Also, the teleport between adventures allows only six man-sized figures, making it unlikely that a wagon train of mules could be used unless the party went overland....and experienced encounters as a result thereof.




I admit that I am not 100% clear on what you are arguing here.  It's true that overland trips have encounters but, unless you deliberately make them unusually deadly, 9th level characters (pretty typical median level for G1) aren't much bothered by them.  

Teleport has a weight capacity and you only really need the caster to go if you are exchanging silver pieces for gems.  

Part of the issue might be whether you ramp up threats to player level in the general setting.  If the big city of X is dangerous to 9th level characters than the 2nd levels who first appear there are simply dead.  If random wilderness encounters make 9th level fighters concerned then your 4th level travelers are dead (and there is no commerce at all).  

I think the point is that the modules have a lot of treasure and a party that is systematic will get a lot of it.  Part of it isn't being slow to fight the Giants -- once you are done people can search the G1 setting for a long time before proceeding.  This can even make sense -- ambushes are much more likely to be set up if you follow any fleeing Giants quickly.  

Sure, you can argue for a sense of time pressure but now you are moving into the realm of how the setting adapts.  I am not trying to say that getting the treasure was trivial (it isn't) but that a careful party can get a surprising percentage of it, in my experience.  

I no longer own these modules so there may be some feature that we did not do correctly all those years ago.  But it seems odd that one would include massive amounts of treasure on the hypothesis that most of it would not be found.  Some won't . . . but much might be too.


----------



## Raven Crowking

If one assumes that the group is playing the game as described in the DMG, then there should be trouble with searching the G1 setting for a long time before proceeding.  First off, it should be remembered that the giants have the benefit of the "best advice" (from the Drow).  

If the giants left a lot of treasure in the Steading, it would not be unreasonable for the giants from G2 to send a party to recover it.  If the wizard is currently away selling the gems (via teleport), that's just too bad.  It should also be assumed that the survivors tell whatever they know about the PCs, and that any giant group arriving at the Steading should have fairly good intelligence.

The party searching the Steading will also have to deal with any returning ogres or giants that were not at the Steading when they first arrived, as well as standard wilderness encounters.  Those orc and bugbear slaves came from somewhere.....perhaps when their tribes hear that the Steading has fallen, they will come poking about for treasure.  The orc tribe might even feel such treasure is earned, if the captive orcs helped the PCs (as is suggested in the module).

I don't think that the sheer bulk of the treasure in the G Series modules has become completely apparent.  Or, for that matter, the amount of time it would take to thoroughly search the entire module setting.  For that matter, do the PCs "thoroughly search" the entire setting?  If so, how many go permanently insane before the learn to stop trying to be thorough in the weird temple?


----------



## Bullgrit

Grave dangers just getting to the dungeon.

Monsterous dangers laired and wandering in the dungeon.

Unfound treasures. Found treasures being non-portable.

Grave dangers getting back home from the dungeon with the minimal loot haul.

High training costs and taxes.

One wonder how PCs in such a true, old-school game managed to actually gain levels at all.

This kind of thing sounds so much like the old, "We walked through rain and snow to school, uphill, both ways."

I'm just really glad that none of my old D&D gaming experiences were like this. I'm glad that none of my DMs were so "competent" and none of the dungeons we adventured in were as "proper" as this.

Bullgrit


----------



## Scribble

Bullgrit said:


> One wonder how PCs in such a true, old-school game managed to actually gain levels at all.
> 
> This kind of thing sounds so much like the old, "We walked through rain and snow to school, uphill, both ways."
> 
> I'm just really glad that none of my old D&D gaming experiences were like this. I'm glad that none of my DMs were so "competent" and none of the dungeons we adventured in were as "proper" as this.
> 
> Bullgrit




I've found a whole lot of stuff in gaming works out well on paper when you have a ton of time to think about it, and plan it, but ends up being a lot different when it hits the table... or the fan...


----------



## Raven Crowking

Bullgrit said:


> One wonder how PCs in such a true, old-school game managed to actually gain levels at all.





They probably followed Gygax's advice for successful adventuring in the back of the PHB.  

Success in Gygaxian D&D is not measured by getting _*everything*_; it is measured by maximizing profit while minimizing risk.  Doing so often requires knowing what _*not*_ to bother with.

"Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves" applies to Gygaxian treasure troves as much as to anything else.  Bulky treasure is the rope, not knowing what to leave behind ends up hanging the PCs.  This is part of what Gygax defined as "good play"....although it may not be to everyone's tastes!  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

BTW, it occurs to me -- I can understand not liking a game style.  I have a hard time trying to imagine what your goal is in "proving it doesn't exist"?  Maybe you could enlighten me.

Because there is nothing wrong with not liking a game style.  Nor is there anything wrong with each edition changing the parameters of game style based upon the perceived market of the day.

I guess I'm asking:  What is the point?


RC


----------



## Votan

Raven Crowking said:


> BTW, it occurs to me -- I can understand not liking a game style.  I have a hard time trying to imagine what your goal is in "proving it doesn't exist"?  Maybe you could enlighten me.
> 
> Because there is nothing wrong with not liking a game style.  Nor is there anything wrong with each edition changing the parameters of game style based upon the perceived market of the day.
> 
> I guess I'm asking:  What is the point?
> 
> 
> RC




Mostly I am trying to get back to an era where there was more hetereogeneity in gaming styles to look for inspiration as to how to improve the play experience in the modern era.  While the decisions that led to the current approach are often sound, they do not invalidate different approaches to the game.

