A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

[JadedDM]

Haha, yeah, the long sword is one of the most common weapons found in most games. If you don't stumble onto one soon, your DM might be doing that on purpose.

[SiuiS]

As a side note, my character is actually ULC instead of LMC...the idea is, Heironeus himself chose this guy to be a Cav/Paladin, and due to divine mandate, the church trained him because 'god said so.'

I do not these accronym

[LibraryOgre]

I do not these accronym

Upper Lower Class, Lower Middle Class.

[hamlet]

From the questionably useful social status tables in the Unearthed Arcana book.

It's been my experience that they just don't add a whole lot to the game, really.

[veti]

From the questionably useful social status tables in the Unearthed Arcana book.

It's been my experience that they just don't add a whole lot to the game, really.

It's a setting thing. In most campaigns, the whole "social status" thing is pretty well glossed over and nobody cares if you're a prince or a gong farmer.

In some campaigns, social status can be significantly more important. Upper and lower classes don't just move in different circles and think about completely different things in completely different ways... they may actually talk different languages. (Not just cant or slang, either - I'm talking "different" like Norman French vs Anglo-Saxon.)

[MeeposFire]

Lol you were able to get plate armor that fits and a shield but can't find what is in all likelihood the single most common weapon in D&D. Hilarious (sorry).

[SiuiS]

From the questionably useful social status tables in the Unearthed Arcana book.

It's been my experience that they just don't add a whole lot to the game, really.

Oh, that. Man, I never had a use for that. There were always better ways, in D&D. Or it wasn't relevant.
There were a lot of cool details later in the saga though. I'm going back through oriental adventures with an eye for stuff that's interesting and wow, the ideas that led to 3e are already showing up. Proficiencies get better as you go (although they still thought DM gate keeping was the way to go...), prestige classes, gestalt type stuff (the ninja "class" is especially entertaining, I feel). I remember why I got such a sense of wonder from 1e.

[Godie1803]

Racial level limits
I really don't like these. I know these are supposed to make up for the special abilities that demihumans possess, but when they're used it seems that you're either playing a low level campaign where they mean nothing, or a high level campaign where everyone is forced to play a human. I'd prefer to just drop them.

I think it was in the DM's guide that states that you can allow those races to surpass that level restriction, they maintain normal xp advancement until they reach their max allowed level, to keep leveling them up they would need 2x, 3x or even 4x exp (at DM's discretion) to go up in level

[Firechanter]

The thread is a bit older but I just discovered it, so allow me to chime in. First, on the OP's main points:

Racial Restrictions / Level Limits:

I have no opinion on restrictions like "no Halfling Wizards", except "if you want to be a runty finger-wiggler, be a Gnome".
My main concern is that Humans have very little going for them. So little, in fact, that we don't have a single one in our AD&D2 party. We have a Dwarf, two Elves and two Half-Elves. As I see it, level limits exist only to dangle a carrot in front of the Human. On the other hand, they encourage nonhumans to multiclass, because the limits become mostly irrelevant for MC characters unless you play a really endless game.
For instance, our DM says that the campaign will run to about 2,5M XP, if we pull it through. This means that _some_ single-classed nonhumans would hit the level cap, but be a Multiclass and it becomes irrelevant.

So long story short: you can nix the level caps, but then you should give the Humans something in return. Seeing how racial modifiers are just +/-1s in AD&D, a +1 floating bonus would be a good start.

Stat requirements

Long story short: Just let people play what they want. You may relax stat reqs by the "Priority" method you mentioned. Or you could allow shunting points between attributes, so if you have a 15 and a 16, you could change that to 14 and 17 for purposes of meeting requirements.
Or you could just use a more generous creation method. If the words "Point Buy" induce a foaming traditionalist rage in you, you could use a rolling method like 4k3, and/or you can say that each player rolls one or two stat arrays, which are then available to the entire group.

What we did was the following: The players collectively rolled 6 arrays. These were written in a grid. Now any horizontal or vertical line of the grid was a valid array to pick. Essentially, we generated 12 arrays, and of these, two stuck out with good values. One with an 18, a 16 and several unremarkable ones (the "high" array), and one with a 16 and nothing below 12 (the "broad" array). Effectively, every player picked one of those two arrays.
Now technically, no array would have qualified for a Paladin, but the DM had said in advance that anyone could play what they wanted. So if someone wanted to play a Paladin, they could have swapped around a point here and there to meet the requirements.

