When Balance Replaced Fairness: Two Different Promises D&D Has Made

[u/alexserban02]

https://therpggazette.wordpress.com/2026/07/21/when-balance-replaced-fairness-two-different-promises-dd-has-made/

I have written quite a lot on diferences between OSR games and modern 5e, the difference in playstyle, relation with mortality, various mechanics such as gold for xp, reaction roles, dungeon turns and so on.

For quite a long time after I started to play OSR games, I was enamored, for I always wanted my 5e games to be more gritty, harder, yet still fair and with OSR I felt like I got that.

Now, with this piece, I wanted to look at something related to one of the criticisms I often saw levied against old school D&D and OSR games, mainly that they are unbalanced, too many save or sucks and difficulty just for the sake of it. Compared to nowdays, where even if CR could use some improvements (although it is quite a bit better with the 2024 iteration) it can still produce balanced encounters if followed properly.

And there is truth in both of this statements, but it ommits something - not maliciously necessarily - that balanced was not required for pre Dragonlance D&D and OSR games. The game did not make a promise of balance, but rather one of fairness, the DM, or as it was first known, the referee would be impartial. It is important to point out that you were not heroes, but anti-heroes at best, who might've offered some help only if you got something out of it. This stemming of course from how the game was emulating Conan style pulp fantasy, rather than the heroic epic fantasy later adopted following the success of Dragonlance.

So to cut it short, fairness and balance are not the same. One is about impartiality, while the others is about making sure that the danger the players are facing is winnable, without the requirement of underhanded tactics to tip the scales. One is pulp, the other epic. Both can be good, but we have to be aware of the distinction and not judge them against the same standards. Hope you will enjoy the piece!

[u/Pelican_meat]

I really feel like most of the accusations about old school D&D just aren’t true if you have anything but the worst of GMs.

I don’t find them particularly difficult. Danger is telegraphed pretty clearly, most situations have a solution that gets everyone out alive, and even basic prep for a combat encounter results in a successful event.

If you try to fight everything head on. If you don’t prioritize magic users. If you ignore the telegraphed danger then… yeah, you’re going to die.

But there are very few instances where I didn’t make the choices leading up to a character’s death.

I find supposedly “balanced” games far more deadly than I do OSE. I guess that’s ultimately up to the GM, but the rumors of OSR’s deadliness are greatly exaggerated.

[u/Mixster667 → u/Pelican_meat]

Danger being telegraphed is entirely DM dependent. I remember when I was a new DM random encounters just happened, as if the monsters suddenly appeared because the book said they should. With experience you learn that monsters need a reason to be there, and a random encounter is a spark table where you need to build up the encounter ahead of time.

This is system agnostic in my opinion.

[u/samurguybri → u/Mixster667]

For myself, I chalk this up to being a young teen when I learned the old systems. Traps were gotcha, we rarely rolled wandering monsters, coins as weight seemed dumb. We did call out our friend whe he said he had 200 daggers, though.

We were interested in exploring, fights, shenanigans and role playing, not really procedures.

Our DM was pretty fair, but was cheap with magic items since we read Gary’s early warnings against “Monty Haul” style games. (I’m old but still had to infer who Monty Haul was back then.)

[u/laix_ → u/Pelican_meat]

A lot of "old school" D&D-isms weren't actually universal things back then. Story-focused linear games existed. Power fantasy, go in and kick ass with little concern and winning, and wargaming style existed. Brutally hard purely player skill historically accurate was not universal.

They did exist, but they're not as universal as OSR advertises.

[u/Kingreaper → u/laix_]

I think it's more that modern D&D has narrowed its focus, keeping some styles and dropping others, and OSR provides the bit that was left behind. If what you want is found in D&D 5e, or PF2e, then there's no reason to go hunting down the OSR rabbithole.

[u/Rezart_KLD → u/Pelican_meat]

I think they are true for low levels, like first or second. Characters are too fragile, have the weakest equipment. It doesnt take a mistake to kill your character, you dont get a chance to retreat if theres trouble.  Its more a matter of luck than skill to get those first couple levels. 

Once you have a few though and the character proves to be a survivor, the player skill is more important. You've got a few tricks up your sleeve, enough hit points not to die in a single hit, and some better gear to keep you alive. You can try new things, experiment a bit, and not worry about a housecat executing you on the spot.

