Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

How Will WOTC New Approach to Races Effect the Future CRPG?

Gastrick

Cipher
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
1,709
First step on decline was getting rid of sex differences in AD&D 2ed. Now race differences are also taken away, even though the differences between fantasy races don't correlate to real-life races. The real parallel is Neanderthals, Modern Humans, tribal Pygmy Humans and other humanlike species. The difference between Elves and Humans is just as clear as the difference between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,232
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
In the real world, an inherently and unconditionally evil race (like the Drow) couldn't exist for any prolonged time. It would be self-destructive (or paradoxical). The same goes for unconditionally good. Doesn't apply to fictional settings that allow for unrealistic but consistent stabilizing factors (e.g., magic, divine power).

Depends if you're using alignments as how they were written originally for both races and societies. It was always a misunderstood concept going back to the first Basic set. I believe that AD&D 2E has the best description for alignments for both races and society. This is from AD&D 2E Revised DMG pages 37-38 concerning society alignment.

LG: The people are generally honest, law-abiding, and helpful. They mean well (at least most of them do). They respect the law. As a rule, people don't walk around wearing armor and carrying weapons. Those who do are viewed with suspicion or as trouble-makers. Some societies tend to dislike adventurers, since they often bring trouble.

LN: The people are not only law abiding, they are passionate creators of arcane bureaucracies. The tendency to organize and regulate everything easily gets out of control.

In large empires there are ministries, councils, commissions, departments, offices, and cabinets for everything. If the region attracts a lot of adventurers, there are special ministries, with their own special taxes and licenses, to deal with the problem. The people are not tremendously concerned with the effectiveness of the government, so long as it functions.

LE: The government is marked by its severe laws, involving harsh punishments regardless of guilt or innocence. Laws are not intended to preserve justice so much as to maintain the status quo. Social class is crucial. Bribery and corruption are often ways of life. Adventurers, since they are outsiders who may be foreign agents, are view with great suspicion. Lawful evil kingdoms often find themselves quashing rebellions of oppressed peasants clamoring for humane treatment.

NE, NG, TN: Areas dominated by these three alignments tend to adopt whatever government seems the most expedient at the moment. A particular form of government lasts as long as the ruler or dynasty in power can maintain it. The people cooperate when it suits them-or in the case of true neutrals, when the balance of forces must be preserved.

Such neutral territories often act as buffer states between lands of extreme alignment difference (for example, between a lawful good barony and a vile chaotic evil principality). They shift allegiance artfully to preserve their borders against the advances of both sides in a conflict.

Neutral evil countries tend to be benign (but not pleasant) dictatorships while neutral good countries are generally "enlightened" dictatorships. Transfers of power are usually marked by shifts in government, though these are often bloodless coups. There is a certain apathy about politics and government. Adventurers are treated the same as everyone else.

CG: The people mean well and try to do right, but are hampered by a natural dislikes of big government. Although there may be a single ruler, most communities are allowed to manage themselves, so long as their taxes are paid and they obey a few broad edicts. Such areas tend to have weak law enforcement organizations. A local sheriff, baron, or council may hire adventurers to fill the gap. Communities often take the law into their own hands when it seems necessary. Lands on the fringes of vast empires far from the capital tend to have this type of government.

CN: There is no government. Anarchy is the rule. A stranger to such a town may feel as if he has ridden into a town of madmen.

CE: The people are ruled by, and live in fear of, those more powerful than themselves. Local government usually amounts to a series of strongarm bosses who obey the central government out of fear. People look for ways to gain power or keep the power they've got. Assassination is an accepted method of advancement, along with coups, conspiracies, and purges. Adventurers are often used as pawns in political power games, only to be eliminated when the adventurers become a threat.

The society alignment sets the rules and government for a given location. The people living under such government and laws can be of any alignment. Keep in mind that evil in the D&D construct is based around selfishness and personal gains. The way most people have played LE, NE, and CE is Stupid Evil where they're all mass murdering psychopaths. Those are in the minority in all populations and would be hunted down in every society. A society of Stupid Evil can't survive which is why Drow society is written based upon espionage to maintain position and power. Everything is a pawn in the house's games for control. Even the Good aligned houses participate. Their motivation is different as it's for the betterment of everyone.

