Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5021261" data-attributes="member: 80487">Yes -- but it is a different game than WotC-D&amp;D. It's like comparing Baseball and Cricket. There are different dynamics in different balances, in a different context of time, informed by an ethos with different priorities.A fairly simple example: In WotC-D&amp;D, character levels are key to any comparison of &quot;power&quot;; in TSR-D&amp;D, experience point totals play a similar (but not precisely the same) role. Further, there was no expectation that there should be a time &quot;when everyone has around 8,000 XP&quot;. That goes back to the fundamentally different framework.The centrally important balance is between risk and reward prior to application of player skill. That skill consists primarily in assessing and choosing from the many possibilities.Halflings originally were limited to 4th level, which makes sense in terms of the source material. Hobbits running around outside the Shire on adventures were reckoned uncommon, and Halfling Superheroes able to go toe to toe (if not eye to eye) with Thongor and Conan --&nbsp; well, that seemed a bit silly.Nobody was forced to play 'em, but some people did. It was not as if they were especially &quot;weak&quot; -- they just had a limit to how high they could rise. A human magic-user was potentially among the most powerful figures in the game ... but stood a lesser chance of simply surviving as long, and was not so mighty -- or at most was mighty in a different, less frequent way -- in the meantime.There was no reason a player could not have both -- and, say, a cleric as well -- in his &quot;stable&quot; of characters of various kinds, alignments, levels and locations in the campaign's fields of space and time. Plenty would perish before attaining second level, while after a few years others were likely to have retired at least from the usual sort of expedition, being more concerned with politics and grand strategy. The x.p. returns for high-level characters tended to be paltry except for undertakings versus comparably powerful beings, which could be dangerous indeed if those were played with a modicum of good sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5021261, member: 80487"] Yes -- but it is [I]a different game[/I] than WotC-D&D. It's like comparing Baseball and Cricket. There are different [I]dynamics[/I] in different balances, in a different context of time, informed by an ethos with different priorities. A fairly simple example: In WotC-D&D, character levels are key to any comparison of "power"; in TSR-D&D, experience point totals play a similar (but not precisely the same) role. Further, there was no expectation that there should be a time "when everyone has around 8,000 XP". That goes back to the fundamentally different framework. The centrally important balance is between risk and reward [I]prior to[/I] application of player skill. That skill consists primarily in assessing and [I]choosing from[/I] the many possibilities. Halflings originally were limited to 4th level, which makes sense in terms of the source material. Hobbits running around outside the Shire on adventures were reckoned uncommon, and Halfling Superheroes able to go toe to toe (if not eye to eye) with Thongor and Conan -- well, that seemed a bit silly. Nobody was forced to play 'em, but some people did. It was not as if they were especially "weak" -- they just had a limit to how high they could rise. A human magic-user was potentially among the most powerful figures in the game ... but stood a lesser chance of simply surviving as long, and was not so mighty -- or at most was mighty in a different, less frequent way -- in the meantime. There was no reason a player could not have [I]both[/I] -- and, say, a cleric as well -- in his "stable" of characters of various kinds, alignments, levels and locations in the campaign's fields of space and time. Plenty would perish before attaining second level, while after a few years others were likely to have retired at least from the usual sort of expedition, being more concerned with politics and grand strategy. The x.p. returns for high-level characters tended to be paltry except for undertakings versus comparably powerful beings, which could be dangerous indeed if those were played with a modicum of good sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification