Levels in M&M

While it's true that there is no hard level cap in OD&D, there is a "soft" level cap in that past about 13-15th level gaining additional levels doesn't really add anything except more hit points -- attack chance, saving throws, spell levels (characters continue getting more spell slots, but not any higher level spells), turn undead, and (if you're using Supp I) thief skills all max out at about this point (Supp I extends things a bit by adding higher level spells, but as I've suggested elsewhere, I think these were included more for use by high level NPCs (and monsters such as titans and liches) and as scroll-treasures rather than an intention that PCs actually achieve those levels). The monsters in OD&D also max out around this point -- the toughest monsters in the boxed set (dragons, balrogs, giants, vampires) are only challenging to characters up to 12th level or so; Supp I adds some "higher level" monsters (liches, titans, beholders, golems, the Chromatic dragon) but these are still only likely to prove challenging to PCs up to about 15th level. There's really nothing in the game to challenge characters of 20th+ level, much less even higher levels. So the intention, while never stated outright, was pretty clearly that the game "maxes out" after about 12th level, and that while it's possible to keep playing indefinitely, there's not a whole lot of point in doing so (at least from the "power treadmill" perspective -- if the focus of the game changes towards more politics, character-development, and such (as seems to have happened in Blackmoor at least (in Greyhawk the players tended to "retire" their high-level characters and start over with new ones, or start DMing their own campaigns)) it could keep going indefinitely).

However, that said, it's undeniable that outside of Lake Geneva (and not even that far outside -- Jim Ward freely admits that the character "Monty Haul" was based on himself and his high-powered D&D games) people ignored this advice and played games into the 20s, 30s, and even higher. Note that, for instance, in The Arduin Grimoire the advancement tables go up to level 100. The CalTech house-D&D variant (which was published eventually, but I can't recall the name of -- someone (Melan?) mentioned recently on ENWorld that he has a copy and isn't impressed) was, reputedly, similarly focused. In reaction to reports of this kind of play, Gygax penned the first of his many "you're playing the game wrong, dammit!" editorials in TSR#7 (I think, it's also reprinted in BoTDv1 which is where I first saw it): "D&D IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DM." Here's the key passage (after a page or so of ranting against give-away games, super-high-level characters, and the CalTech house-D&D variant which he labels "Dungeons & Beavers"):

AD&D was, of course, specifically designed to more strictly enfore these parameters and this vision of how the game should be played.

Nowadays, we'd call an article like this an accusation of "badwrongfun" -- Gygax essentially telling a (presumably) significant portion of the game's fanbase "the way you're having fun is bad and wrong, and you should instead be having fun the way I tell you to," which comes off as both arrogant and short-sighted. Obviously Gygax himself prefered a game with slower, more measured progression and a lower power-cap, but that doesn't mean everybody will or should prefer that type of game -- the fact that the CalTech campaign, Arduin campaign and others continued to flourish and find new players suggests that at least some people must've found their style of play enjoyable...

It brings up the ugly issue of centralized authority and control of what the game "is" and how it should be played -- how much should there be, and who should have it? Gygax evidently felt that there should be a centralized authority, and that TSR (which is to say, as of that time, he himself) should be it. However, OD&D, by virtue of both the minimalistic style in which it was written (and, I daresay, the fact that Gygax wasn't really creating it, but was rather adapting and expanding on another author's original work...) and the way in which it was disseminated through word of mouth, pirated editions, and house-ruled compliations as much or moreso than through actual rulesets, which led to a situation where each individual playgroup was essentially "inventing" the game anew on their own (see the Forge essay A Hard Look at Dungeons & Dragons for a much more in-depth treatment of this phenomenon), Gygax didn't have the sort of authority and centralized control he wanted, and his rants and essays (to the extent they registered at all -- certainlky no more than a tiny fraction of D&D's player-base ever got The Strategic Review) came off as only so much hot air.

Thus the birth of AD&D, essentially a "re-boot" of the game, this time with much more explicit guidance as to how the game is supposed to played and who is the final authority and arbitrator in that regard -- see the AD&D PH, p. 5:

But that's AD&D, not OD&D. In OD&D there is no such "final arbiter" or "last authority" -- it's the Wild West, where every GM is free to run his campaign however he likes, regardless of what Gygax or TSR thinks about it -- 100th level characters? No problem. Space-ships and ray-guns alongside (or even in place of) wizards and dragons? No problem. Spending the entire campaign hagning around in town chatting at the tavern and never getting into a single fight? Why not, if that's what you and your players enjoy doing? OD&D is your game, and is thus whatever you want it to be, no matter what anyone else says or thinks. And that's what's so awesome about it, and why we love it so much.