I don't get the prime req. bonus to XP, which punishes the weakest member(s) of the group by making their betters slowly get even better than them.

Yeah, normally this rule is just a case of "the devil craps on the biggest pile", as we say. However, with a collective generation method such as described above, it starts to make more sense. If everyone has access to the same arrays, it's your own choice to use them in a way that will give you the bonus or not. At the end of the day, 10% extra never makes a difference of more than 1 level.

[Endarire]

Gygaxian Naturalism explains more of how 1E and 2E were made.

[Jay R]

Long story short: Just let people play what they want.

There still have to be arbitrary limits. If not, I want to play a Kryptonian.

[veti]

There still have to be arbitrary limits. If not, I want to play a Kryptonian.

Heh. "Has to be something that actually exists within the setting".

Okay, then I'll play a god.

"No gods."

Okay, I'll play the king of whatever country we're starting out in.

"No, you can't play a named NPC that I've already planned and statted out."

Righto, then I'll play the head of a continent-spanning cult that has secret cells in every town, poised to strike at any moment and make me emperor of the world. You didn't know it exists, but it's right there in my character backstory. Great plotline, right?

No. Just no. You can't play "whatever you want". I don't care where you read it or what you did elsewhere or how cool you think it would be. This is my world, and you'll play something that's within the rules I choose to set.

[Firechanter]

There still have to be arbitrary limits. If not, I want to play a Kryptonian.

Some things should really go without saying. I never expect that kind of disruptive behaviour from a player, so it gets me every time. Just like when, a couple of weeks ago, I ran an introductory adventure for a friend who was new to RPGs. First we outline her character, then she fills out her character sheet.

She: "Age?" [Note: she picked a Human Ranger]
Me: "Yeah, you can basically pick any age you want." [I was thinking of my houserule that age modifiers aren't a thing.]
She: *proceeds to write "211" in the Age field*

...

Me: "...Um! Within a human's biological life-span, of course!"
She: *erases the last digit*

[SiuiS]

Heh. "Has to be something that actually exists within the setting".

Okay, then I'll play a god.

"No gods."

Okay, I'll play the king of whatever country we're starting out in.

This right here is what we call "missed opportunity due to kneejerk". Why not let them be a king? That's supported by the rules, the capacity of the narrative and game, and the fluff the games are built on.

Some things should really go without saying. I never expect that kind of disruptive behaviour from a player, so it gets me every time. Just like when, a couple of weeks ago, I ran an introductory adventure for a friend who was new to RPGs. First we outline her character, then she fills out her character sheet.

She: "Age?" [Note: she picked a Human Ranger]
Me: "Yeah, you can basically pick any age you want." [I was thinking of my houserule that age modifiers aren't a thing.]
She: *proceeds to write "211" in the Age field*

...

Me: "...Um! Within a human's biological life-span, of course!"
She: *erases the last digit*

Same deal, really. It could have been pretty damn cool that this person has this weird plot age thing.

[Jay R]

Some things should really go without saying. I never expect that kind of disruptive behaviour from a player, so it gets me every time.

I'm not proposing disruptive behavior; I'm using a reductio ad absurdum, to show what's wrong with your conclusion: "Long story short: Just let people play what they want."

You're going to impose limits. And whatever limits you impose, there is no reason not to relax them just one more step. Therefore whatever you use instead of racial class limitations will be just as arbitrary, just placed somewhere else.

[kyoryu]

I'm not proposing disruptive behavior; I'm using a reductio ad absurdum, to show what's wrong with your conclusion: "Long story short: Just let people play what they want."

You're going to impose limits. And whatever limits you impose, there is no reason not to relax them just one more step. Therefore whatever you use instead of racial class limitations will be just as arbitrary, just placed somewhere else.

More to the point, when you say "play whatever you want," there's a lot of assumptions and implicit understandings there - typically it actually means "we'll be first level characters, so pick a race/class combo to make your first level character."

It's usually better to frame things so that there's a better idea of what's going on. "The game is going to be about plundering a scary dungeon for treasure. So make up a character that would have a reason for doing that. We're starting at first level, so it should be somebody with a little experience or a little training, but probably not both. The following races/classes are/aren't available."

Limitations exist. It's a lot better that they're *explicit* in most cases.

(if it's not clear, Jay R, I'm agreeing and expanding your response, not disagreeing).

[MeeposFire]

Also it can be fun to allow those type of character with a twist. Perhaps they can't be king but they could be a prince. All you have to do is come up with (or better yet have the player come up with) a reason for the prince to be hiding the fact he is a prince and cannot currently use his power. Later on in the game that can be useful for plots.

[Telwar]

From the questionably useful social status tables in the Unearthed Arcana book.

It's been my experience that they just don't add a whole lot to the game, really.

My first experience with a game with socioeconomic categories was from Dangerous Journeys. Hrm. Wonder if my books are still at that used bookstore out by Potomac Mills?

[Jay R]

I once wrote an introduction to a game that included the following:

You can have any goal you like, and include the necessary background, but be warned: I will not allow you to use this to gain any power or influence at the start of the game. Whatever the background, you will start with no more power than a first level character should have. You can plan to become the leader of an elite combat unit, but you’re not the leader now. You’re the new recruit who cleans out the privies. You want to be the son of a king? OK, but you’re the son of a deposed king; you have no royal jewels, diplomatic influence, or servants. You can use the background to prepare your long-term plans, but you won’t become captain or king until you reach a level in which that is appropriate.

[JadedDM]

This right here is what we call "missed opportunity due to kneejerk". Why not let them be a king? That's supported by the rules, the capacity of the narrative and game, and the fluff the games are built on.

Assuming it was a solo game. In a game with a party, having one player be a king would either necessitate all of the players being kings, or allowing one player absolute power over the rest. Some players wouldn't abuse such power, but I'm not sure I'd take the chance, really.

[SiuiS]

Also it can be fun to allow those type of character with a twist. Perhaps they can't be king but they could be a prince. All you have to do is come up with (or better yet have the player come up with) a reason for the prince to be hiding the fact he is a prince and cannot currently use his power. Later on in the game that can be useful for plots.

See, I don't think "you can call yourself whatever but youre still a beggar peasant with a sword" qualified.

I once wrote an introduction to a game that included the following:

Why? Actual question, not rhetoric. I mean, that's not even a by the rules issue; you can clear out land and rule as soon as you can clear the land and build a keep, you can start out as the highly honorable noble son of a clan leader, by the books. It takes some rolling, but social class, standing, fiefdoms, all pretty big-standard and not level restricted.

Only thing I can think of is disincentive to have any kind of adventure but a cave crawl.

Assuming it was a solo game. In a game with a party, having one player be a king would either necessitate all of the players being kings, or allowing one player absolute power over the rest. Some players wouldn't abuse such power, but I'm not sure I'd take the chance, really.

How would they have absolute power? You're in a dank hole in the ground with four dudes you're trying to make kiss your ring, you find out pretty damn fast who has the actual power.

Irish myth has a lot of this whole 'kingliness is in your actions, king a must be heroes and asventurers', Scandinavian lore especially Viking era stuff has the same, and it's a key component of every oriental system I've seen whether feudal Japanese to three kingdoms china.


Let's break it down. If you're a king;
Morale still gets rolled
Reactions still get rolled
Hirelings get paid from your royal coffers
Civilization above waits for your return with baited breath

If you're not a king;
Morale still gets rolled
Reactions still get rolled
Hirelings get paid from your coffers
Civilization above waits for your return with baited breath

The only change – the only change – is that if the DM does the whole "knight commands you to do something humiliating you filthy peasant" thing (which no one has ever enjoyed anyway) you can do what a first level cavalier or samurai or paladin or certain clerics do and flash your credentials to put him in his place.

One guy being a king opens doors, but it does not close them. It just seems like a knee jerk reaction against givig the players too much agency which is never an issue in 2e and older anyway. I don't understand. It's like the same 'no that's not realistic' fallacy that keeps 3.0 melee so crap.

[veti]

This right here is what we call "missed opportunity due to kneejerk". Why not let them be a king? That's supported by the rules, the capacity of the narrative and game, and the fluff the games are built on.

Because I've put time and effort into creating this world setting. I know who the king is, I know the stats of him, his wife, his children, his henchmen, I know his strengths and weaknesses, his priorities and plans and secret deals and personal tastes in everything from music to mushrooms. Any or all of which may become critically plot-relevant at any time.

... and I'm not having all that derailed by some wannabe munchkin with a fetish for fancy hats, thank you so much.

At the very least, the king has:

• hangers-on, who won't let him risk his life in anything as stupid and pointless as a low-level adventure. If you can get around that, then:
• enemies, who, if he did manage to slip said hangers-on, would kill him stone dead faster than you can say "level-inappropriate encounter". If you can get around that, then:
• responsibilities, which, if he's gone from his position for more than a few days without making appropriate preparations, will result in the whole country going rapidly to pot. If you can get around that, then:
• access to wealth, equipment and assistance that's entirely disproportionate for a low-level character. If you can get around that, then:
• knowledge of many things that are, to say the least, not common knowledge, and I certainly don't want the players to know about them just now.

[Digitalelf]

Because I've put time and effort into creating this world setting. I know who the king is, I know the stats of him, his wife, his children, his henchmen, I know his strengths and weaknesses, his priorities and plans and secret deals and personal tastes in everything from music to mushrooms. Any or all of which may become critically plot-relevant at any time.

Yeah, I am not a fan of the whole "the game world is whatever the group as a whole decides it to be" movement...

Don't get me wrong, the players (through their characters) can influence (and even change) the setting in a multitude of different ways, but they do so by their actions during actual game play; not because it says so in the player's self-published novella that they call their character's background...

But then, I am a card-carrying, "You kids get off my lawn!" Grognard (with a capital "G")...

YMMV and all of that.

[Thrudd]

Yeah, I gotta say D&D is a game about becoming a hero/king, you can't really start as one. Create whatever backstory you want, but it must include ending up as a mostly penniless wannabe-adventurer with no resources other than the equipment you are carrying, in a land mostly unknown to you. Unless the game is starting out at level 10+, then your backstory would include the adventures you had from levels 1-9, and you could start out as someone with some influence and holdings. It's not about agency, it's about fairness. A ruler or noble has wealth at his/her disposal, probably the best equipment available, vassals and servants, land and holdings, is known throughout their land at least, if not in others. These are resources a beginning adventurer absolutely cannot have. The game, in no small part, is about managing and acquiring resources.

[Digitalelf]

It's not about agency, it's about fairness.

Agreed!

I don't think it was by coincidence that "Birthright" was a totally separate campaign setting with its own rules regarding characters as regents and rulers...

[SiuiS]

Because I've put time and effort into creating this world setting. I know who the king is, I know the stats of him, his wife, his children, his henchmen, I know his strengths and weaknesses, his priorities and plans and secret deals and personal tastes in everything from music to mushrooms. Any or all of which may become critically plot-relevant at any time.

Okay.

... and I'm not having all that derailed by some wannabe munchkin with a fetish for fancy hats, thank you so much.

And you lost it.
Problem the first: "people who don't accept my vision are munchkins and to be derided for their cheating and obviously bad and wrong ways". That's pretty severe.

At the very least, the king has:

• hangers-on, who won't let him risk his life in anything as stupid and pointless as a low-level adventure. If you can get around that, then:
• enemies, who, if he did manage to slip said hangers-on, would kill him stone dead faster than you can say "level-inappropriate encounter". If you can get around that, then:
• responsibilities, which, if he's gone from his position for more than a few days without making appropriate preparations, will result in the whole country going rapidly to pot. If you can get around that, then:
• access to wealth, equipment and assistance that's entirely disproportionate for a low-level character. If you can get around that, then:
• knowledge of many things that are, to say the least, not common knowledge, and I certainly don't want the players to know about them just now.

Sounds like plot and drama more than issues to me. Problem the second : too much detail actively another's campaigns. Stories abound of very detailed and highly structured games being crashed because a single NPC dies and suddenly nothing works to script anymore. Those games are generally filed under 'needlessly hidebound' and is a huge part of the bloat issue with existing campaigns.