It's easier if you just don't recognize anything newer than 2E as actually being D&D.

All editions from D&D 3.x+ have nothing of the original Basic Set/AD&D in them. It really just the name that WoTC used to create a new mechanical system titled D20. Even Monte Cook stated that 3.x shares only the names of stuff, but the mechanics are brand new. Since then every iteration of D&D is a new game complete with new mechanics etc...
 
Last edited:

Cryomancer

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
14,768
Location
Frostfell
Yes, he did write adventures for up to level 14 for publication.

Is not that he only wrote adventures up to lv 14. Is that he wrote a dozens of modules and only two low level ones. One introductory and another where you quickly reach lv 8. Some people here like to pretend that AD&D was never played past lv 4. Why even write rules to become a immortal in Mystara and introduce lv 40+ NPCs like Karsus if you don't intend players to play it?? If in his table, he never played above lv 7, is his choice, but he wrote tons of modules for mid and even high level D&D hence he sees as a valuable way to play it.

First step on decline was getting rid of sex differences in AD&D 2ed.

Yep. And people criticizes when a RPG makes gender relevant. Like MYFAROG did.
 

FriendlyMerchant

Guest
WotC hasn't released a new D&D version since 2003. Arguably, they haven't released any D&D games since the last AD&D version and hence the last D&D version was released by TSR in 1995. Hence WotC hasn't released any D&D versions.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,232
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Yes, he did write adventures for up to level 14 for publication.

Is not that he only wrote adventures up to lv 14. Is that he wrote a dozens of modules and only two low level ones. One introductory and another where you quickly reach lv 8. Some people here like to pretend that AD&D was never played past lv 4. Why even write rules to become a immortal in Mystara and introduce lv 40+ NPCs like Karsus if you don't intend players to play it?? If in his table, he never played above lv 7, is his choice, but he wrote tons of modules for mid and even high level D&D hence he sees as a valuable way to play it.

First step on decline was getting rid of sex differences in AD&D 2ed.

Yep. And people criticizes when a RPG makes gender relevant. Like MYFAROG did.

You're conflating what he wrote for publication with how he ran things at his own personal table. Here's Tim Kask on the matter.

You have just touched on the biggest printing glitch in the whole book. I did not catch it on the paste-up, or else the printer "fixed" it on his own. There is no "range"; each number heads a column but they got shifted off somehow. I'm pretty sure we addressed this at least once in either SR or TD, or both. To clarify: Lvl 1 is on top of the column beginning with 75, Lvl 2 over 70, Lvl 3 over 65, 4 over 55 and so forth--8 over 01, 9-11 over -. -, 01. They need to be realigned.

Keep in mind that at that point in time, we figured the odds of even getting to Lvl 9 or Lvl 10 were so high that it wouldn't pose a problem. This was before the gross inflation of XP's and the corresponding levels. The highest level player in Gary's GH campaign was a 7 or possibly 8 at that time, and they had been playing more than any other group with the possible exception of Dave's. If I had it to do over again today, and allowing for that inflation, the chart probably would have gone on straight 5% increments, both across and down. I remember thinking at the time I was making this chart that a Lvl 8 Executioner should have about an even chance of knocking off a Superhero.(Also keep in mind that the advanced levels published in GH were more for structuring NPC's tough enough to challenge a group of 5th to 8th Lvl PC's, than they were for PC's getting that powerful anytime soon.) Once I had determined that point of equity, the chart filled itself out, so to speak. After all, these were base percentages that did not take into account a +3 Garrotte (15% bonus) or a +3 Ring of Protection (15% the other way), or any other items or artifacts the individual DM might introduce into his campaign.

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=23223&start=2100

Gary didn't like the high level stuff because the game shifted from being about adventurers to being rulers/heroes to superheroes. That's why in the PHB for AD&D 1E/2E state that characters of x class will build buildings appropriate for their class starting at 7th level. Fighters would build castles. Rangers would take over an area to protect. Paladins would create temples or monasteries. Clerics would build temples and so on.

The following is from AD&D 2E DMG page 31.

Defining "High Level"

What constitutes low- or high-level game is a matter of taste. Generally, DMs and players find a range of characters that is comfortable for their style of play. Campaigns that commonly have 4th-8th level characters consider those with 12th level or more to be high-level, while those with 12th level characters set the limit closer to 18th or 20th level. While there is no set break-point for high level, character duties and responsibilities begin to change between 9th and 12th level.

Generally, players find battling monsters and discovering treasure to be less and less satisfying as time goes on. Their characters' abilities are such that monsters need to be ridiculously powerful to threaten them. Treasures must be vast to make an impression. While incredible foes and huge treasures are good once in a while, the thrill quickly wears thin.

Zeb put Gary's philosophy eloquently here due to being involved in such campaigns. You can disagree all you like but those that played with Gary shared his view of the game and Tim Kask's role in TSR is understated by a lot of people. However, Gary and the investors had to put out product that sold. They wrote books for that power level due to the demand from their players. It's entirely a business decision to keep money coming in. That's why I said that you need to disconnect the business side of things from Gary's own personal way of running the game.

Did you know that Gary hated the 1st to 3rd level grind for new players due to the deadliness of the game? Whenever he started a new campaign he would give the players enough XP to make the characters 3rd level. In his games, he expected his players to play smart and to avoid/mitigate encounters that would kill the party. He even required his players to hire npcs to do nothing but haul stuff from the dungeon to providing for the base comfort of the party. His views were the adventurers were a wealthy group of individuals that were professionals.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
If you want to see what Gygax's designs looked like as he got older, check out Castles & Crusades by Troll Lord Games. He helped design it(and had veto power over all rules considered,) and they published quite a few of Gygax's materials until he died and his wife forced them to stop using his name because she was a cunt. TLG was his primary publisher for his material for the last decade or so of his life.
Due to the latter part of Gail being a cunt, much of Gygax's work on C&C has been downplayed heavily -- rather than SIEGE it was originally called EGG after Gygax himself.

Some of the materials he published for TLG are extremely difficult to find even in pdf form btw. Nearly all of the physical copies are collector's pieces.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,232
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
If you want to see what Gygax's designs looked like as he got older, check out Castles & Crusades by Troll Lord Games. He helped design it(and had veto power over all rules considered,) and they published quite a few of Gygax's materials until he died and his wife forced them to stop using his name because she was a cunt. TLG was his primary publisher for his material for the last decade or so of his life.
Due to the latter part of Gail being a cunt, much of Gygax's work on C&C has been downplayed heavily -- rather than SIEGE it was originally called EGG after Gygax himself.

Some of the materials he published for TLG are extremely difficult to find even in pdf form btw. Nearly all of the physical copies are collector's pieces.

Don't forget Dangerous Journeys as well. Shame that Lorraine was such a cunt to him over that.
 

Cryomancer

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
14,768
Location
Frostfell
However, Gary and the investors had to put out product that sold. They wrote books for that power level due to the demand from their players.

So, in pre WoTC times, mid level was more popular, right?

D&D 1E/2E state that characters of x class will build buildings appropriate for their class starting at 7th level. Fighters would build castles. Rangers would take over an area to protect. Paladins would create temples or monasteries. Clerics would build temples and so on

That depends a lot on where the game is being played. For example, Lord Nasher is quite powerful in sword coast and he is 12th level fighter(2E), he is strong enough to graduate from adventuring and become a monarch. If he is "isekaied" into Athas(Dark Sun) world, he would have zero chance against any sorcerer king. Borys for example is lv 30 psion/30 defiler, in final stage of draconic apotheosis. In fact, he would probably be weaker than a quite lot of "templars" who serve the ruler of the city states...

