Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 27, 2024, 01:26:15 PMFor a mechanic to impose setting constraints on race selection, I still love the Dragon Quest method:  Every non-human race has a percentage chance you have to hit to qualify.  Even the more common ones like elves and dwarves are set in the 20% to 30% range, with everything else lower.  You get 3 chances to qualify for a non-human race.  Fail them all, you are human.  You can always pick human if you don't want to use some or all of your chances.  For example, you might try for elf, fail.  Then try for dwarf, fail.  Then pick human because you don't want to try anything else.

Eh. I really don't like gating content behind a RNG. You kinda already get this in AD&D classes where you have to roll X to qualify for Y. Paladins, for example.
This just makes for bad feelings when a player doesn't get a race/class they wanted, but another player got lucky and did.
If a GM doesn't want X race or class in their game, then just take it out. Don't play assinine RNG games with class/race availability.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 27, 2024, 06:08:07 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 27, 2024, 01:26:15 PMFor a mechanic to impose setting constraints on race selection, I still love the Dragon Quest method:  Every non-human race has a percentage chance you have to hit to qualify.  Even the more common ones like elves and dwarves are set in the 20% to 30% range, with everything else lower.  You get 3 chances to qualify for a non-human race.  Fail them all, you are human.  You can always pick human if you don't want to use some or all of your chances.  For example, you might try for elf, fail.  Then try for dwarf, fail.  Then pick human because you don't want to try anything else.

Eh. I really don't like gating content behind a RNG. You kinda already get this in AD&D classes where you have to roll X to qualify for Y. Paladins, for example.
This just makes for bad feelings when a player doesn't get a race/class they wanted, but another player got lucky and did.
If a GM doesn't want X race or class in their game, then just take it out. Don't play assinine RNG games with class/race availability.

My preference is similar to Ratman_tf's here. I'm generally good with randomness as varying what kind of character you get, as long as they're just different points on the spectrum. But rolling just to be allowed to get a choice feels punitive to me.

I also didn't like things like the rare roll to be psionic or qualifying for paladin in AD&D. In my preferred random roll, all the characters are roughly even with each other in power and specialness.

If I want to vary up the races, I'd just have everyone roll for what race they are.

Quote from: Corolinth on June 27, 2024, 12:24:24 PMThere are a lot of elements of TSR era D&D which seemed like a good idea at the time and have since become sacred cows. Racial limits on class levels is one of them.

Race limits got tossed out the window by 2e. And BX D&D was ambiguous as to where the limit was as it never got past X. BECMI did not have the limits of AD&D. So it was never a "sacred cow" as it lasted only one edition. And Unearthed Arcana bumped the limits for AD&D.

I played a lot of AD&D and ran a lot as well.

There is 'implied setting' built into the game itself, and there have been times where I thought it would be interesting to build a new campaign around them that answers questions like "How did these elves get so much elven chain when nobody is high enough level to make it?"

So many players would go for the two or three class combos but, since they had to share the experience points between the classes, humans would start to see the benefit of being human by the time they got powerful enough to start the "G" series.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 27, 2024, 06:08:07 PMEh. I really don't like gating content behind a RNG. You kinda already get this in AD&D classes where you have to roll X to qualify for Y. Paladins, for example.
This just makes for bad feelings when a player doesn't get a race/class they wanted, but another player got lucky and did.
If a GM doesn't want X race or class in their game, then just take it out. Don't play assinine RNG games with class/race availability.

Some players feel that way.  Some don't care.  They'll play whatever and enjoy it.  Then there are player like many of mine:  They say they want to choose every little detail but in practice they are self-reportedly much happier when they don't.  My own system is a good study of this.  The "main" characters are almost completely player chosen, unless they opt for rolling.  Whereas the "companion" characters get played almost as much, right alongside the mains, and are mostly random.  Occasionally someone gets stuck with a character that they don't like very much. However, the usual outcome is that they enjoy the companion as much as the main, or in some cases, more.  The random knocks them out of their ruts.  Even the ones who get "stuck" report that the start enjoying the character after 2 or 3 sessions.

It of course helps, as with AD&D, if you get to play a lot of different characters, because of character death or short campaigns, or pool of characters (where you play different characters in the same campaign depending on the adventure location and time).  All of which my style of play features.  DQ is also a fairly deadly system, where having a backup character already started in play makes a lot of sense.

I knew all of this when I designed this system (even if some of the players didn't).  What surprised me is that most of my players prefer a random character to a pre-generated one--even if they get some details about the pre-gen and pick from a list.  For some reason, a random character you roll up yourself is more acceptable than a character crafted by someone else.  I know I've got at least one former player who would pick the pre-gen over all other options anytime she was giving a choice.  No idea how she's feel about my current system though. 

Not saying that there aren't people who really do vastly prefer choosing everything and keeping the same character throughout a campaign.  I'm sure there are.  I am saying that given actual practice with different ways, not everyone who claims this now will hold to that.

Quote from: Omega on June 28, 2024, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on June 27, 2024, 12:24:24 PMThere are a lot of elements of TSR era D&D which seemed like a good idea at the time and have since become sacred cows. Racial limits on class levels is one of them.

Race limits got tossed out the window by 2e. And BX D&D was ambiguous as to where the limit was as it never got past X. BECMI did not have the limits of AD&D. So it was never a "sacred cow" as it lasted only one edition. And Unearthed Arcana bumped the limits for AD&D.

That's interesting.

I have a copy of the 2nd edition DMG, and it clearly shows a table on page 15 which lists half-elf bards as the only non-human race/class combination with unlimited leveling.

The E of BECMI shows a level limit of 12 for dwarves, 10 for elves, and 8 for halflings. Now, I suppose you could argue that the "attack ranks" in C constitute "leveling" after a fashion, and that's a fair argument to make. E clearly has level limits for non-humans, though, and rather than extend an actual leveling table, TSR chose to make up something else that was like leveling, but not.

Coincidentally, level 12 dwarves, level 10 elves, and level 8 halflings are established in the X of B/X. That might explain why E in BECMI has the same level limits, and rather than dispensing with those level limits, C introduced something that was like leveling, but not, so that the level limits established in B/X would be preserved.

You were saying...

Quote from: Corolinth on June 28, 2024, 10:25:41 AMCoincidentally, level 12 dwarves, level 10 elves, and level 8 halflings are established in the X of B/X. That might explain why E in BECMI has the same level limits, and rather than dispensing with those level limits, C introduced something that was like leveling, but not, so that the level limits established in B/X would be preserved.

This is even more clear in the Rule Cyclopedia (though yes, I know, it's not a 100% reproduction of the BECMI as first released separately).  The level limits you listed are the default rules.  Then there's the option to use ranks instead of them.  Of course, since the RC level limits happen right about the same time as "name level", the ranks get adjusted to account for that dynamic as well.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 28, 2024, 10:43:18 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on June 28, 2024, 10:25:41 AMCoincidentally, level 12 dwarves, level 10 elves, and level 8 halflings are established in the X of B/X. That might explain why E in BECMI has the same level limits, and rather than dispensing with those level limits, C introduced something that was like leveling, but not, so that the level limits established in B/X would be preserved.

This is even more clear in the Rule Cyclopedia (though yes, I know, it's not a 100% reproduction of the BECMI as first released separately).  The level limits you listed are the default rules.  Then there's the option to use ranks instead of them.  Of course, since the RC level limits happen right about the same time as "name level", the ranks get adjusted to account for that dynamic as well.

The rules cyclopedia iirc also has an option just to have demihumans go from level 1 to 36.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on June 25, 2024, 03:19:09 PMOn this subject: any thoughts?  I'm halfway inclined to think that these are purely arbitrary, with some game-balancing concerns.

Most of the stuff thrown into AD&D 1e was arbitrary, off the cuff, sometimes plopped in because people kept whining to Gary about "Why no rules for X?", and rarely play tested. They were often making shit up as they went along back then, because there wasn't a road map to follow. And everyone, even the designers themselves, were home ruling out/in the stuff they didn't like in the printed books.

There's likely a good reason why we don't see level caps on races anymore. There were better ways to handle making being human more attractive to players. Though even there, you still ended up with "race X is best for class Y, so always choose that" issues. More recent design is to make race more of a flavor, which itself isn't really great.

So... pick one of the bad option you prefer and go with that.