[QUOTE=Digitalelf;17812366]Yeah, I am not a fan of the whole "the game world is whatever the group as a whole decides it to be" movement...

Don't get me wrong, the players (through their characters) can influence (and even change) the setting in a multitude of different ways, but they do so by their actions during actual game play; not because it says so in the player's self-published novella that they call their character's background...

Problem the third: conflating change and growth with backstory subversion: absolutely nothing about being royal causes change, intrinsically. This issue literally does not exist unless you force it to.

Yeah, I gotta say D&D is a game about becoming a hero/king, you can't really start as one.

Is it? Wasn't the largest trending problem with 1e and 2w that people didn't become kings and rulers, and instead kept adventuring, kept leveling, ignoring the bleed-off valve?

Like I said, being a ruler means you have A) money that's B) spent on retainers who C) do what you pay them for. Which is explicitly possible at first level, being restricted on the player end, not character end. Historical royalty was not nearly as disruptive as painted here; you don't get a castle and slaves and millions and free reign; you get expectations, duties, obligations, retainers and intrigue. The only difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 10 fighter is that the level 10 fighter gets people to move in for free and the level 1 fighter has to pay for it.

Create whatever backstory you want, but it must include ending up as a mostly penniless wannabe-adventurer with no resources other than the equipment you are carrying, in a land mostly unknown to you.

Most of that is a houserule.
I'm pretty certain that unless you're doing a hex crawl, not knowing anything about the land you're in is definitely not standard; especially considering the default environments like in keep on the borderlands, the entire Mystara setting, etc. It's default for a level one character to start with a range of gear, up to more money than a beggar will see in a lifetime in armor, food, horseflesh, servant staff and weaponry.

The common complaint about nobles having wealth is bogus, because they don't. Not liquid assets.

Agreed!

I don't think it was by coincidence that "Birthright" was a totally separate campaign setting with its own rules regarding characters as regents and rulers...

Birthright used weird magic bloodlines didn't it? Like the difference between psionics and the dragonkings. On the other end, you've got two sources that specifically give status, lands with servants and money to players out the gate; unearthed arcana and oriental adventures. Yes, it's power creep, but you can't say this is some weird, new age thing where the newbies want their narrative drama and don't abide by the charts and tables and ruin Grognardia for us all. That's selective memory.

There's plenty of stuff I hand wave away for games. But I do so on the merits of the situation; a knee-jerk "you must start with a wooden sword, a stew pot helmet and two coppers or else you're being a cheating cheater needy player" is rather bizarre.

[Thrudd]

Is it? Wasn't the largest trending problem with 1e and 2w that people didn't become kings and rulers, and instead kept adventuring, kept leveling, ignoring the bleed-off valve?

Like I said, being a ruler means you have A) money that's B) spent on retainers who C) do what you pay them for. Which is explicitly possible at first level, being restricted on the player end, not character end. Historical royalty was not nearly as disruptive as painted here; you don't get a castle and slaves and millions and free reign; you get expectations, duties, obligations, retainers and intrigue. The only difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 10 fighter is that the level 10 fighter gets people to move in for free and the level 1 fighter has to pay for it.

Yes, many people decided to stick with the hero part, and never bothered with the ruler part. A level 1 character is neither a hero nor a ruler, however. They are an aspirant, a freshly trained recruit with hopes of becoming rich or famous or powerful or all three.

A ruler would have a LOT more money than a level 1 character. A level 1 character starts with just enough money to pay for some mediocre armor, a couple weapons, rations and equipment for an expedition. Probably no hirelings, horses, maybe a pony if they Presumably someone that is already a ruler has inheritance or at least some amassed wealth, resources to call their own, holdings, people that serve them, men-at-arms on the payroll. Yes, there are duties and obligations, but they

Most of that is a houserule.

I'm pretty certain that unless you're doing a hex crawl, not knowing anything about the land you're in is definitely not standard; especially considering the default environments like in keep on the borderlands, the entire Mystara setting, etc. It's default for a level one character to start with a range of gear, up to more money than a beggar will see in a lifetime in armor, food, horseflesh, servant staff and weaponry.

That's actually a paraphrase of the advise of the 1e DMG. So unless we consider the DMG as house rules (which you might), it is pretty much the standard way the game was meant to be played at that time. You start out as a nobody in a generally unfamiliar land. The game is about exploring, managing your resources, and problem solving, at least at lower levels. This is standard.

In Keep on the Borderlands, the characters aren't meant to know anything about the lands. They learn where things are from the rumors at the keep and exploring. Using the Mystara setting, or any setting, doesn't imply that the characters know anything about the world besides the small region they came from, apart from rumors and maybe the names of some famous places they've never seen.

A level one character starts with enough gold to buy very little, a bare minimum of necessary equipment and supplies. yes, far more than most common folk have, but never enough for everything they want. Usually not even enough for a horse, let alone good armor. They may have inherited their starting money, maybe the younger child of a noble that no longer has any holdings. The point is, they don't have a reserve to draw on when that is spent, or allies to call on to provide them with assistance or more supplies (which is likely why they are considering the dangerous life of adventurers in the fist place!). Those things are gained through play, not by writing it into a backstory.

The common complaint about nobles having wealth is bogus, because they don't. Not liquid assets.

Really? A noble has no liquid assets? Well, even if not, they have lots of other assets. They have land, they control a castle and a village at least. Wouldn't they own the best weapons and armor available, probably have a personal smith making these things for them? Have a household full of servants and retainers, men-at-arms at their beck and call? Multiple horses, pack animals, vehicles and people to drive them among their holdings? None of these are things a level 1 character can afford.

It would not be fair to allow a player to have these resources at level 1, unless all the players had them. And it would not be realistic for a character to claim to be nobility operating near their own lands and not have access to these sorts of resources. A king who has lost their kingdom and now has nothing and has been exiled to a distant land would be ok. A prince that has been disowned and traveled far away to seek his own fortune. They cannot return or reclaim their lands until they are the appropriate level and have the amount of wealth required to build a stronghold and attract their followers, per the PHB.

In other words, character background stories should have little to no bearing on what happens in the game. Player's actions during play is all that matters. This is also advise of the 1e DMG. The standard way the game was expected to be played.

[SiuiS]

Bah! I somehow have misread this entire thread as "1e/2e" this whole time. I've been arguing about what's functionally a different game. I'm sorry.

Spoiler

Show

A ruler would have a LOT more money than a level 1 character. A level 1 character starts with just enough money to pay for some mediocre armor, a couple weapons, rations and equipment for an expedition. Probably no hirelings, horses, maybe a pony if they Presumably someone that is already a ruler has inheritance or at least some amassed wealth, resources to call their own, holdings, people that serve them, men-at-arms on the payroll. Yes, there are duties and obligations, but they

I dunno. It's Lways been my experience that a noble's money was wrapped up in land, political maneuvering, and the retainers to evict people who didn't hold their end of the land or political maneuvering.

Maybe it depends on time period?

That's actually a paraphrase of the advise of the 1e DMG. So unless we consider the DMG as house rules (which you might), it is pretty much the standard way the game was meant to be played at that time. You start out as a nobody in a generally unfamiliar land. The game is about exploring, managing your resources, and problem solving, at least at lower levels. This is standard.

Which DMG? Might be our disconnect.
The game is indeed about exploring, which is why I'm baffled. It makes perfect sense given the fiction I've read, the bits of history I've gleaned and how the written rules (of 1e and what I can make out of OD&D) that the difference between a king and a fighter is that when the adventure is over, one goes to a stable to saddle up and look for more adventurer and one goes to to he royal stables to await the next adventure.

That is, there is no operable difference. Only the fear that the player may try to wheedle and leverage one into existing. To paraphrase brotherhood of the wolf; all men smell the same in the dark.

In Keep on the Borderlands, the characters aren't meant to know anything about the lands. They learn where things are from the rumors at the keep and exploring. Using the Mystara setting, or any setting, doesn't imply that the characters know anything about the world besides the small region they came from, apart from rumors and maybe the names of some famous places they've never seen.

