Did you follow the rules for racial level limits in AD&D?

[Benoist]

I'm curious how many people respected the level limits set out in the AD&D 1E Players Handbook during its 1978-1989 era.

[Ragnorakk]

I didn't - though during the timeframe you give, I was really only playing at the start of that. At that time we ignored level limits and allowed human multiclassing (heresy!). These days, though, level limits are observed.

[TRP]

We allowed any single-classed character to go unlimited. Still, people played more humans than demi-humans. So, there must be something more to preferring human characters other than just unlimited levels. I don't pretend to know what that is though.

Now, I just stick to the PHB level limits, but the OP was "DID you follow.."

[Benoist]

Hey, it's cool, man!

And yes, the time frame is important. It's to determine rather non-scientifically whether people used level limits rules "back in the day". This poll has been posted over at RPGnet and ENWorld, but this place here was ignored. So I'm posting it myself here.

[Wheggi]

Never.

Never nixed the demi-human racial limits.
Never let single-classed M/Us wear armor or weild swords.
Never let assassins be good-aligned.
Never let a female human fighter have 18/00 strength.
Never let a player be a drow (UA is all optional in my world, fuck that book).
Never used non-weapon proficencies.

Never. Never. NEVER.

ALSO:

Never granted an extra move for every three pawns captured in chess.
Never allowed a win by 'claiming corners' in tic-tac-toe.
Never introduced foreign currency to Monopoly.
Never had to upload a patch for my Atari 2600.
And NEVER had the latest edition of Stratego go though such a drastic rules overhaul as to make it unrecognizable.

God it's fun being a grouchy old man. Walt Kowalski, take notes!

(and just to let you know Odhanan, this isn't any kind of attack on you. More just a conveinant spot to do some good ol' fashioned grognardian grumblin')

- Wheggi

[Benoist]

(and just to let you know Odhanan, this isn't any kind of attack on you. More just a conveinant spot to do some good ol' fashioned grognardian grumblin')

- Wheggi

You are totally welcome to it, man.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Not "did you". The appropriate question is "do you"; we don't normally talk about AD&D in the past tense here.

And yes, I do and as far as I remember, always have.

[TRP]

Never. Never. NEVER.

Did you ever give out the collected money for landing on Free Parking?

[Benoist]

Not "did you". The appropriate question is "do you"; we don't normally talk about AD&D in the past tense here.

And yes, I do and as far as I remember, always have.

The wording was important as well. I was careful to copy the exact wording from the original polls (including the mistake of "1977", though I did correct the typos in the poll options), so I can't be accused of falsifying the results.

[James Maliszewski]

Never.

Never nixed the demi-human racial limits.

Nor I. I've honestly never understood the hatred for level limits; it's not like they matter for most races in a properly refereed AD&D campaign, where it'll take years to reach level 9. I suppose if you were fool enough to play a single-classed gnome or halfling fighter, it might matter, but that's just the rules' way of saying you made a very poor choice of character

Never let single-classed M/Us wear armor or weild swords.
Never let assassins be good-aligned.

Again, did anyone do this?

Never let a female human fighter have 18/00 strength.

Male human fighters with exceptional strength were rare enough that this never really mattered all that much, but I'd have used the rules as written too.

Never let a player be a drow (UA is all optional in my world, fuck that book).

Ditto

Never used non-weapon proficencies.

Alas, I cannot say the same, but I plead the foolishness of adolescence in my defense.

[Geoffrey]

I've never relaxed the demi-human level limits. In fact, I prefer the lower 1974 level limits.

[James Maliszewski]

I've never relaxed the demi-human level limits. In fact, I prefer the lower 1974 level limits.

I generally do as well, although I've incorporated some of the options from Supplement I into my current campaign and it's worked just fine. Mind you, after a year and a half of weekly play, no character is above 6th level (and most are below that), so level limits haven't become an issue yet. Still, I won't be relaxing them when the elf and dwarf PCs run into them (assuming they live that long).

[Irda Ranger]

I've never enforced level limits. It's not that it's come up all that often, but rather a question of game-design philosophy. I think (and have always thought) that they were a bad rule. They made the game less fun.

I suppose if you were fool enough to play a single-classed gnome or halfling fighter, it might matter, but that's just the rules' way of saying you made a very poor choice of character

See this? I hate this attitude. To me this is just being a jerk. "Well you're an idiot for making that character in the first place! Now you're just gonna have to watch all the other players advance while you don't, or retire a PC you've played for 1~2 years. Yeah, I could have stopped you from making this decision back when we started, but I thought it would be more true to the game for you get this huge, stinking, steaming, pile of disappointment crapped on you."

Seriously. This attitude makes me want to slap people. I might understand it if you played D&D with people you hated, but since I assume here we play with friends I just don't get it.

I strongly believe that the character generation rules should not have "bad choices" available. There are plenty of opportunities during play to make bad choices, but choosing a class and race isn't the time for that. If you (as a DM/game designer) don't want Halflings to be good Fighters, just don't allow them as a PC choice. If they are a choice they should be able to level up with everyone else, for however long the game lasts.

[Benoist]

I'm gonna quote Trent from another board, because I thought his characters' example of how level limits might come into play was a very good one (hope you don't mind, T). He was asked whether he used level limits in the game and what happened when characters reached their level limits:

My first D&D character was a dwarf (created under B/X as a "dwarf," later converted over to AD&D as a dwarf fighter) who maxed out at 8th level (due to 17 Str) after about a year and a half of play. When that happened I kept playing him for awhile (for non-spellcasters at high level a difference of a couple-three levels isn't all that pronounced, especially since as a dwarf he had big saving throw bonuses) but eventually he went from being a main protagonist character to more of a background supporting character and he entered semi-retirement and became a quasi-NPC, and I mostly played other characters -- a half-elf ranger (who also maxed out at 8th level and ended up in pretty much the same boat as the dwarf), and two humans -- a fighter and a bard. The decision to make the latter characters human was motivated in part by having had two characters max-out (the ranger hadn't maxed out yet when they were created, but the dwarf had and I knew what was coming for the ranger) and wanting to have a character with unlimited potential -- and my fighter eventually reached 12th or 13th level (don't remember exactly, and it's been ~20 years since I last played him), so it paid off

Other players had similar experiences with their own dwarf, elf, and half-elf characters (the only gnome I can recall was a thief, and I don't think anyone ever played a halfling or half-orc) and we rolled with it, and eventually everybody ended up with at least one unlimited character. I suppose it's worth noting that we didn't limit ourselves strictly to one character per player -- most of us had a stable of at least 2 characters who we would rotate between from session to session -- so it wasn't like I played only my dwarf character until 8th level and then had to start totally fresh with a new 1st level ranger while everyone else had 9th+ level characters. By the time my dwarf hit 8th level my ranger was already at about 4th, and by the time the other characters the dwarf was adventuring with got enough higher than him that the difference was becoming noticeable (about 11th level) the human fighter and bard had gotten high enough level to fit in with that group and take his place (because they were played more often and low level characters gain levels so much more quickly than high level ones).

[James Maliszewski]

See this? I hate this attitude. To me this is just being a jerk.

So every version of D&D from 1974 to 2000 was simply mistaken and encouraging jerkiness? That's a fascinating perspective.