BECMI D&D is overrated

[TristramEvans]

 

[Voros]

Level limits for the fighter class(es) kind of make sense since all of the demihuman races (including, in 1E, half-orcs) are smaller than humans and have lower maximum strength, so it seems reasonable they’d have a lower maximum hp cap, and the smaller the race the lower the cap (halflings and gnomes severely limited, elves and half-elves less so, dwarfs and half-orcs barely limited at all). That said, there’s no real reason they couldn’t continue to improve their attacks and saving throws even if they’re no longer gaining hit points (which BECMI sort of did with its Attack Ranks kludge).

Level limits for demihuman spell casters are harder to justify, and it’s really just a taste/flavor preference that Gygax wanted the highest level spells reserved to humans and for demihumans to exist in a secondary or supporting role - that they’re better for casual or younger players since they have a lot of “instant gratification” special abilities that are most useful at low levels, but the more serious and strategic-minded players who are thinking in the long term would (presumably) forego those shiny trinket abilities in exchange for unlimited potential.

It didn’t really work out that way (especially as the level limits kept being increased from OD&D to Greyhawk to AD&D to Unearthed Arcana to 2E to the point where most campaigns were never going to reach levels where they became relevant) and probably should have instead been dropped and replaced with something like requiring demihuman characters to earn 1.5 or 2x as many XP to level up as humans (alongside a maximum HD cap), which IIRC was presented as an optional rule in 2E.

I suspect they would’ve gotten there eventually even if Gary remained in charge longer (he was a LOT less wedded to the cobbled-together sacred cows of the 1E rules than a lot of the modern-day 1E grognards).

The one that always bothered me was the apparent idea that humans were better at magic than freakin' elves.

I don't like demihuman level caps but it's not a hill I'd die on. I think just capping levels for everyone at 10 or whatever, as in Beyond the Wall, is the better idea.

 

[Sosthenes]

Nah, level caps should be done by product. You're losing the valuable elf player market if they can't benefit from the new Lvl 40-50 book!
Which is also why "name level" 9 makes no economic sense. Way too early to retire! We have to postpone the Peter Principle and sell more Epic Adventuring Books! ("Fighting-Men in Heck" books sell more than "1001 ways to spruce up your stronghold")

 

[sharps54]

In all seriousness if I run again I’ll mix the ideas of ffilz and T T. Foster where all demihimans mature at about the same rate chronologically (a 17 year old dwarf and 17 year old human have the same level of maturity) and the level caps will reflect the end of their wanderings in the human lands & time to return to do dwarf stuff or elf stuff in their own lands.

 

[AsenRG]

There are class / level based games that do manage to make this work, but the best examples I can come up with are Role Master and MERP which has... ummm, skills.

I actually like the concept of proficiencies (ok, this also really is a skill system), and feats. The implementation has not always been the best, but it I thought it was a significant improvement.

View attachment 70121
Here it is in Gary’s own words from Europa 6-8 page 20, April of 1975. There may be more elegant solutions today, like not giving demi-humans any special in game abilities, but Gygax was literally writing the book on this stuff. Monday morning quarterbacking should to take that into account.

Well, it works!

Even more modern systems, like Pathfinder, typically see all non human parties so the problem of how to encourage a human centric game hasn’t gone away.

In the PF2 game I'd joined, the majority of PCs are humans, with a couple that might be either elves or half-elves, IDK.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

View attachment 70164

 

[Skywalker]

The one that always bothered me was the apparent idea that humans were better at magic than freakin' elves.

I don't like demihuman level caps but it's not a hill I'd die on. I think just capping levels for everyone at 10 or whatever, as in Beyond the Wall, is the better idea.

I always wanted to reskin the Cleric class into being the Elf. That way Elven magic would be as presented in Tolkien and different from human magic. I would probably remove the blunt weapon restriction and replace it with a metal armour and shield restriction.

 

[BASHMAN]

I had that boxed set. I always liked the DM screen with the reference sheets tucked in.

I also have it on Tabletop Simulator. I remember running it for some friends on there digitally, while having the real reference cards in front of me. It was super handy, actually.

 

[Voros]

Nah, level caps should be done by product. You're losing the valuable elf player market if they can't benefit from the new Lvl 40-50 book!
Which is also why "name level" 9 makes no economic sense. Way too early to retire! We have to postpone the Peter Principle and sell more Epic Adventuring Books! ("Fighting-Men in Heck" books sell more than "1001 ways to spruce up your stronghold")

I'm not as opposed to high-level play as others but we're probably better off with a game designed specifically for it. Exalted isn't it for me, nor even Godbound which is closer but still a bit too D&D for my taste.

 

[robertsconley]

Even more modern systems, like Pathfinder, typically see all non human parties so the problem of how to encourage a human centric game hasn’t gone away.

+15% XP Bonus for playing a human seems to do the trick in classic editions.

This


Plus



First started doing in 2012 and in the half-dozen campaigns along with several one-shot where I allowed character generation the party composition dramatically shifted to being human dominated. For one shot I allow for a varying levels by having players roll for starting XP on this chart.



Humans with a high prime requiste would get +20% starting XP using this. Also shifted the composition of the party to being human dominated.

