Demi-Human Level Limits – What Were Those About?

Gary Gygax at Gen Con Indy 2007. Gygax is stan...

Image via Wikipedia

As an old gamer, I’ve seen the topic of “Demi-Human Level Limits” come up a lot, along with the notion that “they don’t work” or “aren’t balanced”. In fact, the post before this was Editorial0’s take on the subject, as inspired by THIS RANT of Sean K. Reynolds.

As is so often true about the notion that things “don’t work”, the problem doesn’t lie in the system being questioned. It lies in a misunderstanding about what it’s supposed to do.

To get an idea of what’s going on, I’m going to crack open one of my first edition books – the Dungeon Master’s Guide – to page twenty-one and let Mr Gygax explain it in his own words.

Advanced D&D is unquestionably “humanocentric”, with demi-human, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users – whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes are more fearsome – the 3 D’s of demi-gods, demons, and devils are enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods themselves are brought into consideration. Yet, there is a point where the well-equipped, high-level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. In co-operation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have no upper limits as to level or acquired power from spells or items.

The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design standpoint it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with.

There isn’t a word there about “balance” – and as far as it goes, Mr Gygax is absolutely right.

Mr Gygax was presuming that most games would draw extensively on historical, literary, mythological, and cinematic sources for background, simply because he knew that game masters did not have unlimited time to come up with material and the players didn’t have unlimited time to learn it in. Moreover, he expected most campaigns to stick to easily accessible source material that the players could reasonably be expected to know about. That’s why I can have an “Arthurian Knights” game up and running in ten minutes, but explaining the lifestyle of Inuit Reindeer Herders, and how it affects their culture and traditions, will take days.

Now, practically all those sources are ultimately about humans. Historical ones certainly are, most fantasy literature revolves around humans, movies usually star humans, and mythology tends to do so as well. There are a few greek myths which star centaurs – but not many, and they don’t generally challenge gods, defeat mighty monsters, or undertake great quests. Those jobs are reserved for humans (even if they do often have divine blood, making them really really talented humans). Even most of the adventures of Coyote, or journeys in the dreamtime, or the Vedas involve humans pretty heavily. What’s that you say? Didn’t the Lord of the Rings revolve around Hobbits? Isn’t that a pretty major influence on most fantasy games?

Yes, yes it did and yes it is. Of course, the Lord of the Rings revolves around… short humans with unusually hairy feet who happened to be quite healthy (likely thanks to plenty of wholesome food, a simple, vigorous, village lifestyle, and plenty of outdoor exercise). They did seem to live slightly longer than current humans do – but in Tolkien’s world mortal longevity tended to be tied to simple virtues and to the concept that the world had started off near-perfect and was slowly degrading. The Lord of the Rings was about the heroism of ordinary folk and the common man.

Now, if I want to base a campaign on a race as near-human as a centaur – in essence, simply changing the shape of the lower body – I’m going to have to explain a great deal more, and I’d better not forget that there isn’t going to be any climbing of ladders or ropes, that sailing ships will be very different, that I’ll need to have ramps instead of hatchways and stairways, or a thousand other details. A more fundamental change such as “seeing in the dark” calls for an immense array of social, linguistic, and other changes (a few of which are explored in this article). A lifespan a thousand years long? That means that – unlike every human culture ever – only a very small fraction of the population will be children, rather than 50% or so. City planning will be wildly different. So will government, and manners, and apprenticeships, and ten thousand other things.

That’s why most fantasy cultures, or sci-fi alien races, are simply humans in funny hats – and a lot of games that claim to revolve around them simply portray humans and historical human cultures in fairly flimsy disguises.

Unlike most fantasies, however, role-playing-games involve a lot of people sitting around trying to figure out mysteries, asking “why”, and saying “Hey, if the giants can do thus-and-such why don’t they use that to do (x) and solve their problem?”.

If humans and cosmetically-disguised humans were going to be dominating most settings, there needed to be a reason for it. Humans needed to be the most special race of all. Humans needed the power to – in the end – make everything, right down to the gods, revolve around them.