The other point I'll make is that if you look at the "level titles" for OD&D you might get a better feel for what a level is supposed to mean.

A level 4 Fighting Man is called a "Hero" and fights like four men. To me, this would be significant characters from fantasy literature. Elric's sidekick Moonglum might be here. Legolas and Gimli might be here. A hero is a significant person; one who can battle through all sorts of adversity and maybe survive but not necessarity the main character in the series.

A level 8 Fighting Man is called a "Super Hero" and fights like eight men; a one-man army. To me, this means that the cream of the protagonists from literature are here. Conan would be a Super Hero. Maybe Aragorn. King Arthur, Lancelot, and Galahad were probably here. These are the heroes who drive the stories, where epics are written.

Using the same model of 4 ... 8 ... I usually set most of my top NPCs at around level 12. If Conan is 8, the mighty sorcerers he battles might be 12. Maybe Gandalf (not technically human, but a spirit) is a 12. That's where my cap comes from. Once you set standards such as these, a level 20 character seems pretty pointless. "So, you could wipe up on Conan? Riiiiiiiight."

Of course, that's just my campaign. Others may set the bar differently.

Say ... maybe you can find a way to share more of the Warlock information with us. You could start a "Warlock Variant D&D" thread or something....

Finarvyn: okay, but that will have to wait a bit (maybe two or three weeks).

We generally retired a character at 12th level and about 14th or 15th as a max by custom. Retiring at 12th level was the most common.

I second this motion!

Whereas in 3rd edition, I've had two characters get to 20th level. And that's only been out for six years or so. All the experience was 'by the book' by the way; my DM didn't give out any XP for treasure or roleplaying or anything like that.

Can you say inflation?

And, really, what did the world gain by that? Nothing, as far as I could see. There's a "sweet spot" between say 5th - 9th level, where your character has some power, he can stand up to pretty much anything he's likely to face. And in OD&D, you'll be in those levels for a long time, so you've got plenty of good gaming ahead of you.

In contrast, the 3rd ed. examples above both got boring after about 13th - 15th level (and that's a hideous fate for any RPG!); we just played on through inertia:

"What are we doing this week?"

"What else, saving the world again."

"What, that old thing? I say let it go stuff itself; what's it done for us lately?"

(I think the DM finally realized this, and that's why I have no regular game at the moment...)

A bit more info of the "philosophy" of levels in my OD&D campaign:

Most people are normal men.
1st level - you're more skilled/experienced than average.
4th level - you're a hero with a reputation.
8th level and higher is "high level" - you're a legendary superhero; you're Conan or John Carter.
10th level is the max for normal mortal humans.

Levels beyond 10th are possible, but require special conditions (usually magical in nature). For example, divine/infernal favor could assist you in exceeding 10th level. Powerful magic like longevity or lichdom could do it, too. There's usually some sort of price for such a thing, though. Individuals that exceed 10th level are usually exceptionally driven or focused (and perhaps obsessed or unbalanced in some way). This approach allows for "mad arch-mages" and such...

Level limits for demihuman PCs seem to cause less player angst under this kind of scale, too. Basically, demihumans top out at the low-end of "high level."

Philotomy was mentioning the special level limits imposed on elves/dwarves/hobbits due to their race, and not simply level limits in general. When humans are allowed to advance forever non-human characters get shafted by this rule, but if the entire campaign has a resonable cap on level advancement the rule works a lot better. (I was going to mention it in my earlier post but had a brain cramp and forgot. Thanks, Philotomy, for the catch!)

I'm not sure what you mean by the DM declaring his alignment. It makes no sense to me, since in my view the DM is everything BUT the player characters. Not only every person, creature, or monster, but also every rock, tree, shrub, etc.

(So, I think it can be assumed overall that the DM's alignment is neutral.)

As far as monsters having level caps, well, most of them do. Orcs, for instance, have 1 HD (either d6 or d8, depending if Greyhawk is in use.) They don't change a lot. But you can introduce any monster (yes, even a 72 HD elder wyrm if you want...) that you think makes an interesting challenge for the players.

Unless you're talking about class-based monsters (such as EHPs, etc.) I don't see any reason for limiting them in level; Conan frequently fought sorcerers that would be rated as very high level MUs.

(The only problem is that the players will expect to be able to reach such levels themselves.)

In the end, I guess, you have to do what's right for your game.

LOL That's funny! ;D

On the other hand, I nearly sprayed Mountain Dew all over my keyboard when I read this. I should have "Warning: DM is Evil" buttons made up or something.

I have played in some games that had I known the DM's alignment I would have played a different character all together.