For D&D 5e, not allowing feats but allowing the variant Human race package with it's one feat also works nicely. The XP Bonus incentive appears not to work as well for 5e players.

Human, Variant

• Ability Score Increase. Two different ability scores of your choice increase by 1.
• Skills. You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.
• Feat. You gain one Feat of your choice.

Both setups have been successfully tested with player who mostly roleplay and players who mostly powergame.

 

[Silverlion]

+15% XP Bonus for playing a human seems to do the trick in classic editions.

This
View attachment 70222

Plus

View attachment 70223

First started doing in 2012 and in the half-dozen campaigns along with several one-shot where I allowed character generation the party composition dramatically shifted to being human dominated. For one shot I allow for a varying levels by having players roll for starting XP on this chart.

View attachment 70227

Humans with a high prime requiste would get +20% starting XP using this. Also shifted the composition of the party to being human dominated.

For D&D 5e, not allowing feats but allowing the variant Human race package with it's one feat also works nicely. The XP Bonus incentive appears not to work as well for 5e players.

Human, Variant

• Ability Score Increase. Two different ability scores of your choice increase by 1.
• Skills. You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.
• Feat. You gain one Feat of your choice.

Both setups have been successfully tested with player who mostly roleplay and players who mostly powergame.

I've issues, personally with characters who have rolled well, or exceptionally well getting another benefit beyond the high scores (like XP bonuses) it seems biased to me and opposes letting people play what they roll even if not great, where they SHOULD be rewarded. Hence I'd give the bonus XP to those with lower stats (say 12 or less in their character class requisite.)

 

[Fenris-77]

I've issues, personally with characters who have rolled well, or exceptionally well getting another benefit beyond the high scores (like XP bonuses) it seems biased to me and opposes letting people play what they roll even if not great, where they SHOULD be rewarded. Hence I'd give the bonus XP to those with lower stats (say 12 or less in their character class requisite.)

That's a keen idea. I really like it.

 

[robertsconley]

I've issues, personally with characters who have rolled well, or exceptionally well getting another benefit beyond the high scores (like XP bonuses) it seems biased to me and opposes letting people play what they roll even if not great, where they SHOULD be rewarded. Hence I'd give the bonus XP to those with lower stats (say 12 or less in their character class requisite.)

Sure however keep in mind that the +5% XP bonus for Prime Requisites is basically worthless. (or even +10%)

Regarding XP Bonuses: The Worthless 10%

I've often felt intuitively that a 10% bonus to earned XP doesn't give you much, if anything. I decided to look at some actual numbers to se...

clashofspearonshield.blogspot.com

It only becomes significant in specific uncommon circumstances

So it seems that unless a) you play with a really slow level progression or b) you get to higher level play where the XP requirements flatten out, a 10% XP bonus will have no appreciable effect on game play.

The reason for the +15% I grant humans is that the total (+20%) is where it starts to be significant on the rate of progression for low and mid level characters given the amount of time it takes to level in my campaigns.

 

[sharps54]

But doesn’t the fact you have to bribe people to play humans in a human centric game seem wrong and speak to the problems with demi-humans in the first place?

 

[Fenris-77]

But doesn’t the fact you have to bribe people to play humans in a human centric game seem wrong and speak to the problems with demi-humans in the first place?

That is accurate, but it also assumes that the original design of demihumans was supposed to be completely fair an even compared to humans at ever level and in ever instance, which simply wasn't the case. When the reality of not playing to max level sunk in Humans started to look a little blah, and many (many) fantasy games since have done nothing to address the issue.

 

[ffilz]

I get that a 5% or 10% XP bonus doesn't amount to much, but it maybe creates some incentive to play a class your attributes are more suited for, though maybe players would do that anyway. I don't expect a player to play a PC that doesn't have at least one decent attribute. Where I see the "role playing challenge" is in playing a PC that has a particularly poor secondary attribute. I also definitely feel like we shouldn't be encouraging or expecting players to choose a class where the prime requisite is below average. I think the STR 13, INT 6 Magic User is silly.

It would be interesting to understand all the whys of players choosing to play mostly humans in my campaigns. For Glorantha, it's probably the reputation of dwarves and elves as being weird (though I've decided to make my Gloranthan dwarves NOT weird...). The other non-human races are definitely weird. That weirdness also goes with less fitting in with the dominant human society.

It's less obvious in Cold Iron where the elves and dwarves aren't any more weird than D&D elves and dwarves. Oh, and I didn't mention the race makeup of my Cold Iron Blackmarsh campaign. The play by post had an elf. The current campaign had a goblin (player has dropped out, the PC is going to hang in the background until the next time they're in town) and has a halfling. Otherwise all human.

 

[Toadmaster]

I've issues, personally with characters who have rolled well, or exceptionally well getting another benefit beyond the high scores (like XP bonuses) it seems biased to me and opposes letting people play what they roll even if not great, where they SHOULD be rewarded. Hence I'd give the bonus XP to those with lower stats (say 12 or less in their character class requisite.)

Rewarding low stats annoys me. I get it from a game balance perspective, but it is super metagamey, there being no in game reason to explain it. Although it also has no in game explanation, I would not have the same reaction to something that tied starting money / gear to stat totals thereby giving lower starting stats a bit of a bonus up front.