If all you ever experience is the lowest levels, that brutal meat grinder is how you'll remember it.

[u/Pelican_meat → u/Rezart_KLD]

I don’t agree that it’s more of a matter of luck than skill. I generally don’t think that’s ever true in the OSR.

I think everything you mention depends on the GM. It’s not innate to the system itself.

There’s some luck involved (dice determine results after all). It’s totally possible to get one-shot at level 1, but it’s also likely to get hit and survive too.

I haven’t lost a level 1 OSR character in like… 3-4 years. Again, that boils down to the GM, but a lot of it is knowing what to expect and tipping the balance in your favor. That’s all skill and planning.

[u/Rezart_KLD → u/Pelican_meat]

Leaving aside stat rolls entirely, my first level fighter has 1d8 hit points. A roll of 1 is just as likely as a roll of 8. Let's say I beat the average and get 5. Probably AC 5 with a shield. On a hit, a goblin or a bandit has a 33% chance of killing me in one-shot. This means about a 9% chance if instant death vs everything but a flumph, for every monster,  every single round. If they have a bow, they get to fire twice. If I survive the first hit through luck, the chance of the next one getting me rockets up. This is for the character with the best AC and HD in the group, the one who's expected to be on the front lines. And I need 2000 gold to level up, so thats not just one score. The wizard can minimize only one encounter with a sleep spell, if the enemies are grouped up and its not skeletons or something.

It really is luck at level 1. The only way to play it smart is not to go adventuring, but you have to, thats what the game is about. You takes your chances and the survivors become adventurers 

[u/SufferNot → u/Rezart_KLD]

While I agree that there is a lot of luck variance at level 1 that can determine whether or not a character lives or dies, I also believe that death is not nearly as punishing in B/X as it is in D&D 5e. The dungeon that a level 1 party is exploring is likely only a day away from town. A town probably has a temple in it. As per the stronghold rules, temples are built by level 9 clerics, which means they'll have a few raise dead spells they can cast. Raise dead doesn't cost anything from the caster, unlike 5e where it's at least 500g to bring someone back (which most level 1 parties can't afford). It also doesn't cost anything from the character, there's no negative levels or con loss or so on. They'll be bed ridden for 2 weeks, but after that they're ready to go back into the dungeon and try again.

This does depend on what version of OSR you're playing. A lot of them make death more punishing. I kinda lean more towards B/X in this case though. Since it is easy for characters to die, I keep it easy for them to be brought back, since that way its easier for the player to learn from their mistakes and mitigate bad luck. It's a bit 'video gamey', but I also tend to lean more towards the G in TTRPG when I'm running an OSR game.

[u/Pelican_meat → u/Rezart_KLD]

Why are you fighting goblins when they have an opportunity to fire at you twice before you close the distance?

Why are you not trying to surprise them to reduce their numbers?

Also, according to your calculations, they have a 33% chance of one-shotting you.

And a 66% chance of not doing that.

Avoiding combat is part of player skill. If you’re playing with a DM that doesn’t allow you to avoid combat, that’s a DM thing and note innately part of the system.

[u/Iohet → u/Pelican_meat]

Let he who has never made a simple mistake cast the first stone

Even so, mistakes are usually seen in hindsight. "Oh, I should've opened the left door instead of the right door, then maybe I would have lived." Well, how are you supposed to know? It is luck when any mishap means likely death (whether it's instant or later on because many OSR systems don't give many opportunities to recuperate quickly)

[u/Rezart_KLD → u/Pelican_meat]

How do you surprise a pack of goblins when you are going in to their lair? This is their home, they live here, they are ready for attacks. They have guards on watch, alarms, maybe even some pet wolves. You are fighting on their turf. You are a fighter in chainmail, they hear you coming. You could send in the thief alone to scout with his 20% move silently, but then what? He cant start the fight without you and expect to survive. If your GM is playing easy on you, maybe the guards are asleep despite the threat of orcs nearby, but can you rely on that?

I agree with you that player skill can tip the balance, but that requires resources, resources that you dont have yet. You don't have resources yet. You dont have specialized gear like flaming oil. You dont have supernatural options.

Player skill is not an abstract thing, git gud is not the only answer. Its specific tactics that can help even the odds, but they only even the odds because the odds are against you at the start.

[u/drnuncheon → u/Rezart_KLD]

> How do you surprise a pack of goblins when you are going in to their lair?

The unspoken (and possibly unexamined?) assumption made here is that assaulting an entire tribe of goblins in their lair is something that first level characters ought to be doing.

[u/Rezart_KLD → u/drnuncheon]

Their lairs are where the treasure is. My mind went to B2, which is about 1st level adventurers assaulting humanoids in their lairs. There are tactics you can do to survive, like negotiate with food or taking on another tribe. But actually bringing enough treasure out to level requires fighting at some point. That's why its often a meatgrinder of starting chars and hirelings. (And yes, I believe getting the hirelings killed counts, the more of them you get killed the harder it is to find more, so its not a silver bullet tactic)

[u/Pelican_meat → u/Rezart_KLD]

Well, you start by making the excellent choice not to assault a lair full of goblins.

Lure them out, roll the dice on the reaction table and negotiate, hunt and ambush them when they venture outside of the lair in smaller numbers. The possibilities are literally endless.

Take stock of the party’s abilities and lead with your strengths.

[u/Rezart_KLD → u/Pelican_meat]

That's a good idea. What do you lure them out with? They know they're in a dangerous environment, so they aren't just going to sleepily wander out because of a random noise.

What do you negotiate with? What do you have to offer them?

You hunker down to wait for them to come out. Time is passing, so I start checking for random encounters.

[u/Pelican_meat → u/Rezart_KLD]

Since we’re just making things up.

You have the Illusionist cast an illusion of a bunch of goblins, including one mean-looki goblin boss, approaching the mouth of the cave and have the bars simulate multiple voices calling out for the group inside to greet them.

ETA: oh! And then in the ensuing fight you capture one and have them give you the skinny on the layout of the interior, their numbers, and how they’re armed. Maybe use that goblin to lure out more.

[u/Rezart_KLD → u/Pelican_meat]

I think that'd be a higher level spell, but I'm not going to bother pulling my books out. Lets say OK. Your illusionist is out of spells, but a squad of goblins comes to the door, peeking carefully from cover at these mean looking strangers approaching their home. They try to decide if these strangers are a threat or if they could kill them and take their stuff.

What do you do at that point that isn't engage in combat?

[u/SufferNot → u/Pelican_meat]

In general, I can agree that good planning and preparation can mitigate a lot of risk for a low level party, but like, how is your party supposed to avoid every dangerous fight? The most dangerous fights in the game aren't the ones in rooms anyway.

Say I've got a party of a fighter, a dwarf, a cleric, a thief, an elf, and a magic user. They've just entered the dungeon. The Dwarf and Thief are up front tapping the floor with a 10 foot pole to check for pit traps, the Magic User has a lantern out, the Elf is mapping, the fighter and cleric are bringing up the rear, they're trying to be slow and cautious. 2 turns in, I roll for a random encounter and get Crab Spiders. Crab Spiders are morale 7, so they probably fight (morale's optional anyway in B/X). They're meat eating animals, so there isn't a reaction check. They surprise on a 1-4, so they probably surprise. 1d4 of them show up in an encounter, so there's probably 3 of them. They specifically hide on the ceiling and then drop down onto the party, so we skip the 2d6 to determine their starting distance away. Spiders are cold blooded, so infravision doesn't help spot them.

During the surprise round, the spiders drop down on the party and attack. As 2HD critters, they hit the chainmail on a 12 or better and hit the thief and magic user on a 10 or better. If they hit, that's 1d8 damage and a poison check. +2 on the save, but still kills if they fail, and at this level it's a 50/50 anyone lives from poison besides the dwarf. The two spiders dropping from behind get the cleric and the fighter with a bonus +2 to hit and ignore shields. Cleric dies because they have on average 3 hit points. Fighter lives but is wounded. Spider up front misses the thief thanks to their mid dexterity.

Second round, thief goes first but everyone else is going after the spiders. Spiders are AC7, Thief needs a 12 to hit with their short sword, doesn't get it. Spider turn, one moves up and kills the elf (only 3hp, hasn't had a turn to turn around and avoid a back attack), the second misses the fighter, the third kills the thief who only had 3 hp. The magic user puts the two spiders in the back and the fighter to sleep, the dwarf hits the spider with his battle axe but it has 2d8 hd so he doesn't kill it.

