From: scythe@stein.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Level limits
Keywords: four-way balance
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:43:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.201901.8325@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>Rather than reply to three separate notes in this string, I'll 
>condense my replies into one big note.
>
>I wrote:
>>>The level limits on non-humans are there purely for game balance.
>
>To which markf@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Mark Fenoglio) replied:
>>[...] The DM can always insist the players choose humans for the
>>purpose of his long term campaign plans.  And the game balance argument
>>is crap.
>
>I certainly don't advocate that everybody play only human characters.
>But I do make sure that everybody knows the rules and their
>implications.  And my world's structure (or balance, if you will) is
>affected by those implications.
>
>The game balance may be "crap" in your campaign.  But mine is nicely
>balanced, thank you.  If yours isn't, you might try playing by the
>rules.  For a change.
>
>Mark again:
>>While it is true that allowing elves unlimited advancement may seem
>>like a death sentence for humans, that simply isn't true.  The reason
>>(I think) humans dominate is the relative size of their population,
>>which is considerably larger than elves.  This is precisely because
>>elves live longer.
>
>I don't quite follow your logic, here.  Humans dominate because they
>don't live as long as elves?  Humans dominate because there are a
>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.
I think what he's saying is that Humans dominate because there's more of them.
And there's more of them because they live a shorter time, and so they
have a greater birthrate.  But why Half-Orcs don't dominate then, I dunno.
Probably because who wants to cross-breed with an orc anyway? =)

>
>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, or (2) these
>>> advantages are all more than counterbalanced when a non-human character
>>> hits those level limits.  No matter how many minor racial advantages
>>> there are, as the game progresses naturally into higher power levels,
>>> non-humans are left in the dust.
>
>To which maillet@tls-cs.cert.fr (Luc "Redwing" Maillet) replied:
>
>>Well, for one, and if I remember well, the stats bonus/[minus] for
>>demi-humans cancel each other, making them equal to humans in this
>>matter.
>
>You mis-remember.  Several non-human races have stat bonuses which
>outweigh their penalties.  Half-orcs are one example.  Dwarves are
>another.
Just the stat bonuses cancel.  But the other abilities, such as
infravision, + to hit, or depth detectinon, aren't cancelled out.
Weeell, actually dwarves have that 20% failure chance for magic items,
but elves aren't cancelled out by their penalties.  So in my world,
elves get burnt by iron, just like in legends.

>
>maillet@tls-cs.cert.fr (Luc "Redwing" Maillet) again:
>>But the main point is that you suggest that one chooses a race for the
>>advantages it gives.  If this is the case for the group you play with, I
>>pity you.
>
>I *did* say that there are two reasons to choose non-humans.  And I do
>encounter more players who seek game mechanic advantages than players
>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).

>
>Me again:
>>> If an elf lives for 200 years or more, one would think that he'd take a
>>> decade somewhere and go adventuring, if only to make himself harder to
>>> kill, more resistant to poison and disease, etc.
>
>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?
>>Amass wealth, knowledge, magic items, wisdom... fiding one's place in
>>the world, ascending the social ladder... OK. But getting more hp,
>>better saving throws, those are mechanics !
>
>You ignore the long-term social effects which game mechanics would have
>on a society.  Although this may seem to be a "player concept," the
>people who live in an AD&D world would quickly learn several things
>about adventurers: 1) they're tough to kill, 2) trouble seeks them out,
>3) don't cross them; they win, and 4) they almost always come back to
>life.  The social effects of this is that everybody will change their
>interactions with people who are (or are perceived to be) adventurers.
>
>Similarly, people will choose to be adventurers for different reasons,
>but one reason will be the physical power which comes with being an
>adventurer.  In our society, this is one of the many reasons people
>choose to be police officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen.  People
>like power.
>
>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.
>
>maillet@tls-cs.cert.fr (Luc "Redwing" Maillet):
>>Just give me a good WORLD ( NOT "game balance" ) reason to do that.
>
>Because otherwise they'd rule the world, and most DM's don't want elves
>ruling the place (mine does).  I won't give you any hocus-pocus about
>"elves are inherently magical" or "dwarves have fighting in their
>blood."  As I stated at the beginning of my post, the only real 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.
>
>To reply to Sea Wasp's comments, I've dealt with most of them above 
>or in the original note.  However....
>
>Me:
>>>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.
>
>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
>
>      The company stood rooted to the ground in terror.
>      The creature was about fifty feet tall, with wide
>      lapels, long dangling participles, and a pronounced
>      gazetteer.
>        "Aiyee!" shouted Legolam.  "A Thesaurus!"
>        "Maim!" roared the monster.  "Mutilate, mangle,
>      crush.  See HARM."
>        "Quick," cried Goodgulf.  "Into the cavern!"
>         -- "Bored of the Rings," National Lampoon, (c) 1969

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he goes swimming does he get wet, | The Grim Reaper
Or does the water get him instead?     | scythe@u.washington.edu
-They Might Be Giants, "Particle Man"  |
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Villager: She turned me into a newt!   |Lister, If two people came to you 
Bedevere: A newt?                      |for a job, and one of them was dead,
Villager: I got better.....            |who would you choose? -Rimmer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd