Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Wheggi wrote:

Ragnorakk wrote:

Irda Ranger wrote:Who are any of you to say which "fixes" are "unnecessary", or which games we should be playing?

I'll field this since it's directed at "any of you" - the answer is (as you know) none of us are that person and no-one here is saying that.

Ragnorakk, you're a nice guy but I have to correct you. I'M telling Irda Ranger how to play AD&D. It's for his own good. I mean, if the guy is capable of throwing out level limits God knows what he'll do next . . .



- Wheggi

This isn't EnWorld, DF nor any other D&D site that's interested in debating the merits of AD&D rules vs Other rules. This isn't even the AD&D Homebrew forum of K&K. In general, and I believe it is very well-known that, K&K is not all that tolerant of AD&D >= UA, and isn't apologetic about it.

To come here, and get indignant that >= UA-isms do not receive a warm welcome, is only going to cause frustration for yourself and the mods who have to cleanup the mess. (Having spilled a drink or two on the carpet myself )

As the saying goes, "When in Rome ..."

I like the cover art on UA. Haven't spent any time with it otherwise. Don't even care to own it just so that I have "all the books".

James Maliszewski wrote:I'll admit that, for me, AD&D will always be a largely "by the book" game compared to OD&D, which encourages and indeed pretty much demands each referee make the game his own.

I make the same distinction, personally. This is why these are my two favorite iterations of the game, for very different reasons. If I want to mold the game to my and the players' expectations, I'll run OD&D and house rule it organically, through play. If I want to run AD&D well... I want to run AD&D.

Irda Ranger wrote:Given the topic of the thread is limited to the use/non-use of Level Limits (and no other changes), I trust you can understand how your "Oh, I was just talking about other people, who aren't participating in this thread" is hardly believable. Even if you really mean that, it's a non-sequitur whose mis-interpretation by others is perfectly foreseeable - given the context.

We went over this a few months ago, but perhaps it's been long enough you need to be reminded. Personal attacks and pointless name-calling are not allowed in this forum. Strongly worded opinions that disagree with yours do not count as a personal attack (especially when the original poster goes out of their way to explain that what they said was not a personal attack).

Another thing that's not allowed at K&K is constantly derailing threads by being a hypersensitive drama-queen. So either dial down the defensiveness a few hundred notches or find some other forum more suitable to your delicate sensibilities.

Falconer wrote:The new Stratego is set in a fantasy setting with pieces like Dragons, Dwarves, and Elves replacing the Napoleonic soldiers. One player is the Fire (Red) Army from Volcandria, and the other player is the Ice (Blue) Army from Everwinter. It has a smaller board (8 x 10 vs. 10 x 10), and fewer pieces (30 vs. 40) than Stratego, but there are special movement and attack rules for most of the pieces.

I kid you not.

That game looks kind of cool, but I'm surprised they named it the generic "Stratego" rather than something like "Stratego: Fantasy Edition", which is what they've done with all the other themed sets. The fact that they are keeping the more traditional Stratego sets and "Stratego: Nostalgia Edition" in print at the same time is even more puzzling.

On the bright side, apparently Milton Bradley thinks adding fantasy elements to something is actually a selling point; which is kind of refreshing.

Racial limits is one of the things that define the demihumans (what makes them different from one another in a meaningful way). Look at the limits in each for how Gygax wished each to be percieved. Note thief class is unlimited in all but half orc.

BlackBat242 wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Remember, this is not a willy nilly rule. Its based on the need to keep the game "human centric" (most of the players choose humans most of the time) and explains why long lived races don't rule the planet (ie. why isn't that 1,200 year old elf a 50th level wizard, 50th level fighter, etc.).

And just why is there a "need to keep the game human centric"?

The whole purpose for the game to have demi-humans as PCs seems to be to allow them as PCs... to then try to use restrictive rules to discourage players from playing them always seemed to be one of the less-rational things put into the game.


As for that point anyway... as I mentioned before (and the pout-rage at my sacrilege and heresy seemed to ignore), with the removal of the prohibition on human multi-classing (there I go again), human characters were still more common than any other race... and close to or equal to any TWO other races in numbers!

