I've been looking over my AD&D 1st Ed stuff, and trying to tweak house rules if/when I ever get back into it.

On this subject: any thoughts?  I'm halfway inclined to think that these are purely arbitrary, with some game-balancing concerns.  For example, who wouldn't want to see Infrared?  If you could be any race with any class and rise to any level (assuming you survive, of course), who wants to be human?

Other than trying to hold min/maxers in place, do you see a logic of having the limits in RAW?  And if you see the logic, do you play with these limits?  Or have different limits?  Or scrap them altogether?  And if they're scrapped, are they game-breaking, and if so, how?

Our campaigns rarely lasted long enough for racial limiations to come into play.
But we saw the value in limiting characters with racial abilities. So our house rule was double xp after reaching the racial level limit.

I think I recall reading that Gary thought that if demihumans were all around better than humans, then they would be dominant in the setting.  He wanted humans to be primary hence the limits.

I played AD&D for about a decade and due to character churn, nobody got above 12th level.  I'm pretty sure no one ever hit a racial level limit, so it wasn't really meaningful for our game.  I can't recall anyone mentioning any of the other limits either.

I'm pretty sure game balance is the primary concern for the limits.  If there are only advantages to being an elf then why be anything else?

We played RAW in this regard, and never had any issues with it

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 25, 2024, 03:24:08 PMOur campaigns rarely lasted long enough for racial limiations to come into play.
But we saw the value in limiting characters with racial abilities. So our house rule was double xp after reaching the racial level limit.

That makes more sense to me than an absolute ban. The total ban makes no sense to me--trying saying "I don't care if your Elf has an Intelligence of 18!  He can't go past Level 11, no matter how much he studies!!"

(Of course, getting up to level 11 in this case itself is pretty awesome, but you know what I mean.  But the fact that they have hard caps also is a meaningless limitation if campaigns rarely are approaching those upper levels, and thus any potential downsides of these caps won't mean anything to the min/maxer.)

Quote from: Mishihari on June 25, 2024, 03:30:29 PMI think I recall reading that Gary thought that if demihumans were all around better than humans, then they would be dominant in the setting.  He wanted humans to be primary hence the limits.

I played AD&D for about a decade and due to character churn, nobody got above 12th level.  I'm pretty sure no one ever hit a racial level limit, so it wasn't really meaningful for our game.  I can't recall anyone mentioning any of the other limits either.

I'm pretty sure game balance is the primary concern for the limits.  If there are only advantages to being an elf then why be anything else?

We played RAW in this regard, and never had any issues with it

If the caps are rarely approached, then it seems as though they're merely theoretical and don't address the problem Gary was trying to address--namely, if the players rarely survive to the higher levels, then they never have to fear the downsides of being non-human and so you still have the incentive to only play non-human races (at least regarding this rule).

Quote from: Osman Gazi on June 25, 2024, 03:37:03 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on June 25, 2024, 03:30:29 PMI think I recall reading that Gary thought that if demihumans were all around better than humans, then they would be dominant in the setting.  He wanted humans to be primary hence the limits.

I played AD&D for about a decade and due to character churn, nobody got above 12th level.  I'm pretty sure no one ever hit a racial level limit, so it wasn't really meaningful for our game.  I can't recall anyone mentioning any of the other limits either.

I'm pretty sure game balance is the primary concern for the limits.  If there are only advantages to being an elf then why be anything else?

We played RAW in this regard, and never had any issues with it

If the caps are rarely approached, then it seems as though they're merely theoretical and don't address the problem Gary was trying to address--namely, if the players rarely survive to the higher levels, then they never have to fear the downsides of being non-human and so you still have the incentive to only play non-human races (at least regarding this rule).

When I said "in the setting" I meant which races have the most political power, strongest kingdoms, most people, etc.  You're right that in our game the level limits didn't do much of anything.

Quote from: Mishihari on June 25, 2024, 03:42:21 PM

Quote from: Osman Gazi on June 25, 2024, 03:37:03 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on June 25, 2024, 03:30:29 PMI think I recall reading that Gary thought that if demihumans were all around better than humans, then they would be dominant in the setting.  He wanted humans to be primary hence the limits.

