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

[tacojohn4547]

A related question, given that some of you (tacojohn, at least) have players who get their undies in a wad about racial level limits, do they have the same problem with class level limits.

I mean, do they stomp their feet and blow smoke out their ears until you write up rules for the Ultimate Grandmaster Assassin of the Universe?

At some point characters just don't get any better. They know the numbers from the beginning, so why complain?

It really hasn't come up yet in the current campaign. There aren't any assassins in the party, and while there is a druid and a monk in the group of secondary PCs, which I affectionately dubbed the B-Team, they've really only just started out here recently. So they're a long, long ways from capping out.

And it's not quite as bad as stomping their feet and getting red in the face. But there is definitely a predisposition toward not having level limits of any kind imposed. And it wasn't a big enough issue for me when the campaign kicked off to dig my heels in and resist the group's tendencies.

[Irda Ranger]

I strongly believe ...

That's a newer gaming philosophy, that all paths are equal. No, they're not. Choices are made from beginning to end in the game. Some are good; some are bad. You learn (or should learn) to make the good choices through experience.

I distinguish between "char gen" decisions and decisions during play. There are plenty of opportunities to make bad decisions during play, but having a race/class choice that's grossly sub-par is like having a piece in Monopoly that isn't allowed to build hotels.

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.

Yup. That's why post-2000 D&D fixed it.

But even pre-D&D III (as you like to say), you'll notice that the limits got inflated between every prior edition, as people pushed them farther and farther away. I think it's pretty evident that they weren't popular.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

That's a newer gaming philosophy, that all paths are equal.

I wouldn't call it new. Players have been complaining about level limits ever since there have been level limits. And caving in to the complainers goes back as far as Unearthed Arcana.

[AxeMental]

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.). It also serves to balance huge advantages such as languages and infravision.
As far as I remember we always kept the level limits, it bugged players once they maxed out, but they new what they were getting into. I think we did, on a few occasions, allow for some PCs to advance due to very rare found magic (and PCs had to "earn it"). We went to using UAs revised a while (being the power gamers we are) but in the last decade have gone back to being more purists.

As others have mentioned, level progression is not the only point or way to advance.

I'll also allow a demihuman to take up a new profession (as in multi-classing) once near maxing out (as long as they told me well in advance they started training for it) such as an elf fighter eventually becoming a fighter/thief. The combo's must be allowable of course. oddly this is very rarely requested.

[Irda Ranger]

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.). It also serves to balance huge advantages such as languages and infravision.

Those are real issues, but Level Limits are hardly the only (or best) solution.

[TRP]

That's a newer gaming philosophy, that all paths are equal.

I wouldn't call it new. Players have been complaining about level limits ever since there have been level limits. And caving in to the complainers goes back as far as Unearthed Arcana.

It's one thing to complain about a rule, it's another to completely change the rule. What I meant, but wasn't specific about, was that it's newer for the concept to be instituted in the rules.

[TRP]

I distinguish between "char gen" decisions and decisions during play.

I don't. From the moment a player begins making choices, the game has begun.

It may be a matter of gaming background on what a player prefers. I'm not just referring to RPGs, but to all strategy games of the past 60+ years. If you're used to games where all sides begin play equally, then that's what you are used to and would expect. If you're used to games where sides have different strengths and weaknesses (or even where one side is demonstrably superior), then you'll be comfortable with that. I'm obviously in the later category.

Now, I'm also fine with RPGs where all characters do start play on relatively equal terms. BRP and RM are both excellent games where all paths are relatively equal from the get go. So, I'm not against the concept in general. When I'm up for that sort of thing, then those are the games I play. There are also editions of D&D where all characters are created and played more or less equally. With all of the options available, I see no reason to change O/AD&D. Almond Joy's got nuts; Mounds don't.

[T. Foster]

The thing with level limits making some characters worse than others is that it's not like it's a secret or something that requires a great deal of "system mastery" or study of the underlying math of the game to puzzle out (in the way that sub-optimal builds in 3E did) -- it's all stated right there in black & white on p. 14 of the PH. If you decide to make your character a single-classed half-orc cleric you are doing so in full knowledge that he's limited to a maximum of 4th level. Perhaps you've got some roleplay-related reason for wanting to play such a character anyway, or have so little faith in the character's (or the campaign's) life-expectancy that you don't expect it to become an issue, but you can't honestly act surprised when the character earns enough XP for 5th level and the DM tells you "too bad."

There's somewhat of an exception, I suppose, for a rank-newbie player who hasn't read the rules and chooses to play something like a single-classed gnome or halfling fighter, but in such a case I'd say it's the DM's (or one of the more experienced player's) responsibility to step in and suggest that that's a sub-optimal choice and they'd probably be better off with a different race, or multiclassed -- which I see as more-or-less equivalent to the way you'd correct that same player if you saw him, say, using a d12 for his "to hit" rolls.

[Benoist]

A related question, given that some of you (tacojohn, at least) have players who get their undies in a wad about racial level limits, do they have the same problem with class level limits.

I mean, do they stomp their feet and blow smoke out their ears until you write up rules for the Ultimate Grandmaster Assassin of the Universe?

That's where you'd see that many fiery debates about these sorts of rules are spawned by the internet smoke screen, that is, a combination of anonymity, unability for the written medium to translate mood and verbal emphasis (particularly derision and humor), and so on, so forth.

In other words, I'm willing to bet that many of the people bitching at level limits, when presented with the possibility to play in a First Ed game, will either 1/ decline, not play at all, or 2/ have some remark about how level limits "suck"... but play the game in the end.

I believe the third possibility (3/ keep bitching over and over and over again about how this or that rule sucks, how that should be changed in the name of "game balance", etc.) basically is an infringement on the golden "don't be a dick" rule. These players are not as common as the internet makes it sound. In my experience, anyway.

At some point characters just don't get any better. They know the numbers from the beginning, so why complain?

Absolutely. You look at the rules, may ask for specifics and ask for some house rules before the game (as referee, I would welcome this sort of input from players, honestly, so that we're all on the same page as far as the game's concerned), but once a decision is made, we need to move on and play the game.

[James Maliszewski]

With all of the options available, I see no reason to change O/AD&D. Almond Joy's got nuts; Mounds don't.

Very much agreed.

That's one my biggest beefs with so many of the "fixes" to D&D: they seem utterly unnecessary, especially nowadays when there are so many different RPGs available, many of whose rules are much closer to what many gamers claim they want. In the past, when D&D was the only game in town, it made some sense to want to change large swaths of rules to bring it more in line with what one felt was "better," but those days are long gone. My attitude is that one feels D&D needs lots of changes to make it playable to one's satisfaction, a more fruitful approach might be to find another game closer to one's own preferences.

[Philotomy Jurament]

Level limits for demi-humans are gracious.

The way I see it, the default assumption of the game is that PCs are human. Level limits are a generous bone thrown to PC monsters and demi-humans, should someone wish to play one. I don't see the elf's level limit rules any differently than I see special rules put into place for someone playing a dragon or a troll PC. (I blame Lord of the Rings for the official demi-human PC races in D&D.)

I tell new players up-front: the game defaults to human PCs. If you want to play a non-human character, you can, but your progress will be limited, compared to the humans. That's just the game.

(As a final comment, I think the impact of level limits is overblown, anyway. The game tends to top out around name level or just beyond, anyway, so it's not that big of a deal.)

[Irda Ranger]

I tell new players up-front: the game defaults to human PCs. If you want to play a non-human character, you can, but your progress will be limited, compared to the humans. That's just the game.

(As a final comment, I think the impact of level limits is overblown, anyway. The game tends to top out around name level or just beyond, anyway, so it's not that big of a deal.)

How do you reconcile these two paragraphs? Either the game defaults to humans (and level limits are your way of doing that), or they're not that big a deal because they never come into effect. Which is it? Both of these cannot be simultaneously true.

[Philotomy Jurament]

How do you reconcile these two paragraphs? Either the game defaults to humans (and level limits are your way of doing that), or they're not that big a deal because they never come into effect. Which is it? Both of these cannot be simultaneously true.

I didn't say they never come into effect. I said their impact (actually, their perceived impact) is overblown. The limits come into effect, but their impact isn't really felt until the later stage of the game, which isn't usually a large percentage. That's another reason I consider them gracious—maybe too gracious. I prefer the original D&D level limits.

Actually, in my game, I make an even stronger emphasis on humans. At the start of my current campaign, I said you must play a human PC, with the possibility of non-human PCs being available as the campaign progresses. In short, I like treating demi-humans just like monster PCs: a special case with some special rules for handling something outside of the default.

[BlackBat242]

Very much agreed.

That's one my biggest beefs with so many of the "fixes" to D&D: they seem utterly unnecessary, especially nowadays when there are so many different RPGs available, many of whose rules are much closer to what many gamers claim they want. In the past, when D&D was the only game in town, it made some sense to want to change large swaths of rules to bring it more in line with what one felt was "better," but those days are long gone. My attitude is that one feels D&D needs lots of changes to make it playable to one's satisfaction, a more fruitful approach might be to find another game closer to one's own preferences.

Except that, with a couple of minor exceptions, 1E AD&D IS the game system I want to play!

I have no desire to purchase another system, and learn how to play it, and try to find players for it, when NONE of them (and I did a lot of looking for a long time) are anywhere close to what I want. 1E AD&D is closest, and so I WILL play it, with the modifications I like!

To say that, if I don't want level limits I need to bugger off to another game system and stop perverting the precious purity of 1E AD&D is, to me an absurd and offensive view... if you prefer to keep them in your games, fine... but to tell me I need to play something else if I don't want them is utter garbage.

[BlackBat242]

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.