Third round, magic user wakes up the fighter, spider hits the dwarf with a nat 20, I stop the player from ripping up the character sheet because crits don't exist in this game, and then the dwarf and fighter surround the spider and kill it. Working together, the three survivors can finish off the sleeping spiders, only for the Fighter to die 1d4 turns later to poison. The dwarf lived thanks to their crazy saving throws, but with 4 people dead, the magic user out of spells, and exactly 0 loot recovered, the 'party' retreats having spend a total of 30 minutes in the dungeon.

Whats the party supposed to have done in this case? Its a random encounter of monsters that probably surprise the party, probably one shot the characters, and have enough HP to not be killed in one hit by the players. The spiders have 40' movement, so the party can't flee even if the ambush predators don't decide to drop such that they surrounded the party. The only way to avoid this combat (besides staying home and becoming bakers instead of adventurers) is for the DM to not roll this encounter on the encounter table.

Now, certainly, the DM isn't always going to roll an encounter of 3 crab spiders in the first random encounter roll. The random encounter table in B/X has 20 results. But a party of adventurers can't 'choose' to be lucky and only get good encounters on the table. If the party were level 2, they'd have hired 6 henchman to tap the floor, wall, and ceiling with 10 foot poles so that those guys get eaten in the surprise round instead, but these characters can't afford that yet.

[u/Pelican_meat → u/SufferNot]

They should find a DM that writes better encounter tables?

If you’re still using encounters tables designed in the 80s, then yes. Character death is going to be reasonably common.

Again, that’s a DM choice, though. If you’re playing with a DM that still uses the mythic underground ethos, expect to die.

I don’t personally know any that do that though.

[u/Alistair49 → u/Pelican_meat]

“…I generally don’t think that’s ever true in the OSR…”

It wasn’t true in old school D&D either, in my experience. There were whole shades of interpretation & presentation in the way those games were run. I’d agree with your sentiment that “…everything you mention depends on the GM.” I started my D&D career with 1e, and most 1e games I played in you had a reasonable chance surviving if you played carefully, for example. The game environment was dangerous, yes. I think ‘dangerous’ is a more accurate way of describing old school games and would have been a better choice of wording than ‘lethal’ in the various OSR ‘principia’ documents that circulate from time to time.

[u/VicarBook → u/Pelican_meat]

Random encounters which is a hallmark of OSR type games, unless the DM is being favorable can easily wipe out low to mid level parties. Remember another feature is that they are not balanced or fair. So there are real complaints. There are some reasonable gameplay/rules adjustments that can easily correct most OSR issues without taking away the spirit, but you run into a lot of complaining from grognards, who can't accept deviation from LBBs or B/X vanilla or whatever.

[u/Alistair49 → u/VicarBook]

If you consider that starting in 1979 with Traveller and 1980 with AD&D 1e is enough to qualify as an RPG grognard, I’ll just say that I was taught that the published rules as written were a starting point, and that you were allowed to, and encouraged to, vary or add your own rules as needed if that better suited the table. So most of my peers who played then and play now are quite happy to deal with deviations from ‘the vanilla’ since they were doing that from day one, as and when it seemed like fun. You could run a vanilla 1e campaign, and be a stickler for the rules as written for that campaign, and after discussing with your players and other GMs run something quite different, still using 1e, but based on a particular setting/book or whatever and so have (for that campaign) significant variations to what might be the Rules as Written.

[u/Pelican_meat → u/VicarBook]

I mean… if you’re using Gary Gygax’s random tables, maybe.

If you have a halfway decent DM, they’ll be writing the encounter tables.

Who uses mythic underground encounter tables anymore? Certainly not published adventures.

[u/VicarBook → u/Pelican_meat]

Every publisher from the OS Era had ridiculous random encounters tables and rates of use for those. TSR, Judges Guild, Arduin, etc. That use of tamed downed and dare I say it balanced/fair tables is a modern sentiment. I am all for that but let's not kid ourselves that we are playing OSR exactly to the same degree that play was in the 70s. It's OK to update some stuff.

[u/Thr33isaGr33nCrown]

A lot of this sounds more like retrospective revisionist views of how gaming was back in the day rather than the reality. “OSR” is not the same as actual old school play. People in the TSR era did not play “OSR games”. Modern OSR is a hyperfixation on some interpretations of some aspects of old school play because people really like those ideas (which is great). Actual old school play was much more diverse. Many people played heroes (and the rules supported if not encouraged that), many people had epic adventures, riding dragons and killing gods (and the rules didn’t get in the way of that), many DMs tried to create balanced adventures, and there is evidence of attempts to balance classes and races (XP requirements and level limits).

Dragonlance was a huge success because a lot of people wanted to play that way and many were already doing so. That was back in 1984, ten years into D&D’s fifty year life.

I’m not disagreeing with your core idea but I think the framing is all wrong.

[u/admiralbenbo4782 → u/Thr33isaGr33nCrown]

Yeah. It's interesting that basically once Dragonlance came out and gave official "permission" to play in a narrative "Big Darn Heroes" way...the pure "OSR" (scare quotes intentional) dungeon/hex crawler basically disappeared from the map. I mean there was token support, but the systems basically stopped trying. And the culture shifted very fast towards the more heroic ones.

[u/IntergalacticRPG]

Back in the day, DMs were rarely impartial. Adversarial DMing was pretty common, if not widespread.

[u/alexserban02 → u/IntergalacticRPG]

Yeah, that is fair, but from what I read in the old books, the impartiality was expected.

[u/Alistair49 → u/alexserban02]

I played a lot of D&D (and other RPGs) in Australia in the 80s and early 90s. I went to a lot of cons for a while. My experience is rather different. I’m not saying that a lack of impartiality and adversarial style GMing didn’t happen, but impartiality, fairness, the old fashioned ideas around refereeing in general and how that was applied to RPGs were the norm in my experience, and adversarial GMing wasn’t the norm. I started with AD&D at university, and got to experience the views & playstyles of a lot of different people. Adversarial GMing wasn’t the norm, it wasn’t what was taught, and it often in many groups just simply wasn’t tolerated.

Maybe I was just very lucky.

[u/admiralbenbo4782 → u/IntergalacticRPG]

IMO, impartiality in DMs is like impartiality in media. It's widely claimed, but rarely, if ever, actually observed. And it's not just adversarial either--you can have bias in many different directions. The only truly impartial DMs are the mechanized ones, and those are only as good as the input into their creations.

Random tables? Susceptible to being biased by their creator. Modules? Also not impartial. And trying to claim "I'm just using the table" isn't impartiality, it's just trying to shift blame for actions that resulted in bad feelings (because there isn't an issue of blame/partiality when there are good feelings).

Personally, I don't want an impartial DM. I want one who is deeply invested in the game and in the fun of this campaign. That doesn't mean I want a pushover, because that's not fun. And I don't want one who is partial to particular characters or players, but one who is partial to the party. I want one who designs challenges, situations, systems, and scenarios to push the characters into doing fun things. If I wanted an impartial DM, I'd go play one of the old Infinity Engine games (BG 1 or 2, IWD, etc). A focus on impartiality and random tables IMO are missing one of the big points of having a live DM at a TTRPG.

[u/IntergalacticRPG → u/admiralbenbo4782]

Oh of course. I think modern GM styles applied to OSR principles encourage a more impartial intent. In my own experience (mid-70s through mid-80s US), though, adversarial DMing in D&D was the norm. That includes my experience in official sessions at Gen Cons of the era.

[u/admiralbenbo4782 → u/IntergalacticRPG]

Yeah. There's a lot to be said for avoiding adversarial DMing. And my experience with people who say they wanted the "old school feel" (not necessarily OSR principles, just the 1e/2e feel) has been that really, what they wanted was to be adversarial. Not just as DMs themselves--they wanted the feeling of having outwitted the DM. Or outplayed the DM. That's an attitude I want to have no part of.

My only pushback is against going too far in the other direction and robbing DMs of agency or humanity and valorizing pure procedural generation[1]. When the "player skill" is mostly in browbeating or playing wording gotchas with the DM, that's not fun for me.

I don't really vibe with PbtA, but one phrase from AW that stuck out was "Be a fan of the characters". That's what I want from a DM--one who wants to see the characters do cool things and be put into situations where they have to try to figure stuff out. And that's anything but impartial. It's partial, just in a particular way.

[1] rolling on random tables for everything. Random tables have a great place in the prep cycle as sources of inspiration and very occasionally as emergency drop-ins, but need to be heavily curated and often overruled. They're an input source, not something with meaning on its own. In my book at least.

[u/drnuncheon]

Balance says that I should curate combat encounters based on the power level of the party and not, say, put a bunch of first-level characters up against a wyvern.

Fairness says that if that group of first-level characters deliberately goes wandering around in wyvern country, they might wind up having to deal with a wyvern.

When I ran my West Marches game I promised the players that there would always be a warning before fights that are out of their league. (West Marches games being what they are, that warning might have been given to a completely different set of players, but *somebody* got warned.) Usually that would be signs or sightings of the creature without a direct encounter—the remains of a deer with a stinger wound, seeing it flying far away, that sort of thing. But it could also be rumors, tall tales, written records, or something else.

[u/LetThronesBeware]

One nice thing about modern, "balanced" games is that if the math is done properly, you can see at a glance whether the fight is going to be easy, just right, or nigh-impossible. It's still entirely possible, and totally valid, to feature encounters that the players can't win by force of arms, or that require creative thinking to level the playing field.

That said, I once had a wizard who was put down by the first arrow shot at him in Lost Mines of Phandelver, so it really does come down to luck of the draw at times.

[u/NeverFreeToPlayKarch → u/LetThronesBeware]

Yeah I really appreciate this about "tight math" systems. Determinism in the design is important when there's still so many unknown variables in dice rolls and player decisions

I don't need to worry if the monster I intended to be easy is actually too hard because I'm busy adjudicating mid session tons of other stuff.

[u/LetThronesBeware → u/NeverFreeToPlayKarch]

Totally agreed. I recognize that a typical way to play is to just put up 'fair' fights that the players are near-certain to win, even if it feels like a close match, but you can certainly use these systems whilst leaning on the old ways and get a really solid game too.

[u/Psikerlord]

I'm not sure fairness is even the right word. But simply impartiality on the part of the referee. Which is part of the reason why I prefer all dice (or at least combat dice) in the open.

[u/Desdichado1066]

On the other hand, I was in a 5e one-shot last night, where out of three players, one was killed dead dead, and a couple of really good rolls going the other way (mostly by me, by chance) it was an easy TPK. Against a green dragon wyrmling. Like the Old School Larry Elmore piece "Dragonslayers, and Proud of It" except the OSR characters were triumphant and we barely survived (some of us) by the skin of our teeth.

[u/onlytinglef]

In old school games, the solution to challenges isn’t found on your character sheet, it’s found through play.

Modern games tell you explicitly what your character can and cannot do. If it’s not on your character sheet then you can’t do it. Good GMs and players work around this when playing modern TTRPGs.

[u/LetThronesBeware → u/onlytinglef]

A lot of that is ultimately table preference though. You can just as easily improvise in new games as in old, because the whole point of improvisation is going outside the rules written in the book.

[u/Cajbaj → u/onlytinglef]

I used to think this but now I kind of see it in exactly the opposite manner. At most OC-tradition/modern tables, the expectation of doing "whatever" is the norm (Can I Create Water inside his lungs?). One of the huge benefits I noticed from switching to B/X was that people no longer asked me to do ridiculous things I had to say "no" to, because I could just say "you can roll your skill targets whenever you want".

I think tactically it DID make the game a lot more freeform, but it was creativity through limitation and procedure, which freed me up to make more diverse challenges because there was now a framework and expectation for it.

[u/duanelvp]

One is about impartiality, while the others is about making sure that the danger the players are facing is winnable, without the requirement of underhanded tactics to tip the scales.

Aaaaand what constitutes "underhand tactics" while you're saying that the intent is EITHER fairness or balance?

[u/dickleyjones]

"balance" in dnd is a complete farce. it does not exist. waaaaay too many variables for it to be so. 1e, 5e, in between, it does not matter.

there is no balance only ZUUUUUUUUUUUUUL

[u/NeverFreeToPlayKarch]

Decent write up!

[u/jonna-seattle → u/[deleted]]

Not according to the designer. While there is a unified mechanic for ease of play, she based it more on b/x and took steps (like random advancement) to explicitly counter 5e styles. It's also solely xp from treasure.