Not that that was an important feature in any of our games or campaigns... the sheer rabbit-like reproduction rate of humans compared to any of the demi-human races insures their longer-lived "rivals" can't dominate them anyway.

Black Bat, a fair set of questions. As I see it, AD&D is a game not only in its rules but in its feel (which has much to do with implied behavior of races classes and monsters). The game "as is" discourages players from being non human...love it or hate it, its one of the most destinct rule sets of the game. You can change that rule, but then you won't be playing the homogeneous Gygaxian world shared, More or less between groups of players over several decades. The gritty experience of 1E remains the same (why 10 year olds with no experiance in RPGS can pick up the three core books role up PCs and have an identical experience to the ones we had in 78'...just like Risk or Monopoly it is a game defined by its rules). This is the advantage 1E has over OD&D, it is Gygax's vision more clearly layed out and not as subject to altering (as balance is greatly desturbed)...it is more of a uniform game experiance then OD&D.

The logic as to why level limits exist isn't really relevant (its a rule) but It could be that the other races just don't have the ambition or concentration (with so many other things to look forward to why take the huge risks of high level advancement). TFoster had a quote he put up years ago that was my sig for some time, I think it was in response to another level limit debate. It went something like: "Human mortality is a blessing in disguise in that it leads men to do much with the short time they're given" or something like that.

AD&D was designed in a very similar manner to 70s and earlier Sci Fi in that humans are the center of interest, alien races exist to play up the "human character". We the reader (or in this case player) can better see our humanity by comparison in juxtapose. Level limits were a well thought out tool, they say a lot. Players simply have to adapt to the limits just as the guy who wants to play a human thief has to adapt to not having infravision (good luck sneaking around a pitch black dungeon). Playing demihumans is playing "monsters". We get to see whats so special about being human by noticing the differences in play...and one of the differences is human ambition.

One additional point, level limits for races only apply to PCs. Also consider this: most humans never become "adventurers" and never progress in levels in any class. Only the very rare do so (gygax says as much in the rules). With demihumans class levels seem more common (not to mention the race advantages.

rogatny wrote:explain to me why the knight moves in an L-shape in chess.

Easy, it's the shortest move possible that isn't a straight line.
Bishops and rooks move in straight lines, so where the heck is the knight going to move to make him different? He's going to move in not a straight line, that's where!

That fantasy Stratego freaks me out.

Why are we arguing about level limits? This thread is about did you use them, not should you have used them.

Odhanan wrote:Houseruling a game to one's own specificities is part of the duties of a good referee. Running a game 100% by rules-as-written, all the time not only doesn't make any sense, it's destructive to the actual campaign!

I've never DMed a campaign that was 100% by-the-book. That said, why would a campaign suffer if its DM went 100% by-the-book?

James Maliszewski wrote:

BlackBat242 wrote:Because it looks like the start of a trend taking the viscousness of the Edition Wars, and applying it to "House-rule Wars" level.

Then thank you for pointing it out to me, because that is most emphatically not how I intended my post, which was primarily meant to ask the question of why many gamers would rather extensively house rule a game than find a new one that already includes those house rules as the baseline.

Ok. Thank you. Once again BlackBat did a better job of explaining the objection than I, so a "Thank you" to him too.

Your question might make a good thread, you know. "What house rules do you use, and why use them rather than a new game." Or something like that.

Geoffrey wrote:I've never DMed a campaign that was 100% by-the-book. That said, why would a campaign suffer if its DM went 100% by-the-book?

The Devil's in the details, as they say. Many times, you will have to improvise solutions to problems during actual play on the fly, regardless of what actual rules say. To keep the game going, with its tension and atmosphere, rather than hitting "pause" and searching through your DMG for the one-liner you need for a particular situation.

It's about the spirit of the rules, not the rules themselves.

If you are running your game 100% by RAW, sooner or later (sooner rather than later, I'd bet, for most people who do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the system), you'll run into one of these moments. Roll with it. Don't let it be the death of immersion in the game world.

That's just one way in which a 100% adherence to the rules-as-written may harm your game.