In Netherese, you have epic level wizards arcanists who are apprentices to the ruler of the floating city. No need to go full "test of the warlords" civilization building game style in high level gameplay(not saying that this adventures are bad. I like it). You can have otherworldly adventures, like for example being trapped in the abyss and wanting to find a way to return home, adventuring into the underdark to destroy a mindflayer colony and rescue a NPC important to the players. Even for a epic level party, Abyss and the Underdark aren't easy challenges.

There are a lot of amazing places in D&Dverse which you can't explore in low levels. City of Embers? Citadel of Ten Thousand Pearls? Shade Enclave? Menzoberranzan? Shendilavri(Abyss)? Most domains of dread? All places require at least mid level. Most Dark Lords of Ravenloft are in "teen" levels.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,232
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
However, Gary and the investors had to put out product that sold. They wrote books for that power level due to the demand from their players.

So, in pre WoTC times, mid level was more popular, right?

D&D 1E/2E state that characters of x class will build buildings appropriate for their class starting at 7th level. Fighters would build castles. Rangers would take over an area to protect. Paladins would create temples or monasteries. Clerics would build temples and so on

That depends a lot on where the game is being played. For example, Lord Nasher is quite powerful and he is 12th level fighter(2E) and strong enough to become a monarch. If he is "isekaied" into Athas(Dark Sun) world, he would have zero chance against any sorcerer king. Borys for example is lv 30 psion/30 defiler, in final stage of draconic apotheosis. In fact, he would probably be weaker than a quite lot of "templar" who serve the ruler of the city state...

In Netherese, you have epic level wizards arcanists who are apprentices to the ruler of the floating city. No need to go full "test of the warlords" civilization building game style in high level gameplay(not saying that this adventures are bad. I like it). You can have otherworldly adventures, like for example being trapped in the abyss and wanting to find a way to return home, adventuring into the underdark to destroy a mindflayer colony and rescue a NPC important to the players. Even for a epic level party, Abyss and the Underdark aren't easy challenges.

There are a lot of amazing places in D&Dverse which you can't explore in low levels. City of Embers? Citadel of Ten Thousand Pearls? Shade Enclave? Menzoberranzan? Shendilavri(Abyss)? Most domains of dread? All places require at least mid level. Most Dark Lords of Ravenloft are in "teen" levels.

In all the groups I've played with our mid-level was up to 10th. It stopped being fun for us at that point and the high level opponents had counters for what you could do as they had abilities that would foil your best laid plans. According to Tim Kask, 9th or 10th level was the usual stopping point.

For some reason I was not notified of this post. My apologies.

When dragons were first modeled for D&D, PC's all wielded weapons that dealt d6, or less, damage. It was envisioned that PC's would seldom play beyond 9th or 10th Lvl and magic was much scarcer.

Level-creep and too much "Monty Haul" gave the PC's skills and abilities much buffed up and the GH Variable Damage tables did the rest.

They needed to be beefed up and become the "tank" of their milieu. Never forget though, that any tank can be taken out.

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=23223&start=3900

I referenced the PHB which is setting agnostic. However, it's easily worked into the setting due to how its written. The settings were designed to allow the players to change it to suit their needs. Forgotten Realms 1E the level cap was in line with AD&D at the time. Things stopped being fun at about 12th level. Athas is a high powered superhero setting and it's very deadly to compensate. That's why you were given a pool of characters to play with. If one dies you can replace it with one from your pool. Other settings have built in compensation.

Keep in mind that what you reference is for D&D 3.x and later which is not Basic D&D/AD&D. It's a completely new system that uses the same names as a way to tie it into the D&D mythos as an RPG. You could easily convert Basic D&D and AD&D characters between them, but later editions it's not quite so simple. D&D 3.x and later uses just the branding to get suc... consumers to buy it thinking they're getting what Gary and company originally envisioned.

The only settings I played in were Dark Sun, Dragonlance, and FR for AD&D. The rest of the time they were homebrews that had history going back to the 1974 Basic Set. I didn't start playing AD&D until 1984. Thus, I only speak of the basic rules due to how varied things were from table to table even using published settings. It's not like today where everything is off-limits if you don't have this pre-requisite.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the AD&D 2E DMG offers suggestions for changing campaign styles and retiring characters.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,797
The ironic thing about making all races equal stat wise, is that it will no longer be any point from a game mechanics POV to run a "diversity squad". If all races and both sexes are the same, I can just as well just run a party of male humans. So making the races equal will (in my case, at least) reduce diversity.
Depends how you look at it.

Yes, from mechanical standpoint you make races irrelevant. However, if the world still reacts to your race, sex, charisma or intelligence (think: Arcanum), then it is not wholly irrelevant. The change lies in potential values (no bonuses or penalties), but in nothing else.

In terms of roleplaying this change means you can play as Orc paladin or mage and have no mechanical drawbacks, so you can play as literally anything, which opens up your roleplaying possibilities for people since there is no cost involved in making such character. Provided there even is race-, sex- or stats-related content. Considering how often your race or sex (or even stats!) doesn't really matter and how often all what you do have lies in combat - yes, this is a pretty significant change and encourages "pick whatever" approach, which is a bit sad, because even a highly tactical game such as Icewind Dale II made your race matter to some small degree. Now we're closer to Baldur's Gate II, where your intelligence and race was ignored by everyone.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,232
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
The ironic thing about making all races equal stat wise, is that it will no longer be any point from a game mechanics POV to run a "diversity squad". If all races and both sexes are the same, I can just as well just run a party of male humans. So making the races equal will (in my case, at least) reduce diversity.
Depends how you look at it.

Yes, from mechanical standpoint you make races irrelevant. However, if the world still reacts to your race, sex, charisma or intelligence (think: Arcanum), then it is not wholly irrelevant. The change lies in potential values (no bonuses or penalties), but in nothing else.

In terms of roleplaying this change means you can play as Orc paladin or mage and have no mechanical drawbacks, so you can play as literally anything, which opens up your roleplaying possibilities for people since there is no cost involved in making such character. Provided there even is race-, sex- or stats-related content. Considering how often your race or sex (or even stats!) doesn't really matter and how often all what you do have lies in combat - yes, this is a pretty significant change and encourages "pick whatever" approach, which is a bit sad, because even a highly tactical game such as Icewind Dale II made your race matter to some small degree. Now we're closer to Baldur's Gate II, where your intelligence and race was ignored by everyone.

All that does is scream equality of outcome as everyone is the same. There is nothing to distinguish between the various races and classes. Forget about having standards that are requirements to actually hold the job. This is shit tier crap that just screams Marxism. It's cowboys and indians but everyone is handicapped to be equal.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,797
All that does is scream equality of outcome as everyone is the same. There is nothing to distinguish between the various races and classes. Forget about having standards that are requirements to actually hold the job. This is shit tier crap that just screams Marxism. It's cowboys and indians but everyone is handicapped to be equal.
Eh, fuck Marxism. Egalitarianism does not have to equal Marxism. Look at Revolutionary France, for example. I have no idea why some people are so mentally stuck on communism.

I agree it is not a good move to make all races the same in terms of stats (and I said that), but there is more to races as such than just the distribution of stats and that was the point I was making. After all, what makes cowboys and indians different from each other are their weapons and culture more than anything else.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,896
Yes, he did write adventures for up to level 14 for publication. At his table though, characters were retired by the time they were 7th-9th level. That's been confirmed by his own players like Tim Kask. You can easily separate what he wrote for publication and what was written for his table.
Skepticism should be employed in reference to statements made decades after the fact, as memories can mislead for a variety of reasons. Gary Gygax himself, in the final issue of The Strategic Review (April 1976), wrote an article denouncing Monty Haul campaigns (the term Monty Haul would be coined two years later by Jim Ward in a Dragon Magazine article) in which he stated:

"It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,” tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level."