Gary Gygax gave it to them. Humans got access to pretty much all the classes, and could advance beyond normal mortal limitations as far as those classes could take them – although even they couldn’t surpass the limits of being a Monk or Druid or Bard or Assassin or other speciality class which only offered a limited number of levels to get.

Demihumans – as close relatives to humans – got more limited access to the incredible powers of classes and couldn’t progress as far. They had level caps because they simply weren’t capable of the kind of super-powers that humans were. The could practice magic for a thousand years, and still not be able to surpass mortal limits the way a human could. Most of the demi-humans could become very high-level thieves if they wished – but thieves didn’t reshape the world like archmagi, or dominate society like high-level clerics, or annihilate dragons and rally armies like high-level fighters. They also didn’t have a lot of special powers; they were just very highly skilled.

Humanoids were distant relatives to humans. They got even more limited access to classes; they could acquire a few levels as a “tribal spellcaster” (a Shaman or a Witch Doctor) or they could become a “Leader” or “Chieftain” – none of which amounted to much. Later supplements gave them a few more options, but they never really amounted to much.

Outright monsters might have racial variations, but they generally were what they were. A Ki-Rin was insanely powerful, with enormous innate magical and psychic powers – but it had no options for class advancement at all, despite it’s “supra-genius” intelligence.  Monster player characters had a lengthy section on page twenty one again about how and why they sucked and why it was the game masters job to make sure that they did.

Now, Demi-Humans could co-star at lower levels. Indeed, given that first-edition “multiclassing” was reserved for them, and was basically “you’re one level behind but get the average hit points and all the other abilities of two classes” (or sometimes even three), they could easily dominate at lower levels even though their other racial abilities were pretty minor. At higher levels, humans dominated the world – just as Gygax intended.

That also means that the answer to “why don’t we see high level demi-human mages” is the same basic answer as to “why don’t we see hollywood screenplays written by antelopes?”. The answers both boil down to “they aren’t very good at it”. Antelopes aren’t very good at writing screenplays and demi-humans aren’t very good at high magic. There isn’t any simple reason for that other than “that’s how they are”, but there really doesn’t need to be. The underlying reasons are presumably a complicated function of evolution, circumstances, and – in the case of the demi-humans – whatever magical forces are at play.

As a side-benefit, level limits meant that you didn’t have to worry about five-hundred-year-old elven archmagi dominating the world or (when making powerful magic items involved all kinds of odd quests and giving up a permanent constitution point) flooding the world with magic items.

Fundamentally, Demi-human level limits did exactly what they were supposed to do. They worked perfectly, and they are at least as rational as most forms of magic. The question was never “why are demihumans so crippled!” but “why are humans the only ones with this marvelous talent?” – and the answer comes down to “because it’s the talent they were given when the game was designed, just like dragons got wings, armor, and breath weapons”*.

*I’ve also seen an odd argument that – if demi-humans had level limits – they’d want to try and kill humans who were exceeding their limits. Outside of all the basic problems with this approach like “how do you know about it?” and “won’t this get a lot of your own people killed too?”, this is a just as silly trying to assassinate everyone who’s better at a profession than you are – whether or not you practice that profession. Go ahead. Get some of your own higher-level people killed taking out those high level humans. Now there’s nothing to stop that dragon from destroying everyone. Sorry, but communities with a variety of skills are better off under changing or dangerous circumstances – and in AD&D, it’s usually the Humans and Demihumans versus all the monsters of the world, not against each other.

Now, the demi-human level limits were later softened a bit for characters with very high attributes – which were vanishingly rare, but did explain the rare exceptions that had popped up here and there. They were also sometimes house-ruled or ignored, but – despite many statements I’ve seen to the contrary – that wasn’t especially common or routine; I personally played quite a lot of demi-humans up to their level limits. They gained powers and abilities more slowly after they hit those limits – but there were always more items to be gained or made, henchmen and allies to be recruited, magical fountains to drink from, political power to be gained, and many other ways to advance without going up in level. You might indeed accompany a higher-level human party, and still do well – especially since, when the game lacked a skill system, a lot more depended on the players skills than the characters. If you kept it up too long, you’d die – but ANY character who kept it up too long would die. Since replacement characters could easily ride the coat-tails of higher level characters until they – thanks to the doubling factor in the XP tables – did quite a lot of catching-up, the level of parties gradually crept up evan as characters came and went. There were plenty of high-level games out there, they were simply the ones that ran for a long time.

  • Demi-human level limits do suck – for demi-humans.
  • If you have more powerful races out there, and yet humans (or humans in funny hats) dominate the world without a good reason for it, then your world design sucks. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be a lot of fun, and host a good game; it just means that anyone who looks into it deeply is going to be disappointed at the underlying lack of logic – and that tends to work against long-term campaigns.
  • If humans – or those humans in funny hats – don’t dominate the world, but it’s cultures reflect human norms, then your world design sucks again. Still, everything sucks somewhere, and just a few exotic touches may help keep people from noticing.

Oddly enough though, third edition doesn’t really get into too much trouble here. Throw in a few assumptions about casualty rates for adventurers, birth rates, accident rates, high-level characters who want to keep adventuring leaving for other planes due to the lack of challenges at home (thanks to the reduction in XP for challenges below your level), the amazingly swift advancement up to the point where the challenges run out, and the fact that humans now have special advantages other than level advancement, and you can explain why most of the higher-level characters around should be human – and why humans dominate most settings.

I still think that should have been spelled out in the third edition dungeon master’s guide in a paragraph or two, rather than being left as a sloppy assumption – but that’s a fairly minor gripe.

7 Responses

  1. I think what’s worth keeping in mind is that level limits in AD&D were a screwed up implementation of a previous idea. I’m actually not entirely sure where what came in, but in reading through the RC, I saw that while a Halfling might cap at level 8, he still continues getting XP and new abilities, just technically he hasn’t leveled up. With Immortals, even a halfling with sufficient XP could ascend, being the equivalent of a level 36 whatever that a human was.

    Along comes AD&D, takes the numbers and forgets that advancement continued after the level cap, and 2nd Ed is even worse and cuts everything off at 20.

    It’s not the level limits themselves that pissed people off, as much as the fact that really no thought was put into them. A rather interesting result as well is that if you expected a long term campaign, you would multi-class and come out roughly the same.

    Halflings would be Psionicist/Thief, Gnomes would be Illusionist/Thief, Dwarves would be Psionicist/Fighter or Fighter/Thief, Elves would be Fighter/Mage and half-elves would be Ranger/Mage or Ranger/Priest.

    With that, each of the races would keep advancing while the humans kept going, only they’d have a broader skill-set, but you also pretty much get the pgeon-holed race as class as a result. No reason for an elf to be anything but fighter-mage, no reason for a halfling to be anything but psionicist-thief, so that’s what they all obviously are. It also strangely fixes the problem of wondering why there aren’t any Elf thieves or Halfling priests – the answer is there are, just not among PCs.

    Ultimately though if you want to keep humans at the forefront, there’s an easy way to go about it. Give humans a bonus when working in teams. 2 humans working together give each other a +1 bonus, 3 give each other a +2, potentially cap at +3 or +4. Suddenly you have a situation where a lone human is vulnerable, but a squad of them is a nightmare. You also end up getting largely human parties as a result, with a rare demihuman among them if the cap hasn’t already been reached, and an extra bonus of a mechanical incentive not to split the party up.

    • “I think what’s worth keeping in mind is that level limits in AD&D were a screwed up implementation of a previous idea. I’m actually not entirely sure where what came in, but in reading through the RC, I saw that while a Halfling might cap at level 8, he still continues getting XP and new abilities, just technically he hasn’t leveled up. With Immortals, even a Halfling with sufficient XP could ascend, being the equivalent of a level 36 whatever that a human was.”

      Actually… No they weren’t “a screwed up implementation of a previous idea”. Dungeons and Dragons and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons were independent lines of development, and branched off quite early on. “Advanced” didn’t mean “This is a rules upgrade”, it meant “This is a new game with more complex rules”.

      I’ll go and check the basement to review a little history:

      Chainmail was ancestral to D&D, but it was a tactical miniatures game. Even with it’s “fantasy supplement” in the back of the book, and a table entry for heroes in that fantasy supplement, it didn’t really have classes or level advancement.

      Dungeons and Dragons (I’ll call it the “Primordial Edition”) covered characters in book one of the boxed set – “Men and Magic” (1974). It was arguably the first-ever role-playing game. It only offered three non-human races. Dwarves could only be Fighting Men and were limited to level six. Elves could freely switch back and forth between Fighting Men and Magic Users, but could never exceed level four as a Fighting Man or level eight as a Magic User. Halflings could only be Fighting Men and could never progress beyond level four. The boxed set was later supplemented by Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry.

      The AD&D Players Handbook by Gary Gygax came out in 1978. This, or course, is the line which – ultimately – didn’t die out. Here too we have level limits, and the reasoning behind them was explained (in the section quoted in the original article) in the first edition AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide – which was really the first book to explain the reasoning behind anything in the game system.

      The boxed “Dungeons and Dragons” Basic Game Book (Blue Cover) only covered characters of up to level three – but it also contained points where it referred you to the AD&D Players Handbook for more information. It came out AFTER AD&D, and was – in many ways – the last gasp of the “Primordial Edition”.

      The Dungeons and Dragons Basic Set Players Manual (by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, and compiled by Frank Mentzer) came out in 1983. It was folded into the D&D Rules Cyclopedia – published in 1991.

      Yes, the rules you’re looking at in the Cyclopedia came out AFTER AD&D – and were a totally separate line of development.

      “Along comes AD&D, takes the numbers and forgets that advancement continued after the level cap, and 2nd Ed is even worse and cuts everything off at 20.”

      Sorry, but – as noted above – AD&D came BEFORE the rules you’re looking at.

      “It’s not the level limits themselves that pissed people off, as much as the fact that really no thought was put into them”

      Uhm… Given that the quote from Mr Gygax explains the reasoning behind those level limits, I’d have to say that thought was indeed put into them. You may not agree with the assumptions or reasoning that Mr Gygax employed, or with his conclusions, but he definitely put some thought into them. In fact, the people who wrote the rules you’re looking at in the Cyclopedia didn’t entirely agree with Mr Gygax on a number of topics – which is one reason the game line split.

      “A rather interesting result as well is that if you expected a long term campaign, you would multi-class and come out roughly the same. Halflings would be Psionicist/Thief, Gnomes would be Illusionist/Thief, Dwarves would be Psionicist/Fighter or Fighter/Thief, Elves would be Fighter/Mage and Half-Elves would be Ranger/Mage or Ranger/Priest. With that, each of the races would keep advancing while the Humans kept going, only they’d have a broader skill-set, but you also pretty much get the pigeon-holed race as class as a result. No reason for an elf to be anything but fighter-mage, no reason for a Halfling to be anything but psionicist-thief, so that’s what they all obviously are. It also strangely fixes the problem of wondering why there aren’t any Elf thieves or Halfling priests – the answer is there are, just not among PCs.”

      Here I’m afraid you’re mixing later edition mechanics into an examination of what demi-human level limits were about in earlier editions. That’s why the title of this article is “What WERE Those About?” – in the past tense. As noted, third edition can be tweaked to achieve the same general human-dominant result if you so desire.

      In first edition – the notion that “you would multiclass and achieve the same thing” makes no sense. First-edition multi-class characters progressed in both classes at once – and multi-classing was reserved for demihumans. Dual-classing (the closest equivalent to third edition multiclassing) was reserved for humans – and the increasing experience point scales guaranteed that a dual-classed character would shortly be a mere one level behind his or her friends if he or she had dual-classed before twelfth level or so. That was a result of the old-style doubling experience tables.

      Those tables had some very useful and desirable effects – but they also meant that – even if you allowed demihumans to switch classes to another permitted class as you seem to be suggesting – it wouldn’t change a thing. So your first-edition elf progresses to 7’th level as a fighter, and then changes to Magic-User?

      Back in first edition, becoming a 7’th level fighter took 70.001 XP. Switching to Magic User and progressing to 11’th level took 375,001 XP. That’s a total of 445,002 XP before your class-switching elf would top out.

      Becoming a 12’th level magic user required 750,001 XP. In this “solution” demihuman characters top out even faster than before, since the original multiclassing rules continued to split experience equally between the classes even if a character could no longer advance in one of them – meaning that our elf would have to collect 750,002 XP to make it to 11’th level Magic User.

      The same, of course, would apply to adding “Thief” to your Elf or “Priest” (properly “Cleric” in the older editions) to your Halfling; those too would top out long before our single-classed Magic User would make it to level thirteen or fourteen.

      This “solution” might work for the “elder problem” in third edition (although mixing fighter and wizard levels is a good recipe for a crippled character) – but in first edition, which is what we’re trying to understand here, it doesn’t really do anything.

      “Ultimately though if you want to keep humans at the forefront, there’s an easy way to go about it. Give humans a bonus when working in teams. 2 humans working together give each other a +1 bonus, 3 give each other a +2, potentially cap at +3 or +4. Suddenly you have a situation where a lone human is vulnerable, but a squad of them is a nightmare. You also end up getting largely human parties as a result, with a rare demihuman among them if the cap hasn’t already been reached, and an extra bonus of a mechanical incentive not to split the party up.”

      There are two basic problems here.

      First, and most obvious, this article is about why demihuman level limits were in older editions in the first place, what they were intended to do, and whether or not they accomplished it. It’s not proposing adding them to third edition or any other kind of “solution” because – as noted in the second-to-last paragraph – third edition doesn’t really have the same problem in the first place.

      Secondarily, you might want to check on this article on Revised Humans and their “Tribalism” bonus.

      More importantly, however, this solution would not be effective in first edition. An extra “+4 bonus” (to what?) would indeed help groups of lower-level humans keep up with the lower-level demihumans. Would it really be enough to make groups of short-lived, low-level, humans competitive with thousand-year-old level fifty elven fighter-magi who have had time to make plenty of magic items? (Remember; they didn’t ALL cost anything permanent in older editions – and every encounter and gold piece earned, however minor it might be was worth XP. Longer lives led to higher levels).

      If it did, what would you need high level characters for when you could just assemble a mob of humans?

      Now, it is amusing to think about that annoying ancient dragon being mobbed to death by peasants with torches and pitchforks, but it would really make a hash of the game.

  2. […] play the game, what sources they would draw inspiration from, and what they might do with it. [6] In effect, they made the game they wanted to play, to be played how they thought it should be […]

  3. demihuman level limits also balance out the mountain of freebies a demihuman started with. i personally think demihuman wankery needs to stop and demihumans need most of their toys stripped away from them.

    • Unfortunately, the concept of “balance” you seem to be expousing has got nothing whatsoever to do with the editions we’re talking about. That gets discussed a little further over here.

      Secondarily, judging by the various class optimization guides – which generally list “humans” as one of the better options for practically everything – the more modern aspect of this complaint seems to have been dealt with.

      Finally, if you really want to “balance” humans in Eclipse (which they don’t really need since getting Fast Learner in a template is actually very, VERY, good), you might want to look at the various human variants on the blog here. Perhaps the Biophysical Advantages Of The D20 Human? Perhaps the Star Wars, Polluted Future, or Technical Expert Humans? Or perhaps the Men Of Faith humans?

      I might be able to provide something more tailored to suit if you’re a little more specific about the problem you see though.

  4. The entire premise of this article is disingenuous and based upon intentional misinterpretation of a specific passage from the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Gygax “explaining in his own words” supposedly why demi-humans have level limits is in fact entirely contained within a section as to why you shouldn’t allow your players to create MONSTER characters; minotaurs, trolls, dragons and the like. The section begins with (more or less) “your players may want to be monsters, but this isn’t a good idea, and here’s why.” The section ends with (more or less) “…and all of this is why you shouldn’t let your players play as monsters.” The entire section is meant to convince the referee not to allow certain types of races/monsters and to stick with what is already laid out by the book. Gygax’s references to “humankind” as valid choices in these sections naturally include demi-humans, since players are allowed to play as them. Reading it with full context, it is patently obvious that none of what is being communicated here is intended to steer players toward playing humans and not dwarves or elves. It is intended to steer players toward humans/dwarves/elves (humankind) and not rakshasas (monsters).

    • Lets see now…

      Gary Gygax was a reasonably competent writer. You are demanding “context” and entirely disregarding it when it is inconvenient. The very next sentence after the quoted section starts off “Having established the why of the humanocentric basis of the game..”

      “Disingenuous. Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.”

      Given that you are not presenting actual supporting quotes (“more or less”? It is pretty easy to check), and are ignoring parts of the original material that are inconvenient for your argument, it is easy to see that it is your objection – not the original article – that fits the definition. Accusing others of what you are doing yourself is not a very effective argument when made in writing, where everything is easily checked. You might want to avoid that.

      Gygax presented and developed his ideas properly, first establishing the general basis of his reasoning and then extending it to monsters unrelated to humanity. The notion that “the entire section is meant to” is purely your opinion and completely ignores the fact that Mr Gygax explained his reasoning and it is that reasoning which is under discussion. This article is about Why demihuman level limits existed. The fact that the reasoning behind them is presented in a section of the rules that also addresses monster player characters is quite irrelevant.

      Gary Gygax – the person who formalized the terminology of “Human”, “Demihuman”, “Demi-Human”, and “Humanoids” in the context of AD&D – specifically references those groups as being distinct in the same paragraph that you wish to claim makes it “obvious” that “humankind” means “all of them” – despite the bit about “near or part humans”. Claiming that Gygax’s references to “humankind” as valid choices in these sections naturally includes demi-humans, since players are allowed to play as them”. is blatant misrepresentation – made all the more obvious because the section does not say that players are not allowed to play monster characters. It’s actual conclusion is

      “So you are virtually on your own with regard to monsters as player characters. You have advice as to why they are not featured, why no details of monster character classes are given herein. The rest is up to you, for when all is said and done, it is your world, and your players must live in it with their characters. Be good to yourself as well as them, and everyone concerned will benefit from a well-ordered, fairly-judged campaign built upon the best imaginative and creative thinking”.

      That is not “Not allowed”. It is “I do not support this, but it is your game”.

      Finally, you state that “it is patently obvious that none of what is being communicated here is intended to steer players toward playing humans and not dwarves or elves. It is intended to steer players toward humans/dwarves/elves (humankind) and not rakshasas (monsters).”

      There isn’t anything in the article about steering players towards playing humans. The article is about why level limits were written into the rules for nonhumans. So why are you attacking a straw man of your own creation? If you disagree as to the reasoning, why not present some quotes from the source material and reasoning of your own to justify different conclusions? Opinions about external matters are only as good as their supporting evidence and reasoning is.

      It is, of course, a guess – but it is based on having seen this general reaction many times before. It seems fairly likely that you feel that demihuman level limits were unfair and detrimental to the game, and thus were a mistake and take offense at any suggestion that that they actually functioned as intended. Unfortunately for that viewpoint, they were not a mistake. Mr Gygax included them intentionally, had supporting reasoning, and allowed thousands of campaigns to provide supporting evidence that they worked. People may feel that there were better ways that were missed, or that attempts at verisimilitude are overrated in the first place, or that the solution was very clunky, but Mr Gygax was fully entitled to write what he wanted to write and had reasons for doing so.

      Level limits might dissuade a few players from making demihuman characters – but not very many given that many people did so (I did so myself many times). Even if we disregard the fact that older-edition characters died (and were replaced) a lot and so choices like “race” and “class” were purely temporary, that levels made much less difference in early editions, and that demihumans had a substantial early-game advantage due to the doubling experience point tables, role-playing games are primarily social events. Despite some players tendency to treat “bigger numbers on a character sheet” as the one-and-only goal, the primary reason for playing a character is to play an interesting and challenging role. That is why players create crippled characters, have stupid characters do stupid things that make missions far more difficult, and sometimes have characters sacrifice themselves in pursuit of various goals or in defending the innocent. That is why there are old players about who are still bringing up, and enjoying, tales from, games that shut down decades ago – long after what the numbers on their character sheets are have been long forgotten. That’s why the “Leroy Jenkins!” meme is still around while myriads of other characters have been forgotten.

      I encourage you however! If you feel that strongly about the rules for an old game system, gather your evidence, work out your reasoning, and write your own article about why they were included, how they did or did not accomplish their design goals, and – perhaps – how they influenced future game designs! Leave a link here so that I can read it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: