L is for Levels

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

L is for Levels...specifically levels of experience. And, specifically, my thought regarding "level restriction."

I considered making this post's subject "languages," but what I was going to say? The human ("Common") tongue is English. Elves speak Spanish (my kids are bi-lingual and tend to play a lot of elves and half-elves, so that's fun). Orcs speak orc, usually (basically unintelligible except with orcs who speak Common/English...but, then, an orc who doesn't speak English is usually not going to be the type to have a conversation with PCs). Dwarves speak...what? Norwegian maybe? (we have a lot of Scandahoovians in north Seattle) Eh. Who cares? It's not worth a long post at this point...although being able to speak languages is important (and helps make demi-human characters viable in the game).

So, instead let's talk about levels. And this time, you won't see a bunch of AI generated content (apologies for that). Though...well, we'll see if that means "improvement" or not.

I love levels. I especially love how they function in AD&D. I love both what they mean, and I love what they do, mechanically speaking. I love level caps, and I use them exactly as written in the 1E Players Handbook, EXCEPT that I use the +2 level bonus rule from the UA for single-classed demi-humans. Only in classes they could normally multi-class, of course (sorry to all the elven assassins).

I've mentioned this stuff in passing, previously, but I wanted to set down my rules about this once and for all. 

Back circa 2020, I went through ALL the races and ALL the classes and ALL the level restrictions (and multi-class restrictions) to see ALL the potential types of characters that might appear in my campaign setting. I looked at the experience point totals across class types; I looked at what special abilities a character would have at particular character level (whether you're talking "access to 6th level spells" or the ability to multi-attack or attract followers or whatnot). And I made my own notations of how far I wanted each race to level in each class (or whether or not I wanted them to have access to a particular class) so that the "feel" of my campaign would be "correct" for how I envisioned my game world.

And what I found was that the rules in the PHB, as written, were pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME as the conclusions I had come to myself. Considering WHAT my game world looked like...for example, what "half-orcs" are or the distinct manner that elves appear in my game...I wanted certain limits to their race's ability to advance in certain areas.  I wanted limitations in place, because I wanted my world to look a particular way.  Maintaining the level limits, as is, allows me to keep the flavor I want: that of a human-centric fantasy world. 

Rule-wise, non-human characters receive a LOT of advantages over humans, not the least of which include the ability to multi-class and the ability to speak multiple languages from the start. However, because of level and class restrictions, humans still have value and thus players are faced with an interesting choice at the time of character creation: choose a race with a plethora of advantages (but a cap on advancement) or choose a human. Life's full of tough choices, and the choices we make says something about us (at least in that particular moment in time).  That's not WHY I retain level limits, it's just something I've observed that I find...worth mentioning.

As I said: "an interesting choice." And when a player begins approaching that level cap another interesting choice comes about: do I want to keep playing this character? Or do I want to start a new character (perhaps one with more potential for advancement)? That, too, is an interesting choice that I've watched both my kids wrestle with. 

In the end, I find it good for the game. Do I want to appease my players by removing level caps so their beloved player can keep going? No, I don't. Attachment to a character is expected to occur when a person puts time and effort into playing a singular PC, but attachment is not desirable. Too much attachment is what leads to things like 5E and death saves and whatnot. Too much appeasement leads to nonsensical gonzo games with half-demon clerics of Law and dragonborn bards croaking songs through a mouthful of flame. 

F. That. Noise.

Tough choices. Look, folks: we live this one life...we make choices, priorities of our time and energy, depending on what we think is important. Right now, I'm writing a blog post because I think practicing my writing and getting out some of my game philosophy and sticking to my A-Z commitment are all MORE IMPORTANT than doing the dishes or folding the laundry (both things I'll do later). When my newly graduated kid wakes up, I'll probably leave off this post (even if it's not yet done) because spending time with my 14 year old, soon-to-be grown-and-gone kid, is more important. The older we get the more choices we seem to be faced with, and the less time we have left to make those choices and decide what our life is about. And who knows what our "life after death" will look like?

Playing D&D with tough choices is good training.

Now, it HAS been suggested that one could allow players unlimited level advancement (in any race) while still presenting players with "an interesting choice" by giving humans various advantages of their own, just as the non-human species have. You see this tack with 3E-5E systems (where they first removed level limits and class restrictions), but I'm talking about Old School DMs adding additional rules and mechanics to the (1E) game...folks that I respect and admire. However, I have MULTIPLE reasons for not going this route and, instead, leaving the level restrictions in place, as is:

1. With regard to levels and racial abilities, the game already functions as written. Why make the effort to "re-balance" humans just in order to "fix" something that already functions?
2. Even if I wanted to make the effort, I don't trust my own ability to balance these restrictions and I observed (in the 3E era) how racial advantages can lead to "optimal builds;" I don't want to risk that and I don't need to because (again) the game already works as written, and I'm not about appeasement.
3. I don't want to "add" anything to humans because I see them as the BASELINE for play. Advantages and disadvantages conferred on nonhumans show how they are exceptional or how they "break" the baseline...how they differ from the baseline. Human ability scores go from 3-18 in every category; humans have access to all classes at the max level obtainable in those classes. Humans start knowing one language; human have normal vision; humans have saves and attacks and armor class as a person of their level and class with baseline abilities.  Humans are the STANDARD...they are the standard of what play would look like if all the nonhumans were to disappear from the game. I do not want to give them a "bonus anything." Humans set the bar...it's a human-centric game...and nonhumans are defined by how they are NOT human.

And WHY is it a human-centric game? Because it is played by humans. Everyone reading my words here (well, except for AI algorithms, I suppose) are humans. The only people to whom the game matters at all (AI really doesn't care about D&D) are humans.

"But I want to be an elf!"  Or whatever. Yes, I know. We play these fantasy games to escape (for a time) from our present reality...RPGs are escapist entertainment by design. But what exactly are you trying to escape from? Where is it that you want to escape to?  I've written before how, as an adventure game, D&D allows us to experience adventures in a way that aren't normally possible and/or particularly safe, convenient, etc. THIS is the type of "escape" D&D provides. The character you play is the vehicle for that escape.

But if what you want to escape from is YOURSELF...if you want to be an "elf" (or whatever) because you really, really, REALLY dislike being a human for some reason...well, that's opening a whole different can of worms with answers (from me) that can range from "play ElfQuest instead" to "seek psychiatric help."

We are humans. We might be old or young or short or tall or fat or skinny or scrawny or brawny or black or white or American or European or gay or straight or WHATEVER. But we are humans. And humans have fears and desires and ambitions and foibles. Humans have good times and bad times; joy and sadness and comfort and stress. Humans have finite life spans and tough choices to make regarding our priorities...playing D&D is NOT going to change that, regardless of whether or not you choose to play a nonhuman creature.

So let's not worry about that...about escaping who we are (since we can't)...and instead focus on what we can do with the game. Which is: experiencing adventure. Risking for reward. Making choices that have consequences that we have to deal with. Trying to succeed (i.e. survive and thrive) within the parameters of the game rules.

"Levels" are a game mechanic that measures both success and character effectiveness. Levels set the parameters, the boundaries, of play in which players must operate. Levels are an objective measure calculated from obtaining objective goals as defined by the game's rules. Levels and leveling ARE the game...if you are sitting in the chair of a player.

Playing a nonhuman will limit your success in the game. And that's okay...in a way, it's playing the game on "easy mode" (especially with the racial advantages your PC receives). "Default" mode is playing with a human character...tougher, but with a lot higher ceiling of success. And all of it measurable because of levels.

I love levels. What a great concept!