I'm just a few years shy of having played, in one form or another, Dungeons & Dragons for half a century (yes, I am old). In all the years that I've played the game, there have been certain constants, chief among them being complaints about aspects of their rules that some players have found ridiculous. A very well-known example of what I'm talking about is alignment, the vocal dislike of which has been commonplace since at least the mid-1980s and probably longer. Almost as common a target for criticism are class restrictions and level limits for demihuman characters.
Personally, I've never had a problem with them and still don't, but there's no denying that no edition of the game has ever done a good job of explaining why they were included, let alone necessary. Consequently, like alignment – another poorly explained game concept – I've heard complaints about dwarves not being allowed to be paladins or elves being worse magic-users than humans for decades. I suspect Gary Gygax heard them a lot too, judging from how often these questions came up in his "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" column in Dragon magazine.
For the most part, Gary was pretty adamant in his belief that D&D's implied setting was humanocentric, thereby justifying demihuman class restrictions and level limits. However, as the years wore on, he started to soften his stance, especially in the years prior to the publication of Unearthed Arcana, as he was more seriously pondering the future direction of AD&D – and by "soften," I mean he more or less capitulated on the matter entirely. Unearthed Arcana (and the articles that preceded it) more or less opened the floodgates to demihumans being able to enter most classes and achieve much higher levels in them than had previously been allowed.
The prudence of that can be debated. However, Gygax goes further in his next article on the subject. “New Jobs for Demi-humans” appeared in issue #96 of Dragon (April 1985), in which he loosens level limits for non-humans yet again, this time by tying them to high ability scores. For example, after allowing all demihumans to become clerics, he connects their maximum attainable level to their Wisdom. The higher the score, the higher the level cap. He even provides a chart laying out the precise relationship between Wisdom and maximum level, with the highest score listed as 20.
It’s possible Gygax thought he was being clever here. By reserving the highest levels for characters with extraordinary ability scores, he may have imagined he was preventing the vast majority of demihumans from ever reaching parity with humans. However, if my own experience is anything to go by, all this actually did was subtly encourage ability score inflation, something to which AD&D was already prone, thanks in part to its methods of ability score generation and its profusion of sub-classes with steep ability score requirements.
To me, this is a much worse sin than merely allowing an elf to be a ranger or a halfling to be a druid. Doing so simply expands the range of character concepts. By contrast, tying level limits to high ability scores undermines the logic that supposedly motivated level limits in the first place while simultaneously pushing players toward the very sort of min-maxing behavior that AD&D’s design otherwise tries to discourage. If you tell a player that the only way for his dwarf cleric to reach 11th level is to have an 18 Wisdom, you are no longer meaningfully limiting demihumans so much as ensuring that all dwarf clerics will eventually 18 Wisdom, one way or another.
Players being what they are respond to game mechanical incentives. They seek out every legal method of getting the desired high scores, whether rolling and rerolling until they get what they want, using the aforementioned generous generation methods, using wish spells, magic tomes, or anything else the Dungeon Master permits. The result is not a world in which humans remain the assumed norm, with demihumans as colorful exceptions. Instead, you get a world in which ability scores creep upward across the board, because the game itself makes it clear that high scores are not merely beneficial but necessary to avoid being mechanically shortchanged.
In other words, this approach doesn’t preserve the humanocentric assumptions Gygax continued to claim were his rationale. Instead, it undermines it and encourages players of demihuman characters to look for every loophole possible to achieve their ends. Most importantly, it takes what had originally been a blunt piece of design – demihumans shouldn't outshine humans – and replaces it with something far more corrosive: a system that appears to be about setting and balance, but is instead about gaming the numbers.


I think I could have lived with level limits, but for the fact that elves could not cast Enchant An Item or Permanency, let alone Wish, and were therefore shut out of making magic items (at least using the discussion on p. 118 of the 1e DMG as a model). Elves being incapable of making magic items seemed a fundamental breach of the archetype.
ReplyDeleteAnd it does not cohere well with having magic items named "cloak of elvenkind" and "boots of elvenkind." Why are they "of elvenkind" if elves can't make them?
DeletePerhaps you need to make them out of elves…
DeleteYou are conflating PC elves and NPC elves. Players had the level restrictions if they played an elf, mostly to keep the player (and maybe a little the elf) from becoming a total jackass. NPC elves were unlimited in level attainment AND in class.
DeleteThink about it: no accomplished elf in his own society would dreg about with a party of unwashed low-level human meat bags grubbing for luchre...with a dwarf!
