Dungeons and Dragons: DM Advice and other stuff

[Necron 99]

I was reading through the Blue Expert (Mentzer) Box Set rules and came across a section that I thought was good advice to DMs, in regards to wandering encounters. I like randomness in the game, much more so than railroading or any sort of planned "story". But, I also think that the DM should be making logical calls in addition to balancing the dice as they fall where they may. Below seems to echo that sentiment.

Overusing Dice
A common error while Dungeon Mastering is the use of random dice rolls to determine everything. An entire evening can be spoiled if (for example) an unplanned wilderness encounter on the way to the dungeon goes badly for the party. The DM must use good judgment in addition to random tables. Encounters should be scaled to the strength of the party and should be in harmony with the theme of the adventure.

The DM may choose a number within the given die range rather than roll for the amount of damage, number appearing, etc. This may be necessary to allow for a more enjoyable game; heavy damage early in the game may spoil some of the fun.

Irrelevant to any of that, some other things I've picked up on while reading through the rule books:

I like that Dwarves top out at 12th level, Elves at 10th level, and Halflings at 8th. According to the book, when characters reach these levels, it is suggested that they begin building a stronghold. Personally, I think these levels are good for, essentially, retiring the character. You can get in a lot of great adventuring between 1st and 12th level (even if a halfling continues adventuring while sitting at 8th).

I especially enjoy the text as it describes a halfling's stronghold:

The stronghold will attract a whole community of other halflings if constructed in a place suited to their preferences. Halflings prefer to live in pleasant areas of fair country sides near rolling hills and gentle streams. When not working or adventuring, halflings will spend most of their time eating, drinking, talking with friends, and relaxing. Their communities are called Shires, and their recognized spokesman is called a Sheriff.

[Ancalagon]

<snip>
I like that Dwarves top out at 12th level, Elves at 10th level, and Halflings at 8th. According to the book, when characters reach these levels, it is suggested that they begin building a stronghold. Personally, I think these levels are good for, essentially, retiring the character. You can get in a lot of great adventuring between 1st and 12th level (even if a halfling continues adventuring while sitting at 8th).
<snip>

Emphasis mine.
That's years of gaming depending on frequency and play style. Back in the early 90s our group started PCs at 5th level and after 5 years they reached the 11th - 13th level range.

[Deil the Yin]

Awww, poor babies. Wouldn't wanna "spoil their fun" by making them take too much damage. It might seem risky... And we can't have our sweet widdle shugam-nugam players worrying about dyeing a horrible death, now, can we. Awww.

[Bellergal]

I for one never agreed with racial based level limits. It just never made any sense, not even for game balance (which every edition especially AD&D never had in the first place). I could understand a description in he races along the lines of “A typical halfling will cease adventuring at level X to settle down establishing a stronghold o community under his/her leadership.” However, why should that apply to every single individual of that race. There would be exceptions who would continue to advance their skills and thus their levels. Consider various athletic records that seemed they would never be beaten that now are no longer even the standard for high level competition (I.e. the 4 minute mile).

Also, as pointed out it is just not necessary. I played in multiple campaigns that lasted for years (some came to completion, others ended because… life) but only in recent years have I every played the same character above level 10. This after years of gameplay. The level limits of early editions were, in my opinion, an intention effort to apply a subconscious discouragement to play non-human races, for the sole purpose of keeping the game more “human” centric. It therefore accomplishes nothing more than limiting “role play”

Just my very humble opinion on that particular archaic rule.

Happy New Year everyone.

[Deil the Yin]

Och, aye!

Happy Hogmanay, like. Lang mae yer lum reek, ye ken.

I for one never agreed with racial based level limits. It just never made any sense, not even for game balance (which every edition especially AD&D never had in the first place). I could understand a description in he races along the lines of “A typical halfling will cease adventuring at level X to settle down establishing a stronghold o community under his/her leadership.” However, why should that apply to every single individual of that race. There would be exceptions who would continue to advance their skills and thus their levels. Consider various athletic records that seemed they would never be beaten that now are no longer even the standard for high level competition (I.e. the 4 minute mile).

Also, as pointed out it is just not necessary. I played in multiple campaigns that lasted for years (some came to completion, others ended because… life) but only in recent years have I every played the same character above level 10. This after years of gameplay. The level limits of early editions were, in my opinion, an intention effort to apply a subconscious discouragement to play non-human races, for the sole purpose of keeping the game more “human” centric. It therefore accomplishes nothing more than limiting “role play”

Just my very humble opinion on that particular archaic rule.

Happy New Year everyone.

[Ancalagon]

I for one never agreed with racial based level limits. It just never made any sense, not even for game balance (which every edition especially AD&D never had in the first place). I could understand a description in he races along the lines of “A typical halfling will cease adventuring at level X to settle down establishing a stronghold o community under his/her leadership.” However, why should that apply to every single individual of that race. There would be exceptions who would continue to advance their skills and thus their levels. Consider various athletic records that seemed they would never be beaten that now are no longer even the standard for high level competition (I.e. the 4 minute mile).

Also, as pointed out it is just not necessary. I played in multiple campaigns that lasted for years (some came to completion, others ended because… life) but only in recent years have I every played the same character above level 10. This after years of gameplay. The level limits of early editions were, in my opinion, an intention effort to apply a subconscious discouragement to play non-human races, for the sole purpose of keeping the game more “human” centric. It therefore accomplishes nothing more than limiting “role play”

Just my very humble opinion on that particular archaic rule.

Happy New Year everyone.

Bellergal! Welcome to the 3Ps!

Gygax writes of his humanocentric approach to AD&D in the DMG, page 21, when discussing the monster as a player character and how other races "orbit around the sun of humanity." I'm definitely cool with it. Demi-human level limits shape the very nature of a campaign world before PCs are rolled up.

IMO it makes perfect sense for "game balance" as a campaign world with long-lived races such as elves and dwarves would be populated with NPCs that are centuries or millennia old possessing scores or even hundreds of levels of experience. Such characters would certainly be driven by a desire for power since they continue to adventure and gain levels. It would be natural for such ultra powerful beings to divide up the land among themselves with shorter-lived species never having the time / lifespan to rise in power to challenge them. A campaign world without the level limits would have the shorter-lived races orbiting around the sun(s) of elves and dwarves... which in itself could be an interesting setting with humanity, halflings, et.al. as second class citizens or, for practical purposes, enslaved to the governments / dictatorships of the long-lived races... but that was not the intent of Gygax with AD&D.

Should a player wish to run a demi-human and not be constrained by level limits then that discussion should certainly be had with the DM. House rules can certainly be applied for each DM's campaign if desired. E.g. eliminating the limits or increasing the required XPs for new levels beyond the limits, etc.

I've given this some consideration for C&C. There are no level limits on demi-humans in C&C. However, each race has "Typical Classes" listed in its description. Should a player decide on running a demi-human as a non-typical class such as a dwarf wizard (a la Brian VanHoose from HackMaster), rather than disallow it or limit it to 6th, 8th, or some other level, I might adjust the XP table by increasing the required XPs by 150% or 200% to reflect the "strange" or "odd" member of the race pursuing something outside cultural / societal norms. There might be some RP considerations as well since dwarves don't produce wizards....

[Deil the Yin]

While I find Gygax's humancentric approach really interesting (and very useful as a contextual dynamic to boot), I totally don't see how there's a plausible correlation between that approach and the demi-human level limit, at least enough to have an actual effect on game balance. Only in an oversimplified metagame sense (or if the beings were evil) would ultra powerful beings be driven to divide up the land among themselves with shorter-lived species never having the time / lifespan to rise in power to challenge them... Case-in-point: Why does Superman never take over the world and become the supreme leader?

So the level limit just seems arbitrary. And I would argue that super-powerful beings would be much more likely to try and become gods. "Dividing up the land" would be more like having to manage rental property- a total pain in the ass.

Bellergal! Welcome to the 3Ps!

Gygax writes of his humanocentric approach to AD&D in the DMG, page 21, when discussing the monster as a player character and how other races "orbit around the sun of humanity." I'm definitely cool with it. Demi-human level limits shape the very nature of a campaign world before PCs are rolled up.

IMO it makes perfect sense for "game balance" as a campaign world with long-lived races such as elves and dwarves would be populated with NPCs that are centuries or millennia old possessing scores or even hundreds of levels of experience. Such characters would certainly be driven by a desire for power since they continue to adventure and gain levels. It would be natural for such ultra powerful beings to divide up the land among themselves with shorter-lived species never having the time / lifespan to rise in power to challenge them. A campaign world without the level limits would have the shorter-lived races orbiting around the sun(s) of elves and dwarves... which in itself could be an interesting setting with humanity, halflings, et.al. as second class citizens or, for practical purposes, enslaved to the governments / dictatorships of the long-lived races... but that was not the intent of Gygax with AD&D.

Should a player wish to run a demi-human and not be constrained by level limits then that discussion should certainly be had with the DM. House rules can certainly be applied for each DM's campaign if desired. E.g. eliminating the limits or increasing the required XPs for new levels beyond the limits, etc.

I've given this some consideration for C&C. There are no level limits on demi-humans in C&C. However, each race has "Typical Classes" listed in its description. Should a player decide on running a demi-human as a non-typical class such as a dwarf wizard (a la Brian VanHoose from HackMaster), rather than disallow it or limit it to 6th, 8th, or some other level, I might adjust the XP table by increasing the required XPs by 150% or 200% to reflect the "strange" or "odd" member of the race pursuing something outside cultural / societal norms. There might be some RP considerations as well since dwarves don't produce wizards....

[Ancalagon]

While I find Gygax's humancentric approach really interesting (and very useful as a contextual dynamic to boot), I totally don't see how there's a plausible correlation between that approach and the demi-human level limit, at least enough to have an actual effect on game balance. Only in an oversimplified metagame sense (or if the beings were evil) would ultra powerful beings be driven to divide up the land among themselves with shorter-lived species never having the time / lifespan to rise in power to challenge them... Case-in-point: Why does Superman never take over the world and become the supreme leader?

