From: mccall@Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Level limits
Keywords: four-way balance
Date: 20 Dec 92 03:47:40 GMT
Reply-To: mccall@oswego.Oswego.EDU (D. Todd Mccall)
Organization: Instructional Computing Center, SUNY at Oswego, Oswego, NY

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.
 
 Well, actually part of it is that if the rules don't accomplish want
 you want : change them, and the other is that this 'game balance' 
 is a somewhat mysterious thing. It seemed that a previous poster
 said that the "game balance argument is crap", with this I agree. It
 doesnt mean that the balance of the game is crap, but that the GB
 argument is not really an argument at all...which it isnt.

 
>
>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 doubt that half-orc reproduction is really a problem, given the 
 rarity of the critters(0 in any campaign I've been in/run but that's
 something else entirely), because they are a rare half-breed, and most
 humans are not predisposed to breed with orcs...in fact it seems to be
 a by_force_only breeding. So there arent enough half-orcs to form a
 stable population base, from which to reproduce.  So there is no
 consistency problem, of the 'true' demi-human/human races Men reproduce
 the fastest...this allows them to recover from war/disease etc. losses
 at a rate no race, but perhaps the halflings can match. In a power 
 struggle this is an advantage...this is assuming the other races
 (dwarves,elves etc) are competing with humanity...they may simply not
 care to interfere in the affairs of short-lived humanity. Again, this
 is where Campaign reasons maintain balance,as opposed to arbitrary
 game balance works.

>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.
>
>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).
>
 Interestingly enough, the worst munchkin I ever GM'd for played only 
 one race ever...humans. The good roleplayers, played humans 
 occaisionally, but usually played non-humans...because the non-humans
 were viewed as more interesting. I dont ever remember a player
 sitting down and trying to figure out which race had the most bonuses,
 but then again I've been pretty lucky(with exception of the human-only
 munchkin) as far as players have gone.

>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.
>
 On (4) Players, in my worlds, are no more prone coming back to life
 than say a powerful merchant, or influential clergy member or other
 person of power and influence. Of course, people change their 
 interactions with adventurers, but they also do with respect other
 people(NPC's) of power. Players do not have special access to 'raise
 dead' type magic.

 On (3) PC's dont always win, they can be outclassed, and beaten. And
 on (2) its more than adventurer's seek out trouble. At any rate,NPC
 adventurers have all advantages that PC ones do, so no campaign 
 problems there.


>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.
>
 Never had the elves ruling the place, 'cause the elves in my worlds dont
 want to rule humanity, they're just not interested. And since I try
 to apply some mythology/fantasy writing elements to my campaigns I find
 that level limits are internally inconsistent : Elves are (mythologically)
 inherently magical, and therefore it makes little sense to say that 
 they can not be as good a mage as a human. The same argument applies
 to Dwarves and fighting. Or some of the restrictions as to certain
 races not being able to be certain classes...a concept which has even
 more internal consistency problems than the level limits themselves.

>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.
>
  That depends _highly_ on the campaign, since magic items, their 
  availabilty and nature, should be determined by the campaign, not 
  by an arbitrary rule decision.

  -- Just remember even the T$R rulebooks state that the rules are 
  advice, and that the DM has the final call on any and all rules.
  The GM should control the rules...not the other way around.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|D.Todd McCall                  \  The best laid plans of mice and men       |
|---mccall@oswego.oswego.edu    \                                            |
|                               \                                            |
|State University of New York   \  are worth about the same                  |
|                               \                                            |
|College at Oswego		\  in the final analysis       		     |
|____________________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd