With the possible exception of gods, yes. The whole point of a level system is that you eventually get enough levels to be the most powerful mortals in the setting if you keep at it long enough.
No kidding. But having all things be within the same level system AS mortals might not be such a good idea.
So players are supposed to show up to your games expecting you to regale them with tales of NPCs who have nothing to do with the story? That sounds like fun.
I'm going to respond to this with a serious answer if you'd like an explaination, but PM me for it.
As for Simulationist: Mostly, yes. Simulationist -first-, then narrative, and gamist a distant third. Fine with narrativist to a point but "More stories!"...see below.
I'm interested in setting up a setting with "limited stories" as -a goal-. I don't want to be able to tell every kind of story that can be told in a given setting. I don't want to have every kind of story in every given setting I play in, either.
If I go to Arabian Nights, I'd like a reasonable array of interesting and cool stories.
If I go to Camelot, I'd like a reasonable array of interesting and cool stories.
I'd be unhappy if the stories are the same stories with the names changed.
But in reply:
1. You don't know how much of that racial difference is cultural vs. biological. How do we know that the orc strength bonus isn't just a result of the fact that orcs habitually battle each other for dominance from an early age and the intelligence penalty doesn't just come from the fact that orc culture doesn't value knowledge or the building of libraries?
In D&D as written? Not much. In a setting where this is explained? Potentially enough to answer.
2. Even if the difference is totally biological, how do you know that it can't be changed by environment? Scientists have discovered that the environment can alter the expression of genes in the brain. so how do we know that the intelligence penalty doesn't come from the fact that orc mothers don't cuddle their children enough, thus inhibiting brain development. Maybe an orc raised in a loving human family can develop as good a brain as anybody else.
Maybe. Maybe not. Again, we could have orcs limited the same way (but less severely) than how apes are limited.
And that's just using real-world science. Imagine what kinds of factors might alter an individual's biology in a world where magic exists. Maybe the great mana field that is the source of all magic shapes individuals' souls based on their environment in ways that affect both their physical and mental tendencies.
Maybe. Maybe not. This is too setting specific to even begin answering.
Based on the above, I've concluded that there's no rational simulation-based reason to keep PCs from having unusual traits. Not that I expect this to stop the argument or anything.
Okay, let me put it this way.
Pixies -always- have at least Dex 11 (3+racial modifier) with the race as written now.
Assuming that's biological, that means even the most clumsy of pixies is equally graceful to a human of normal dexterity.
Even if say, +2 or even +4 of that is "pixies (almost always) do stuff that boosts Dex", that means that pixies are nearly inevitable more Dexterous than humans.
And assuming a cap (which may or may not be a good idea, but it has nothing to do with balance, just where the end point of "mortal" is), that might mean that the best pixies are better than the best humans.
So you could have traits that are environmental that could be removed by removing the environment, and the overwhelming majority of the race grows up there, but if a "harsh and unloving environment" penalizes Intelligence and a loving and nurturing one can remove that, that would be true for more than just orcs.
And naturally, if you could remove the Int penalty, you'd need something to counter it so the race isn't overpowered.
And here is an honest question.
If you are shaped primarily by environment and nurture (Defining environment as the stuff around you and nurture being the efforts or lack of efforts by those raising you...or the absence of anyone doing so, or however. The influence of beings, as opposed to the things like "damp, cold, and misty swamps".), and you remove an orc from the orc environment and nurture it like a human..
How is it still an orc if it loses all the "orc traits?
I can accept that for some but not all traits, thusly. As in, some of your orcishness might be something you can reduce but you're not going to eliminate all of it (and not necessarily even all of what you want to eliminate, depending) without eliminating that you're an orc.
There's some good ideas here, I don't intend to argue with that. But if it doesn't walk like an orc, it doesn't talk like an orc, it doesn't act like an orc...
Stop insisting you want to play an orc. At that point, it isn't an orc.
Not only that, he's argued that commoners should be available as a PC class.
Not quite.
I'd rather have the point you're proficient enough to adventure being level 3 (or so).
Normal people who would otherwise be Commoners, thusly, are always level 1.
Level 2 would be the people who would otherwise be experts and warriors, and other people who have some training but not enough.
Level 3 is where (full) adventurer level begins.
Seriously, though. Is there anything in Commoner that anyone would mistake for a good option compared to being a "PC" class?
If so, we need to do something about that. Its one thing to say weaker things exist. Its another thing to fool people into thinking that stuff is okay.
And I am strongly against fooling people.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