The level and class limits reflected the worldview: only classless (in every sense of the word), low-talent representatives of the fae races would even think of traveling with a bunch of scoundrels and dreamers from the human world, and off course would have something of a ceiling to their potential.
Perhaps the possibility of different stats for NPCs of playable classes was called out somewhere. If so, I don't remember it. What I remember is that NPCs were either 0 level or assigned a character class, and the only model readily available for the DM to create an NPC with a character class was the same one used to create a PC with a character class.
DeleteAt the time I did note deviations from the rules in some pregens included in modules. As a child, these deviations annoyed me, but I didn't take them as permission to break the rules.
Now I know that Gygax ignored the rules all the time, and that some rules he never used. So I now think that level limits, along with a lot of other elements in the 1e DMG, were created, not because he used them, but because he didn't trust other DMs to make reasonable rulings by fiat.
@Daniel: You wrote, "NPC elves were unlimited in level attainment AND in class."
DeleteThat's a reasonable house rule, but if you look at the World of Greyhawk folio (or the gold box set), the Elven ruler of Celene has levels in Fighter and Magic-User that match the level limits set in the Players Handbook, so I suspect that's not what the rules intend.
"Books (Including tomes, librams and manuals), artifacts, and relics are of ancient manufacture, possibly From superior human or demi-human technology, perhops of divine origin* thus books, artifacts, and relics can¬ not be made by players and come only from the Dungeon Master, Dwarven and elven manufactured items — the +3 dwarven war hammer, certain other magic axes end hammers, cloaks and boats of etvenhind, magic arrows, magic bows in some cases, and even some magic daggers and swords — are likewise beyond the ken of player characters of these races." p.116 DMG
DeleteRight there in the rules. PC classes and races are more limited than than NPC classes and races. There are NPC elf classes and skills (and levels!) that are simply something that a lowly adventurer will never attain in regular play In other words, you can play Gandalf, but never become Bombadil, even though they are both magic-users.
On a lesser extreme, this also why you could encounter a Dwarf cleric or Elven smith but never play one. The first would never abandon his holy cloister and deep culture to toss about human society scrabbling for some mine's waste, and the second, even if an outcast in to the human world, would lack the aptitude for adventuring and would have the skills and income to keep him out of the feral toilet of a dungeon. The party generally meets these people where they practice.
@Daniel, you omitted the very next sentence of that paragraph on DMG p. 116:
Delete"Only very old, very intelligent and wise dwarves and elves who have attained maximum level advancement are able to properly forge, fashion, and/or make these items and have the appropriate magicks and spells to change them into special items — i.e., these items are likewise the precinct of the DM exclusively."
The phrase, "have attained maximum level advancement" kind of stands out there, he is definitely relating this to his rules, if not "the" rules. More and more I think Gygax intended pre-Unearthed Arcana 1e to have guardrails that he did not use in his own game. I don't think it was a coincidence that the UA revisions to level limits gave elves the possibility of being able to cast permanency and wish.
Meh.
ReplyDeleteLook at Gygax's pregens for D1-2. All but 1 character has several scores 16+, with at least 1 with 3 18s (iirc).
And demihuman level was tied toprime requisites since Greyhawk (the book).
What you suggest is capitulation was most likely Gary conceding howhe had already expanded the ruleset.
After all, most of those "new classes" for demihumans were already mentioned in the PHB, where they were suggested to be npc-only. And already repeatedly broken at cons (cf. aforementioned D1-2 pregens & the Elf Cleric included in the line-up).
I haven't really seen the problem. While players might be very interested in raising their ability scores, a DM who doesn't tilt the field toward making that happen and sticks to the very rare ways of doing so listed in the DMG and UA will keep that from being any sort of problem. Cavaliers still suck, though, in part because they break that attribute economy, and Fighters or Paladins with lance proficiency already fill that niche so it's an unnecessary class.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I like Advanced Fighting Fantasy. Demi-humans have the Darkseeing Talent and several extra languages built in, and lose an extra Skill slot, but that is it. There are zero limits to anyone else otherwise....
ReplyDeleteRight! All this gate keeping was/is really annoying, and did not age well. Why the obsession with maintaining a sort of racial hierarchy? As for ability scores and their associated modifiers, good grief! We'd be so much better off with a simple bell curve: 9-12 gets 0 modifier, 13-15 gets +1, 16-17 gets +2, 18 gets +3, instead of all that crazy growth (penalty) at far ends of the curve. When I was 13, I thought these were rules to be learned; but now I see it's just subjective whimsy.