... They don't know about the world map that's clearly on the table? I don't know that I can buy that for Mystara. They may not have mapped, calculated distances, but they know names and interactions and sympathetic connection.

And so would a fighter, come to think. Aren't fighters explicitly ex-military? At least until the mermaid on kit in 2e when it's implied not having that kit means you're not? (Honest question).

A level one character starts with enough gold to buy very little, a bare minimum of necessary equipment and supplies. yes, far more than most common folk have, but never enough for everything they want.

Ah, no, this one I specifically went to the book for. I can legitimately start my career at first level with 180G, horse and boarding, shield, full plate, sword, dagger, mace and lance. And you can bet that 180G is going to a retinue, since even if they don't go dungeoneering with us, having well paid pikemen standing guard at the mouth of a dungeon and on escort to and from makes it a sight easier to survive.

Unearthed arcana 1e, page 25. :)

Really? A noble has no liquid assets? Well, even if not, they have lots of other assets. They have land, they control a castle and a village at least. Wouldn't they own the best weapons and armor available, probably have a personal smith making these things for them? Have a household full of servants and retainers, men-at-arms at their beck and call? Multiple horses, pack animals, vehicles and people to drive them among their holdings? None of these are things a level 1 character can afford.

Yes to 90% of this, no to "none of this a 1st level character can afford". That's the position I am arguing from, really. Not about the special snowflake backstory. But that if a character says "I want to be a king and have men at arms and a concubine and the best equipment!" I hear "I am buying all these things" and if it's possible – which memory of the book shows it is, even a single delve is enough to pay this all off for a year! – then it's no different from being not a royal and having all those thingss anyway. The king and the beggar are mechanically equal. It is literally a difference only of what the player wants to call it and what th DM will allow. And the reasons given for not allowing it seem to actively defy the rules, which made me assume they were kneejerk reactions.

It would not be fair to allow a player to have these resources at level 1, unless all the players had them.

Baloney, says the guy who gets one magic missile a day on the same party as the elf fighter magic user thief with a 19 dexterity. :P

And it would not be realistic for a character to claim to be nobility operating near their own lands and not have access to these sorts of resources.

Baloney says history with all it's bankrupt kingdoms and constant barterig and borrowing. :P

In other words, character background stories should have little to no bearing on what happens in the game. Player's actions during play is all that matters. This is also advise of the 1e DMG. The standard way the game was expected to be played.

Oh, yes. I'm not saying background should shape the game. I'm saying background is immaterial enough that you shouldn't need to veto anything, because you're just removing potential hooks. The player gains nothing by being a royal except maybe RP validation. You as DM get juicy hooks to use if you want to, but that can lie fallow if you don't. Whereas those nonexistent hooks can only lie fallow. You see?

[Jay R]

Why? Actual question, not rhetoric. I mean, that's not even a by the rules issue; you can clear out land and rule as soon as you can clear the land and build a keep, you can start out as the highly honorable noble son of a clan leader, by the books. It takes some rolling, but social class, standing, fiefdoms, all pretty big-standard and not level restricted.

Because the game unit is a party. One player can't "decide" to have more power than everyone else, thereby forcing me to decide between giving challenges for him that will kill the other players and challenges for them that one player will roll over.

I'm perfectly capable of designing a game for a group of nobles or leaders of elite military units, but it would be a different game.

Only thing I can think of is disincentive to have any kind of adventure but a cave crawl.

That astounds me. You really don't know any other kind of adventures for lower-level adventurers?

In fact, until they reached about sixth level, they had gone underground exactly twice, for about half a session each, and only to get where they were going.

By that time they'd had wilderness adventures, a small political intrigue (that having a noble in the party would have derailed), dealt with pirates, settled a dispute between a witch and an evil priest, and survived a sandstorm, all in a long, rambling story about seven artifacts they had inherited that were slowing getting out of control and had to be returned to a temple/observatory.

