Quote from: Aos;341614I think level limits were left out of later editions because they were widely ignored in earlier editions anyway, not because of political correctness.

Quite.

When we abandoned them, in the early 1980s, I don't think we'd even heard of political correctness.  Certainly we wouldn't have cared.

We just thought they were stupid.  In particular, we couldn't buy immortal elves not being able to become powerful archmagi, or dwarves not becoming puissant warriors.

It just made no sense to us.  I think our reaction was common, and that's why they were dropped.  It was a lousy rule that people ignored anyway.

Another thing: in those early days it was assumed that the most active players (i.e. the ones likeliest to get a high level character in the first place) would have more than one character, so unless they're all level-limited demi-humans, you just gradually retire the level-limited characters and focus on your non-limited characters instead. That's what I did -- my first two successful characters were the aforementioned dwarf and a half-elf ranger who also maxed out at 8th level. Those guys both saw a ton of play in the early years, but once they'd maxed out they faded into the background and were overshadowed by my two human characters -- a fighter (who eventually got up to 13th, my all-time highest-level character) and a bard (F5/T9/Bard, uhh 3 or so -- unfortunately he finally hit actual Bard levels almost simultaneously with when I pretty much quit playing and became a full-time DM so I never got to take full advantage of that shallow XP table and all those extra hit dice ).

Quote from: The Shaman;341703My only issue with demi-human level limts as written is that they don't really reinforce the stereotype of each race. If I were to run 1e AD&D again, I would break it down thus:

• Dwarves are unlimited in fighter instead of thief
• Elves are unlimited in magic-user instead of thief
• Gnomes are unlimited in illusionist instead of thief
• Half-elves remain unlimited in druid (subject to the maximum highest level for the class) and thief
• Halflings remain unlimited in thief
• Half-orcs remain unlimited in assassin (subject to the maximum highest level for the class)

We never had a demi-human 'max out' in our games because almost every demi-human was multi-classed and was still gaining levels alongside the humans throughout the game. Single-class demi-humans were extremely rare in our group.

That would have been fine.  Everyone unlimited in Thief just made no sense to us at all, it was too blatantly a game mechanic, too blatant even for D&D where we were pretty tolerant of mechanics we couldn't make much sense of.

Edit:  And why exactly is there a discussion of nature versus nurture and eugenics history in a thread about made up species in a fantasy world where evolution may never have happened?

You know why elves are how they are?  It's not a question of nature versus nurture, it's how the gods created them.  It's not our universe, our principles don't carry over.

Quote from: Akrasia;341764I like your list!  

However, it would make elves pretty much the ubermenschen of the fantasy world.  Given that they live for 1000+ years, you likely would have several hundred (perhaps more) elven archmages (with levels in fighter and/or thief as well) as the most powerful NPCs around.

Yeah, I would have to includes something about elves 'leaving for the West' or some such to account for that.

Still, not every human reaches maximum levels and many elves would probably leave off gaining even in the course of a millenial lifetime. Doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle.

Quote from: The Shaman;341900Yeah, I would have to includes something about elves 'leaving for the West' or some such to account for that.

Still, not every human reaches maximum levels and many elves would probably leave off gaining even in the course of a millenial lifetime. Doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle.

I think the general idea was that the longer lived races simply got bored with whatever it was they were doing and wandered off to do something else.

Quote from: Balbinus;341872That would have been fine.  Everyone unlimited in Thief just made no sense to us at all, it was too blatantly a game mechanic, too blatant even for D&D where we were pretty tolerant of mechanics we couldn't make much sense of.

Edit:  And why exactly is there a discussion of nature versus nurture and eugenics history in a thread about made up species in a fantasy world where evolution may never have happened?

You know why elves are how they are?  It's not a question of nature versus nurture, it's how the gods created them.  It's not our universe, our principles don't carry over.

I don't know about anybody else, but my point was that these days it's less acceptable (or, let's say, more controversial) to talk about things like "racial difference" openly. The entire concept sounds outmoded to most people, especially those who consider themselves liberals or leftists, and the D&D designers are no exception. That's bound to be one small factor in its removal from the game. The fact that it's fantasy isn't an issue; the point is merely that "racial difference" generally speaking isn't a concept you hear people talking about in any context anymore.

Of course there are bigger factors, e.g. lots of whiny annoying people complaining that their elf character couldn't become a 20th level mage (the pain!).

Quote from: noisms;341931I don't know about anybody else, but my point was that these days it's less acceptable (or, let's say, more controversial) to talk about things like "racial difference" openly. The entire concept sounds outmoded to most people, especially those who consider themselves liberals or leftists, and the D&D designers are no exception. That's bound to be one small factor in its removal from the game. The fact that it's fantasy isn't an issue; the point is merely that "racial difference" generally speaking isn't a concept you hear people talking about in any context anymore.

Of course there are bigger factors, e.g. lots of whiny annoying people complaining that their elf character couldn't become a 20th level mage (the pain!).

In my group we dropped level limits, even though I think all the PCs were in fact human.  It just didn't work for us from the perspective of the game world making any sense.

So I don't think it's a whiny annoying people issue, I think it's a it made no sense to anyone issue.

I disagree on the racial difference point, I don't think it's an issue in this context at all.  I think it was just a bad rule that didn't get applied, and so then got dropped.  I don't see any need to wedge contemporary politics into that.

Quote from: Balbinus;341983In my group we dropped level limits, even though I think all the PCs were in fact human.  It just didn't work for us from the perspective of the game world making any sense.

So I don't think it's a whiny annoying people issue, I think it's a it made no sense to anyone issue.

I disagree on the racial difference point, I don't think it's an issue in this context at all.  I think it was just a bad rule that didn't get applied, and so then got dropped.  I don't see any need to wedge contemporary politics into that.

Fair enough.

Quote from: pawsplay;341623Sure.

The article also mentions Margaret Sanger (birth control activist) and Theodore Roosevelt. Also, although Nazism is hard to classify, the National Socialist Party took its name from a pro-labor movement, making Hitler, at least in theory, part leftist.

Jesus Christ -  the number of times I have heard that sort of idiocy.

Just go away and read a proper book about fascism that isn't by Jonah Goldberg.

You want a reading list? - pick up anything by Ian Kershaw or Richard Evans or Michael Burleigh that has a picture of Hitler or swastikas on the cover.

They'll all give you a pretty exhaustive account of how Nazi ideology was formed and that its most fundamental enemy - the one that they defined themselves in polar opposition to and the one whose T-34s and Katyushas and Stormoviks actually destroyed Nazism in 1945 - was always what they called 'Marxism'.  

It might also benefit you to read an actual book or two on American history - in which case you might come to understand that neither Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson were in any way shape or form leftists.

TR was an unabashed admirer of British imperialism and Prussian Militarism.

WW while fond of vague liberal rhetoric only applied it to superior white races and as President launched the most savage and sustained attack on radicals and leftists of all varieties in the whole of American history - executing, imprisoning and deporting tens of thousands.  

And eugenics while it did have some left-wing supporters was overwhelmingly a movement of the political right - and it was only in Nazi Germany that it became a central part of any ruling ideology.

Now that's off my chest please go back to discussing half-elven fighter/magic-user/thieves....

In my experience, people tend to act as if their own political view is allowed to pick and choose what it likes from its tradition, but that others can't.

There also seems to be a kind of 'doublethink', where people know that their tradition had dodgy elements, yet act as if they don't know.

For example:

Anarchists generally know that many of the founders of anarchism were committed anti-semites.

Conservatives generally know that the Founding Fathers of the United States were mostly slave-owners and in effect rapists, and that many conservatives of later decades admired Hitler or reviled Martin Luther King as a communist.

Christians generally know that many Christians in olden times were misogynistic to the point of murder.

Atheists generally know that many atheists in the past were in favour of 'scientific' measures such as eugenics.

Liberals generally know that many liberals were in favour of appeasing Hitler.

In each case, politically-committed people tend to act as if the past bad actions of followers of a particular view can be used against that view, with the exception of their own. In that case it's the fault of the times, or of individuals.

Which, I submit, lies behind a lot of the arguments about how "the Nazis were your lot", such as the one which has blighted this thread.

Quote from: noisms;341931I don't know about anybody else, but my point was that these days it's less acceptable (or, let's say, more controversial) to talk about things like "racial difference" openly. The entire concept sounds outmoded to most people, especially those who consider themselves liberals or leftists, and the D&D designers are no exception. That's bound to be one small factor in its removal from the game. The fact that it's fantasy isn't an issue; the point is merely that "racial difference" generally speaking isn't a concept you hear people talking about in any context anymore.

Of course there are bigger factors, e.g. lots of whiny annoying people complaining that their elf character couldn't become a 20th level mage (the pain!).

Didn't someone already point out that Elves, Halfings, dwarves are not races they are species. Races would be the Northern Barbarians vs the dessert nomads, or the Drow vs the Sindar, etc.

So if it eases any racial PC feeling you are having this is discussion is more like who makes better wizards Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus or Chimps than who makes a better wizard Jews, Bushmen, Orientals or Hispanics.

Quote from: Hubert Farnsworth;342064Jesus Christ -  the number of times I have heard that sort of idiocy.

blah blah blah Hubert substituting the conclusions drawn from his own prejudices for knowledge of facts

I just want to point out how unaccountably rude and predjudicial this post is. You have no idea what I have or have not read. Despite your apparent feeling that you can divine my reading list, I suspect you do not realize I have a passion for Hitler biographies. Also, your understanding of the history of eugenics is flawed if you believe it was a right-wing phenomenon.

Also, I assume you already realize this, but for the benefit of others, I feel I should observe that leftism is not equivalent to Marxism. In fact, notable social democrat JFK was anti-communist.

Quote from: jibbajibba;342099Didn't someone already point out that Elves, Halfings, dwarves are not races they are species. Races would be the Northern Barbarians vs the dessert nomads, or the Drow vs the Sindar, etc.

So if it eases any racial PC feeling you are having this is discussion is more like who makes better wizards Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus or Chimps than who makes a better wizard Jews, Bushmen, Orientals or Hispanics.

It's funny how easy it is to misread people's posts on internet forums.

I'm not having any "racial PC feeling". I haven't even talked about my feelings. I was talking about society in general and RPG designers in particular.

My "feeling" is that I couldn't give a flying fuck about the racial difference issue in humans either way. I just think racial level limits in D&D are a nice idea (see earlier posts for reasons why).

Quote from: noisms;342255It's funny how easy it is to misread people's posts on internet forums.

I'm not having any "racial PC feeling". I haven't even talked about my feelings. I was talking about society in general and RPG designers in particular.

My "feeling" is that I couldn't give a flying fuck about the racial difference issue in humans either way. I just think racial level limits in D&D are a nice idea (see earlier posts for reasons why).

I think it would have been a better idea if guidelines were presented to bring any particular race a group preferred to the forefront.  One group may be quite keen on dwarves, for instance, so it would make more sense for a world dominated by them to have level limits on other races instead.

That said, I don't recall having any particular discussions regarding dissatisfaction with level limits in my old group.  One guy played a Halfling Thief, so no hassle there, and one other guy rotated characters on a fairly regular basis, so the level caps weren't reached.  I guess I don't see the psychic trauma of not having a 15th level Elf Magic User or whatever.

You know, I'd consider on a case-by-case basis letting a demi-human character surpass their level limit if, in exchange for doing so, they were willing to give up all their racial bonuses in combat, to saving throws, infravision, dropped all but one of their classes, etc. So you've got your 14th level magic-user who you call an "elf" and he acts like an elf and looks like an elf, but he doesn't have infravision, 90% resistance to sleep & charm, immunity to ghoul paralysis, bonus to find secret doors, surprise bonus, +1 to hit w/ swords & bows, and can't multiclass (and if he was multiclassed previously he loses all abilities in his other class). I wonder how many players would take that bargain -- I suspect most of them would still complain and want to have it both ways -- all the cool racial bonuses and unlimited levels.