Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 9:35:24 GMT -6
The very first thought I'd like to communicate with this post is this: run your world your way. The thoughts that follow are one gamer's opinion, and nothing more. If you take the expression of my opinions as an edict to you on how to run your game? Thou willst be thought a cad and a foole.
Freedom to do something should never create a mandate to do that very thing.
What attracts many gamers to the original and basic editions of D&D is the openness of the rules framework. The system begs to be tinkered with, adjusted, nudged with the subtlety of a tweenager playing pinball and racking up major high scores. To my way of thinking, this is a strength of the system, not a weakness; though I can well understand how others may see it differently.
Every few months or so, on one or more of the D&D/RPG based boards I visit on-line, some barely disguised troll shows up and starts a discussion about, "why are demi-humans limited in levels?" or "why don't more DMs let us roll our characters with 4d6, reroll all 1's, drop lowest, arrange to taste, and assign max hit points with all PCs starting at 2nd (or 3rd) level?"
This, of course, brings out folks on both sides of the fence who seem to feel entitled to pronounce their opinion as fact; push becomes shove, disagreement becomes argument, flame-wars break out. It all settles down for a while, then flares up again when some other troll shows up and stirs the pot again.
I will no longer participate in those threads. I'll state my opinions here and now, with the clearly communicated understanding my opinions may certainly change in the future. A good referee is flexible, and likes to keep his players entertained. The flip-side is, of course, is that the referee puts a lot into his (or her) game and should be allowed a bit of fun, too.
I like rolling 3d6 in order and playing the character generated. The campaign I am currently participating in as a player allows us to swap any single rolled characteristic with our desired class' prime requisite. Clean, simple, fast; I like it. This is how I will probably referee any future games. I don't like it because that is the method presented in the guidelines (I don't care to think of them as rules), I like it because it makes the game more fun to me. That's it ... nothing more sinister than that. Of course, you're welcome to believe anything you want but why would you willingly believe a lie?
I like demi-human level limits. Before you type a comment and hit <enter> be aware: I've heard all the arguments. I've both run and played in campaigns that removed the limits and I have no problem with doing so in the future. Overall, however, I like the feeling a decreased level of demi-human power brings to the game. In my (inactive) campaign world, demi-humans are xenophobic. Additionally, they are not humans in funny suits, so the fact they live longer than humans has absolutely no influence on how far they advance in their "class" (I also use race as class); their very mind and makeup are simply different than that of humans; "alien" if you'll permit me to use that word. I simply like them that way, it adds flavour to the game I do not find in a generic high-fantasy type of of game. I've nothing against those, by the way, but as I've stated, the referee should be allowed to have some fun, too.
Well, there you have it. A view from the minority side. A fellow whose campaign is certainly not to be found between the covers of any rulebook, but one that still uses some of the guidelines presented therein. Not because they are the rules, but because I like the way the game plays with them. Please remember that before you point a finger and tell me I'm "bound by the rules". I'm not, I'm freed by the guidelines.
Game on! May you always roll 20s.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jun 1, 2009 10:01:41 GMT -6
Very nice post! I have to agree with almost all of it. The only exception I can take to it is this: A view from the distaff side. "That word you use; I do not think it means what you think it means." Have a look at this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distaff, especially under "other meanings". But that's nitpicking, really. Have an exalt for the entire rest of the post.
|
|
|
Post by bluskreem on Jun 1, 2009 10:44:21 GMT -6
One of my favorite characters was a 17 Int, and 4 Wis Halfiling. Playing the quick witted fool was a blast.
One of my favorite moments was while playing through Rahsia when we found out the witch was possessing one of the maidens, I blurted out "Wait, I know this one! We dunk the ladies in the well, the first one that floats is the witch!" Of course the well had a tensors floating disk spell in it. Obviously it wasn't a very serious game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 10:44:26 GMT -6
Thanks Coffee. I started using that expression in conversation as a joke and I sometimes forget the real meaning! Oops! I appreciate you setting me straight.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jun 1, 2009 12:08:02 GMT -6
Exalt.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 1, 2009 13:09:12 GMT -6
I've often wondered why Level Limits is such a volatile issue. Limit them or don’t. Just don’t fight about it. :-)
Personally, I run low enough level campaigns that the question hardly ever comes up. However, as my usual level scale is 1=flunky, 4=hero, 8=super hero, 12=maximum NPC, giving demihumans a limit doesn’t have a huge impact. I think level limits usually are only a problem if, for example, a hobbit is limited to 4th level fighter and the maximum NPC is 20th level then the hobbit player will feel cheated and dislike level limits.
If most characters are limited (as per my own campaign scale) then the limits are a small disadvantage but not one to destroy a player’s interest in running that race. The limit becomes a non-factor.
Just my two coppers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 13:24:00 GMT -6
Verily, Finn, thou speakest truly.
My own (now inactive) campaign was never a "high level" campaign. I had a few players BITD who went the route of Lords controlling their very own fledgling domains but, overall, as characters hit higher levels they began to retire. In my campaign, as yours, that number seemed to be around 12th level. Few went higher than that and I don't seem to recall anyone progressing past level 16.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 1, 2009 13:48:50 GMT -6
I don’t like rule books that DON’T have the restrictions, because then it’s impossible to put them in if you DO want to use them!
Rule books that have restrictions but suggest relaxing them (ahem Finarvyn) are just as bad.
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Jun 1, 2009 20:59:54 GMT -6
I have this whole "untrained level" rule, and for me the level limits are the last trained level. Generally speaking, with an untrained level hit points and existing abilities improve but new abilities are not gained. Thus when I ran my AD&D LOTR game, Elrond was limited to something like 12th level in what spells per day he could memorize, but his casting level was about 18th. Worked out great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2009 21:08:10 GMT -6
I've read your house rules thread over on DF, Ken-Do-Nim, and they are quite impressive.
|
|
|
Post by jimlotfp on Jun 1, 2009 23:36:06 GMT -6
I've often wondered why Level Limits is such a volatile issue. Limit them or don’t. Just don’t fight about it. :-) It's a problem if you are running the game and plan to use them and players are absolutely aghast at the idea. Or... better... when they are in place and the players know it, and they get to their capped level and then whine. It's a nasty thing, since if you do want to do things as planned, you pretty much have to say, "Shut up or leave," with various shades of politeness depending on how obnoxious they are about it.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Jun 2, 2009 3:51:36 GMT -6
I am an extreme level limiter. Demi-humans can raise only to level -1. That means: they don't exist in my campaign. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2009 8:00:15 GMT -6
It's a problem if you are running the game and plan to use them and players are absolutely aghast at the idea. This was long ago, when my campaign started and the only rules extant were the 3 little books. We were in a small Texas town (a bit over 5,000 population) and communication among gamers was bit more limited then. I don't really recall anyone thinking the limits were unusual. This did come up a few times, though most folks were mature enough to realize that they knew going into it what they agreed to when they chose a demi-human class. I pretty much let them whine. I didn't have to say that, they pretty much figured that out for themselves. I did encourage them to referee a campaign with rules more to their liking and we did do that. I liked that solution, it took the load of DMing off me, plus it gave me the opportunity to play in variant campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by apeloverage on Jun 2, 2009 8:22:01 GMT -6
When a character retires, do you have them become a patron for new characters?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2009 9:09:13 GMT -6
When a character retires, do you have them become a patron for new characters? Yes! I even allowed the gifting of a special item or a some gold to the newbie.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Aug 31, 2009 11:52:12 GMT -6