I played AD&D for about a decade and due to character churn, nobody got above 12th level.  I'm pretty sure no one ever hit a racial level limit, so it wasn't really meaningful for our game.  I can't recall anyone mentioning any of the other limits either.

I'm pretty sure game balance is the primary concern for the limits.  If there are only advantages to being an elf then why be anything else?

We played RAW in this regard, and never had any issues with it

If the caps are rarely approached, then it seems as though they're merely theoretical and don't address the problem Gary was trying to address--namely, if the players rarely survive to the higher levels, then they never have to fear the downsides of being non-human and so you still have the incentive to only play non-human races (at least regarding this rule).

When I said "in the setting" I meant which races have the most political power, strongest kingdoms, most people, etc.  You're right that in our game the level limits didn't do much of anything.

Gotcha, understand now.  Yup, in world-building, one might think that probably some Elven Mega-level Magic User should rule the world.  Capping them would mean that instead, it's probably going to be...a Human Mega-level Magic User.  (With Magic in a world, I really would expect Wizards to eventually rule everything...assuming they survive having such crappy hit points at low levels, they're likely to be very, very good at higher levels.)

Quote from: Osman Gazi on June 25, 2024, 03:19:09 PMI've been looking over my AD&D 1st Ed stuff, and trying to tweak house rules if/when I ever get back into it.

I've gone with the idea of Soft Level Caps. When a Demi-Human reaches said level, they must pay more to advance than Men: 50% for a single class, 100% for 2 multi-class and 150% for a triple multi-class. I also scrapped the 'Everyone can level unlimited as a Thief'. Only Halflings do so. Dwarves and High Elves get Fighter instead. Grey Elves get Mages. Wood Elves get Druid. Gnomes get Illusionists.

Quote from: Mishihari on June 25, 2024, 03:30:29 PMI think I recall reading that Gary thought that if demihumans were all around better than humans, then they would be dominant in the setting.  He wanted humans to be primary hence the limits.

I think it gets mentioned either in the AD&D books or Dragon.

And they are right. During 2e we heard the occasional snide remark of "Why would anyone ever want to play a human when they get nothing?" because 2e lifted the racial limits.

The level limits got softened in Unearthed Arcanna and again in second edition.  What with tripple classing it probably isn't really a huge issue.  A long term campaign power cap doesn't make sense outside the context of a long term campaign so it seems like a weird design choice.  Personally humans should get something.  I like the +1 to every stat in fifth edition but that's likely too powerful for first.

We used them, though it was soft in that we ignored the ability score requirements and also utilized the more encompassing limits offered by Unearthed Arcana.  And we still use them somewhat in that in our Castles & Crusades game non-humans are limited to the "preferred classes" listed for them in the PHB, though these are broader than AD&D.  For example, pretty much every race can have bards.  And I also rule that only demi-humans can multi-class.

But, yeah, as others have noted, the original rationale was game balance and giving at least some vague reason for the supremacy of the generally shorter-lived humans in Gary's game world.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on June 25, 2024, 03:33:56 PMOf course, getting up to level 11 in this case itself is pretty awesome, but -

But it's not going to happen unless the DM does a lot of dice fudging along the way. And if the DM's the sort to fudge dice to keep them alive to 11th level, then the DM's the sort to let them ignore level limits etc anyway.

A long time ago S John Ross while moderating the GURPS mailing list noted that there were two types of rules questions: the questions that came up from playing the game, and the questions that came up from merely reading the game. He said it was always obvious which was which.

Play the game. Then lots of the apparently-weird or dumb stuff will make sense. And if it still doesn't make sense, you'll have a better idea of how to change it to suit your preferences.

There are a number of articles in Dragon where EGG expounds his view that humans should be dominant - for example, in Dragon 29 (Sept 1979), Gygax wrote this:

'The character races in AD&D were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of these racial types give short term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game.

The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi-humans—or to at least relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or elven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, etal. will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select these races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types.'

Or, you know?  If you want more people to play humans you could throw them a bone or something.

I once used them, but later on I realized they were for that implicit D&D setting. Mechanics were used to enfore Gary's views, which weren't mine. I tossed them out. I don't look for balance in gaming as it's a distraction. But every DM should decide this for his table.