Because the writers at DC remember he's one of their Big 3 along with Batman and Wonder Woman. The writers want him to remain a super hero to sell books.

So the level limit just seems arbitrary. And I would argue that super-powerful beings would be much more likely to try and become gods. "Dividing up the land" would be more like having to manage rental property- a total pain in the ass.

High level characters often face the possibility of being granted titles and lands, based on their actions and reputation, by those in positions of power. Its a natural progression in a campaign world that is developed beyond simply fighting ever more powerful monsters. In time, a high level character powerful enough to establish, or perhaps usurp, a kingdom would undoubtedly have henchmen and other devotees / underlings who would be able to "manage rental property". Kings in feudal Europe did so for centuries. If the high level character manages things particularly well and becomes a super high level character then the character very well could try to become a god. (A)D&D talks about divine ascension in the Deities & Demigods tome. One of the parameters is that the character must have a body of sincere worshipers. A character with an established kingdom would have a great place for sincere followers to develop if the reign was highly successful and other conditions were met. All of this will naturally depend upon what style and/or flavor of campaign a group is aiming for so YMMV.

[Necron 99]

And I would argue that super-powerful beings would be much more likely to try and become gods.

High level characters often face the possibility of being granted titles and lands, based on their actions and reputation, by those in positions of power. Its a natural progression in a campaign world that is developed beyond simply fighting ever more powerful monsters. In time, a high level character powerful enough to establish, or perhaps usurp, a kingdom would undoubtedly have henchmen and other devotees / underlings who would be able to "manage rental property"....

...(A)D&D talks about divine ascension in the Deities & Demigods tome.

This is exactly the progression of characters, based on Mentzer's D&D Companion, Master, and Immortal sets. Companion introduces the players to Strongholds and land-holding, Master further discusses Siege actions, siege weapons, and peasant management, and Immortals takes the players to god-status and details adventure outside of the mortal realms.

Personally, I would never want to play at such high-levels, I just don't find the concepts of stronghold and immortals to be that interesting but TSR at the time had definitely envisioned PCs getting to that point.

Compared to earlier editions of the game, 2e actually gives quite a bit of advancement to racial, class-levels. For example, in AD&D, Gnome Illusionists top out at 7th level, whereas in 2nd Edition they can reach 15th level.

According to the 2nd Edition DMG:

In the AD&D game, humans are more motivated by ambition and the desire for power than the demihuman races are. Thus, humans advance further and more quickly.

Some players may argue that the greater age of various nonhumans automatically means they will attain greater levels. That can present problems. Demihuman characters are limited in how high a level they can achieve both to preserve internal consistency (humans are more flexible than nonhumans) and to enforce game balance. A DM, however, can change or eliminate these limits as he sees fit. As with class restrictions, the consequences must be examined in detail.

Given their extremely long lifespans, demihumans without limitations would quickly reach levels of power far beyond anything attainable by humans. The world would be dominated by these extremely powerful beings, to the exclusion of humans. Human heroes would be feeble compared to the heroes of elves and dwarves.

Given their numerous advantages, demihumans would be the most attractive races—no one would play a human. Again, this isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s very different. The resulting game will be completely unlike the standard sword-and-sorcery milieu. You might need to set the campaign in an ancient age, before the ascendance of men (though given the situation, it’s unlikely that men would ever become dominant).

All in all, though, this has always been one of the biggest downsides to "level-based" systems, it's just easier to flesh out and quantify a character in a skill-based system; I like the way Warhammer manages this. Characters don't have levels, they have careers. Each career acts as something of a "level" or advancement, however, to advance your career, you have to gain experience which is then spent to raise stats and skills to then meet the requirements of further careers.

[Deil the Yin]

Funny you should mention class vs skill based RPG's; it's totally been on my mind after recently watching a really good (ie objective + even Professor Dungeon Master promoted in the Dungeon Craft FB group) video from Seth Skorkowski on this exact topic. See the video here:


What conclusion I came to is that the class base system fits very well the medieval genre that is typical for D&D specifically, while skill based systems work well with modern and sci-fi systems. There's a lot of subjectivity in there as I think you'll find from Seth's video, which is fine by me: it's about playing the game you enjoy most, and there are a lot of personal factors that figure into that equation. As far as medieval fantasy game settings/systems, D&D5e has been the most inspiring and best-fitting game for me since my first exposure to AD&D in the early 80's. I've been able to feel comfortable enough running a campaign with minimal modifications/house rules to the system, finding the system very malleable to fit my style of play not to mention the phenomenal support from both WotC, third party publishers and how-to blogs/vlogs.

Although I find it a bit obtuse, I enjoyed the career system of Warhammer Fantasy as well, probably because the careers added fluff and background/flavour to the world setting. This flavour is the key factor that makes me want to play it (more than once).

All in all, though, this has always been one of the biggest downsides to "level-based" systems, it's just easier to flesh out and quantify a character in a skill-based system; I like the way Warhammer manages this. Characters don't have levels, they have careers. Each career acts as something of a "level" or advancement, however, to advance your career, you have to gain experience which is then spent to raise stats and skills to then meet the requirements of further careers.