I like rolling 3d6 in order and playing the character generated. The campaign I am currently participating in as a player allows us to swap any single rolled characteristic with our desired class' prime requisite. Clean, simple, fast; I like it. This is one of the two options I allow in my campaign too, and I like it. The "Swap Once" rule (once I thought of it) has really been fantastic. As for the thread topic ... I like demi-human level limits. Before you type a comment and hit <enter> be aware: I've heard all the arguments. I've both run and played in campaigns that removed the limits and I have no problem with doing so in the future. Overall, however, I like the feeling a decreased level of demi-human power brings to the game. In my (inactive) campaign world, demi-humans are xenophobic. Additionally, they are not humans in funny suits, so the fact they live longer than humans has absolutely no influence on how far they advance in their "class" (I also use race as class); their very mind and makeup are simply different than that of humans; "alien" if you'll permit me to use that word. I simply like them that way, it adds flavour to the game I do not find in a generic high-fantasy type of of game. I've nothing against those, by the way, but as I've stated, the referee should be allowed to have some fun, too. Well, there you have it. A view from the minority side. I want to begin by stating that I fully appreciate the spirit in which this was offered. I hope you'll read my own post in the same light. But I still don't "get" the fun of level limits from a game design point of view. D&D is all about advancing in levels until you retire the PC, so how does it make the game more fun to force some players to "drop out of the race" before the game is over? It's a time preference problem for me. Demihuman players trade "more awesome" now for "less awesome" later (while M-U's make the opposite trade). I don't like that trade, from a game design point of view, because someone at some point has to have "not fun" which drains the enthusiasm from the table. Gaming becomes a chore rather than an enjoyable past time. Even if the high-ish level Elf is powerful in absolute terms, he'll fall behind his fellow adventurers in relative terms which each gaming session. Finarvyn basically makes this point. So, I'm sure you've heard that before, but I you didn't really address this particular point and I'm still in the dark as to why this isn't a problem. Please note that if you really never play to those levels you're basically just side-stepping the problem rather than accepting it - you've level limited the humans too. That's one solution, but I think people who don't like level limits are working on the assumption that you keep gaming into the teens and 20s levels. What then? My concerns are completely separate from "world feel" or world design. I like having alien qualities to the demihuman races. I just want to accomplish it without hurting the G part of "RPG".
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 31, 2009 13:16:44 GMT -6
It's a time preference problem for me. Demihuman players trade "more awesome" now for "less awesome" later (while M-U's make the opposite trade). I don't like that trade, from a game design point of view, because someone at some point has to have "not fun" which drains the enthusiasm from the table. Gaming becomes a chore rather than an enjoyable past time. Even if the high-ish level Elf is powerful in absolute terms, he'll fall behind his fellow adventurers in relative terms which each gaming session. Finarvyn basically makes this point. My concerns are completely separate from "world feel" or world design. I like having alien qualities to the demihuman races. I just want to accomplish it without hurting the G part of "RPG". I guess what it comes down to is this: 1. There is no logical reason why all races have to be equal. That's a game design issue, and not all games bother to address it. Tolkien made no secret of the fact that the Noldor were clearly the best non-supernatural beings in Middle-earth, and he doesn't try to balance Gandalf's levels with Pippin's. 2. Now that we establish that worlds don't have to be balanced, ask yourself why anyone would want to play a particular class or race. If you can't come up with good reasons, probably no one else will either. Games Workshop spends lots of time making orcs and rat-men cool alongside Dark Elves and the like. 3. If you want to have somewhat equal representation among all races and classes, next you need to come up with ways to make the lesser ones better. Maybe fighters get better hit dice than paladins to offset the paladin powers. Maybe you limit the levels so that demihumans start out better but humans eventually are better. This is a common problem, not one limited to level limits. You asked why magic users are so bad at low levels and so awesome at high levels? The answer is that Gygax and Arneson chose to build the class that way. If you don't like level limits for demihumans, get rid of them and then see if anyone ever plays humans. My guess is that most gamers will see the advantage in being a non-human and will decide to be an elf instead. The only true way around this that I can think of is a "point buy" character generation system, such as can be found in GURPS, Amber Diceless, the Option books for AD&D 2E, and probably other games. Each character only gets certain cool stuff, and some point value has to be established for hit dice, bonus to hit, spells, and so on. It's a cool concept, but I've never taken the time to really impose a system like this on OD&D. When you're done I suspect it will have changed the character options quite a bit and it might not resemble OD&D much any more. Just my two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2009 13:35:40 GMT -6
Hello Ranger. I'll do my best to answer your questions, just be aware I'm a bit under the weather and may be even less coherent than usual. (grin) I'll try to avoid restating anything I've said earlier in this thread.
