Levels in M&M

[Pierce Inverarity]

This came up on another board today... I never played OD&D (started with Moldvay), but somehow always assumed that it had a strict level cap, somewhere around L10. But no--I checked today and realized that HD and spell progression is actually infinite, for humans anyway.

Now I'm wondering: in ye olden days, just how pervasive were L15+ PCs? Was there a difference between rules and actual practice? Both because of the general lethality of the game and because of, well, custom?

[foster1941]

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"):

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 he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enchanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. 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.

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:

Authoring these works means that, in a way, I have set myself up as final arbiter of fantasy role playing in the minds of the majority of D&D adventurers. Well, so be it, I rationalized. Who better than the individual responsible for it all as creator of the "Fantasy Supplement" in CHAINMAIL, the progenitor of D&D; and as the first proponent of fantasy gaming and a principal in TSR, the company one thinks of when fantasy games are mentioned, the crddit and blame rests ultimately here. Some last authority must be established for a very good reason.

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.

[Finarvyn]

Wow, foster, but that's a load o' typin' to read.

I pretty much agree with all of what you said. The concept of a standard "way to do it" is really the central notion behind the creation of AD&D. OD&D was always about "whatever you like".

Having said that, years ago a friend and I were looking at page 10 of Supplement I Greyhawk and saw that it the Magic-user chart topped 20th level. He loved mages and we had always stopped in the 12-14 level range, but we decided to run a game where he kept going. He made it as far as 27th level before he got bored, but keep in mind that I'm often loose with XP and tend to award levels after completed quests so I'm not sure that he would have earned that many levels "by the book".

In 30 years of gaming we've only had 2 characters top 20th, and that's the way we like it.

[Finarvyn]

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.

[Melan]

foster1941 said:

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.

That was me. I came across Warlock (subtitled: "How to play DandD without playing DandD" [sic]) on an eBay auction and won it thanks to a lucky bid -- if Afterglow2 is correct, I own the only existing copy. Warlock may have been one of the first attempts to "fix" D&D: there is a spell point system, magic is reworked to be more systematic (it comes out more generic and much less interesting), and I think they did something to thieves. The rules give tables for advancement beyond the OD&D norm, but nothing really outlandish... or at least nothing along the lines of David Hargrave's "three balrogs through the door" DMing style.

Unfortunately, I can't recall more about the rules without reading them again. They are very forgettable, and basically uninteresting to an OD&D fan except as a fancy collectors' item (meaning, even though it sucks, I am not interested in selling ;D). On the other hand, you can see what Warlock evolved into here.

[Finarvyn]

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....

[Pierce Inverarity]

Thanks for those illuminating replies! Somebody once called early Traveller (LBB 1-3 only) a Burgess Shale that instantly spawned a ton of individually houseruled campaigns, and the same seems to be true for OD&D.

[Melan]

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

[calithena]

ED: Moved to the "Warlock" thread by Fin. ;D

[crimhthanthegreat]

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.

[Finarvyn]

I'm going to set up a new thread for this.

[crimhthanthegreat]

admin said:

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....

I second this motion!

[philotomy]

I'm using 10-12 as the top-end range for my campaign.

[coffee]

admin said:

In 30 years of gaming we've only had 2 characters top 20th, and that's the way we like it.

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...)

[ffilz]

In one sense, the addition of higher level spells is a problem. If you have to be 18th level to get 9th level spells, of course people are going to want to play at least to 18th level, and then probably a bit beyond.

There is a problem with an open ended game, that also has a power escalation curve. When do you stop?

Frank

[philotomy]

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...

[Finarvyn]

philotomy said:

10th level is the max for normal mortal humans.

So at 11th level you reach "Epic", eh?

I think once a person looks at your scale and really thinks about what it means, that person will get a better feel for what "old school" was all about. If Conan is 8th level, why would you ever want rules that go to 36th?

Under such a scale as yours (and mine is similar), the game just works better:
- hit points don't really become absurd
- combat bonuses aren't too extreme yet
- PC magic is reasonable but NPCs maybe can do a bit extra
- most monsters are still a challenge to most characters

[philotomy]

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."

[coffee]

See, this is why I love this forum.

It simply never occurred to me to have a level limit. I mean, there are rules for going past the levels indicated in the book, so you just keep going, right? That's how I thought.

I'm going to seriously think about level caps. Not sure if I'll go with it (I still think the thought of assaulting a high-level party (say 10-12) with an 18th level Wizard (or Archmage, to use AD&D terminology) would be trippy...

Anyway, I just wanted to say that you guys have given me something to think about. Thanks!

[Finarvyn]

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!)

[serendipity]

coffee said:

I still think the thought of assaulting a high-level party (say 10-12) with an 18th level Wizard (or Archmage, to use AD&D terminology) would be trippy...

Oooooh, that brings up an interesting point. Just because the PCs have level caps doesn't mean the monsters have to, right? BTW, crossing over to another thread, does the DM have to declare his alignment before the game begins?

[coffee]

serendipity said:

coffee said:

I still think the thought of assaulting a high-level party (say 10-12) with an 18th level Wizard (or Archmage, to use AD&D terminology) would be trippy...

Oooooh, that brings up an interesting point. Just because the PCs have level caps doesn't mean the monsters have to, right? BTW, crossing over to another thread, does the DM have to declare his alignment before the game begins?

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.

[philotomy]

serendipity said:

Just because the PCs have level caps doesn't mean the monsters have to, right?

Right. Monsters would be whatever "level" is appropriate for them.

As far as NPCs, my approach allows for characters that exceed the normal level caps, there's just usually something special or unique about them. They're insane, or demon-ridden, or cursed, or constrained by powerful oaths, or whatever. (This works well for big PC foes). PCs can "do it too," if they want to, but they should expect that there is a price to be paid for such power.

[Finarvyn]

serendipity said:

BTW, crossing over to another thread, does the DM have to declare his alignment before the game begins?

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.

[ffilz]

I should have "Warning: DM is Evil" buttons made up or something.

Back in the days, I picked up a number of buttons along this lines.

One of the best: "Lawful DM: I Make the Laws!"

Frank

[tgamemaster1975]

serendipity said:

BTW, crossing over to another thread, does the DM have to declare his alignment before the game begins?

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

[allensh]

melan said:

foster1941 said:

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.

That was me. I came across Warlock (subtitled: "How to play DandD without playing DandD" [sic]) on an eBay auction and won it thanks to a lucky bid -- if Afterglow2 is correct, I own the only existing copy. Warlock may have been one of the first attempts to "fix" D&D: there is a spell point system, magic is reworked to be more systematic (it comes out more generic and much less interesting), and I think they did something to thieves. The rules give tables for advancement beyond the OD&D norm, but nothing really outlandish... or at least nothing along the lines of David Hargrave's "three balrogs through the door" DMing style.

Unfortunately, I can't recall more about the rules without reading them again. They are very forgettable, and basically uninteresting to an OD&D fan except as a fancy collectors' item (meaning, even though it sucks, I am not interested in selling ;D). On the other hand, you can see what Warlock evolved into here.

I belong to a Yahoo group for the Warlock game that has PDFs of the most recent iteration of the rules. That game is still being run out there and even with some of the same people.

Allen

[Mordorandor]

Jul 1, 2007 6:51:43 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

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.

Add to the mix relative XP and the fact that to earn another level beyond name-level takes earning name-level all over again, and it becomes even more brutally real how long it would take to even reach these upper levels.