I will note I have no issue with, "just roll up another set, those stats suck", so do not believe in the idea that you just play what you rolled. Some characters were born (rolled) to be the NPC serving you grog at the tavern.

 

[Fenris-77]

Rewarding low stats annoys me. I get it from a game balance perspective, but it is super metagamey, there being no in game reason to explain it. Although it also has no in game explanation, I would not have the same reaction to something that tied starting money / gear to stat totals thereby giving lower starting stats a bit of a bonus up front.

I will note I have no issue with, "just roll up another set, those stats suck", so do not believe in the idea that you just play what you rolled. Some characters were born (rolled) to be the NPC serving you grog at the tavern.

I'm not sure that a throw away comment like those with less natural ability have to work harder (just to pick something) is any more or less metagamey than rewarding high scores simply for being high. Personal taste I suspect.

 

[ffilz]

Rewarding low stats annoys me. I get it from a game balance perspective, but it is super metagamey, there being no in game reason to explain it. Although it also has no in game explanation, I would not have the same reaction to something that tied starting money / gear to stat totals thereby giving lower starting stats a bit of a bonus up front.

I will note I have no issue with, "just roll up another set, those stats suck", so do not believe in the idea that you just play what you rolled. Some characters were born (rolled) to be the NPC serving you grog at the tavern.

Another way of wording my thoughts... In Cold Iron I used to joke about +1 farmers (a character that maybe amounted to +1 attribute bonus among the 3 physical attributes). I've been working on the combination of dice to more consistently roll up decent characters. I look to a character being able to reach absolutely at least +8 if not +10 between STR and DEX for a fighter. A spell caster needs to reach that between INT or WIS and WIL. A character who will be more of a fighter/caster can land more in the middle.

 

[ffilz]

I'm not sure that a throw away comment like those with less natural ability have to work harder (just to pick something) is any more or less metagamey than rewarding high scores simply for being high. Personal taste I suspect.

Why? If we consider attributes to be some kind of measure of natural talent, don't people in real life follow a path they have natural talent for? Now sure, some folks maybe don't seem to have any natural talent, though actually I suspect that really isn't the case. Now maybe there's an argument that most of what we attribute to natural talent is actually just environmental, what did your family encourage? What did you need to excel at to do well in the household and neighborhood you grew up in? But maybe all of that is still what we're rolling for when we roll attributes.

 

[Fenris-77]

Why? If we consider attributes to be some kind of measure of natural talent, don't people in real life follow a path they have natural talent for? Now sure, some folks maybe don't seem to have any natural talent, though actually I suspect that really isn't the case. Now maybe there's an argument that most of what we attribute to natural talent is actually just environmental, what did your family encourage? What did you need to excel at to do well in the household and neighborhood you grew up in? But maybe all of that is still what we're rolling for when we roll attributes.

Natural talent as it might relate to a class doesn't seem like an idea that can be captured or adequately explained by a single high stat, especially the physical stats. That's much like saying that natural physical talent guarantees success in a sport, which is obviously not true. It might indicate basic aptitude, but not so much success and development over time.

I think both options discussed are pretty metagamey btw, but I don't think one is obviously more naturalistic than the other.

 

[robertsconley]

But doesn’t the fact you have to bribe people to play humans in a human centric game seem wrong and speak to the problems with demi-humans in the first place?

I don't see a problem with demi-humans.

For example Middle Earth, the simple fact that when it comes to power gaming playing a Tolkien Elf or Dunedain Human is a superior choice. Both live longer, more healthier, and have modest powers, and superior physical capabilities. There is no balance when compared to a hobbit or a common human.

So rather than trying to gamify it in a fruitless quest for balance I embrace it. If you want to powergame in my setting be an Elf.


As for the +15% bonus for being human, I used it in part because it felt right given what I had written about ordinary humans in my setting over the decades. The fact that it was successful in returning adventuring parties to being human-centric like it was when I ran GURPS is a bonus.

How GURPS dealt with it is that you had to spend your starting character points on a racial package. So that created a small but significant tendency for players to create humans. I didn't go with +25% or +20% because I wanted the effect on my D&D based campaign to be small but significant. Through repeated playtesting I found +15% achieved that.

My view is that level caps are a bullshit way of trying to make a campaign human-centric. It does nothing for the low and mid-levels where the bulk of folks campaigns occur. In classic D&D from a powergaming standpoint, you are always better playing a demi-human. Your characters are more capable and have more options than playing a human. Unless you are one of those rare groups that regularly play at high levels. Then the equation changes. In this case, Gygax's decision was the wrong way to go about this.

Moreso throughout the playtesting of my Majestic Fantasy rules, I found that it better to estabilsh the baseline as the floor. Then every thing get a bonus on top of that. As you can see from the elf writeup, they get quite a bit of bonuses compared to humans. I found this to work out better than classic D&D default where the baseline is in the middle so some options are nothing but penalties. This is especially true for how GURPS work with races and skill packages.

So my call is that instead of level caps, I give humans an xp benefit that allows them to progress faster. It fits with the whole D&Dish fantasy idea that humans live short lives but burn brighter. Then I playtested it with multiple groups across different campaigns. And it works out better than the original setup that Gygax had in a more straightforward manner than level caps.

