Some Belated Old School Thoughts
Compare and contrast with me for a moment. Compare the character classes and advancement tables of 4E to the characters classes and advancement tables of OD&D. Contrast the balance between the old school 1st level Magic Users and old school 1st level Fighters to thier balance between thier modern day counterparts. Consider the differences between class specific advancement tables of the days of yore and the current one-size-fits-all cousins.
I've heard it argued over the years that the classes were unbalanced and that it was unfair that some classes advanced faster than others. At the same time, I've watched the randomness of stat generation be slowly shaved away and standardized (point buy anyone?). Heck, I've been guilty of both - who hasn't had thier heart set on a specific sort of character only to have thier dreams hamstrung by the dice?
But to those who cry "Unbalanced!" I say, "Bah Humbug." The original game, to my understanding, was not designed around a single character but around the aggregate. That is to say, if everyone rolled 3d6 and took the numbers that showed up, then everyone had the same chance IN THE LONG RUN to roll up any particular set of stats and thus any particular type of character.
Further, consider the role of the group. My understanding was that those early games were not played by a 3-5 people around a table, but by TWO OR THREE TIMES THAT MANY. Some of those would play fighters, others magic-users, still others demihumans. If in the long play, a magic-user was valuable to the party for their ability to cast fireballs, then it is to the benefit to the rest of the party to protect them. This meant that having fighters and doughty dwarves advance a bit more quickly to serve as a shield wall for the spell-caster might have been very well balanced indeed. And delaying the advancement of mages, lowering thier hit points, to keep the high powered spells rare was a clever bit of design.
Now, to be fair, I've never played in this sort of game - only at a con have I shared a table with more than about 5 players and only rarely have I advanced a character to double-digit levels through actual play. But as a statistician, I can see how in the long run, every player gets a fair and balanced break in Old School play.
One last note, these thoughts aren't intended as a criticism of 4e or modern play. It's more an observation that they are fundamentally different games with different goals. 4e is definitely set-up to let you feel like a hero from the first day of adventuring, and that has a lot of appeal, especially, I imagine, to new gamers.
Doc Blue
Two-Fisted Statistician
I've heard it argued over the years that the classes were unbalanced and that it was unfair that some classes advanced faster than others. At the same time, I've watched the randomness of stat generation be slowly shaved away and standardized (point buy anyone?). Heck, I've been guilty of both - who hasn't had thier heart set on a specific sort of character only to have thier dreams hamstrung by the dice?
But to those who cry "Unbalanced!" I say, "Bah Humbug." The original game, to my understanding, was not designed around a single character but around the aggregate. That is to say, if everyone rolled 3d6 and took the numbers that showed up, then everyone had the same chance IN THE LONG RUN to roll up any particular set of stats and thus any particular type of character.
Further, consider the role of the group. My understanding was that those early games were not played by a 3-5 people around a table, but by TWO OR THREE TIMES THAT MANY. Some of those would play fighters, others magic-users, still others demihumans. If in the long play, a magic-user was valuable to the party for their ability to cast fireballs, then it is to the benefit to the rest of the party to protect them. This meant that having fighters and doughty dwarves advance a bit more quickly to serve as a shield wall for the spell-caster might have been very well balanced indeed. And delaying the advancement of mages, lowering thier hit points, to keep the high powered spells rare was a clever bit of design.
Now, to be fair, I've never played in this sort of game - only at a con have I shared a table with more than about 5 players and only rarely have I advanced a character to double-digit levels through actual play. But as a statistician, I can see how in the long run, every player gets a fair and balanced break in Old School play.
One last note, these thoughts aren't intended as a criticism of 4e or modern play. It's more an observation that they are fundamentally different games with different goals. 4e is definitely set-up to let you feel like a hero from the first day of adventuring, and that has a lot of appeal, especially, I imagine, to new gamers.
Doc Blue
Two-Fisted Statistician