Gygax is thus on record as stating that in original D&D a year of intensive play might take a 1st-level character all the way to name level, though advancement should then slow. Two years later, the Advanced Dungeons & Dragon Players Handbook includes spell tables for clerics and magic-users that went all the way to level 29 (!), although Gary certainly didn't intend for such extremely high levels to be typical. AD&D included rules for name-level characters to gain class-appropriate followers and become rules of a stronghold, something already present in abbreviated form in original D&D. It is emphatically not the case that Greyhawk characters were forcibly retired prior to reaching name level.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,232
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
All that does is scream equality of outcome as everyone is the same. There is nothing to distinguish between the various races and classes. Forget about having standards that are requirements to actually hold the job. This is shit tier crap that just screams Marxism. It's cowboys and indians but everyone is handicapped to be equal.
Eh, fuck Marxism. Egalitarianism does not have to equal Marxism. Look at Revolutionary France, for example. I have no idea why some people are so mentally stuck on communism.

I agree it is not a good move to make all races the same in terms of stats (and I said that), but there is more to races as such than just the distribution of stats and that was the point I was making. After all, what makes cowboys and indians different from each other are their weapons and culture more than anything else.

Because Marxism has taken over the universities and institutions where many of these retards working for WoTC got their degrees. They're not being taught anything else.

There's a vast difference as cowboys were using high tech weapons compared to the American Indians stuck in the stone age. That comes down to IQ and creativity.

Skepticism should be employed in reference to statements made decades after the fact, as memories can mislead for a variety of reasons. Gary Gygax himself, in the final issue of The Strategic Review (April 1976), wrote an article denouncing Monty Haul campaigns (the term Monty Haul would be coined two years later by Jim Ward in a Dragon Magazine article) in which he stated:

"It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,” tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level."

Gygax is thus on record as stating that in original D&D a year of intensive play might take a 1st-level character all the way to name level, though advancement should then slow. Two years later, the Advanced Dungeons & Dragon Players Handbook includes spell tables for clerics and magic-users that went all the way to level 29 (!). Although Gary certainly didn't intend for such extremely high levels to be typical, he did include rules for name-level characters to gain class-appropriate followers and become rules of a stronghold, something already present in abbreviated form in original D&D. It is emphatically not the case that Greyhawk characters were forcibly retired prior to reaching name level.

Thanks for proving me correct as Gary did not like any campaign he ran to be above 9th level. What he's talking about here is what other people have done with the system he and Dave created.

Yes, because the AD&D PHB was written for others. It has no bearing on what Gary thought on levels in his own personal game. Remember, my original statement to JarlFrank was about how he was wrong according to Gary's own games. Gary wanted the characters to retire, build a building, and attract followers.

Now one thing you ignored in the same PHB is that upon reaching 8th level the characters gain followers. At 9th level, they build their building. Said building must be built to exacting dimensional and construction cost requirements. This was carried forward in AD&D 2E PHB, Complete Series Handbooks, and Player's Option: Spells & Magic. The biggest change was for wizards required to build a laboratory to do spell research at level 1 as per PO:S&M. However, in every class case, when they reached 7th to 9th level they began to attract followers and build buildings. That's when the game shifts from heroes to being rulers/superheroes. It's also why their hit points are no longer rolled but gain a specific amount. All within Gary's and his group's thinking. Sure they had it go to 20th level, but they never ran games with characters of such power.

That's the entirety of my discussion with JarlFrank and his point that is not what Gary wanted at his own table. It had nothing to do with the business side of things which was abundantly made clear by me.;)

Edit: Monty Haul was coined by Gygax in 1975. It wasn't published until 1976.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-origin-of-monty-haul.666872/

Anyway, Ernie picked up one of the sashes and an ioun stone and proceeded as a low level character to beat up the Bugbears. After the battle was done and I handed out experience Gary critiqued it by calling me a PRICE IS RIGHT Monty Haul style DM. I gave out too much treasure for the effort.
 
Last edited:

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
4,797
There's a vast difference as cowboys were using high tech weapons compared to the American Indians stuck in the stone age. That comes down to IQ and creativity.
I would argue it comes down to cultural differences still. Cowboys only have better tech, because their ancestors learned about gunpowder from other cultures and found a use for it in combat: for destroying fortifications and killing armor-plated enemies. If you don't face opponents who build fortifications or use armor plate to protect yourself, then you don't have a reason to think about ways of dealing with it. After that it turned out gunpowder weapons can be even better than other ranged weapons (such as bows or crossbows), so they kept developing them. In the end this was a product of cultural exchange and creativity. If you have a monolithic culture (or cultures) then chances are you are going to end up like Americas or Africa. So one of the biggest advantages of the Old World was the ability to discover the world and finding use of the newfound knowledge, which also prevented stagnation. Discovery of the printing press also helped, because the more knowledge gets spread, the more people can interact with it and come up with their own ideas for advancement.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,232
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
There's a vast difference as cowboys were using high tech weapons compared to the American Indians stuck in the stone age. That comes down to IQ and creativity.
I would argue it comes down to cultural differences still - cowboys only have better tech, because their ancestors learned about gunpowder from other cultures and found a use for it in combat: for destroying fortifications and killing armor-plated enemies. If you don't face opponents who build fortifications or use armor plate to protect yourself, then you don't have a reason to think about ways of dealing with it. After that it turned out gunpowder weapons can be even better than other ranged weapons (such as bows or crossbows), so they kept developing them. In the end this was a product of cultural exchange and creativity. If you have a monolithic culture (or cultures) then chances are you are going to end up like Americas or Africa. So one of the biggest advantages of the Old World was the ability to discover the world and finding use of the newfound knowledge, which also prevented stagnation.

I don't dispute that at all. I'm in favor of stat bonuses and the differentiation in classes. I'm even in favor of sexual dimorphism from AD&D 1E that it's baked into my own AD&D 2E setting.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,904
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Okay... I guess Gary was doing it wrong when he wrote that most adventurers should retire at 7th level and the players roll up new characters. The Holmes Basic Set only went to level 3. The supplement went to level 6. They kept adding to it to increase the level limit, but Gary always stopped his games at level 7. Your character was supposed to retire and building a building suitable to their profession like castles for fighters.

Well, mostly because Gary thought the game stopped being fun at too high levels. That's why he designed modules like Tomb of Horrors to give players something to test their high level characters against.

And his reasoning was pretty solid because D&D is designed for mid-level adventures, once the level gets too high it just ends in ridiculous bloat.

That philosophy followed in AD&D as well. If you read the class descriptions and the DMG you'll see that it's heavily emphasized to retire the characters between 7-9.

Gary didn't really care for what Metzer did in the Red Box BECMI series. He hated the high level campaigns and saw how the system broke down once you reached 14th level. At 36th level the characters are essentially gods and can destroy the world if they wanted too. That's why they never printed stats for any of the gods to keep players from killing them. LOL

Bold added above by me.

This is an interesting discussion overall, I just wanted to remind you that the Deities & Demigods has been a thing since AD&D 1E (later re-branded as Legends & Lore, but it was the same thing) which let you take a rip through all sorts of fully statted pantheons if you were so inclined. These ranged from various real world deities like Thor, Odin, etc. as well as creatures from fiction such as the Cthulhu mythos, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, etc. depending on the version of the book you're looking at.

If you simply meant that the gods of the setting weren't published, that's probably true, except possibly some Time of Troubles materials printed for the Forgotten Realms in AD&D 2E. But still, the Deities & Demigods book did have god stats and did allow for this style of play if you were so inclined.

