Since I don't know how you are defining "normal" then it's difficult to answer.
That tells me quite a bit, thank you. It tells me that you are not actually reading all of the responses to your posts. For example, the post directly above the one to which you replied.
Answer: I mean a human being, which could potentially exist without supernatural effect within the real world or the fictional analogue thereof.
I am not sure if you simply didn't read, or if, reading, you didn't understand, but either way, that tells me something about your position.
I do think that a F1 in any edition, is better than a common individual AS DEFINED BY THE SYSTEM.
Yes, I know that you think that.
Not possible unless the turnip farmer is actually a F1. Even if they have the same stats, same hp, same AC, the Fighter still has better saving throws. The fighter still has more skills. The fighter most certainly still has way more potential as well.
Let's take a look at the post you either didn't read or didn't understand again, shall we?
Stat modifiers can change that, easily enough.
Already addressed, and disproven. A Normal Man is assumed to have 10's and 11's unless there is something different, as a convenience for the DM. Likewise, the DM can choose to give anyone any stats he thinks appropriate (so that the local Smith can have greater Strength, for example, or some local urchin can have better Dexterity). He can even choose to have them save as a Fighter 1, or give them some subset of thief abilities, or allow them to cast minimal spells. Again, see T1 and N1 for examples.
It is also blindingly obvious that the DM can choose to have that turnip farmer, at any time in the future, become a FTR 1 as a result of in-game events, and progress as far, or farther, than the PC FTR 1.
So, again, no, the system doesn't determine his potential. The DM, and the logic of the shared fictional space do.
What's with the snark? When did I tell anyone they were having fun wrong? I did say that the point is not mechancally supported and I'll stand by that, but, where did I say that someone was having badwrongfun?
Snark? That was benefit of the doubt!
There
must be a difference, or there is a difference
when you are playing? Are you really unable to imagine a game in which a Ftr 1 might be a turnip farmer, or are you stating a preference? It certainly seems, still, when I go back and read your earlier posts, that you were saying that having a PC Ftr 1 be a farmer fresh off the turnip wagon was
playing the game wrong. And you still seem to think it is
objectively wrong.
I was trying to figure out some rational reason why, after all those posts you ignored responding to, you were still clinging to the idea that a Ftr 1 cannot be a turnip farmer (or vice versa).
Now I have another answer: You either failed to read or failed to understand those posts.
Now, since you've answered my questions, let me return the favour.
how do YOU deal with the power level disparity? Ignore it? Deal with it? How?
In 1e, it never came up. The highest level character in our group was a 16th level wizard; the second highest, a 14th level fighter. They were both played by the same player. The player had his fighter murder his wizard because, when it came down to it, he didn't need him, and the fighter was more fun to play.
In 2e, it never came up.
In 3e, IMHO, the game is designed to make you prefer getting your eyes gouged out with hot pokers rather than play in a campaign over 6th level. As a consequence, it never came up.
2e and 3e were systems that made me drop D&D, though, because (again, IMHO, YMMV) they proved less fun to play. As a result, my high-level experience is pretty weak with those systems.
But, from the playtests, I can tell you something about how this issue was handled in RCFG, and how it plays out, if you are interested. Fighters and rogues predominate in the playtests because, apparently, they are viewed as the most powerful and/or interesting characters. I rewrote the Tomb of Horrors using RCFG materials, and bumped it up to 10th level. Even in that module, the mundane characters had as much to contribute as the magical ones.
Just as a question, how much higher level D&D have you played? Again, not snark, just a question. I often find that in these conversations, people who don't see the issue generally play low to mid level campaigns where this really isn't much of an issue.
Obviously, if you want to have a lower-magic world, confining yourself to lower levels is a good idea. That said, though, you'd have to tell me exactly what you mean by high-level.
I've played a high-level 1e wizard with a DM who didn't understand the rules, and let anything go. Because he'd frontloaded information into his intended epic campaign, we were able to resolve the entire mess in a single session. It was fun, but I think it was a bit of a shock to him to see how effective high-level characters could be. Admittedly, we almost all died, too, in order to achieve our goal. And we had a lot of fun doing it.
Or, they play with players who have a tacit agreement at the table not to make it an issue. The cleric relagates himself to healbot and doesn't show the firepower that he could. The wizard stays with direct damage spells for the most part and doesn't dominate the game.
In 1e, different characters dominate different scenes, IME. I don't think that you quite appreciate how few spells a caster might have, and how much might get accomplished in a game session. I also think that you don't understand the limitations of spells in a 1e game.
On another thread, as I recall, we went through the T1 Moathouse, and I listed all of the encounters, and where the magic-user's
sleep spell would, and would not, work, and what the outcome for our magic-user would be in all the encounters where
sleep would be partially effective, using the EN World die roller.
And in the end, after our magic-user was demonstably folded, spindled, and mutilated far more often than not, you were still unable to admit that
sleep wasn't an auto-win button.
But, no, I've never had to tell the players, in any version of D&D, to hold back.
The 1st ed AD&D DMG treats stats for NPCs with PC classes differently. In some cases NPCs have lower minimums. In other cases they have stat adjustments rather than minimums.
The same book also has NPC fighters who are incapable of gaining levels (in the rules for hiring mercenaries).
And in some cases, higher stats, and in other cases, NPCs can reach higher levels than PCs (see demi-human level limits for examples).
Grey Mouser is, as is so common, almost impossible to represent in older editions of D&D but trivial in 4e. He didn't have six-second combat magic that was mandatory of old spellcasters. He had enough training to be a ritual caster and was therefore a spellcaster. But he fought as a thief.
Ritual casting appears in 3e.
Six-second combat magic is not a feature of 1e. I think you really need to go back and take a look at casting times in that edition. Also, the standard round is 1 minute.
2e included rules for devising thief characters with mixed abilities, specifically so that one could make a Mouser-like character. Moreso if you used the Players Option books.
The Dragon used to include a column (Giants in the Earth), where the D&D (1e) counterparts of fictional characters were presented. Of course, these were never exact replicas of the characters in question.....largely due to differences in magic systems. For example, the magic system in
A Wizard of Earthsea makes for great reading, but it would be cumbersome to list all of the possible side effects that occur in addition to the spell effect you desire, and to then administer them. At least, with 1e, there was a sense of risk involved with casting many of the more powerful spells.
RC