ReplyDeleteYou're describing the B/X modifiers! I always preferred them to the AD&D modifiers. They gave lower scores some bonuses (starting at 13 rather than 15 or 16) and didn't get so big (especially for percentage strength!) at 18.
DeleteThe reason for the AD&D bonuses starting higher than the B/X bonuses (15 rather than 13) is B/X keeping the 3d6 and AD&D moving to 4d6 drop low and other methods. The % chance of getting a 15+ on 4d6 drop low is the same as getting a 13+ on 3d6. It keeps the bonus math close to prior but radically reduces the chance of penalties by lowering the number they stop at and giving the adjusted bell curve.
DeleteUntil switching systems, we quite literally played a mashup of AD&D and BECMI, including playing AD&D modules with B/X rules and vice-versa. I refereed B/X and used AD&D when necessary, and the players used whichever version's character sheets they had (or notebook paper), but two others used AD&D even if a B/X module, and so on.
DeleteThe "gatekeeping" aged just fine. It worked then (when we felt like it) and it works now (although now I just do B/X. It is more straightforward.)
I notice lots of people want to remove the level caps, but never want to give up darkvision or ability bumps, or the ability to cast magic and wear armor. weird.
ReplyDeleteNicely said! Indeed... This mirrors my own experience in 40 years of gaming, too.
DeleteHear, hear!
DeleteIf Gygax wanted humans to be the dominant race, he could have simply made them the best mechanically so that they would naturally dominate, instead of artificially limiting demihumans by giving them insurmountable learning disabilities at arbitrary levels.
ReplyDeleteNo that's not quite right. It was a sandbox setting where halflings, elves and dwarves interacted with humanity, but in ways that were fraught with social tensions and delicacies. Demi-humans were not "mechanically worse" than humans, they just were not the predominant race in human society.
DeleteThink of it this way: 99% of any world in any DM's imagination consists of Many 1st, some 2nd, and few 3rd level characters
The other 1% are the elites, starting at 4th level or so, all the way up to 36th. The adventurers can smell the rarified air at 2nd level, and begin rubbing shoulders with it (and often kowtowing to it) at 3rd.
Because the players are risk-taking thrill-seekers relative to 99% of the normal population, they will be in some way slightly above average, but because they are venturing into a wider world, they are just 1st level, and easily die if they take too many risks.
These low-level survivalist risk takers are fun to play. Even more fun? when your referee scores you the attributes necessary for hobbit. It is very hard to be a hobbit in a humanocentric world. If you rise to 4th level? You are elite. You survived Mt. Doom and have returned to a oppressed shire subjugated by a wicked 5th level wizard, his goon, and some goblins.
Level limits are about the game and have nothing to do with pointless, hueless "balance."
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course demihumans aren't the predominant race in human society, just as humans aren't the predominant race in demihuman society. But Gygax (for some reason) wanted an implied setting where humans are the dominant race overall. I didn't say demihumans were mechanically worse; I'm saying they're mechanically better. Which means Gygax had to come up with the ridiculous "solution" of level limits to explain why elves or dwarves aren't on top... When he could have simply avoided the problem entirely by either making humans the strongest in the first place, or by giving up his fixation on a humanocentric world.
DeleteAs to your other point, I don't see how it's supposed to be fun to reach "the end" while the other players get to keep advancing, but that's a subjective thing. I also don't see how the game is improved by having maxed-out demihuman characters become an increasing liability to the party as their human counterparts outclass them more and more.
I think there may be some misconceptions about level limits being discussed here.
DeleteFirst, it's not just about ensuring a humanocentric world, but it is indeed also about game balance. Without level limits, why would anyone ever choose to play a single-classed character? That's the trade-off for multi-classing. You get the benefits of two or three classes for several levels, but then you stop advancing. Single-classed characters only get the abilities of one class but can ultimately gain higher, more powerful abilities in that class.
Second, the level limits were set based on the max levels that most campaigns at the time reached. Very few advanced past levels 13 or 14 for single-classed characters, so level limits are generally set so as to still keep multi-classed characters relevant compared to their single-classed counterparts at those levels. Check the pre-gens for published modules for those levels. If you intend to run a much higher level campaign then yes, I would strongly suggest increasing the level limits accordingly.
