Racial Level Limits: Did you Use Them?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Wasn't normally an issue in my group, because when I was playing AD&D it was rare for a game to last longer than three sessions. I wouldn't apply them now, but I am inclined to stick to a modified form of the racial class limits.

 

[Hussar]

We are playing 1e right now and all the players had to look up level limits and such when making characters. Most people went single class human to avoid them, but we are using them.

This mirrors my experience.

 

[Hussar]

Interesting results up to now: no real "winner" but a number of factions of roughly the same size.

As I'm at work right now I'll let the matter drop until the evening. Keep on voting!

I'd say that depends on how you interpret the data. From what I'm looking at, 20% of respondents never reached the limits, so they're not really countable. Of the remaining 80%, 50% used the limits in some fashion. It might not have been a hard and fast rule, but, according to this, it was observed about two or three times as often as it was ignored.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I used no level limits. Humans got a 10% bonus to XP to reflect their ability to learn quickly.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I'd say that depends on how you interpret the data. From what I'm looking at, 20% of respondents never reached the limits, so they're not really countable. Of the remaining 80%, 50% used the limits in some fashion. It might not have been a hard and fast rule, but, according to this, it was observed about two or three times as often as it was ignored.

Still the different options observe/change/ignore are all represented with a good number of voters each. When Monte Cook's opinion - the way the rules are written influences the way the game is played - would be true, I'd expect a larger number of cases where the gamers observed the rule.

The result of the poll at least strengthens my gut feeling that gamers decide against the rules when they see fit.

 

[Herschel]

We used modified versions of them usually, ie: Dwarves were unlimited as Fighters, Elves as Magic Users, Halflings and Half-Orcs as Thieves, Half-Elves as Bards (2E) or Rangers, Gnomes as Illusionists. I also changed the Eleven weapon bonus to Rapiers from Long Swords. To incentivize humans they got to roll using the UA charts vs. the 4d6 method.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Still the different options observe/change/ignore are all represented with a good number of voters each. When Monte Cook's opinion - the way the rules are written influences the way the game is played - would be true, I'd expect a larger number of cases where the gamers observed the rule.

The result of the poll at least strengthens my gut feeling that gamers decide against the rules when they see fit.

I don't know. Why matters as much as what, when it comes to house rules. If you make a house rule that seeks the same goal as the original, but presumably with some mechanical version that you find easier, more flavorful, better, etc.--then you are influenced by the goal of that part of the RAW, even if not the implementation.

For example, were I to now run an AD&D 1st ed. campaign that I expected to hit the limits, I'd probably ditch the limits in favor of increased XP required by race, applied from level 1 forward. I'd give something like a 1.2 multiple for halflings, 1.5 for dwarvs, and 2.0 for elves. The goal would be in part the same as the original: To make the gameworld somewhat human-centric. My means would be very different, not least because I'd also be addressing the dwarven and elven multiclassing edge in the lower levels, with the same easy to explain, easy to use rule. (Dragon Quest influences my thinking here, in ways that I would not have considered when I ran AD&D originally.)

So part of the original I would be honoring with the change, while another part I would be discarding. I think it is relatively rare for gamers to simply throw a rule out entirely, without any regards to what the rule may have intended to accomplish.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Why the past tense? 1e is still quite widely played, you know, and I do think it's better discussed in the present tense.

I admit it. I did and do use racial level limits. I'm racially prejudiced against imaginary creatures. I think that freaks with donkey ears, cucumber noses and/or scaly skins shouldn't be able to compete with imaginary real men and women on equal terms.

 

[TerraDave]

In 2nd Ed, ...(and, I think, there was also a "slow advancement" option that we used).

This is what I did in my long running 2E game. Required double XP, and it did usually worked out that the demihumans were about 1 level behind.

EDIT: the reason why is that limits put the penalty in the wrong place. Not up front, where the non-human advantages are more notable, but when they are pretty minor (though the double XP requirement will certainly slow advancement when the XP table goes to a fixed amount).

 

[avin]

My DMs observed all that silly AD&D rules