It's also the case that early game playing tended to be regionally different.  I grew up in Canada (Ontario) and it could well be that we deciphered and interpreted rules very differently.  Certainly nobody I gamed with back in the day was able to argue that they'd seem Arneson's table and how it was run.  

So I don;t think I am trying to prove that a style did not exist; I am more trying to figure out different ways to approach the game.  I might end up exactly where I am now but with it having been a more examined approach to the whole process.  

So far, what I have learned is that there is a break even point with a volume of rules material after which more material, no matter how good, begins to interfere with my enjoyment as a DM.  I also note that it is a higher threshold as a player.  I also have noticed that the idea of "balance" has changed radically and that some of the older styles had a lot to recommend them.


----------



## Hussar

No RC.  What we're claiming is that more play styles than yours actually exist and you are dismissing anything that does not follow your playstyle as being the product of "incompetent DM's".  

Sure, your style exists.  How common it is is up for grabs.  How it's any more valid than other styles is also up for debate.  

The funny thing is, you ignore anything that counters your points while claiming victory.

Look, according to you, a good player will gain most of his xp from treasure, by avoiding encounters.  Ok, fair enough.  What's "most"?  50 plus 1 per cent?  That seems a bit low.  Let's say 66%.  That's a pretty clear "most". 

That means, you can guess the wealth of a character by simply multiplying his xp by 66%.  Give or take.  So, if the PC has 100000 xp (about 6th level ish), he's going to have about 60-70 thousand gp, at least - because likely he's also going to have magic items that he's kept and not sold.

Now, sure, you're going to make him pay level tax.  What constitutes the different levels of play is also VERY much up for debate.  I recall the examples given of play in the DMG as something along the lines of "Did the fighter run away?  No?  Then that's excellent play".  This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that two weeks of training was the standard.  

Then again, I'm basing that on my own anecdotes, but, that's what all this boils down to is dueling anecdotes.

For me, Bullgrit's analysis of 1e matched up almost picture perfectly with my own experiences.  Now I'm being told that the only reason they do is because the DM was incompetent and none of us knew how to "really" play the game.  That's a trifle insulting don't you think?



			
				Votan said:
			
		

> I also have noticed that the idea of "balance" has changed radically and that some of the older styles had a lot to recommend them.




Totally agree with this.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> The funny thing is, you ignore anything that counters your points while claiming victory.




Pot meet kettle. There's been plenty of this from your posts in this and related threads as well.



Hussar said:


> Then again, I'm basing that on my own anecdotes, but, that's what all this boils down to is dueling anecdotes.




I wouldn't go so far as saying it's merely dueling anecdotes. How many times do any of us have to point out rules and recommendations validating our interpretations of this game's design assumptions before you'll stop dismissing them as anecdotal?

If you want to discuss differences in playing styles, relatively merits and weaknesses, that's a whole different kettle of fish than debating the game's design intentions and assumptions. Judging from the topic of this thread, it's the _latter_ that is the subject of this thread and not the former.


----------



## Hussar

The problem is, every time I bring up things FROM THE RULES that illustrate my point, they get ignored.  Treasure tables that the rules specifically state will result in unbalanced games are somehow has transformed into rules that are meant for game balance.  Character building mechanics that result in totally different power levels, with no baseline for comparison magically results in balanced design.

Every example I bring up, is countered by "Well in my game we did this".  

I pointed to RC's completely circular logic - good players will get the treasure, good DM's will prevent good players from getting the treasure, therefore no group could have both good players and good DM's.  And that gets ignored.

The fact, not opinion, FACT that there is over a MILLION gold pieces in a module gets dismissed as, "well, thirty years ago, one group playing in a tournament game didn'T get the treasure, therefore no one ever should".  I mean, come on.

You guys have some very strong play assumptions that I just do not share.  Nor do I think that these play assumptions - rapid character replacement, frequent poor play resulting in high training costs, deadly random encounters frequently occuring, and others - are actually as wide spread and universal as you seem to be claiming.

Look, I've made my case.  There's not much else I can do here.  I'm tired of goal posts on roller skates and dueling anecdotes.  I do not believe 1e was designed for game balance.  I believe it was designed to give you a play experience that resembled Gygax and co's table and, if you deviated from their play style, your game went kerblooie.  

The more I hear you and RC talk about 1e, the more limiting it sounds.  The DM MUST screw over the players and never let them have the treasure.  The game MUST be competetive between the DM and players.  The game MUST feature certain elements - rapid character death being one of them. 

No wonder I gave up on 1e decades ago.  Not my game at all.


----------



## Umbran

Nearly 50 pages.  Folks not coming to real agreement, and getting kinda personal.  This thread has had plenty of time to go where it was going to go.  Time to let it rest.  THUNK.

Edit:  After a touch of thought and discussion, leaving this open isn't so bad.  

Please, remember to address the substance of the argument, not the poster personally.


----------