My recollection is that almost every player in our campaigns who chose to be an elf was a fighter/magic-user.  While there was good initial benefits, they fell well behind in advancement.  Also paladins fell behind as well.  In both cases though, those particular choices seemed to help lower level parties succeed.  I don't think I'd change a thing.

Quote from: Lynn on June 28, 2024, 01:16:59 AMThere is 'implied setting' built into the game itself,

Almost nil.

One thing that is interesting is the sheer amount of ruins dotting the countryside. Some of which have complex structures extending underground. Even some of the habited ones do.

Quote from: Corolinth on June 28, 2024, 10:25:41 AMI have a copy of the 2nd edition DMG, and it clearly shows a table on page 15 which lists half-elf bards as the only non-human race/class combination with unlimited leveling.

huh? You might be right there. Now I have to dig out the 2e PHB.

Ok. Ground through the PHB and while there is mention of level limits. I am not seeing any actual level limits listed. Class limits kinda/sorta. Level limits, No.

Found it. DMG. No wonder forgot it. Its not even in the PHB.

Little different from AD&D and allows Demi-humans with good stats to exceed the level limits by up to 4 more levels. Half Elf had it the best. Halflings had it the worst. No more unlimited levels for non-human thieves.

Make-your-own races had heavier level restrictions though.

Quote from: Omega on June 28, 2024, 10:48:17 PMAlmost nil.

One thing that is interesting is the sheer amount of ruins dotting the countryside. Some of which have complex structures extending underground. Even some of the habited ones do.

There is that but as an example, read about the different elf types, their limits and behaviors. These suggest the state of the world in which they exist.

Quote from: Corolinth on June 28, 2024, 10:25:41 AM

Quote from: Omega on June 28, 2024, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on June 27, 2024, 12:24:24 PMThere are a lot of elements of TSR era D&D which seemed like a good idea at the time and have since become sacred cows. Racial limits on class levels is one of them.

Race limits got tossed out the window by 2e. And BX D&D was ambiguous as to where the limit was as it never got past X. BECMI did not have the limits of AD&D. So it was never a "sacred cow" as it lasted only one edition. And Unearthed Arcana bumped the limits for AD&D.

The E of BECMI shows a level limit of 12 for dwarves, 10 for elves, and 8 for halflings. Now, I suppose you could argue that the "attack ranks" in C constitute "leveling" after a fashion, and that's a fair argument to make. E clearly has level limits for non-humans, though, and rather than extend an actual leveling table, TSR chose to make up something else that was like leveling, but not.

Coincidentally, level 12 dwarves, level 10 elves, and level 8 halflings are established in the X of B/X. That might explain why E in BECMI has the same level limits, and rather than dispensing with those level limits, C introduced something that was like leveling, but not, so that the level limits established in B/X would be preserved.

You were saying...

Have you noticed level limits may have been based on the size of the demihuman? A halfling has the lowest while being the smallest.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on June 29, 2024, 09:21:02 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on June 28, 2024, 10:25:41 AM

Quote from: Omega on June 28, 2024, 12:34:18 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on June 27, 2024, 12:24:24 PMThere are a lot of elements of TSR era D&D which seemed like a good idea at the time and have since become sacred cows. Racial limits on class levels is one of them.

Race limits got tossed out the window by 2e. And BX D&D was ambiguous as to where the limit was as it never got past X. BECMI did not have the limits of AD&D. So it was never a "sacred cow" as it lasted only one edition. And Unearthed Arcana bumped the limits for AD&D.

The E of BECMI shows a level limit of 12 for dwarves, 10 for elves, and 8 for halflings. Now, I suppose you could argue that the "attack ranks" in C constitute "leveling" after a fashion, and that's a fair argument to make. E clearly has level limits for non-humans, though, and rather than extend an actual leveling table, TSR chose to make up something else that was like leveling, but not.

Coincidentally, level 12 dwarves, level 10 elves, and level 8 halflings are established in the X of B/X. That might explain why E in BECMI has the same level limits, and rather than dispensing with those level limits, C introduced something that was like leveling, but not, so that the level limits established in B/X would be preserved.

You were saying...

Have you noticed level limits may have been based on the size of the demihuman? A halfling has the lowest while being the smallest.

I can't believe i never thought of this.