Generally though, I agree, classic D&D of whatever stripe just breaks after mid-levels and stops resembling the game you started. Most of the abilities that start being available are ridiculous and the world would have to be imagined as something quite different in order to account for things like wizards being able to create portals to just drop their armies or summons into the middle of your castle. You can do this with anti magic shells or teleportation locked areas, scrying and so on, but the entire world should be designed with that in mind and it becomes a very high fantasy and high magic affair as opposed to how the usual classic campaigns are portrayed. This is all assuming that your table cares about verisimilitude and narrative consistency. If it's more of a beer and pretzels monster bashing thing, go nuts.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,904
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
The ironic thing about making all races equal stat wise, is that it will no longer be any point from a game mechanics POV to run a "diversity squad". If all races and both sexes are the same, I can just as well just run a party of male humans. So making the races equal will (in my case, at least) reduce diversity.
Depends how you look at it.

Yes, from mechanical standpoint you make races irrelevant. However, if the world still reacts to your race, sex, charisma or intelligence (think: Arcanum), then it is not wholly irrelevant. The change lies in potential values (no bonuses or penalties), but in nothing else.

In terms of roleplaying this change means you can play as Orc paladin or mage and have no mechanical drawbacks, so you can play as literally anything, which opens up your roleplaying possibilities for people since there is no cost involved in making such character. Provided there even is race-, sex- or stats-related content. Considering how often your race or sex (or even stats!) doesn't really matter and how often all what you do have lies in combat - yes, this is a pretty significant change and encourages "pick whatever" approach, which is a bit sad, because even a highly tactical game such as Icewind Dale II made your race matter to some small degree. Now we're closer to Baldur's Gate II, where your intelligence and race was ignored by everyone.

All that does is scream equality of outcome as everyone is the same. There is nothing to distinguish between the various races and classes. Forget about having standards that are requirements to actually hold the job. This is shit tier crap that just screams Marxism. It's cowboys and indians but everyone is handicapped to be equal.

The issues with tabletop (and CRPGs by extension) are that you don't have to think very hard to come up with the conclusion that there should be racial modifiers or caps on attributes. Half-orcs really should be naturally stronger than halflings pretty much 10 times out of 10, assuming they're not weird statistical anomalies like comparing a crippled half-orc war veteran with the most roided out halfling on the plane. It shouldn't be just a matter of taking whatever you rolled and deciding whether that indicates a certain "character skin" or not, the choice should be meaningful on a mechanical levels as well as a flavour or presentation level.

Part of the appeal of roleplaying games as opposed to first person shooters is that your choices matter and can impact the games, both during the game itself, but also in character generation. Otherwise, it really is the same as just picking a skin in whatever the flavour of the month multiplayer lobby you're into and the RPG genre has become less interesting as a result. There's been a consistent move towards racial modifiers being watered down in newer versions, moving from racial bonuses and penalties + racial minimums and maximums for attributes to racial bonuses and penalties but no minimums or maximums to racial bonuses only. Now the final version of that particular watering down of a system is being presented: no modifiers whatsoever.

The thing I wish these morons would remember is that, like many people have already stated ITT, these fantasy races aren't real world analogues. Saying that elves have a predisposition towards magic and are agile and graceful but less hardy or strong, while half-orcs are strong and durable but dumb as a sack of rocks, isn't the same as saying that people of African descent and their stand-ins are X, Y, Z while ethnically Jewish people are X, Y, Z. Like what the hell is a gnoll supposed to be? Or a hobgoblin? Or is it that these are all supposed to be like Black people because they're violent monsters with the types of negative traits you expect from violent monsters. Because that's a pretty horrible and racist idea that hadn't occurred to a lot of people before all the REEEEEEing started. Just because there's whining now doesn't make it true for the average gamer.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,904
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
I don't dispute that at all. I'm in favor of stat bonuses and the differentiation in classes. I'm even in favor of sexual dimorphism from AD&D 1E that it's baked into my own AD&D 2E setting.

Even though I normally make fun of the sexual dimorphism angle, I do think it has a place depending on the type of game world you're trying to set up. A pulp sword & sorcery setting where women are primarily damsels in distress hanging off the (male) hero's leg like in many pieces of Conan art really probably should have some sort of stat differentiation based on the sexes. Any more egalitarian setting that may more prominently feature female heroes probably shouldn't have it, but it doesn't mean that it's not a potentially reasonable modifier for the fiction you're representing.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom