What is wrong with race class limits?

[Aaron L]

Obviously I disagree. You're equating role-immersion style of play with the "correct" way to play. The primary objective is to challenge the players. The characters are merely means to this end.

Suuuuuuuuurre.

 

[Lanefan]

So, PCs aren't allowed to get impatient? See what I'm getting at, you are just assuming becasue they have out of game knowledge they are acting on it. When they could also very easily playing in character. It can go either way.

It can, but usually you get a pretty good sense of which is which while at the table.

And as for this from Gentlegamer:

Obviously I disagree. You're equating role-immersion style of play with the "correct" way to play. The primary objective is to challenge the players. The characters are merely means to this end.

Uh...last I checked D+D is a *role-playing* game, which means to some extent playing the role of your character rather than just moving it around like a chess piece...and that means playing to your character's knowledge rather than your own.

Particularly if your character is, shall we say, mentally limited.

Lanefan

 

[wildstarsreach]

It took a long time but Higher stats meant higher levels and giving increased experience did too.

 

[Gentlegamer]

And as for this from Gentlegamer:Uh...last I checked D+D is a *role-playing* game, which means to some extent playing the role of your character rather than just moving it around like a chess piece...and that means playing to your character's knowledge rather than your own.

It seems you subscribe to the role-immersion style of play, but it isn't the only one. The entire activity is role-playing. Play acting is just a part of the role-playing game experience. Remember, role-playing is an adjective describing a game. The game, and therefore challenge to the players, is the ultimate objective.

Like I said before, this is off-topic (though Croathian doesn't seem to mind). This discussion on what constitutes metagaming (or cheating) could make a good separate thread.

 

[RFisher]

1e broke well before 14th level. More like about 9th-10th level where hit dice stopped increasing, most classes stopped getting any kind of new special abilities, and save and to hit bonuses reached the point where almost anything was easily saveable or hittable.

I can see how the last point could constitute "broken", but what's broken about maxing out on HD & special abilities?

Uh...last I checked D+D is a *role-playing* game, which means to some extent playing the role of your character rather than just moving it around like a chess piece...and that means playing to your character's knowledge rather than your own.

Oh, really?

While I often do play the game that way, I don't know that it is required or was intended.

B2: The Keep on the Borderlands. p. 25.

Above all a player must think. The game is designed to challenge the minds and imaginations of the players. Those who tackle problems and use their abilities, wits, and new ideas will succeed more often than fail. The challenge of thinking is a great deal of the fun of the game.

 

[tx7321]

It seems you subscribe to the role-immersion style of play, but it isn't the only one. The entire activity is role-playing. Play acting is just a part of the role-playing game experience. Remember, role-playing is an adjective describing a game. The game, and therefore challenge to the players, is the ultimate objective.

Like I said before, this is off-topic (though Croathian doesn't seem to mind). This discussion on what constitutes metagaming (or cheating) could make a good separate thread.

Gentlegamer has this right. Role Play in the since of D&D (and most RPGs) relates to playing the role of the character however you choose. This could be someone moving his piece like a chess piece...yes (as long as he understands, he "is" that guy. So when the DM controlling an NPC talks to the player, he speaks for
it or somehow responds. The player might say "my guy replies, 'I'm looking for a cleric to heal my friends" or he might say "I tell this guy I need a cleric (perhaps imagining the conversation but not acting it out)", or the player could act it out and could launch into some drawn out thespian act "good sir of the nobel town of Thax, one of my comrads has been severly injured investigating the ruins near town, and he is in desperate need of clerica healing". etc. Generally the Ham Actor at the table is actually a destraction to the others, dragging them out of their imaginations and back into the living room. Thats why a good balance is required (the ham actor if under control adds to the experiance, if over done detracts).

Anyhow, Immersion relates to the ability of the player to experiance the world of the DM through their own imagination (no talking acting etc. are even needed). Some of the elements of later editions (like feats and skills). To me the game lost its focus on immersion (as defined above) and moved its focus to building (in the tradition of games like Magic) and acting in the capital A since (changing your personality to that of your characters, rather then keeping your personality and just doing minor alterations to it based more or less on the archetype).