Concerning your first point, the fun factor. That is definitely a consideration and if this is wrecking the fun of your particular group then, by all means, do away with them. The game won't break. I included them IMC because The Shattered Lands was more of a swords and sorcery type of world and Tolkien's elves just didn't fit in with my vision for that setting. Still, a very well played demi-human at his level limit(s) would probably find the deities smiling upon him in the form of "off the menu" opportunities to increase levels.
I should also state that no character, human or demi-human, was ever forced to retire. That decision was left up to the players. Obviously, a 16th level Lord in a land where most high level fighters were in the 9 - 12 range attracted a lot of rather unwelcome attention! Added to all this is the consideration that, in OD&D, a level capped elf (for instance) is a rather formidable foe, no matter who or what he is facing.
As far as higher level campaigns go? Do away with the limits if that's what the folks gathered around the table want. You could take steps to balance it, if you so desire. One popular method I've seen thrown about is to allow humans to advance faster, though you should be aware that a number cruncher over on K&KA demonstrated pretty well that a mere 10% XP bonus for humans makes little difference until very high levels are reached.
One method I used was in a different campaign was a combination of (a) no XP bonus for demi-humans with (b) a 50% penalty to advancement after BtB level limits were reached. If that is too harsh for your campaign you could make a 25% penalty or reduce it even more.
I hope this reply makes sense. I'm taking several meds for allergies and I've got "balloon head" syndrome. Post any further questions you have and I'll do my best to address them.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Aug 31, 2009 15:31:45 GMT -6
I guess what it comes down to is this: 1. There is no logical reason why all races have to be equal. In story-telling mediums (books, poems, movies, etc.) I agree with you. But D&D is a game where players choose options. Those options should (IMO) be of ballpark equal value - like choosing a color in chess. That's one of the reasons I never tried to play a Middle Earth campaign "as written", since there's just no way to present Gandalf in the same rule context as Pippin and Sam and make the choices even close to "reasonable trade-offs." 2. Now that we establish that worlds don't have to be balanced, ask yourself why anyone would want to play a particular class or race. If you can't come up with good reasons, probably no one else will either. This is exactly the question I was asking - why do people in your campaigns play humans when (effectively, due to unofficially ending campaigns just as they're kicking in) you don't use level limits? What's the draw? Or do you have to impose limits like "Only one elf per group?" The only true way around this that I can think of is a "point buy" character generation system, such as can be found in GURPS, Amber Diceless, the Option books for AD&D 2E, and probably other games. Each character only gets certain cool stuff, and some point value has to be established for hit dice, bonus to hit, spells, and so on. It's a cool concept, but I've never taken the time to really impose a system like this on OD&D. When you're done I suspect it will have changed the character options quite a bit and it might not resemble OD&D much any more. Just my two cents. I disagree with this. Based on personal experience I find that point-buy systems often produce very BADLY balanced characters. Those systems are very manipulable by the player who really dives into the mechanics of the game, while players that are more "story" focused will end up making very suboptimal choices that leaves him sitting on the sidelines in many situations. I think well designed races and classes could be presented in the exact format D&D uses and be well balanced (again, we're talking ballpark, not with great precision) over an arbitrary range of levels.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Aug 31, 2009 15:40:19 GMT -6
Still, a very well played demi-human at his level limit(s) would probably find the deities smiling upon him in the form of "off the menu" opportunities to increase levels. So, in other words, when push comes to shove you don't use level limits either (except for world-design)? I'm not trying to be a snark or troll, but really to dig down to the "true reasons" level limits work for some people in actual play - and I'm starting to suspect they're never actually used even for the supporters. Either the campaign ends before it becomes an issue, or an "exception" is made.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Aug 31, 2009 15:54:10 GMT -6
I'm starting to suspect they're never actually used even for the supporters. I use them.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Aug 31, 2009 15:58:40 GMT -6
I guess the origins of level limits for non-humans came rather from the point of view of Gary & Dave about theses characters (obvious about hobbits) rather an idea of game balance. It was rationalized later as such, but that's a different story.
In practice, it's really depending on what every one do in his campaign. If your play at low and middle level, it's not really a trouble, just a feature of the game. if you play really high level, just drop it, not for game balance reason but because it helps keeping the group together. In y last Rules Cyclopedia campaign, characters went to level 16, including the dwarf and the gnoll shaman (a cleric). Nobody complained about the balance, and everybody had fun. It was a choice too have characters growing quickly to high level, as a part of the concept of the campaign.
I agree with irdaranger about custom point-buy character : it's really fun for minmwers, but really boring for others. Even with 3.5, I had good remembers with palying scenarios with level 1 Commoners, 3d6 in order characters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2009 16:13:21 GMT -6
So, in other words, when push comes to shove you don't use level limits either (except for world-design)? Oh, dear. If I gave that impression I must offer my apologies. Remember? Lots of medicine on board? It fuzzies my thinking, and therefore my typing, a bit. What I meant to say is this: an e xceptionally well-played demi-human may have an opportunity to add an extra level (and once, even 2) but this was a rare event and I always warned new boots not to count on that happening. My one-page sheet of house rules-clarifications made it plain that anyone desiring to have access to unlimited level advancement should play a human. So, your conclusion was incorrect but the fault lies mostly with me. I very much used, and enforced, level limits for demi-humans in my campaign. Apologies for the miscommunication. I'm not trying to be a snark or troll, but really to dig down to the "true reasons" level limits work for some people in actual play - and I'm starting to suspect they're never actually used even for the supporters. Either the campaign ends before it becomes an issue, or an "exception" is made. You don't sound like a troll to me and I'm neither bothered nor threatened by your questions. Ask away!
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 1, 2009 9:09:43 GMT -6
What I meant to say is this: an e xceptionally well-played demi-human may have an opportunity to add an extra level (and once, even 2) but this was a rare event and I always warned new boots not to count on that happening. My one-page sheet of house rules-clarifications made it plain that anyone desiring to have access to unlimited level advancement should play a human. So, your conclusion was incorrect but the fault lies mostly with me. I very much used, and enforced, level limits for demi-humans in my campaign. Apologies for the miscommunication. Ah, Ok. No worries - hope you feel better soon. So, medications permitting, I hope I can pester you with a few more questions. What happens, exactly, when you've got a player whose demihuman PC has reached their true level limit (whether the book-listed one or RP-enhanced)? Do they keep playing for months (or years?) of real-life gaming without advancing in levels? Or do they retire the demihuman and roll up a human character (and if so, at what level)? Or does the whole group start over at 1st level with new characters? And, depending on your answer, how does this effect your game experience? Are stories left untold because of this limit? I can imagine a situation where the Lich King "gets away" (so to speak) because the PCs never advanced to the level where they could actually challenge him. Are you just fine with that? I'm not sure I would be. Or does the player gladly accept the limits and keep having fun, even as the disparity between him and his human comrades increases? At what point does that "get old"? So far all I've gotten is Finarvyn's "Level limits work as long as you don't use them" with his mention of the level disparity only be acceptable within a certain range. That's an answer that "makes sense" to me, and provides me with a tool I could conceivably use to penalize advancement in such as way that they are able to advance but remain a few levels behind their human comrades. I'm wondering though if there are other solutions as well. You don't sound like a troll to me and I'm neither bothered nor threatened by your questions. Ask away! That's good! It's always sort of hard to tell, when joining a new message board, how the community will react to certain topics. I'm sort of new to the old school gaming (I played a lot of 2E in my day, but not anything previous to that - and none of the classic modules) and am trying to learn up on why certain rules work the way they do, but the appeal of level limits is still sort of a mystery to me. I've "figured out" a lot reading Philotomy's Musings, postings at Dragonsfoot or K&KA, Grognardia, etc. but this issue still alludes me. So thanks for letting me ask questions.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 1, 2009 9:58:47 GMT -6
My experience on this is as a player, and in AD&D, but I have seen it both ways.
One DM had a game that "relaxed" the level limits (I can elaborate if you want, but it's mostly irrelevant). Ed had a high level Elf F/MU. At one point, he had to plane shift away from this world and ended up in another guy's game where level limits were enforced. So he dropped his character down to the maximum levels he could be and went right on playing.
He just loved the character so much, you see. He didn't see it as a big problem. (Neither did the rest of us, actually; at those levels, it takes an awful lot of playing for anybody to gain a level anyway.)
So from what I've seen: Whether level limits are a problem or not depends largely on the player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2009 14:08:29 GMT -6
So, medications permitting, I hope I can pester you with a few more questions. Yes, I'm feeling much better, though not 100%, today. Thank you for the good wishes. What happens, exactly, when you've got a player whose demihuman PC has reached their true level limit (whether the book-listed one or RP-enhanced)? Do they keep playing for months (or years?) of real-life gaming without advancing in levels? Or do they retire the demihuman and roll up a human character (and if so, at what level)? Or does the whole group start over at 1st level with new characters? The groups tended to cycle to newbie characters at or around the same time. The campaign was very fluid but it worked out remarkably well and with little to no effort on my part that the PCs were never very far apart in level. I should remind you, however, that my campaign world was more swords and sorcery. Thus, magic was a bit more unusual and mistrusted by most, and humans were (by far) the most numerous and dominant race. This, in turn, make demi-human PCs less common than in many campaigns. With the advent of AD&D (back in the day) the requests began to occur more often and, about the time Unearthed Arcana (for 1st edition AD&D) came out, two things happened. (1) The desire to play demi-humans became almost the norm. (2) My campaign ended with me relocating to a different area of the state. So, though I did see the demand for demi-humans become louder, I never really had to deal with the issue, though I would have been happy to do so. Now that I'm playing again I will probably have the opportunity to refereee again very soon, but I think the group will be happy with the revived campaign. Of course, they will have the understanding going in that it is a swords and sorcery setting. And, depending on your answer, how does this effect your game experience? Are stories left untold because of this limit? I can imagine a situation where the Lich King "gets away" (so to speak) because the PCs never advanced to the level where they could actually challenge him. Are you just fine with that? I'm not sure I would be. Or does the player gladly accept the limits and keep having fun, even as the disparity between him and his human comrades increases? At what point does that "get old"? I don't recall ever failing to resolve a storyline or altering a storyline due to the PCs level. Gamers from that era tended to be a pretty inventive and resourceful lot and rarely rushed in guns blazing. They studied the situation and came up with plans for defeating enemies that, at times, left me amazed. So far all I've gotten is Finarvyn's "Level limits work as long as you don't use them" with his mention of the level disparity only be acceptable within a certain range. That's an answer that "makes sense" to me, and provides me with a tool I could conceivably use to penalize advancement in such as way that they are able to advance but remain a few levels behind their human comrades. I'm wondering though if there are other solutions as well. I believe very strongly a campaign should be tailored for the individuals playing in it. One point missed by many "old school" gamers is this: no level limits for demi-humans sometimes leads to demi-humans dominating a campaign; this is true. The point missed, however, is that not every referee or gaming group thinks this is undesirable. Level limits worked for me, and worked well. I've enjoyed games without them very much, though my preference is certainly obvious by now. Don't be afraid to go out on a limb in your campaign. Take the rules and imagine the hell out of 'em!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 1, 2009 14:32:42 GMT -6
I'm starting to suspect they're never actually used even for the supporters. Either the campaign ends before it becomes an issue, or an "exception" is made. I tend to cap my campaigns at 10th level, so demihuman level limits are a minor deterrent but not a deal-breaker for most players. What it means in effect is that most of the time the level limits don't really come into play much, but players have to be aware of the fact that they might eventually kick in.
|
|
palmer
Level 3 Conjurer
Foolish Rules Lawyer! Your disingenuous dissembling means nothing to Doom!
Posts: 81
|
Post by palmer on Sept 1, 2009 21:20:20 GMT -6
The most powerful, and highest level character I ever had was a gray elf fighter/magic-user called Birandir the axe. He topped out at 11/11 wizard/lord, the highest level possible for and elf in AD&D. I was a ruthless min/maxer as a kid, and elf fighter/magic-user looked to me to be the most powerfull over-all character class. When I hit the limit though, that was the limit. It never occured to us that we could do away with demi-human limitations. We just assumed that Gary knew what he was doing. Heh..
Birandir was a damage-dealing machine, and if we'd allowed unlimited advancement characters like him would have dominated the game. We never really thought much about maintaining balance betweent the classes or players, everybody just played what they liked. And nobody worried about wether other characters were more powerful or not. I never had a problem with level limits on demi-humans, and there was often a wide range of levels between the characters in those games. They died alot, and we made no effort to create new characters of equal level to the surviving PCs. You pays your money, and you takes your chances.
Like Dubeers said, un level limited demi-humans would take over the game. That's not necessarily bad, it's just contrary to the sword & sorcery fiction D&D was made to emmulate. Which is, again, not necessarily wrong, It just makes more adjustments necessary.
D&D is humanocentric, because sword & sorcery is humanocentric. When you add in the elves and dwarves and such of fairy tale, folklore and high fantasy, you have to tweak them to differentiate them from humans. But doing so in a game means giving them bonuses and penaltys. Which may make them more attractive to players than humans, which is a problem if you're trying to emulate humanocentric fiction. So then you limit their possible level of advancement to keep humans center stage. I love monkeying around with the rules just as much as any old guard afficianado, but I found out a long time ago, that every time I reinvent the wheel, Gary had very good reasons for writing the rules the way he did. My respect for the man's work grows each time I change something and find out why it was the way it was.
From the point of view of developing a game world, though, a world with unlimited elves could still be interesting for human PCs. Long lived elves would dominate the world, and people who are in power are often much less conciliatory than when they arn't. Humans would be the underdogs, or the lower classes, or else driven to the fringes of the world. Having to concentrate all their skills to learn a single class in their short lives while the elves master all knowledge and ability in the centuries available to them.
|
|
Arminath
Level 4 Theurgist
WoO:CR
Posts: 150
|
Post by Arminath on Sept 2, 2009 5:09:46 GMT -6
Still, a very well played demi-human at his level limit(s) would probably find the deities smiling upon him in the form of "off the menu" opportunities to increase levels. So, in other words, when push comes to shove you don't use level limits either (except for world-design)? I'm not trying to be a snark or troll, but really to dig down to the "true reasons" level limits work for some people in actual play - and I'm starting to suspect they're never actually used even for the supporters. Either the campaign ends before it becomes an issue, or an "exception" is made. In our old D&D game I used the Immortals Rules alongside the Rules Compendium. I limited the Wish spell to be able to allow a maxed out Demihuman 1 level of bonus advancement if he had a 16+ in his prime requisite (or one of them). In teh the Immortal's rulebook was a nifty Immortal Power called Bestow. Basically it allowed an Immortal to add an ability or power to a creature. I allowed a worthy maxed out demihuman to gain the attention of his patron and earn the right to have a Bestowed level granted to him. In both cases, the Xp still had to be earned in order to gain the level.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 2, 2009 6:20:07 GMT -6
Another option to consider is to make humans more appealing.
In Castles & Crusades there is a "prime attribute" system as part of the SIEGE Engine mechanic whereby attempts to do skill-like things are influenced more prominently by stats. The basic guts of the system is that you try to roll over a 12 or 18, depending upon whether the stat in question is "prime" or not. In C&C a human gets to designate 3 stats as prime, whereas demihumans only get to pick 2. (One of the 2 or 3 is picked in advance due to the class of the character.) If you haven't seen C&C, definitely check it out. It "fixes" many of the things from OD&D and AD&D that many folks find confusing.
|
|