But to answer the question "What if everybody plays Elves?" To which my answer is "I guess the campaign is going to be about Elves having adventures then". But that turns out not to be the case. Hobbyists are quite varied in what they are interested in playing regardless of the mechanics.

It is a little different for those who played in my campaign previously because they are more familiar with the roleplaying consequences of the different options I have. Powergamers quickly gravitate to classes and races that are basically free agents like fighters, thieves, and humans. This is another reason folks always play elves in my campaigns (or other races that have outsize mechanical benefits like the Viridians).

 

[robertsconley]

I get that a 5% or 10% XP bonus doesn't amount to much, but it maybe creates some incentive to play a class your attributes are more suited for, though maybe players would do that anyway.

There is a psychological impact even when it is just +5%. Something I learned when I played different modifiers for the Human XP bonus.

It would be interesting to understand all the whys of players choosing to play mostly humans in my campaigns. For Glorantha, it's probably the reputation of dwarves and elves as being weird (though I've decided to make my Gloranthan dwarves NOT weird...). The other non-human races are definitely weird. That weirdness also goes with less fitting in with the dominant human society.

I tend to run D&D 5e more by the book but still roleplay the different races the same I do in GURPS or classic D&D. One 5e campaign I ran was pretty human centric due to where the group wanted to start out in the Majestic Wilderalnds. But one player wanted to play an Elf. So I warned him that he will be treated pretty much as a "rock star" wherever he goes in the realm. I stressed Just like a rock star which also includes the extreme negative reactions folks have when the rock star doesn't conform to expectations. He said "yah I got it". But over time he grew weary of the attention his character was getting and finally decided to make a new human character so he could be more chill on his adventures.

However, there are regions where elves are more a normal part of life. In Blackmarsh, around the Greywood for example. But as one player is finding out in my current 5e (1/month) campaign the human folks in Castle Blackmarsh really don't like their elven overlords and wish they would go away. He has all kinds of advantages from being an elf like the human guards don't give him or the party any shit. If he needs help (to a point) with something he can just go to the castle and speak to the Elven Constable of Castle Blackmarsh. But he is glad the party has decided to get away from Castle Blackmarsh to explore more of the wilderness.

 

[Sharrow]

But doesn’t the fact you have to bribe people to play humans in a human centric game seem wrong and speak to the problems with demi-humans in the first place?

No, it suggests that there's a problem with racial balance in general. If all the demi-humans are popular and humans are not, it's most likely to be easier and less fun-diminishing to buff humans rather than nerfing demi-humans (and having to get the balance right for each and every nerf).

If it's not that 'humans are unpopular' but that 'everyone plays an elf', then the elfs are the problem and the easiest solution is to hit the elfs with a nerfhammer.

 

[sharps54]

No, it suggests that there's a problem with racial balance in general. If all the demi-humans are popular and humans are not, it's most likely to be easier and less fun-diminishing to buff humans rather than nerfing demi-humans (and having to get the balance right for each and every nerf).

If it's not that 'humans are unpopular' as 'everyone plays an elf', then elfes are the problem and the easiest solution is to hit the elfs with a nerfhammer.

Although to be clear you aren’t hitting them with a nerf hammer when they were created nerfed by level caps

 

[Dammit Victor]

My big thing with playing demihumans in AD&D wasn't infravision or all the ridiculous little ribbons most non-humans get, it was the ability to multiclass. If humans could have multiclassed in AD&D, I would have played a lot fewer demihumans and a lot fewer Player's Option "Priests".

 

[sharps54]

I am not discounting what robertsconley wrote above and I’m glad that has worked well. Palladium’s games, like Rifts, or Marvel Super Heroes playing the classic Avengers. also works fine if you just accept the unbalance inherent in the game.

 

[sharps54]

My big thing with playing demihumans in AD&D wasn't infravision or all the ridiculous little ribbons most non-humans get, it was the ability to multiclass. If humans could have multiclassed in AD&D, I would have played a lot fewer demihumans and a lot fewer Player's Option "Priests".

The multiclass vs dual class decision is an interesting one.

 

[SavAce]

Another way of wording my thoughts... In Cold Iron I used to joke about +1 farmers (a character that maybe amounted to +1 attribute bonus among the 3 physical attributes). I've been working on the combination of dice to more consistently roll up decent characters. I look to a character being able to reach absolutely at least +8 if not +10 between STR and DEX for a fighter. A spell caster needs to reach that between INT or WIS and WIL. A character who will be more of a fighter/caster can land more in the middle.

Why all of the rolling of dice? Why not have players choose class, have attributes set to what you think is a reasonable minimum, plus a d6 or whatever? Or do point buy? Seems like there is this thing where people wanna roll attributes, expect them to all be above average for a class as a bare minimum to be "viable for play" or whatever, and maintain this "Welp, I just rolled this well naturally, and that makes my character a big damned hero" feeling. Or this weird sense of "balance" that is in conflict with some sense of "realistic" that continually runs up against this "Oh, its not fair, this fighter has a 13 STR!" thing. Like, do you wanna model some kind of realistic-seeming variation of attributes using randomization, or do you not? It's literally impossible to do both the random "natural distribution of capabilities" thing and the balanced (but I'm also bad-ass superior to most folks when doing my schtick) thing that is apparently being sought at the same time. At least given the rules base being talked about.

If a game does not generate characters players want to play, then either the players are playing the wrong game for them, or the game has broken chargen. Like, if you need to waste your time rolling up multiple attribute sets, I kinda feel that is dumb and shouldn't happen. Is this a bad opinion?

 

[ffilz]

Why all of the rolling of dice? Why not have players choose class, have attributes set to what you think is a reasonable minimum, plus a d6 or whatever? Or do point buy? Seems like there is this thing where people wanna roll attributes, expect them to all be above average for a class as a bare minimum to be "viable for play" or whatever, and maintain this "Welp, I just rolled this well naturally, and that makes my character a big damned hero" feeling. Or this weird sense of "balance" that is in conflict with some sense of "realistic" that continually runs up against this "Oh, its not fair, this fighter has a 13 STR!" thing. Like, do you wanna model some kind of realistic-seeming variation of attributes using randomization, or do you not? It's literally impossible to do both the random "natural distribution of capabilities" thing and the balanced (but I'm also bad-ass superior to most folks when doing my schtick) thing that is apparently being sought at the same time. At least given the rules base being talked about.

If a game does not generate characters players want to play, then either the players are playing the wrong game for them, or the game has broken chargen. Like, if you need to waste your time rolling up multiple attribute sets, I kinda feel that is dumb and shouldn't happen. Is this a bad opinion?

I did actually at one time propose a point buy for Cold Iron. On the surface it looked good, though I never play tested it. The problem with introducing a little randomness (pick class, take base attributes, randomize them a bit) is finding a good randomizer. I find 4d6k3 rolled a bunch of times does well for randomness. One thing that's hard to randomize in Cold Iron is the impact of attributes having a 3-18 base and then an addition 1-6 added as a potential they can reach. So an 18/20 plays differently than a 14/20. Also, if you actually roll an 18, you can roll all 3 d6 again, and each 6 bumps your 18 up one and then you get to roll that d6 again (and technically if you roll 4 sixes on 4d6k3 you get to roll all 4 of those d6 looking for 6s - I don't know that I've EVER had anyone do that).

Back in college, I had players roll 4d6k3 down the line, and then best of d6 and d4 for potential. But that resulted in a LOT of re-rolled PCs. So for my current campaign, I did roll 4d6k3 10 times and arrange, then roll d6/d4 8 times and arrange. I've still had a couple characters where I suggested rolling all over, or a few where I had them just re-roll a few sets of 4d6k3. I've also come along and set 1 to 3 of the d6/d4 to 5. I don't have them roll extra potential because I want some potentials to wind up at just 1 or 2.

The thing that argues against point buy is I don't want perfect primary attributes with everything else mediocre. I want close enough primary attributes, and some surprises in the others. And yea, someone who rolls at least 5 good attributes may chose a more balanced fighter/magic user (all magic users do have a fighter level, they usually just make it 1st). Some players may choose a not so great CON (survivable) to play a decent fighter/magic user. Or maybe they really DO want a good CHA or ALT (Alertness).

For RuneQuest 1e, anything like point buy doesn't work because INT is an uber stat. I DID do point buy that worked in RQ once, but that was because I didn't use the attributes to calculate the skill bonuses, instead I gave an array +25, +20, +20, +15, +15, +10, +10, +5 to distribute across Attack, Parry, Defense, Manipulation, Stealth, Knowledge, Perception, and Communication. Now a high INT just governed how many spells you could memorize, STR how big a weapon you could use and damage bonus (and limit to how high you could train CON), SIZ hit points and damage bonus (and limit to how high you could train SIZ and STR), CON hit points (and a limit to how high you could train STR), DEX strike rank (and trainable, but only to 1.5x original), CHA was it's own thing, and POW is useful but reasonably improveable.

So I roll random attributes, and re-roll if they suck. Or maybe just re-roll a couple attributes. No arrange because non-humans get different dice combinations. Plus arrange would still have the INT problem...

And I decided that allowing elf PCs was a mistake because of their uber INT (and secondarily DEX). Sure, I could have doubled down on the elves are weird, and maybe that would be the way to handle it. If you want to play an elf, you need to play an elf. And you're going to have to work hard to convince the other PCs to do things elves care about if you want to remain in good graces with Aldrya... And NO, you don't get to be a Rune Priest and/or Rune Lord and go off on human adventures. I could never convince my elf player to actually think about that. We finally kicked him out because his attendance went south so we didn't have to lean into his actually being a jerk role player.

 

[robertsconley]

My big thing with playing demihumans in AD&D wasn't infravision or all the ridiculous little ribbons most non-humans get, it was the ability to multiclass. If humans could have multiclassed in AD&D, I would have played a lot fewer demihumans and a lot fewer Player's Option "Priests".

I don't allow multi-classing in my Majestic Fantasy RPG. However what I do is the following.

Have a skill system that allows players to make their character better at things outside of spellcasting and combat regardless of class. The "rogue" classes focus on being better at things outside of spellcasting and combat. This takes care of some of the reasons why players want to multi-class.

I have a lot more classes that are grounded in how the setting works and thus make more sense. For example, the Montebank is in essence a magic-user/thief multi-classed character. Montebanks are "street" mages so they have more non-combat/non-magic skills than magic users but are weak spellcasters due to their informal training.

if a player made a good case for an elven/human/dwarven/etc. profession that is in essence a fighter/magic-user I would make a class for that would be grounded in how my Majestic Fantasy Realms works.

 

[Toadmaster]

Why all of the rolling of dice? Why not have players choose class, have attributes set to what you think is a reasonable minimum, plus a d6 or whatever? Or do point buy? Seems like there is this thing where people wanna roll attributes, expect them to all be above average for a class as a bare minimum to be "viable for play" or whatever, and maintain this "Welp, I just rolled this well naturally, and that makes my character a big damned hero" feeling. Or this weird sense of "balance" that is in conflict with some sense of "realistic" that continually runs up against this "Oh, its not fair, this fighter has a 13 STR!" thing. Like, do you wanna model some kind of realistic-seeming variation of attributes using randomization, or do you not? It's literally impossible to do both the random "natural distribution of capabilities" thing and the balanced (but I'm also bad-ass superior to most folks when doing my schtick) thing that is apparently being sought at the same time. At least given the rules base being talked about.

If a game does not generate characters players want to play, then either the players are playing the wrong game for them, or the game has broken chargen. Like, if you need to waste your time rolling up multiple attribute sets, I kinda feel that is dumb and shouldn't happen. Is this a bad opinion?

I like point buy done well. The problem is I find with many games point buy isn't done well, in most cases it is simply a cludged on option "because all the cool kids offer point buy". HERO and GURPS I am quite pleased with point buy, because they were developed around the idea.

The advantage to rolled is generally easier chargen, largely due to a reduced cycle, of picking stuff. I want strong and fast in a rolled game, is easy, 1st and second highest rolls go into str and dex, vs getting into point breaks and such.
The biggest problem I run into with rolled stats is so many games decide average human stats, and then set up rolls so PCs will be average people. Average people tend to go to work at mundane jobs, not go adventuring (the premise of CoC being one of those exceptions). Games that work out the rolling system so that PCs will be better than average make a lot more sense, but roll 3d6 and hope for good rolls is deeply embedded into generic game design.

Natural talent as it might relate to a class doesn't seem like an idea that can be captured or adequately explained by a single high stat, especially the physical stats. That's much like saying that natural physical talent guarantees success in a sport, which is obviously not true. It might indicate basic aptitude, but not so much success and development over time.

I think both options discussed are pretty metagamey btw, but I don't think one is obviously more naturalistic than the other.

Yeah, I have a lot less difficulty imagining being faster or stronger will make you better at things where strength and quickness matter. Being "smart" tends to be a plus for things that require a lot of thought like science and wizarding. Not a lot of people debate between a career as a trapeze artist or a sumo wrestler.

An option, I occasionally ran across although not super common "because, well because", is the idea that minimum stats are just that, minimum stats meaning anything lower gets boosted to that level. So they can be used as a dump stat. Rolled pretty good, but got that one 6. Ok, put it into STR (raised to 13 or whatever). They won't be the greatest fighter but will be a pretty well rounded person vs one with a terrible flaw. Or worst case if you play with that GM who wont allow re-rolls in terrible cases, at least you can be competent in the class you choose to play, getting the class minimums granted to your sub-class rolls.


Really comes down to if stats don't matter, then why even have stats? In older editions of D&D where pretty much anything between 8 and 16 did practically nothing they very well could have just had a 4 stats bad (1), average (2-5), above average (6) and AWESOME!!!!! (roll a 6, then roll a second 6, and then properly perform the secret GM handshake, wash his car and buy him a pizza). The fact there were what 5 or 6 classes of 18 (already just a 1-2% chance of rolling) just fries my brain.
I think this really goes back to D&Ds wargaming roots where the initial concept of PCs were more heroic figures on the battle field, not the individual player characters we tend to think of in the modern RPG sense.

 

[Toadmaster]

I don't allow multi-classing in my Majestic Fantasy RPG. However what I do is the following.

Have a skill system that allows players to make their character better at things outside of spellcasting and combat regardless of class. The "rogue" classes focus on being better at things outside of spellcasting and combat. This takes care of some of the reasons why players want to multi-class.

I have a lot more classes that are grounded in how the setting works and thus make more sense. For example, the Montebank is in essence a magic-user/thief multi-classed character. Montebanks are "street" mages so they have more non-combat/non-magic skills than magic users but are weak spellcasters due to their informal training.

if a player made a good case for an elven/human/dwarven/etc. profession that is in essence a fighter/magic-user I would make a class for that would be grounded in how my Majestic Fantasy Realms works.

I like this better than the usual multi-class or create a new class (leading to dozens of classes) that seems to be the current favorite.

So much can be done just by making "class abilities" options, so you can create that thief who also fights well, so they trades off some thief ability to roll attacks as a cleric. On the other end maybe they just want a sneaky fighter so they trade off the ability to wear heavy armor to gain move quietly and hide in shadows. This becomes an easy way to add lots of "character classes" without actually adding any. Many new classes are simply like college degrees with a major and a minor field of study vs a full dual major (multi-class). Paladin was a fighter major with a cleric minor, and the Ranger is a Fighter major with a druid minor.