[Khatoblepas]

In one of the AD&D games I'm playing in, this is our party:

• Msrah, Marruspawn* Necromancer/Thief, petty thief and goblin-circus performer.
• Breanna, Half-Elf Fighter, who is a successful travelling merchant.
• Prince Caim, Dragonspawn** Priest, who is the heir to the throne of the dragon-kingdoms.
• Ariadne, Araenid*** Enchanter/Assassin, seamstress and noble-house representative.
• Tico, Elf Ranger, wandering and naive hunter who is friend to all animals.
• Zera, Wyvernoid Barbarian, whose lands were devastated by war between the dragons and humans, and was a prisoner with nothing.
• Princess Beatrix, Human Bard, heir to the throne of the kingdom of Ward.

* In this setting, the marru were the race who were modified by demons to work as soldiers. They have no culture now, and thus no society to have status in.
**Half-Dragon, basically.
***Like an Aranea, minus shapechanging. They take the place of the Drow in this setting.

The social statuses of all our characters vary massively. Two royals, one noble, two drifters, and a travelling merchant. I remember one session the characters went into an Araenid trading post, and they served Ariadne willingly, giving her discounts and being very gracious hosts. They were less inclined to serve the rest of the party, but Breanna leveraged Caim's royal status and got them all (begrudgingly) discounts too. Msrah wasn't served at all, as the Araenids see goblins as below even the lowest slave. So, Msrah had to sneak in back and steal something for himself (the Araenid were totally evil, so they deserved it). It was all very exciting, and there was tension and very disparate levels of social status working together to make an interesting and engaging session. Ariadne could have, mechanically, done the same thing as Msrah, with the same skill set, but she didn't. Instead, her differing social status and race meant she had a different encounter than Msrah. Having characters of such different social classes did nothing but improve the encounter.

Having a noble or a royal in the party doesn't change all that much - if you use your leverage, you become more scrutinised, and people are less likely to trust a royal who throws their power around like a mallet. Heck, in the setting we're in, doing that is likely to get you mobbed and spark a rebellion. You can push a little, sure, but it's mostly just the style of solution you want to use. The drifters have the freedom to use whatever means they want. The nobles have to watch their step. If Ariadne is caught using a goblin weapon, she will be crucified socially. If Caim is discovered to be too chummy with the enemy, oh boy. You'll have Pretenders coming out of your ears. On the other hand, Msrah, Tico, and Zera can use whatever tools they wish, and Msrah even walks around with a skeletal wolverine as a pet, and Tico has a giant lizard, because they don't really have any face to lose. The royals and nobles have pretty much everything to lose.

And I'll note: In this setting, kings and kingdoms are much smaller than you'd think. Everywhere has been ravaged by war, so all a King's assets are bound up in keeping their kingdoms together. Beatrix, for example, couldn't leave with much money, or the best weapons in the armory, as the King needed them to protect his Kingdom. All the retainers, all the servants, were needed back at home. So the King hired the party to be her retainers. Problem solved. Also, the princess going out and proclaiming that she's a princess in a land not strongly in the King's control, full of militant splinter groups who would gladly ransom her back and bankrupt Ward further? Wow. No. Caim, on the other hand, is trying to keep his royal status on the downlow, as he's basically a royal of a kingdom who was at war with Ward. So he can't flaunt his wealth, have his many retainers, use the best equipment, or anything. Again, his retainers are "the rest of the party".

Was this all planned by the DM? No. We came up with our character concepts seperately, pitched them to the DM, and the DM crafted reasons for the characters being there and like they are. We worked together to create an interesting and diverse party, that could have really exciting sessions. Three of the races didn't even exist in-setting until the players wanted to play one. The important thing, above all else, is to work with the party, and work with the DM. Sure, if a player said to me "I want to be the King of Everything" I'd probably say no, because that's silly, but I've found that very few people actually are munchkins - they're mostly just people who want to play interesting, nonstandard characters. But even the most outlandish sounding character concept can be workable. For example, "I want to be a Kryptonian"? Why do you want to be a Kryptonian? Is it the flying, the massive personal power? May I interest the Kryptonian-player into playing something more akin to a Saiyan, who starts off at Human level but whose power increases massively with training, perhaps as a Fighter/Psionicist? Then you get your energy powers, flying, and massive strength, whilst starting at the same level as a normal level 1 character - and you can work your way up to being roughly on the level of Superman, within the strictures of the system.

I mean, come on, it's not the 1980s anymore. We can do anything.