Quote from: StormBringer;271151Pendragon certainly.  The anecdotes I recall are that you do one or maybe two adventures per year.  Which is sensible, really.  Most of the time is spent ruling your fiefdom, only the greatest of dangers would cause you to ride forth and battle the enemy.

And it makes a great deal of sense in the context of the game, especially if you use the Great Pendragon Campaign - the progress of the Arthurian epic in the background, from the rough and ready times of Uther Pendragon to the anarchy of the interregnum to the new dawn of Arthur's court, plus all the different phases in his reign from his coronation to his death, has a big effect on the game; even if the PC knights never take part in the core events of the Arthurian epic (and arguably it's less railroady to make sure that there are other, equally worthy things they can do), each phase of the myth has its own tone and atmosphere which pervades the campaign. Having only one adventure every year or so in game time ensures that the campaign will cover at least a fair chunk of the Arthurian legend.

Quote from: Warthur;271167And it makes a great deal of sense in the context of the game, especially if you use the Great Pendragon Campaign - the progress of the Arthurian epic in the background, from the rough and ready times of Uther Pendragon to the anarchy of the interregnum to the new dawn of Arthur's court, plus all the different phases in his reign from his coronation to his death, has a big effect on the game; even if the PC knights never take part in the core events of the Arthurian epic (and arguably it's less railroady to make sure that there are other, equally worthy things they can do), each phase of the myth has its own tone and atmosphere which pervades the campaign. Having only one adventure every year or so in game time ensures that the campaign will cover at least a fair chunk of the Arthurian legend.

Having never played, I will defer to other experts such as yourself regarding the details, but it does make sense.

Perhaps not so much in AD&D, but the original source material hobbits went on one adventure in their lifetimes, so in that light, level limits can makes some sense, if you assume that they aren't out adventuring constantly as players are wont to do.  Every couple of years, they get restless again, grab a couple of levels, and by the time they are 50 or 60, they are at their limit and ready to settle down to sherriff whatever corner of their shire they feel comfortable in.  

As KenHR mentioned above, there are no other instances of hobbits to draw from, so halflings really only have one 'template'.  Elves and dwarves were somewhat more common, but clearly influenced by Tolkien most of all.  Similar motivations can be introduced for them, as they are quite long lived.  So, there is reasonable justification for level limits, but it requires a bit of tuning in the expectations of the players.

How much of the demi-human’s generally longer life spans played into the level limits? How would humans really compete with the longer lived races if they, simply by virtue of more time to adventure, could easily outpace humans?

From a mechanical point of view, why would a player choose a human PC when they could get better stats and longer life with the same level potential? Later games seem to balance humans against this, but what was their originally? I don’t recall anything.

Quote from: CavScout;271286How much of the demi-human's generally longer life spans played into the level limits? How would humans really compete with the longer lived races if they, simply by virtue of more time to adventure, could easily outpace humans?

From a mechanical point of view, why would a player choose a human PC when they could get better stats and longer life with the same level potential? Later games seem to balance humans against this, but what was their originally? I don't recall anything.

The level limits were always there; I don't think they had an explanation as to why.

Quote from: KenHR;271299The level limits were always there; I don't think they had an explanation as to why.

Not that I recall.  I could run a search on the Dragon Archive, I am sure someone explained it at some point, but the original books were quite silent on the matter.

Quote from: KenHR;271299The level limits were always there; I don't think they had an explanation as to why.

Not that I recall.  I could run a search on the Dragon Archive, I am sure someone explained it at some point, but the original books were quite silent on the matter.

You losing your memory, Stormy?  15 minutes between a double post?

Quote from: KenHR;271316You losing your memory, Stormy?  15 minutes between a double post?

Damned database errors.  

Quote from: StormBringer;271208Perhaps not so much in AD&D, but the original source material hobbits went on one adventure in their lifetimes, so in that light, level limits can makes some sense, if you assume that they aren't out adventuring constantly as players are wont to do.

The thing is that in a lot of fantasy and scifi literature, the heroes don't improve much. They get wealth, fame and recognition, but they often begin bad-arsed and stay it.

The story of Pug/Milamber is a story of his improving his abilities, but Magician was written from a rpg campaign.

The stories of Waylander, Druss, Conan, and so on, these guys started awesome and finished it.

So the argument that in the books they did so-and-so, so in our games we should make them do so-and-so, if we follow that then we have to use systems like classic Traveller rather than systems like D&D - where the PCs won't change much during play. And then we won't need class restrictions and level limits, you're pretty much limited just by what you start as.

It's not about the literature that gives us class restrictions and level limits, it's game balance and protection against munchkinism.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271332And then we won't need class restrictions and level limits, you're pretty much limited just by what you start as.

Or you could use Heroquest....I think.

Regards,
David R

I would argue that Conan starts awesome and gets more awesome as time goes on. A lot of this is reflected not just in the way he deals with combat, but also in how he moves from being a solo wanderer to a leader of increasingly larger bands of men.

I would also say this for characters like the Mouser and Fafhred as well, or Vance's kirth Gerson or Glawen Clattuc. These characters start strong and get stronger.

Quote from: David R;271333Or you could use Heroquest....I think.

HQ has GM awards of Hero Points which can be used as the "I'd like to save my arse now please, GM" factor, or for improvement of character abilities.

So a player could blow through the xp being awesome and not improve their character, but it seems unlikely if it's an actual campaign rather than a session or two.

Quote from: AosI would argue that Conan starts awesome and gets more awesome as time goes on. A lot of this is reflected not just in the way he deals with combat, but also in how he moves from being a solo wanderer to a leader of increasingly larger bands of men.

It depends what system we're talking about. If GURPS, then he's put xp towards Ally Group. But systems with class and level restrictions don't usually have those sorts of traits. AD&D1e gave you so many followers at a particular level. So you might say he went from 8th to 10th level or something.

But remember that he sort of stumbled into kingship. He'd been fighting pirates and had come across the treasure of Tranicos, and was stranded there with it. A bunch of leading men from Aquilonia were unhappy because their king was bonkers, and wanted to overthrow him. They went to find Conan because they thought he'd lead their army well. And his treasure, as it happened, financed their war effort. No thought was given to who would replace the mad king, but when Conan strangled him on his throne, he just stepped on up and put on the crown, saying, "how does it look?"

There is no indication in the stories that he became any better at cutting off heads as he grew older. Only that he grew in fame and influence.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271341But remember that he sort of stumbled into kingship. He'd been fighting pirates and had come across the treasure of Tranicos, and was stranded there with it. A bunch of leading men from Aquilonia were unhappy because their king was bonkers, and wanted to overthrow him. They went to find Conan because they thought he'd lead their army well. And his treasure, as it happened, financed their war effort. No thought was given to who would replace the mad king, but when Conan strangled him on his throne, he just stepped on up and put on the crown, saying, "how does it look?"

1. I did mention that it was tied into how many men he led.

2. What story is all that above laid out in?