Personally, I would much rather have the core game be overly restrictive so that when I make changes to taste I am GIVING something additional to players, rather than start with the completely open silliness of later editions where I have to TAKE AWAY player choice in order to create a coherent game world with any real sense of verisimilitude.
I am old-fashioned on these points:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I insist that the six ability scores are always rolled in the sight of the DM: 3d6 in order, set in stone. No cheating, no fiddling, no gimmes. This is true also for the DM's NPCs, which prevents not only inflated stats but also preposterous numbers of sub-classes, monks, and bards running around.
Second, I like 1974's class and level limits:
Dwarves (and gnomes) can be fighters up to 6th level.
Elves can be fighters up to 4th level and/or magic-users up to 8th level.
Hobbits can be fighters up to 4th level.
And that's it.
I could certainly be wrong, but I think this might have been a legacy issue more than anything else. The original rules had level limits for elves, dwarves, and hobbits. Why include those races in the first place in the humanocentric world? For ease of being seen as the game that let you play out Tolkien? To give a second dimension to character options? Regardless of why, they were included, and of hobbits the description even begins, "Should any player wish to be one," implying many players would see no point in playing such a character. But they're in there, with the very low level limits to make them less attractive than humans. Greyhawk raised those limits slightly with ties to ability scores. However, Greyhawk also introduced thieves, who could be of any race, and had no limits. So now we have a mix, both capped and uncapped possibilities for demi-humans. Maybe it would have just been too much for AD&D to remove the caps, as it would have been almost impossible to justify without adding some new drawback(s). There's also the benefit of multi-classing to consider in re-balancing. I think when Gygax later raised the limits with higher ability scores in those Dragon articles, he may have meant it as something close to an experience point penalty: consider that your 11th level hill dwarf fighter with 18/00 strength is going to need to adventure for more than 250,000 xp worth of time to find some means to raise his strength to 19 and therefore his level cap to 12, and probably way more to then raise to 20 to increase the level cap to 14. After all, each raised point takes 10 wishes, or one of the nearly impossible to manage as written tomes/manuals/librams (which you can't repeat). I can imagine this being "balanced" in a way, as you could have, all else being equal, a 17th level human fighter with, say 18/76 strength and 18 dexterity, both having benefited from wishes or other magics, and a set of magic items, and a 14th level hill dwarf fighter with 20 strength but only 16 dexterity and a lesser set of magic items because much of his selection of spoils and other wealth went towards those strength increases.
ReplyDeleteAll very valid points. However, balance was simply not an objective in D&D from '74 to '84, in really any form. Yes, there are a few nods here and there towards balance as more standards were introduced in AD&D and Dragon, but these were all referee options. I remember vaguely one of the OGs playing solo in Castle Blackmoor with Arneson as a a 1st level MU and descending to the 3rd or 4th level, navigating around a lich or something like that. I messing up the details, but the point of D&D was the thrill of survival.
DeleteSo level limits had no objective of balance, but of in fact, imbalance. I've seen (online) modern games of old Blackmoor where it is stuff like shepherds vs. marauders vs. peasants vs. lost squadron vs. bankers, each with different victory conditions.
in the 80s we so rarely made it to name level, much less past it. Among us we had at least a few copies of the Companion set, never used it. The only time we used the AD&D tables at the higher levels was when we were getting torched by Tiamat or something, not because the PCs were capable. (Often, though we had high-level NPCs helping us out on the big things.)
We definitely had max-players, but as a group, we were explorers pretending to be someone kind of regular. I still remember early on in my intro to D&D having some other 11-year old kid in Kaybee at the mall grill me on what my "highest level character was" and then bragging about his 20th level elven something or other.
I just remember thinking that he and I did not play the same game. To each his own.
I found that players who wanted to play Demi-humans typically did so more because they wanted to multi-class than because they wanted to play a specific Demi-human. So, I began allowing humans to multi-class in two classes, with set level limits - 8 for all classes except thieves and assassins, which are capped at 9. The use of Demi-humans dropped off significantly.
ReplyDeleteI very much have mixed feelings about level caps and class restrictions.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely hate linking them to high stats, for one.
My ruleset of choice is Advanced Labyrinth Lord, so I ended up using the standard class and level restrictions but with "soft" level caps.
That is, once demi-humans reach the level cap, they can keep progressing with a 50% XP penalty.
It's also a very good thing, imho, that in ALL there is no Dual-classing and that humans have access to unrestricted multi-classing.
At the same time I right away give humans a 10% xp bonus.
---Jim Hodges
ReplyDeleteI always took comfort from the bit in the DM Guide that there were no rules in D&D, only rule suggestions, and we pretty much did what we wanted re: alignment (never a fan) and racial/species restrictions. I think as a result we honestly had more fun.
One difference in player outlook I noticed between my era of playing D&D in the early to mid 1980s and my brother's time from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s was that while we seemed loose with rules sometimes, the kids who came in about a decade after us seemed to want rules established for anything and everything, even if it meant halting a session in order to find a rule in a book, or barring that to hash out an agreed upon precedent. (I started jokingly calling their D&D books the Talmud, because they consulted them almost religiously.)
Honestly, I think we got a lot more playing in than they did, had fewer fights, probably enjoyed our sessions more. I'm glad I got to be part of the golden era of the hobby.
I think Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer avoided this problem fairly deftly by simply sticking to the "straight 3d6 rolls, in order, then pick your class/race. Because races had minimum score attributes + prime requisites, your general odds of rolling scores that both allowed and encouraged a particular class/race were as follows (my estimates, based on prime requisites and race minimums):
ReplyDeleteFighter - 19.95%
Magic-User 19.95%
Cleric - 19.95%
Thief - 19.95%
Elf - 11.92%
Dwarf - 11.24% (funny here - Elf, statistically, has slightly preferable odds to Dwarf, even though it has two prime requisites. This is because of the assumption that any straight roll that captures both Strength and Intelligence as the highest two rolls will go exclusively to elf PCs.)
Halfling - 6.09%
This is all assuming that the player is looking to maximize the PC's prime requisite(s), something I myself did not always do. But the rules clearly encourage this, and are written with that assumption.
So on any straight roll, you have about a 50% chance of qualifying ONLY for a human, and a 0.98% chance of qualifying "ONLY" for a demi-human (i.e. a CON of +9, Str of 18 (or max) and Dex of 18 (or max) - again assuming you are going for maxing the prime, the halfling class is the obvious lottery pick in such circumstances.
Basically, because the demi-humans are fewer in category (3 demi to 4 humans) and are excluded from consideration 50% of the time (because of mins) when you rolled your characters up Moldvay-style, your results would be "human" 71.5% of the time, and "demi-human" 22.5% of the time...and that's if the player wanted a demi-human in the first place! After all just because you rolled high strength and con didn't mean you had to pick a dwarf over a fighter.
As we played "Basic" back in the day, this played out. Just off the top of my head, less than 20% of our PCs were not human. Its funny that it was Mr. Humanocentric himself who introduced all the whacky alternatives in Advanced.
Additionally, I can't recall a single demi-human who even survived much beyond 7th level, in D&D or Rolemaster! I don't think I ever noticed that till now. I would say elves really aren't common in any of our settings.
ReplyDeleteI got a gnome to something around 5th as a Fighter/Illusionist/Thief . I don't recall how experience was split between classes he might have squeezed 8th if single classed? But, yeah, hitting those limits was unlikely in our groups.
DeleteOur most infamous elf was a Drow named Lem Blarney who happened to have a nuclear-powered prosthetic hand, granted by space marines. He was, by far, the most experienced elf - at 7th level - that I have ever played with (non-pregenerated, I should say. I'm sure I've done tourney one offs, but I never remember my own characters, much less the party's from those trifles).
DeleteHe blew up the top of the mountain peak we were on, when he couldn't get his own fist to prevent a meltdown. It was the largest (something like 20 including hirelings and followers), highest level, fastest and most spectacular, memorable and unexpected (the hand went boom on very bad fumble) TPK I have ever been a part of.
We followed the rules on level caps for demi-humans, but started allowing them access to other classes because some of the limits just seemed ridiculous. No elven rangers? how deeply weird and arbitrary. My general perception on the people who insist on playing the OG rules (whether it's OD&D, B/X or AD&D 1E) isn't that it's "better" it's because that what they started out playing, know it the best and like it the best because of the associated memories of play...not rule set.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more interesting evolutions in 3E & later is to take more of a "yes and" approach, rather than a "yes but" approach. While limitations and restrictions can create for fun play experiences, I'd argue that's an area best explored for the most experienced players, rather than being baseline standard.
Besides, creating a dwarven wizard monk specializing in illusions might not be "optimal" it sure can be fun and cool and those sorts of options can be a hoot and a half...and arguably a better state than saying "dwarves can't cast spells"