From: seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Level limits
Keywords: four-way balance
Date: 18 Dec 92 23:40:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec18.201901.8325@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>bunch of zero-levels running about?  Humans dominate because elves
>don't reproduce as fast?  I'd buy into that last argument.  But what
>about half-orcs?  They reproduce even faster than humans, and without
>level limits, this argument would promote them ahead of humans.  Be
>consistent.

	Not really. Half orcs tend to be dumber and die faster. Even the
immortality doesn't make up for the fact that they tend to get killed.
Besides, half-orc is not a race.

>Later in my note, I said:
>>> Faced with these advantages, the only things which would make a player
>>> choose a human character over a non-human one are (1) he wants to play
>>> that race because it fits with his character concept,


	Which is the ONLY, ONLY reason why one should play ANY race. If
your character concept is elven, you don't want to play a human. And 
you don't want to have to choose between Elf who becomes  Wimp at high
level, and Human who becomes God. (Look at the Noldor Lords of Middle-Earth;
that's the heroic Elven race. If I play an elven lord, I want THAT potential,
just as if I play Human Warrior I want the potential to be Conan.)

>You mis-remember.  Several non-human races have stat bonuses which
>outweigh their penalties.  Half-orcs are one example.  Dwarves are
>another.

	Dwarves aren't immortal and reproduce slowly in most literature
(or are even just as mortal as humans). Half-orcs are not a race, as
I pointed out above. Half-anythings aren't a race.

>who seek a character with a particular character concept.  However,
>people still choose humans in games I've played in where there are no
>level limits.  It's usually for reason (1).

	Then these people are showing you the fallacy of Game Balance.
It only needs to be enforced if you have a bunch of people more interested
in the numbers than in the play... in which case you'll have problems
with them no matter what your rules are, because there will ALWAYS be
loopholes...

>maillet@tls-cs.cert.fr (Luc "Redwing" Maillet) replied:
>>I beg your pardon ? "if only to make himself..." ? have you tried other
>>games, to get rid of this PLAYER (as opposed to CHARACTER) concept?

>You ignore the long-term social effects which game mechanics would have
>on a society.

	I agree with your principle here -- that is, that game mechanics
which obtrude effectively into the lives of the people will become
known to the people of the world -- and that's why I pointed out a simple
fix: make HP more even; the Arduin system (essentially, it's your Con,
plus a base number of points for your level, plus a ONE TIME Con bonus
[1 point per point of Con over 12], plus stuff for class) makes
even superhigh level characters no more than twice the hit points of low
level characters, and no more than 4 or so times the points of the average
0-level peasant. MUCH better.

>3) don't cross them; they win, and 4) they almost always come back to
>life.

	Depends. Most worlds I've played in, revivification was a bitch
to get. One of the reasons I rarely kill off PCs without a damn good
reason is that to get them revived is NOT a matter of jogging to the
local temple and whipping out your Multiversal Express card.

	I've HEARD of the campaigns where George the Fighter died 6 times
and got resurrected each time. But I've never played in one.

>Me:
>>> I can't buy the story that "elves live longer, therefore they should be
>>> unlimited in level."  Because the elven races live longer is precisely
>>> the reason why they should NOT be allowed to progress to high (14+)
>>> levels of clericism and magic use.


	Unfortunately, that has no internal logic. They have the same
intelligence, same skills, same everything else. Why can't they learn
stuff that even dumber humans can? No reason.

>for non-human level limits is game balance.  If you're looking for
>another one, or you think there's no such thing as a balanced game,
>you'll be disappointed.

	There IS no such thing as a balanced game. Even games which profess
to enforce game balance, like GURPS, fail miserably unless you play 
whatever kinds of characters the creators of the game considered.

>To reply to Sea Wasp's comments, I've dealt with most of them above 
>or in the original note.  However....

	Not really...

>>>Like the precentage of magical items sized for or specific to non-human
>>>races.
>
>Wasp:
>>Most magical items size themselves to fit anything within a reasonable
>>range of sizes, unless the creator of the item intended that no one
>>else would wear it...

>That is true of some items, but nowhere near all of them.

	I thought I'd made it clear I was talking about MY world, which is
a living counterexample to virtually everything you've said. 

	I have NO level limits on anything. NO racial limits. NO class
limits. Magic items tend to fit any humanoid race. In short, mechanicswise
all races have equal footing. Some races have superior stats. C'est la
vie.

	Funny; no "balance problems" have appeared. The human race hasn't
been stomped out. Players haven't stopped choosing Human as their most
popular race.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;