Race as Class: Redux

[badger2305]

I started off in an OD&D group in the mid-70's that anticipated multi-classing. Therefore the entire idea of "race = class" seemed pretty strange to me. This got shaken just a little bit by 3rd Edition's move towards allowing all sorts of combinations, prestige classes, etc.

When I rediscovered old school gaming, I've found people for whom race *is* class, on a really fundamental level. It still seemed strange to me, until I realized that I made a different distinction regarding race and class. It seems to me that for some demi-humans, those who have a variety of social roles are more able to be divided into "classes" than those who are really very different from humans (and thus less easily grouped). Where that line gets drawn is entirely up to the referee.

What I'm going to do is lay out the evolving connection between race and class, and then use that to illustrate my point.

[tombowings]

To me, the word "class" is just short for "classification." A character's class has nothing to do with his profession, but is closer to his archetype. My character may not be a fighter by profession, but a thug or an out of work farmer in the same that that another character is not a dwarf or elf by profession. I don't know when or how the idea for a character's class being his/her profession in roleplaying originated (or even if it did originate due to roleplaying). I'd be interested to see if anyone knows.

[badger2305]

So here's the first bit:

Original D&D

"Class-able"	Can multi-class	Class as race
Humans Dwarves (fighter only) Elves (fighter or magic-user) Hobbits (fighter only)	n/a	Balrog

So the idea of multi-classing didn't appear in the original three brown booklets; it comes later in Greyhawk. For now, what we have are four races, only one of which can do multiple classes, but not at the same time. I've put Balrogs under "race as class" since there is little more than the initial suggestion of how to potentially handle them.

I'm going to add tables for Greyhawk, AD&D, magazine materials, and then see what it all shows. Comments welcome!

[badger2305]

Feb 25, 2010 17:35:43 GMT -6 tombowings said:

To me, the word "class" is just short for "classification." A character's class has nothing to do with his profession, but is closer to his archetype. My character may not be a fighter by profession, but a thug or an out of work farmer in the same that that another character is not a dwarf or elf by profession. I don't know when or how the idea for a character's class being his/her profession in roleplaying originated (or even if it did originate due to roleplaying). I'd be interested to see if anyone knows.

Right. I think the class-as-professions idea is not a good one, taken to extremes. However, class-as-archetype doesn't mean you can't make them up as you see fit, just that you ought to be very clear about what you mean when you do.

[tombowings]

Feb 25, 2010 17:39:16 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

Right. I think the class-as-professions idea is not a good one, taken to extremes. However, class-as-archetype doesn't mean you can't make them up as you see fit, just that you ought to be very clear about what you mean when you do.

Maybe archetype was the wrong word, but I think we understand each others' meaning. In one campaign I had a player with a "dwarf" class character and other another with a "dwarven bombardier" class character.

[badger2305]

Feb 25, 2010 19:40:24 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Maybe archetype was the wrong word, but I think we understand each others' meaning. In one campaign I had a player with a "dwarf" class character and other another with a "dwarven bombardier" class character.

See - that's exactly my point. There's an unexamined issue there - just what is the "dwarf" as a character class? I'm not asking that rhetorically - it's a REAL question! If simply being a member of a particular race is an example of an archetype, then we ought to be able to see Dwarves and Dwarven character classes, when the class overrides the base racial archetype. Does that make sense?

[badger2305]

Here's the next installment:

Greyhawk adds multi-classing (which ends up being a can of worms by the time of 3rd Ed.):

Class-able	Can multi-class	Class as race
Humans Dwarves (also thief) Elves (also thief) Half-Elves (all classes) Halflings (also thief)	Dwarves Elves Half-Elves Halflings	n/a (nothing added)

The implications of this are fairly straightforward: humans tend to fulfill the archetype of each class, making it harder for them to do two or more of them (making multi-classing impossible). However, demi-humans can and do multi-class, but that flexibility is paid for by being unable to fully realize what each class is about (thus level limits).

While I might be saying things that have been said before, what I am working around towards is a theory (or at least theoretical restatement) of how and why "class as race" actually fits in some circumstances, and how to gauge that for yourself as a referee.

[capheind]

If I can hunt down the players my next game is going to be basically all "race as class".

Fighting man = Generic Human adventurer

Magic-user = Generic enchanted human adventurer

Gnome = Wee faerie people of the forests.

Being a rogue, a member of the clergy, a monkey lord, or whatever else you can think of has to be developed during play. Gnomes are level capped because they are on a sort of "walkabout" granted to young (60-ish year old) men who finish their formal education, but want to see a bit of the world before committing to their polyandrous marriage. But they will be their own separate class, they just wont be able to get to the higher levels of said class as adventurers because they are bound to return home.

[badger2305]

Feb 25, 2010 23:25:31 GMT -6 capheind said:

If I can hunt down the players my next game is going to be basically all "race as class".

Fighting man = Generic Human adventurer

Magic-user = Generic enchanted human adventurer

Gnome = Wee faerie people of the forests.

Being a rogue, a member of the clergy, a monkey lord, or whatever else you can think of has to be developed during play. Gnomes are level capped because they are on a sort of "walkabout" granted to young (60-ish year old) men who finish their formal education, but want to see a bit of the world before committing to their polyandrous marriage. But they will be their own separate class, they just wont be able to get to the higher levels of said class as adventurers because they are bound to return home.

See, this is another great example of thinking it through - what do you want to emphasize in your own campaign? I wish more referees would think this way. Personally, I like a LOT of variety, so I doubt I'd end up doing things this way - but it is a very good example of making the game your own.

[capheind]

Well there will be variety, the characters will just have to develop it in character. If you want to be a thief then you start stealing things, amongst which thieves tools and books on lock construction, if you want to be a Dragon Slayer you run about killing dragons. Lets face it, some of the most memorable and unique characters we ever played were pretty bland at first level, until they started acquiring curses, blessings, magic items, exotic allies, and so forth.

[badger2305]

Here's the next installment:

AD&D 1st Edition looks a lot like Greyhawk:

Class-able	Can multi-class	Class as race
Humans Dwarves Elves Gnomes Half-Elves Half-Orcs Halflings	Dwarves Elves Gnomes Half-Elves Half-Orcs Halflings	(gold dragons, lycanthropes)

As per the DMG, page 21, "Advanced D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity....The considered opinion of this writer is that such characters [monsters] are not beneficial to the game and should be excluded."

From a philosophical perspective, AD&D was trying to maintain a focus on humans, and at the same time, the concept that all of the appropriate races could exemplify different archetypes; e.g. warrior, wizard, high priests, etc. It's an interesting balancing act, and one that doesn't completely succeed; classes and races began to diversify very quickly.

This is also a moment to recognize Gygaxian Naturalism, as well as Gygaxian Unnaturalism: "The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game....From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions."

A wry wit might call this a kind of "species-ist" perspective, and that is true on a somewhat philosophical level. However, the deeper implication is that it is up to the referee to figure out the assumptions behind the inclusion and role of each race in their game, and to structure their reflection in the game mechanics appropriately.

(When I get to talking about Basic D&D, there will be some interesting implications worth further examination.)

[badger2305]

Feb 26, 2010 9:17:44 GMT -6 capheind said:

Well there will be variety, the characters will just have to develop it in character. If you want to be a thief then you start stealing things, amongst which thieves tools and books on lock construction, if you want to be a Dragon Slayer you run about killing dragons. Lets face it, some of the most memorable and unique characters we ever played were pretty bland at first level, until they started acquiring curses, blessings, magic items, exotic allies, and so forth.

Absolutely. In a very real way, the creation of any character class is recognition of a certain kind of archetype. For example, if you think about the debates about the inclusion of Assassins as a character class, what they were about at base was: are assassins an appropriate part of the milieu I want to create as the referee of my own campaign?

Similarly, some bloggers are exploring the idea of whether or not to include anything by Tolkien in their campaigns. It's refreshing, even liberating, to step away from Tolkien - and I recall a number of campaigns set up that way in the period from 1974 to 1978.

What I am suggesting is that all races and all classes are "questionable" - it is up to the referee to figure out what they want to emphasize, and how to emphasize it. The relationship between classes, races, and multi-classing reflect some of the assumptions YOU make as a referee, and therefore are very important to the set-up of the game.

[brianm]

I think I grok what you're getting at here, Badger.

From 1e on, I think this was an unconscious assumption; one of the first questions always asked was which classes would be allowed. Assassins? Illusionists? Druids? What gods would the clerics worship? What about ostensibly NPC classes from Dragon, like ninja and anti-paladins? What about bards, either from the back of the PHB or from Dragon?

I did the same thing with my current LL game, adding and subtracting or adjusting classes with an eye towards what I wanted my game to be like. I know I succeeded when one of my players pointed out that one of my classes (the rogue) didn't seem to fit in the campaign. She was right, and this was because it was the first new class I built, back when I had a very different idea of what the campaign would be about.

But yes, adding, deleting and mutilating classes is a great way to make a game your own.

[aldarron]

Feb 26, 2010 9:29:48 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

What I am suggesting is that all races and all classes are "questionable" - it is up to the referee to figure out what they want to emphasize, and how to emphasize it. The relationship between classes, races, and multi-classing reflect some of the assumptions YOU make as a referee, and therefore are very important to the set-up of the game.

If I can be permitted to get all academic for a moment, one of the ways we anthropologists tend to group ourselves (and everybody else) is as lumpers or splitters. I think this is also very much a part of the class discussions with people who are philosophically lumpers or spliters talking right past each other. Basically, OD&D and race as class is lumping "These guys are all pretty much fighters, or Magic users or dwarves" Its an archytype philosophy that sees more similarities than differences. Splitting on the otherhand argues that some differences (as judged by the splitter) make these things different categories. The trouble with splitting is that it tends to become more and more subjective so that any thing or person can be seen as a type. So, the degree to which a gamer decides to lump or split is really up to the degree of specificity (and stat categories) that they find useful and fun.

[Finarvyn]

Apologies if your question is rhetorical, and if you know this already.

Feb 25, 2010 17:35:43 GMT -6 tombowings said:

I don't know when or how the idea for a character's class being his/her profession in roleplaying originated (or even if it did originate due to roleplaying). I'd be interested to see if anyone knows.

It actually goes all the way back to the 1974 White Box and LBB. At the start of OD&D you are given choice as to class (Fighter, Magic-user, Cleric) and race (human, hobbit, elf, dwarf) and the limits are clearly imposed in Men & Magic; e.g. the experience chart on page 16 clearly marks 4th level fighter as the "highest level for elf", 6th level fighter "highest level for dwarf", and 8th level magic-user as "highest level for elf" again. As such, at least as far back as 1974 class and race are seperate entities.

The change to BD&D was the official change-over, as AD&D continued the natural evolution of OD&D+Supplements while BD&D took a new direction and blended race/class together. I think the notion was that there were several stereotypes which evolved through play (dwarves were always fighters, elves did both fighting and magic use, hobbits were always sneaky types, etc) that caused a natural evolution whereby race and class became the same thing.

This becomes more problematic if additional classes are added to the mix, unless it is assumed that only humans can be monks, paladins, druids, etc. AD&D's solution would be to impose level limits to each new class by race, but BD&D's solution would have been to create an entirely new racial template to accomodate the new professions. To me, that's where the race=class model tends to fall apart. The more options, the harder it is to maintain a race=class system, unless the new classes become human-only ones.

[aldarron]

Apr 2, 2010 4:18:33 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The change to BD&D was the official change-over, as AD&D continued the natural evolution of OD&D+Supplements while BD&D took a new direction and blended race/class together. I think the notion was that there were several stereotypes which evolved through play (dwarves were always fighters, elves did both fighting and magic use, hobbits were always sneaky types, etc) that caused a natural evolution whereby race and class became the same thing.

I think the quirky history of the game is somewhat the culprit here . If Holmes hadn't voluntarily done his revision, Gygax prolly would have channeled all TSR's efforts into AD&D and there never would have been another box set. I suspect it was the sales profit from the Holmes box set that led to the Moldvey rules being written in the first place. Its pretty clear from those rules that they were following a "keep it simple" philosophy, with the idea that players who really got into it would have to turn to AD&D (and buy the products). So I suspect the BD&D race as class was more of a marketing decision than anything to do with gaming philosophy.

[capheind]

So I suspect the BD&D race as class was more of a marketing decision than anything to do with gaming philosophy.

Doesn't stop me from thinking its awesome

[jblittlefield]

Feb 25, 2010 17:35:43 GMT -6 tombowings said:

To me, the word "class" is just short for "classification." A character's class has nothing to do with his profession, but is closer to his archetype. <snip>

Ditto for me...I don't even allow non-humans as PCs since my homebrew setting is more in the vein of Howard and Leiber than Tolkien. In addition, I only use two base classes -- Fighting-Man and Magic-User. I find that a few choice "bennies" here and there allow my players to represent almost any fantasy archetype. For example, a "ranger" is nothing more than a Fighting-Man with the ability to survive in the wilderness. A "cleric" is a Fighting-Man that crusades in support of a deity. A sorcerer is a Magic-User that uses ritual to enhance his spell-casting. Etc...

[capheind]

I actually was just thinking of this and it kinda gelled for me as to why I love race as class (and sometimes even ethnic group as class). If you look at, say, the classical period or middle ages you'd have a few types of hero's locally, but the only foreign hero's you'd generally see was some type of mercenary troop or something. Often the only Egyptians people out side of north Africa would see were their famed archers, and the only Germanic some Latins would know of were mounted cavalry. In most the human centered settings, or at least settings where the fantasy races stick together dwarves are foreigners, so the only dwaves you might meet adventuring would be members of famed axe-wielding mercenary bands who stayed around to pursue something more.

[jblittlefield]

Apr 3, 2010 22:28:10 GMT -6 capheind said:

I actually was just thinking of this and it kinda gelled for me as to why I love race as class (and sometimes even ethnic group as class). If you look at, say, the classical period or middle ages you'd have a few types of hero's locally, but the only foreign hero's you'd generally see was some type of mercenary troop or something. Often the only Egyptians people out side of north Africa would see were their famed archers, and the only Germanic some Latins would know of were mounted cavalry. In most the human centered settings, or at least settings where the fantasy races stick together dwarves are foreigners, so the only dwaves you might meet adventuring would be members of famed axe-wielding mercenary bands who stayed around to pursue something more.

That's a good way of looking at it...Balearic slingers, Cretan archers, Celtic swordsmen, African heavy infantry. d**n, now I feel like playing DBA!

[capheind]

Totally having a brainfart, DBA?

[coffee]

DBA is De Bellis Antiquitatis, a miniatures game for ancient warfare. It's pretty good, but I prefer the fantasy version, Hordes of the Things.

In each game, troops are classified based on their battlefield characteristics, and not just on their specific weapons and armor. Soldiers armed and armored identically can be one of several different "types" based on how they operate on the battlefield.