I've seen this kind of thing used (RM/MERP sort of) but it is not as common as I think it should be if you want to stick with class / levels.

 

[ffilz]

I don't allow multi-classing in my Majestic Fantasy RPG. However what I do is the following.

Have a skill system that allows players to make their character better at things outside of spellcasting and combat regardless of class. The "rogue" classes focus on being better at things outside of spellcasting and combat. This takes care of some of the reasons why players want to multi-class.

I have a lot more classes that are grounded in how the setting works and thus make more sense. For example, the Montebank is in essence a magic-user/thief multi-classed character. Montebanks are "street" mages so they have more non-combat/non-magic skills than magic users but are weak spellcasters due to their informal training.

if a player made a good case for an elven/human/dwarven/etc. profession that is in essence a fighter/magic-user I would make a class for that would be grounded in how my Majestic Fantasy Realms works.

In Cold Iron everyone is multi-classed. But ultimately that's because Cold Iron really is skill based, but it utilizes character class to attain some things that don't work well with skill based or power based (Hero system for example). Cold Iron has escalating hit points, so a Fighter Level is the easiest way to work those, and then spells divided into levels with a Magic Level granting access to higher level spells is the easiest way to work that. Sure, GURPS restricts access to the more powerful spells with prerequisites, but I actually prefer a general spell level rather than it being not too costly to max out in one particular spell tree. There are other benefits such as spacing out attribute improvements, granting some special abilities, spell casting time, and spell success to name some. Magic has more parameters that increase with level, which Fighter grants enough skill points to have 5 combat skills at level. To round things out, I added Expertise Level to cover all the non-combat skill stuff.

From this, building different character types is simply deciding which classes and levels to take, and then deciding on skills.

Other than some Cleric only spells, everyone has access to all the spells. Each caster has one of 10 aspects (for Magic Users this is basically the school they belong to, for Clerics it depends on the god they follow). Spells are divided among those 10 aspects. A caster gets the spells of their aspect a level early (except a few spells that don't come early, but then specialization in that aspect makes the spell better in some other way). This aspect stuff is new and was a modification to fit Blackmarsh and the Majestic Fantasy Realms.

Cold Iron is pretty limited in special abilities so it doesn't need character class to limit and grant access.

 

[ffilz]

I like this better than the usual multi-class or create a new class (leading to dozens of classes) that seems to be the current favorite.

So much can be done just by making "class abilities" options, so you can create that thief who also fights well, so they trades off some thief ability to roll attacks as a cleric. On the other end maybe they just want a sneaky fighter so they trade off the ability to wear heavy armor to gain move quietly and hide in shadows. This becomes an easy way to add lots of "character classes" without actually adding any. Many new classes are simply like college degrees with a major and a minor field of study vs a full dual major (multi-class). Paladin was a fighter major with a cleric minor, and the Ranger is a Fighter major with a druid minor.

I've seen this kind of thing used (RM/MERP sort of) but it is not as common as I think it should be if you want to stick with class / levels.

I think you misread robertsconley - he DOES have lots of classes...

 

[T. Foster]

I don’t like point buy character creation for a couple reasons. One is that it brings out the obsessive minimax optimizing side of players and makes character creation take forever (it also creates decision paralysis among less experienced players where they worry about making “wrong” choices which isn’t helped at all when there are also more experienced players trying to tell them what to do and getting butthurt if they don’t follow their advice). The other is that I feel like it produces cookie-cutter characters and each player tends to find a comfort zone and stay in it effectively creating the same character over and over every time.

I much prefer some degree of randomness and unpredictability and taking what you’re given (while also recognizing that almost nobody wants to play a character who’s a scrub compared to the other players’ characters, and also that most players are going to come with at least some notion of what kind of character they want to play and if random rolls force them into something completely different they’re not going to have much fun, so a mixed approach with some randomization and some choice and customization is where I prefer to land).

 

[Silverlion]

I get that a 5% or 10% XP bonus doesn't amount to much, but it maybe creates some incentive to play a class your attributes are more suited for, though maybe players would do that anyway. I don't expect a player to play a PC that doesn't have at least one decent attribute. Where I see the "role playing challenge" is in playing a PC that has a particularly poor secondary attribute. I also definitely feel like we shouldn't be encouraging or expecting players to choose a class where the prime requisite is below average. I think the STR 13, INT 6 Magic User is silly.

It would be interesting to understand all the whys of players choosing to play mostly humans in my campaigns. For Glorantha, it's probably the reputation of dwarves and elves as being weird (though I've decided to make my Gloranthan dwarves NOT weird...). The other non-human races are definitely weird. That weirdness also goes with less fitting in with the dominant human society.

It's less obvious in Cold Iron where the elves and dwarves aren't any more weird than D&D elves and dwarves. Oh, and I didn't mention the race makeup of my Cold Iron Blackmarsh campaign. The play by post had an elf. The current campaign had a goblin (player has dropped out, the PC is going to hang in the background until the next time they're in town) and has a halfling. Otherwise all human.

