Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5314877" data-attributes="member: 21169">I believe it was expected that one would be rolling up new characters even if the old one hadn't died. You would have a big stable of living PCs (and many more dead ones), just like Stan with his folder. Characters would adventure with others of roughly the same level. So your surviving 8th level wizard, Lusaud, would often adventure with my surviving 7th level fighter Ercem Good, even though we might both have many other PCs ranging throughout the levels.OD&amp;D does. AD&amp;D 1e is fine with creating new chars at higher level to fit in with an existing group*. Gary feels that new players should begin with a 1st level character but once one has experienced 1st level play, it's fine not to go back to it, to start new chars at higher level.Ofc this borks one of the fundamental precepts of m-u balance, but balance had been getting more and more borked pretty much since day one, or at least day two. 1e and even Supplement I Greyhawk promote the idea of playing beyond 10th level, which borks the balance between m-us and fighters. Thieves were born borked because m-us could do everything they could. Even OD&amp;D's balance is a little borked as, for some reason, m-us can go up to level 16, whereas fighters and clerics are capped at 10.*There's definitely a contradiction here. I've been saying that a large stable of PCs is expected but Gary's advice in the 1e DMG seems to indicate a group mostly playing at a particular level, even with a very limited number of chars. It could easily be that tastes changed, and 'stable play' declined, or that Gary's group preferred to play their high level chars and/or were unwilling to play at low level any more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doug McCrae, post: 5314877, member: 21169"] I believe it was expected that one would be rolling up new characters even if the old one hadn't died. You would have a big stable of living PCs (and many more dead ones), just like Stan with his folder. Characters would adventure with others of roughly the same level. So your surviving 8th level wizard, Lusaud, would often adventure with my surviving 7th level fighter Ercem Good, even though we might both have many other PCs ranging throughout the levels. OD&D does. AD&D 1e is fine with creating new chars at higher level to fit in with an existing group*. Gary feels that new players should begin with a 1st level character but once one has experienced 1st level play, it's fine not to go back to it, to start new chars at higher level. Ofc this borks one of the fundamental precepts of m-u balance, but balance had been getting more and more borked pretty much since day one, or at least day two. 1e and even Supplement I Greyhawk promote the idea of playing beyond 10th level, which borks the balance between m-us and fighters. Thieves were born borked because m-us could do everything they could. Even OD&D's balance is a little borked as, for some reason, m-us can go up to level 16, whereas fighters and clerics are capped at 10. *There's definitely a contradiction here. I've been saying that a large stable of PCs is expected but Gary's advice in the 1e DMG seems to indicate a group mostly playing at a particular level, even with a very limited number of chars. It could easily be that tastes changed, and 'stable play' declined, or that Gary's group preferred to play their high level chars and/or were unwilling to play at low level any more. [/QUOTE]

Verification