Q: "Obviously I disagree. You're equating role-immersion style of play with the "correct" way to play. The primary objective is to challenge the players. The characters are merely means to this end."

Again, this is correct (to the original philosophy of the game in 1E anyway). And, I'd also argue that role-immersion is not taking on the personality, its bringing in your personality, and using the "tool kit" of your archetype (if you want to customize it, you just act differently (a fighter running around in plate or one in studded leather etc....no need for feats and skills...and much mor fun. Yep, Skills and Feats and traditional acting are all distractions from RPG style Immersion. Unfortunatly this old definition has been changed by those of later editions to meet the needs of the newer systems.

 

[Crothian]

The game, and therefore challenge to the players, is the ultimate objective.

I thought the ultimate objective was to have fun.

 

[Nifft]

The primary objective is to spread the worship of Pelor Satan.

Unfortunately, all the "real magic" spells now come in randomized booster packs, disguised as DDM score cards...

Cheers, -- N

 

[Darth Shoju]

Gentlegamer has this right. Role Play in the since of D&D (and most RPGs) relates to playing the role of the character however you choose. This could be someone moving his piece like a chess piece...yes (as long as he understands, he "is" that guy. So when the DM controlling an NPC talks to the player, he speaks for
it or somehow responds. The player might say "my guy replies, 'I'm looking for a cleric to heal my friends" or he might say "I tell this guy I need a cleric (perhaps imagining the conversation but not acting it out)", or the player could act it out and could launch into some drawn out thespian act "good sir of the nobel town of Thax, one of my comrads has been severly injured investigating the ruins near town, and he is in desperate need of clerica healing". etc. Generally the Ham Actor at the table is actually a destraction to the others, dragging them out of their imaginations and back into the living room. Thats why a good balance is required (the ham actor if under control adds to the experiance, if over done detracts).

Anyhow, Immersion relates to the ability of the player to experiance the world of the DM through their own imagination (no talking acting etc. are even needed). Some of the elements of later editions (like feats and skills). To me the game lost its focus on immersion (as defined above) and moved its focus to building (in the tradition of games like Magic) and acting in the capital A since (changing your personality to that of your characters, rather then keeping your personality and just doing minor alterations to it based more or less on the archetype).

Q: "Obviously I disagree. You're equating role-immersion style of play with the "correct" way to play. The primary objective is to challenge the players. The characters are merely means to this end."

Again, this is correct (to the original philosophy of the game in 1E anyway). And, I'd also argue that role-immersion is not taking on the personality, its bringing in your personality, and using the "tool kit" of your archetype (if you want to customize it, you just act differently (a fighter running around in plate or one in studded leather etc....no need for feats and skills...and much mor fun. Yep, Skills and Feats and traditional acting are all distractions from RPG style Immersion. Unfortunatly this old definition has been changed by those of later editions to meet the needs of the newer systems.

You seem to have an interesting definition of "immerson". I fail to see how skills and feats defeat immersion in any way. Having rules to govern actions does nothing to defeat immersion, it simply brings consistency that players can use to decide how they want to approach a given situation. Further, the examples you provide of someone following "RPG style Immersion" are generally more damaging to my experience than the "ham actor". Unless the "ham actor" is trying to hog the spotlight and be the centre of attention, then I only see them as contributing to the immersion. Now I don't constantly speak in character/first person in a gaming session, but I use a hybrid of the "my character moves here/says this" and first-person speak. Treating a character as simply a game piece who has no voice is about as immersive as a game of Monopoly IMO.

 

[tx7321]

To the topic: whats wrong with race class limits? Nothing.

Those limits are part of the rules that define the game. Anyhow, they also follow the pattern of many fairy tales and popular fantasy novels. Look at LOTR for instance. The elves are immortal. In that time you'd expect them to reach 100th level. So, level limits, in a way, are suggested. Anyhow, its Gary's universe.