I'm not talking about having super 'low' stats, just one closer to the minimum to be the class. Then again I preferred D&D having stat minimums to some degree.

As for making humans more prevalent, I've nothing wrong with giving them an XP bonus just because, or even +1 to every stat like 5E does, after all they don't get free proficiencies/bonuses, night vision, immunity to things, etc etc.

I might give them a bonus to Charisma (they're way more friendly to most races, and we all know WHY that is..), I'm also more curious so I'm not sure if that ding intelligence or if they should get skill/proficiency bonuses, but I admit I don't require a humanocentric game, I just want one with Trad-Fantasy races and maybe one other 'odd' race.

My current homebrew has Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings (with animal features, think slightly more than anime but less than furry), and I'm considering adding Gnomes (as a fungal/mushroom folk). Trying to decide if I should rewrite elves from Lunar Elves (with skin the color of the moon phases) to Storm Elves (more barbaric in culture usually, some other unique traits like a misty step style teleport in a thunder crack and flash (not bright enough to hurt anyone)

 

[Sharrow]

Really comes down to if stats don't matter, then why even have stats? In older editions of D&D where pretty much anything between 8 and 16 did practically nothing they very well could have just had a 4 stats bad (1), average (2-5), above average (6) and AWESOME!!!!! (roll a 6, then roll a second 6, and then properly perform the secret GM handshake, wash his car and buy him a pizza). The fact there were what 5 or 6 classes of 18 (already just a 1-2% chance of rolling) just fries my brain.
I think this really goes back to D&Ds wargaming roots where the initial concept of PCs were more heroic figures on the battle field, not the individual player characters we tend to think of in the modern RPG sense.

While AD&D had most stats doing bugger-all when under 15 (unless you were a spell caster, then your Int or Wis mattered a lot more), B/X, etc. had them matter from 13+ and 8-, which I always thought was much more sensible (probably because RQ2 did that, and that was my introduction to stat modifiers).

Thinking about it, if one wants PCs to have decent stats in their class/profession's primary abilities, but interesting variance elsewhere, maybe the thing to do would be to roll the prime stat(s) separately from the rest. So, in D&D (for example) a fighter might roll 2d6k1+12 for Strength, and then 4d6k3 five or six times, put five of them in the other stats however you like. Or do like Rolemaster, where you put the stats where you like, and can then substitute a 16 (for example) for your prime stat.

 

[SavAce]

I don’t like point buy character creation for a couple reasons. One is that it brings out the obsessive minimax optimizing side of players and makes character creation take forever (it also creates decision paralysis among less experienced players where they worry about making “wrong” choices which isn’t helped at all when there are also more experienced players trying to tell them what to do and getting butthurt if they don’t follow their advice). The other is that I feel like it produces cookie-cutter characters and each player tends to find a comfort zone and stay in it effectively creating the same character over and over every time.

I much prefer some degree of randomness and unpredictability and taking what you’re given (while also recognizing that almost nobody wants to play a character who’s a scrub compared to the other players’ characters, and also that most players are going to come with at least some notion of what kind of character they want to play and if random rolls force them into something completely different they’re not going to have much fun, so a mixed approach with some randomization and some choice and customization is where I prefer to land).

To be honest, this all sounds like a muddled, unsatisfactory middle-ground kind of situation. Like...

"(it also creates decision paralysis among less experienced players where they worry about making "wrong" choices which isn't helped at all when there are also more experienced players trying to tell them what to do and getting butthurt if they don't follow their advice)."

Point buy can be more work for fresh players, no doubt, but... Who plays with these "more experienced players" who get butthurt? Apparently a ton of people. Just leave them all behind. It's 2023. We don't have to play with f-ing dorks who are like "Well akshually you should put one more in your DEX because that will get you 3 Action Points a round and it would be totally stupid to do what you were thinking" and then get real emotions that would impinge on another player's enjoyment of the game over it. That new player and his joy are so much more important to me than this experienced player's whole vibe. My social life has no room in it for that guy. Life can be better. It really can.

It's like... you have players that really want to min-max, and you don't want them to, you want to frustrate that impulse, but not too much. Like, the dice might not cooperate with them totally, which might push them out of their comfort zone where they'd be moved to play something other than their usual kind of character, but they might have a particular notion of the kind of character they wanna play, so you don't want to prevent that either? It seems like conflicting, impossible desires. It feels like wishing a character generation system could lead some of your players to water they aren't particularly interested in drinking.

This all takes me back to the classic TSR Marvel Super Heroes character generation method of "modelling." Describe the character you want to play to the GM. Work with each other to settle upon what stats that character should have. Why would a player or GM dislike this? I can think of a variety of reasons, but any given player's or GM's answer to that question I think can be useful for illustrating what clashes of desires exist between the people at the table. What the "game" is about. All of that kind of stuff. Then hopefully everyone could be on the same page about it and it's not some cliché bad marriage where the players want to efficiently kill orcs and watch football, and the GM wants the game to evoke Tolkien and go out dancing.

 

[sharps54]

Some of us actually prefer random character generation. I’d much prefer to randomly generate and character and flesh out their backstory during play than have to make it all up ahead of time. Maybe it’s because I also GM and have to create all the NPCs when I run a game but when I play the last thing I want to do is mess with point buy.