Hello all

I want to share a thought I had when I started with the 3rd ed of the WFRP.

For those who know, non-human races have been progresively nerfed down from 1st edition until the 3rd. In the 1st edition elves were a kind of Tolkian Elf, excelling in nearly all aspects when compared to a human (characteristics and special habilities). Similarly, dwarfs, although not as powerfull, were better than humans. Elf were nimbler, clever, better fighters, wiser and faster than humans, they had keen senses, night vision, could not be affected by mutations bla bla bla, while dwarfs were tougher, stronger minded, less nimble, hard to harm by magic etc. Additionally both races could reach higher stat values (in some stats) as compared to humans.

I specially liked this Tolkian approach, since it kept the flavour of the Warhammer world, at least the flavour of what the 1st edition of the Warhammer world was. In game terms, the first edition (and in a lesser way the 2nd ed) had some mechanisms (through skill versatility, fortune points and destiny points) to counter act the atractive powerfull stats and special habilities of elves and dwarfs, and make humans and halflings also appealing.

Personally I never had a problem with this, since I never thought that a Role Play Game must be balanced, as World of Warcraft or other non-RPG must be, I liked as it was. Based on the rarity of the races, my parties were typically composed of four or five men an Elf (High or Wood) and one or two Dwarfs (depending on the number of men).

With the second edition of the game, since the mechanics translation was nearly direct, I did the effort to scale up again the elves and dwarfs. With the appearence of the third edition I just stop using elves as PC, and my group is composed by 6 men and two dwarfs (I scaled them a bit up). I have grown older and lazier and I have not scaled elves up again through the translation of all their special habilities (1st edition) to the 3rd ed.

How other GM comming from the 1st edition have dealed with this? Did you ever bother about it?

Personally I am against balancing. Character-wise that is. Balancing should occur story-wise, so that every person has his/ her moments and contributions to the story. That is my goal with every adventure I'm running: make a cool story that everyone is happy to have been in.

But I DO have players, who feel bad, when others rock in a fight and they don't, for example. But I think the solution for this is, to somehow fiddle with the story, so everyone feels happy. Of course, as a GM for over 20 years and mainly the same players for a long time, that is more easy than it might come to others...

To me nalance is important to allow "equal voice" at table etc. for players. This is the sort of question a GM should never really answer alone but instead should be discussed by a table.

I believe a desire to reflect uber-races and ancient civilizations can be reflected in narrative/story things more easily than narrative/story can make up for mechanical imbalance (it sucks if even the story is 90% about you if the other fellow actually makes all the real accomplishments). The elf can be young, cursed, amnesiac, recovering from a long sickness, injured in narrative terms to explain their "failure to live up to the story".

Agree with you about the equal relevance of all the PC in the history. This can be difficult to achieve if one of the PC is more powerful than the rest, but still doable. I have managed to do it in the previous editions.

On the other hand, if an Elf is just a human with pointy ears I would prefer not to include them as PC since the atmosphere of the world is broken. I will use them then only as NPC to keep their mysticism and power reflected on the game, in much a similar way as High elves mages have been never a PC choice.

I'm a firm believer that each race should have definite mechanical weaknesses and strengths that are as similar in power as possible.

I do not believe that "racism" is enough of a disadvantage to balance elves and whatnot. That just makes for an adversarial relationship between a GM and a player.

For example: I believe that elven wizards can become very powerful eventually, but that the one that's in your adventuring party is very early in his career and is equal to the bright wizard. He can talk all he wants about how powerful he's going to become, but until then ( a thousand years from now), he's just another mook in the party. Oh, you can cast from all winds of magic? Yea, that's balanced out with the fact that you get fewer spells (or something). Just because a person is an elf does not make him a brokenly'-better spellcaster adventurer. When the elf boxed sets come out, I'm really hoping they don't forget this.

jh

I agree with you about the training part, i.e. there is a moment in the training time line of a High Elf mage when he is or can be less or equally powerfull than a human mage. Agree, but I have to disagree with you Emirikol about the rest. In the same way that Dragons in the Warhammer world (as individuals) are a race extremly more powerful than humans (as individuals and not as a collective). Elves are in my mind a more powerful race, again as individuals and not as a collective.

We all agree probably that dwarfs are shorter than humans, in this same sense elfs of the 1st edition (and 2nd ed but less) in game mechanics terms were faster, cleverer, stronger minded as per se, by raw. Additionally with time and training (i.e exp) they could reach stats up to levels much higher than humans.

Let me say again that this idea is in my head because it is how the Warhammer world was in the first edition of the game, where most of my background books come from. Clearly, to avoid excesive troubles between players the developers of the game have evolve the non-humans races to a same level status that I not share. I prefer to handle the inequalities or not to compromise the atmosphere of the world.

Let me put one example. With the appearence of Heroe's call they are anouncing two new races. One, most probably, will be the Halflings (called like this and not hobbits due to a copyright problem with the Tolkien family back in the 80's when they created the 1st edition, same as in D&D) and the other could be the Ogres. What will you do? Will you let a 3 meters humanoid have the same strength as a one meter humanoid just for game balance? I definitely prefer a no. But that is a matter of taste.

I personally don't allow elf PCs, but that's because I think stories centered on humans and the Empire are more interesting. An elf will almost automatically twist every story - instantly inspiring people to make assumptions about him/her etc. in a way they won't about humans. Dwarfs I'm on the fence about. They're still noticeably different, but they are at least considered much more a part of the Empire.

Regarding game mechanics, I'm in favour of the races being as balanced as possible, but this doesn't have to be in obvious ways. I want halflings to be short, and I hope ogres (if that's the new race) will be strong, tough, etc. and I suspect low intelligence stats won't be enough. It'll take more than that.

One idea I've had when thinking about elves is let them start with superior stats, but have them earn experience at half the rate of everyone else. (Or double the costs of everything.) This would reflect the 'newness' of humanity, in the chaos-influenced growth spurt that is driving it forward. An elf will (in a few hundred years) be able to learn lots of skills and improve his stats, but develops at a much slower rate than humans. But that won't necessarily make for a fun game. I don't really need to worry about it though, as I'm quite happy to ban elves - for story reasons alone.

Yepes',

The halfling issue has already come up in my game. I put out a halfing racial sheet when the game first came out. I have them start with strength 1 and I think 20 points. One of my players pointed out that they are, as that was written, an inferior race because it comes up 2 points shorter.

I said, "Yes..and?" Part of the reason I went that way was because I wanted it to be warhammer with the grim insanities and diseases that only humans can be so totally afflicted with.

But on the other hand, I never liked the feeling of a race being substantially better than another. Elves are my favorite example, because in my game worlds, I make them essentially equal to humans, but with pointy ears and a longer time to learn stuff (so they can break the game long after the campaign is done, but not during it.) My PC and NPC elves simply are not more powerful. They don't get better spells or combat abilities. They don't have greater access to the winds of magic. They're not more magically attuned (they just happened to discover it earlier..but that doesn't make them more magically attuned..in my games). I've de-preferenced them from my fantasy campaigns. Then, if someone REALLY wants to play one, they're not playing it because it's more powerful, they're playing it because they want to have their gender questioned by the dwarf, and get bruises from getting punched in the arm by the thug every time they do something positive

jh

Hello again, I am going to keep the phylosophical discussion a bit more if you don't mind.

Angelic Despost "I personally don't allow elf PCs, but that's because I think stories centered on humans and the Empire are more interesting. An elf will almost automatically twist every story - instantly inspiring people to make assumptions about him/her etc. in a way they won't about humans. Dwarfs I'm on the fence about. They're still noticeably different, but they are at least considered much more a part of the Empire.

Regarding game mechanics, I'm in favour of the races being as balanced as possible, but this doesn't have to be in obvious ways"

I mainly agree with these points Despost and I have also baned Elves in my 3rd edition campaings.

Emirikol " The halfling issue has already come up in my game. I put out a halfing racial sheet when the game first came out. I have them start with strength 1 and I think 20 points. One of my players pointed out that they are, as that was written, an inferior race because it comes up 2 points shorter.

I said, "Yes..and?" Part of the reason I went that way was because I wanted it to be warhammer with the grim insanities and diseases that only humans can be so totally afflicted with. "

I think I have visited a kind of webpage of you, may it be? If so, your aproach to Halflings sounds very nice to me, but my question is: How far can they progress? Can a 1 meter tall 40kg humanoid reach strength 6? Because in that case you are creating a sort of Ant phenomenon. Your Halfling player will be able to rival a sturdy 1,80 m human Knight, and therefore perform feats of strenght such as lifting 200Kg, 5 times his weight! Actually, a halfling St 6 and 40 Kg will be able to jump so high that probably he will hurt himself when falling. Or he will have very good chances to beat a 3 m big troll (St 7) in an Arm wrestling! This are the kind of things that does not fit in my idea of a fantasy world. Although it is fantasy, to me there should be some boundaries (it may sound silly).

" But on the other hand, I never liked the feeling of a race being substantially better than another. Elves are my favorite example, because in my game worlds, I make them essentially equal to humans, but with pointy ears and a longer time to learn stuff (so they can break the game long after the campaign is done, but not during it.) "

I like your idea of a long time needed for the fully development of the Elf race, after all they are long lived. May be I will make the effort to translate them from the 1st edition then

But this does not resolve the inate capabilities such as keen senses, night vision, gracefulness...

I first aproach to a translation of what Elves were in the 1st edition will be as follow:

Elves can train up to four levels in WS and BS skills instead of the normal 3

Elves can train Ag, Int, WP and Fel up to a value of 7 instead of the normal 6

Keen senses: Elves add a <W> to observation tests

Nimble feet: Elves ignore up to one <BK> to cehck for difficult terrain.

As Despost comment this should be "compensated" in game terms by some means. In 1st and 2nd editions this was done through the Fate points and Fortune poitns which the Elves possed less than humans.

Game balance is a taste issue. Some like it, others don't. Asking if it should be there suggests that there is one correct way to play (which there isn't).

That said, I think you guys have some good ideas on how to create either imbalanced or asymmetrically balanced racial traits.

Wait wait! That was totally not my intention Doc! There is only a single way of playing correctly, which is having fun with your colleagues.

I was enjoying a good discussion with Emirikol, Despot and others. Specially, I apreciate alot the extensive comments from Emirikol and Despost. I have read their post in the forums many times and they have always shown (to my opinion) a very good criteria.

A prat from that, I got motivated from the comments so here I post how I deal with Dwarven PC's in my campaign

Dwarfs : The following rules are in addition to the already presented ones in the Player’s Guide.
- Warfare Masters : Dwarves can train up to four levels in WS skill instead of the normal restriction of 3.
- Dwarven psyche : Dwarves can train To and WP up to a value of 7 instead of the normal restriction of 6. The advancement cost a normal amount of 7 exp but only a total of 6 career advances slots are used to do so. On the contrary, they can only train Ag up to a value of 5.
- Sturdy (substitute the Sturdy rule of the Core rules): Dwarves can carry up to St x 7 of encumbrance instead of the normal St x 5. Additionally, dwarfs may ignore up to <BK> <BK> misfortune penalties to athletics checks caused by the effects of armour (this are some extra house rules I have regarding armour).
- Resistant to magic : Magical effects targeting a Dwarf gain <BK>.
- Dawn of a race : The Dwarven race influence over the Old World is fading progressively. Dwarven PC’s fortune pool can store a maximum of two fortune points instead of the normal amount of 3.

and if in my next campaign I decide to introduce an Elf PC it will be as follow

Elves : The following rules are in addition to the already presented ones in the Player’s Guide. And they apply to both Wood and High Elves
- Masters of Martial arts : Elves can train up to four levels in WS and BS skills instead of the normal restriction of 3.
- Elven psyche : Elves can train Ag, Int, WP and Fel up to a value of 7 instead of the normal restriction of 6. The advancement cost from 6 to 7 cost 7 exp but only a total of 6 career advances slots are used to do so.
- Keen senses : Elves add a <W> to observation tests.
- Nimble feet : Elves may ignore terrain-based manoeuvre and up to <BK> misfortune penalties to movement and actions performed while in difficult terrain. In the case of Wood elves this is increased to <BK> <BK> while in Woodland terrain
- No fate : The world is changing, Humanity is on ascendent and the Elven is on a wane. The time for the Elven race on the Old world is over, Elven PC’s fortune pool can store a maximum of one fortune point instead of the normal amount of 3.

The Dawn of a race and No fate traits are a weak attempt to translate the lack of Fate points that this two races had in the previous editions of the game. Since in the 3rd edition Fate points have disappear, that is what I come up with.

By the book, elves and dwarves are stronger than human, even in the 3rd Edition.

If a human would acquire by XP the advantage elves and dwarves benefit at creation, it certainly would be more expensive than the 5 extra creation points human have.

Moreover we can see in session that their higher resistance against diseases and corruption is really a big and nice advantage.

Back to halflings: I agree, I'd limit them to a strength of 4 (max) or 5 at rank 5 (maybe..if they were exceptional..and had a storyline of part-dwarfen blood or something canonically obscene like that

jh

Yepesnopes said:

You could actually do something similar with this system. With higher exp costs to buy things, for example. Or, only allow Elf players a single fate point per session instead of the 3 basic ones. Or even none. To represent the fact that their race is on the decline, whereas the humans are on the up/going to hell/chaos at rapid speed...

That might make it less fun to play however...

Ahem... I should have read your next post before replying... Sorry for suggesting something you've already done!

willmanx said:

I do agree with you in general, but I have some things to add about humans and how I've experienced them in my group.

However over time humans get more XP to spend on advances, since they do not have to spend as much to change career. In reality they get 5 extra creation points and then "extra" 1XP per career.

In our group one of the human players choose between two careers each session for a 0 XP cost depending on which seem to fit the situation best. I only allow the player to switch career between games of course, but still, he's made it into a very real advantage as it lets him pick which of his current career abilities to use for the session.

We should also not forget that it's entirely possible to use Favoured by Fate ability to resist deseases, hence giving the same bonus to resist as the Dwarves and Elves, but I guess how that is depends on how often you risk getting a disease. The human ability is more versatile though. Favoured by Fate could also be used to resist corruption, but the elves and dwarves are still better at that.

I still do agree however, right off the bat elves and dwares are (slightly) stronger/better than humans.

If a race is going to be playable as a PC, the race needs to be relatively balanced overall with the other races. Each race will have its strengths and weaknesses. However, making one race much better, or much worse, has in the history of gaming generally been a disaster. Races get scorned, sidelined, or "always" taken, with much grumbling, arguing, whining, etc if there isn't some sort of balance. The inevitable "why would you ever choose that race?..." or "Why would you take any race but..." would crop up immediately.

You don't see any games attempt to provide playable races that are unbalanced. From RPGs to MMOs to boardgames ... the playing field must be relatively level between the players, or else the balance of the game itself is off.

Also, keep in mind that 1st Ed elves and dwarves did have their downsides, and really weren't all that much "better" than humans even then.

dvang said:

mmmmm, let me give you a few examples where different playble races where not balanced at all referring to stats: Rune Quest, Lord of the Rings, Stormbringer, Ars Magica, WFRP (1st and 2nd), Marvel Super Heroes, D&D, Palladium, Buck Rogers and many many more.

On the other hand, I do believe in balancing between the players , but the balance should come on a higher level. For example, high elves in the Reikland may be restricted only to access to some careers, they may have less fortune dice, they may have penalties in social interactions, restriction on the number of maximum wounds, just to throw some ideas.

My style of game is one that prefer Tolkien-like Elves and Dwarfs, that is awesome Elves and Dwarfs (i.e. WFRP 1st). I will do then in game balancing. I know this implies much more work for me as a GM, but I prefer it like this.

I don't like MMO balancing like World of Warcraft where elfs are just humans with ponty ears. Fortunately this is a RPG and no MMO!

Finally, to make my point clear , I know that in average elves and dwarfs in the 3rd edition are already better than humans (corruption threshold, disease, night vision, long lived...). Nonetheless, my goal is not to make them better than humans , just to make them "real" Elves and Dwarfs as I see them in my mind, which is a Tolkien style. The natural consequence of this vision is that they should have other non-human capabilities which are not reflected in the rules of the 3rd edition. On the contrary, if I will house rule Halflings in my games, I will do something very similar to what Emirikol did; but additionally I will restrict to 4 their maximum St, I will restrict their maximum number of wounds, the type of weapons they can carry...All in all, probably they will have, on average, lower stats than humans. As a consequence, balance should come from other sources which would fit a Halfling as I imagine them, like more fortune die to the fortune dice pool, huge corruption threshold... If this will not be enough, I will have to do other in-game balancing for Halflings.

That is how I see it.

I like balanced races. I like the rules for the 3e races as is.

I prefer strong non-humans, but on the other hand I also demand good roleplaying in return.

Nothing is worse (I know lot of things are worse, it's a figure of speech...) than someone playing a non-human like they play a human. It's how I started hating Vampire, people played them just like humans, even after having lived 1000 years.

You have to feel the dwarf is torn between his pride (clan), and his friendship with the group. And how he after a long time of being suspicious, suddenly shows that no amount of wealth can buy the loyalty that comes from a dwarf you've made your friend!

And also you have to feel how the elf silently weeps for nature, when he sees how humans are treating it. The frustrating he feels, knowing he can't hope to stop the tide of humanity slowly ruining everything around them, and yet he also views them with a kind of sympathy, as he sees them as children, wielding tools to powerful for them.

I once played with someone playing a hafling just as he'd play any other char, it was gruesome and very very annoying. I often found I had to remind myself he WAS a hafling, because nothing in his way of roleplaying gave any hints!

But if they show they can roleplay them, I will make certain they get 1st edition like bonuses. Because they ARE the elder races, and no human warrior should ever compare to a dwarven (or elven) warrior, who's spend hundreds of years honouring his skills, fighting trolls, goblins, skaven, elves (or dwarves), etc... etc...

I have yet, though, to have a player who was willing to put the effort I demand, into it. It's not easy roleplaying a dwarf, and it's damned difficult to roleplay an elf.

You made up a nice point here Spivo. I have been neglecting the role playing as a balance element. Thank you for the reminder!

Yepesnopes said:

I have not played some of these game, however, I can refute all those that I have played or GMed.

Ars Magica - Those players that aren't wizards are essentially "henchmen". Players are told this, and need to be aware that they will be second-class citizens. It usually doesn't work out very well, from everything I've seen. Generally, unless its a good group, in my experience with Ars Magica you won't see very many non-wizard PCs.

WFRP (1st and 2nd) - You are dead wrong. The races *are* fairly well balanced. I don't believe that you are taking into account all the "penalties" that non-humans get. For example, they have a very limited career selection and chart to roll on. They cannot be priests or wizards, etc.

Marvel - I'm going from memory, but from what I recall all the races were in fact relatively balanced. Can you provide examples?

D&D - Which edition? I haven't played 4th edition. In every other edition all the races had a penalties to balance out their racial bonuses. Often, increased XP to level, for example.

Palladium - Which game? Everything from Rifts to Robotech, I cannot think of a single race that didn't have flaws to offset their bonuses to some degree or other.

dvang don't turn this into a fight. Please, read carefully that I said that the races were not balanced regarding stats.

I can give you the examples, no problem, for example in D&D in the Dark Sun setting there were the race of the Thri-Kreen whith higer stats. The same in WFRP 1st and 2nd editions, the stats of Dwarfs and Elves were just much higher than those of humans, therefore they were for example better warriors.

Actually, I have the feeling that you and me agree in this subject. I DO think that there should exist a balance in between the playable races. But the balance should not be necessarely found in the stats (strength, wounds, agility etc.) or especila racial habilities (corruption, night vision etc.). Instead, one can found different ways on balancing the races by for example, as you mentioned, restricting careers; or as has been commented in this post, by demanding a especial role play for the races.

The GM should find the way to balance the different player characters by allowing all of them to shine at specific moments. On the other hand, I firmly believe that non-human races must keep they flavor, that is if Dwarfs are toughter than humans that should properly represented by the rules.

Ugggh. I hate games that try and balance races by "demanding role-play" from a particular race. The point of these games is to role-play. That is why we play them. Demanding role-playing means nothing, and balances nothing. Its like demanding that someone who regularly goes to coffee shops like coffee and/or pastries. Furthermore, this is a game, not a profession. People should not be penalized for the inability to do a thing well. The point is to try and have fun, not to give an oscar winning performance.

Plain and simple, when a race makes your character far more effective than another player's character there is a very good chance that the game becomes less fun for somebody. Having a character that is far more effective means being able to contribute to the story more effectively; contributing to the story effectively is exactly what makes these games fun, at least to me and most of the players I know personally, and forcing someone to be less effective because of a choice they made for the sake of role-playing (the desire to role-play one race over another) seems to me to be little more than punishing someone for the desire to role-play.

If we are not talking about "stats" in terms of general mechanical effectivity, but rather in terms of the numerical value of a specific in game mechanic such as strength, then the demi-human races in WFRPG 3e are already more powerful in terms of stats. All of the demi-human choices have a couple of stats in which they receive a higher starting value than humans. Yes, it is only higher by one point. But, keep in mind, the maximum stat value of a character is 6, and the general starting value is 2. Starting with a value of 3 is a 50% overall increase in starting value. It also saves you 3 advances, which is no small gain, if you maximize that stat.

Honestly, everyone has the right to their own tastes. But if the stats were any less balanced I doubt I would like this game. I certainly would not play in a game where the GM houseruled stronger stats for demi-humans.

Cyber-Dave said:

Long live diversity

Good you have your game, and I mine, would be dull if everybody did the same...

I say "playing role-playing" means nothing, it's something people say no matter what they do, even though they're actually just playing a board game without any pieces. I weep for you if you've never seen anyone really get into character, so you could almost see the person they were playing. I have seen, but I've also seen even more of those who played all their chars the very same way, no facets no nothing, just stats on a piece of paper and dice to roll against them.

This annoys me somewhat, but with nice people I can live with it, as role-playing is also something social. But it goes beyond annoying for me when it's with non-humans. Everybody can play a human, because... they are one, but it annoys me when you just "copy-paste" your non existent role-playing to Vampires, Werewolves, Elves, Orcs etc etc...

It's my own opinion, but it's one I can have, because I am the GM, my world, my rules. If players don't like them, they're very free to find another GM, won't force them to play with me, wouldn't really be fun for anyone.

Just like my players would find it immensely boring that I just drew up a 200 lvl dungeon, and did random roll in every room, I find it immensely boring as a GM to not be able to see the players character, but only see the player.

Cyber-Dave said:

Players are not competitors in my games, they're allies. We're not talking Dritz (or whatever his name is) in the group, killing the demon in one hit, before his weakling companions has even shaken the initial forced upon fear. We're talking about the elf being better... simply better. If he wasn't I'd have to find some half-as.ed excuse for him being a wimpy elf. Did he suffocate from birth? Does he suffer from some sort of muscle illness, that makes him a weaker than other beings who has lived for 200 years?

My players contribute by interacting... you don't contribute by rolling a set of dice, that's like saying I contribute to the cooking at home by turning on the light-switch.

Not sure what you mean, but are really being serious when you think it's harsh to demand role-playing from someone who wants to role-play a specific race??? Isn't that totally contradicting your own words?

Do you mean demanding role-play from someone who "wants" a race's attributes, but doesn't want to role-play it...? Yeah, **** that's harsh stuff... really harsh...

Cyber-Dave said:

2-3 sessions of play makes demi-humans the same as humans, stat-wise. This is in contrast of dwarves who are raised learning to fight, and has done so for 50 years before their human companions parents were born. This gets even more ludicrous with elves.

I don't think they should have done it any different though, because people would cry "In-balance!!!", and I think this is very fine. They did the same in 2nd edition, but I changed the stats to 1st edition, and no one complained (had only one dwarf in my time, never ever had an elf in my group).

Yup, we each have our own tastes, and that is fine. I am just pointing out that your approach happens to annoy me as much as what you are saying annoys you. I really don't like playing with GMs who try to enforce the quality of roleplaying. Not everyone is equally good at it. I don't think it is fair to penalize players for not being actors. Just let them enjoy the game. Do what you can to foster roleplaying, of course! This is a roleplaying game. But giving people much more effective races because you happen to like the way they roleplay seems to be little more than a practice in favoritism to me.

The argument that players are not competitors does not justify imbalanced games. It is irrelevant. One player still gets to provide more meaningful/effective contributions than another. One player is rewarded for their contributions more than another as a result. Considering that people tend to be reward driven entities, that is likely to result in one player feeling left out. The argument that everyone still contributes is specious. Yes, everyone can still say what they want to achieve. But many effects are mediated by skill checks. More effective races result in characters who are more likely to achieve desired effects via their contributions. It does not seem like a recipe for a fun game to me. Anyone who wants to roleplay a human in your schema is penalized. They get a less effective race based on their choice. It just doesn't seem like a very fair gaming environment. Life is unfair, but games shouldn't be.

I am very confused as to why you feel that elves (or dwarves) must intrinsically be better, simply better, overall. I see no reason why that must be true. It certainly is not true in the 3e setting as written, with one exception: the setting states that elven mages are better, simply better. As a result they are not available as player options. And that is exactly how it should be. Options that, for story reasons, cannot be balanced should not be player options (in my opinion).

No, in the rules as written 2-3 gaming sessions will not make the human the same as a dwarf or elf in terms of stats. The dwarf or elf will always have at least 3 extra advances on the human, because the dwarf/elf doesn't need to spend those advances to raise their stat from 2-3. Those 3 extra advances always benefit the dwarf/elf in some shape or form. Of course, it is not a drastic discrepancy... but then I would not like this game if it was.

Of course, all of this is merely expressing my personal tastes, my approach to gaming philosophy. Nobody has to share it. There is nothing inherently superior about my preferences. I just thought I would provide a more fleshed out counter-point to some of the tastes expressed here.