NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8868219" data-attributes="member: 18">That's just an incorrect claim.Dumb is an insult, and disrespectful if directed at a person."Objectively bad" is neither of those things.You might argue against the objectivity of a claim, but to say game design is "bad" is not to be insulting or disrespectful. You don't have to like that, but you're being extremely disingenuous to claim it is.The simple fact is that a lot of early D&D and RPG design in general was naïve. Instead of looking holistically at achieving specific goals through game design, a lot of design was based more on "vibes", and half-considered ideas. This isn't really open for debate, I would suggest - some of the bad math alone can show how bad the issues could get. Entire games were made that barely functioned.Level limits are a great example of this.You've repeatedly stated that the reason for level limits was the power differential between humans and non-humans. There have also been designers who have suggested this.However, level limits are obviously objectively an extremely poor way to address that, for a number of reasons. Let's look at them.1) In 1E, level limits for most race/class combos are low (6-11 mostly), but for Thief for everyone but Half-Orcs, it's U (Half-Orcs get U in Assassin instead), and randomly, Half-Elves also get U in Druid.This undermines the idea that power is the issue pretty severely, because it randomly doesn't matter in certain cases, apparently.2) In 1E having a LOWER primary stat means a LOWER level limit.This is obviously not remotely congruent with the idea that power is why they are designed this way. Weaker characters are punished, stronger ones rewarded.3) In 2E, most of the Us are gone (still some), but a lot of level limits are now so high, especially with a high primary stat, that the odds of them being reached are extremely low.This means that, functionally, most level limits don't exist. This demonstrates a profound failure of design, because the balancing tool never actually kicks in.4) In 2E, and 1E beyond the original PHB, particularly in other setting-books, the more powerful a non-human race is, the HIGHER its level limits are, generally speaking.This is hard proof that if power-limiting was the intention, the design is outright, objectively bad. Because in fact more power is rewarded. This is congruent with higher stats being rewarded with higher limits, too - which once more shows if the goal was limiting power, it was a failure.It's not just my "opinion" that level limits are bad in some snippy "I don't like that" way. It's easy to demonstrate logically, and by looking at what their stated goal is, vs. what they actually achieved and say they were objectively bad design.But let's look at it from a more positive angle, what do level limits achieve?5) They cause anxiety in players who want to play non-human PCs and make them consider human PCs, often irrationally, because the campaign is unlikely to ever reach that level.Is that a good thing? Some might say it was, I can't really see it myself. But it doesn't fit with the stated goal (power limitation).6) They cause certain PCs to effectively stop being playable. In 1E, this could actually be at the mid-point or towards the climax of a campaign. In 2E, it was usually so high most campaigns were done.Is this a good thing? No-one, including you, [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER] has explained why it's good, actually that PCs become unplayable. The explanation would need to incorporate why less-power PCs are more likely to become unplayable. Anyone want to field this?7) They are arranged in such a way, particularly in 2E, that, on top of race/class restrictions, they further push certain races into certain classes or multiclass combos.This is arguably thematic, though it's highly inconsistent, and probably unnecessary on top of race/class restrictions, but I guess you could argue it was good?So what's the conclusion? That if the goal was to make it so that humans and non-humans were more balanced with each other, it was completely failed. Objectively failed. This means the design was objectively bad, in exactly the same way as plane that can't take off is badly designed.Now, you could shorthand that to "dumb". Maybe we shouldn't, but we can certainly say that, based on the stated goals, level limits are objectively bad design.</blockquote>

Verification