|
Post by Finarvyn on May 21, 2012 11:53:38 GMT -6
I know that this is a topic that drifts over into the realm of Holmes or B/X moreso than OD&D, but I was reading some message board posts and blog entries on this and thought it would be interesting to start a thread on it from an OD&D point of view. Fundamentally, I think that Race=Class is a natural outgrowth of racial stereotyping. For example, if dwarves all tend to act one way, so eventually that one way becomes "the way" for dwarves. OD&D sort of forces this early on since dwarves must be fighters, then relaxes it a little in the supplements when dwarves can also be thieves. Same for Hobbits, who start out as fighters by default in the white box then turn to thieves in Greyhawk. Elves are more complex, as they share abilities for magic-users as well as fighters. In the original rules they have to pick one class each adventure, although that class could be different the next time. I always struggled with this because it never made sense to me to have an elf who has spellcasting talent one time and then none at all the next, and the Race=Class evolution would be to create a fighter-MU class which would be a blend of the two so that elves could do both at once but just not be as good at either. Adding the thief from Greyhawk further complicates the issue, since now there could be some F-MU elves, some F-T elves, other T-MU, or whatever. What B/X does with Race=Class is simply to build a stereotype for the race and assume that all members of the race do roughly the same things. There wouldn’t be any dwarven clerics, for example, because it doesn’t fit the stereotype. (Keeping in mind that NPC dwarves don't need to follow the same rules as PC dwarves; DM option.) One place where AD&D differs from B/X is that (within certain restrictions) almost any race can choose any class. By the time the game evolved into 4E I’m pretty sure all of those restrictions have been removed altogether, so Hobbit paladins could be running around as commonly as Hobbit thieves. 4E and other games of this style are as anti-Race=Class as one might imagine because they are designed to add options and remove restrictions. I’m not going to judge whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it certainly is an evolution in philosophy that started with the Basic-Advanced D&D split 30+ years ago. When I designed S&W WB, I created a hybrid F-MU elf class as an option. Frankly, this makes a lot more sense to me than fighter one time, magic-user the next. I believe that a hybrid elf class works well with OD&D because as levels advance it’s still possible to impose level limits from Men & Magic, e.g. an elf might top out at a fighting ability equivalent to a Hero even as she continues to advance up the level ladder. So, as much as Race=Class isn’t technically a part of OD&D, one might be able to argue that it really is an integral part of the game and has been from the genesis. What do you think?
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on May 21, 2012 13:38:35 GMT -6
By the time the game evolved into 4E I’m pretty sure all of those restrictions have been removed altogether, so Hobbit paladins could be running around as commonly as Hobbit thieves. 3E already did that, although it associated each race with a favourite class (for example Dwarves' favourite class is Fighter): anyway, that matters only when multi-classing and doesn't tell you that a given race fits better with a given class. What B/X does with Race=Class is simply to build a stereotype for the race and assume that all members of the race do roughly the same things. B/X does that but BECMI broke stereotypes (Mystara's Gazetteers have a lot of optional classes for demi-humans) following a path different from AD&D. 4E and other games of this style are as anti-Race=Class Yes and No. 4E does pretty the opposite if compared to 3E: because Powers depend on abilities, a given race fits always better with a given class (and that somehow is a sort of stereotype). So, as much as Race=Class isn’t technically a part of OD&D, one might be able to argue that it really is an integral part of the game and has been from the genesis. What do you think? I think that somehow Hobbits/Treants/Balrogs in 3LBBS show how OD&D has inherited tolkenian stereotypes for demi-humans (although Elves could have been influenced also by Moorcock), although in OD&D those stereotypes were implicit but became explicit only with B/X.
|
|
monk
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 237
|
Post by monk on May 21, 2012 13:39:58 GMT -6
Just an observation on the "racial stereotypes" description:
I always thought of race=class as a natural outgrowth of the "other"ness of the various non-human races. Like, since they were unique, almost magical races, they actually were all warriors, unlike humans who cover the gambit. For dwarves, warrior-ness is who they are, part of their essence, rather than something they do. Same for the other races. Obviously this is only my personal take on it, and something that was unconscious up until recently, but it makes me particularly open to the hybrid elf you speak of. Since fighting and using magic is part of the essence of elves (according to my rationalization), they don't really act as fighters or as m-u's, but rather an integrated hybrid that follows from their "elf"ness. Operatio sequitor esse, in a way.
Curiously, I think this had something to do with why I've seldom played any races besides human. They don't appeal to me as much, though I don't mind at all if others choose to play them.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 22, 2012 4:13:52 GMT -6
There is plenty to like about the race=class model, especially when introducing new players to the game. It is a less complicated approach for new players to grasp. Not only is race=class implied by the entries for Dwarves and Hobbits in M&M, but also by the entry for Other Character Types. Playing as a "Dragon" is given as an example, and there was no need to detail what "class" the Dragon should be. The same example could be followed for playing a Lizardman, or a Centaur, or whatever. Elves are indeed the special case. The "combined" fighter/magic-user class described is also the way the basic set (red box) went (from memory), and there is nothing wrong with that. M&M does state, of course, that "Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-users" (p8), so that model is not strictly by the book. However, as I have argued (at some length!) elsewhere, I believe that dual-classed OD&D Elves are both fighter and magic-user simultaneously if one plays strictly in accordance with what does appear in the 3LBBs. If one accepts that argument, then Elves have three possible classes (as do Men); fighter, magic-user, or fighter/magic-user. The difference being, Elves can change from either fighter or magic-user to the dual class option at any time after starting, while Men in general cannot. If a referee desired to go purely with race=class, he could ignore all of the above hogwash and divide the Elves into three sub-races, and say (for example) that the high elves are magic-users, the wood elves are fighters, and the dark elves are fighter/magic-users. That could work... I guess
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 22, 2012 7:09:18 GMT -6
I largely agree, Finarvyn. I myself prefer for all dwarves, elves, and hobbits to simply be fighters, with any and all special abilities coming from their race rather than from their class.
Demi-human clerics seem weird to me, and demi-human thieves even moreso.
Even D&D's Vancian magic-user seems to me an uncomfortable fit for elves.
I also like to assume that while most humans are 0-level, all demi-humans are at least 1st level.
|
|
|
Post by javaapp on May 22, 2012 16:19:38 GMT -6
In my own Wilderlands campaign games, which is a mash-up (rulez wise, anyway) between LotFP and S&W, I use modified versions of the of the LotFP race classes.
I do this because I hate multi-classing, especially after my 3.x experiences. I saw plenty of players (from all editions of the game) try to justify multi-classing as an example of making their class fit the character role, especially using the prestige classes 3.x (urrgh...). But I never saw anyone who didn't like at least some of the power that went along with it. In 3.x, it just became more obvious. I remember running a Dark Sun 2nd ed. campaign where no one was human and everyone ran a multi-class character (bleh).
The thing is, doing this just opens up all other sorts of cans of worms. Like, why does that elf use the same magic system as that Vancian wizard over there? In my campaign, he doesn't, but a lot of people don't want to go as far as I did.
I don't mind the racial stereotyping at all. Most of the time, I don't think the players do either, as long as they have enough to do keep them busy. I use the campaign to keep them occupied, but for other games with all the knobs and sliders available, it's endless fiddling with character builds, which bores me to tears as a GM. Blargh.
No, 3.x didn't make me bitter. Not at all. Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 5, 2012 13:14:47 GMT -6
I read the OD&D elf as able to accumulate XP in only one class at a time, but not loosing the abilities of the class that is not being developed. I wonder if anyone interprets Men & Magic such that elves lose spells when adventuring as a fighter? It seems that the "they gain the benefits of both classes" line would argue against that interpretation. Perhaps more controversially, I assume 0 XP in both classes to start (though they still need to pick one to "begin" as in terms of accumulating XP).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 15:07:42 GMT -6
I wonder if anyone interprets Men & Magic such that elves lose spells when adventuring as a fighter? Yes, some folks ran them that way, including the author of the game (who at least once expressed puzzlement anyone would interpret that text any other way). Sure, the text is open to interpretation so run them the way you want. In fact, even if the text weren't open to interpretation I would tell you the same thing. It's your game, run it the way that seems right to you and your players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 15:11:56 GMT -6
Please forgive ... I should have typed "co-author of the game" and specified I was speaking about Gary Gygax. Apologies for the oversight.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 5, 2012 16:02:29 GMT -6
I wonder if anyone interprets Men & Magic such that elves lose spells when adventuring as a fighter? Yes, some folks ran them that way, including the author of the game (who at least once expressed puzzlement anyone would interpret that text any other way). Is there a citation for this? I've seen posts by early D&D playtesters that state that even though the Greyhawk supplement didn't see publication until later, Gary ran D&D with Greyhawk rules since before the publication of the 3LBBs. And Greyhawk uses the evenly-split experience rule, which doesn't seem to mesh well with the forgetting spells while acting as a Fighter rule. Of course, my personal interpretation is to go with limiting experience to one class at a time... not so much because I worry about elven Fighters forgetting how to do magic, but because I'm bothered by elven Magic-Users forgetting how to fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 18:40:30 GMT -6
Is there a citation for this? Yes. I've posted it here with links to where he said, but I've had a long and difficult day at work and don't feel like looking it up. I'll sum up: he said elves were basically two characters, FTR and MU. They had separate XP totals and different abilities based upon whichever class they were operating within. He also stated elves halved rolled hit points before adding them to their total.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 5, 2012 20:04:24 GMT -6
Ah, Elves... I should probably keep my trap shut, but I can't resist I'll sum up: he said elves were basically two characters, FTR and MU. They had separate XP totals and different abilities based upon whichever class they were operating within. He also stated elves halved rolled hit points before adding them to their total. I have no doubt Cameron's information is correct. It's worthwhile remembering, however, that many things are (and presumably were) done at the gaming table that are not exactly as they appear in the booklets. The matter of elvish dual-classing is very likely one such case. I read the OD&D elf as able to accumulate XP in only one class at a time, but not loosing the abilities of the class that is not being developed. Regardless of how the original authors played it, I too am convinced that this is what appears in the 3LBBs. It's your game, run it the way that seems right to you and your players. That's the best advice there is, right there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2012 20:15:52 GMT -6
It's worthwhile remembering, however, that many things are (and presumably were) done at the gaming table that are not exactly as they appear in the booklets. The matter of elvish dual-classing is very likely one such case. Indeed. It is also worth remembering the tricks memory can play. Also, EGG's playing style changed over the decades, so an answer to a question may depend upon where in his gaming spectrum you've asked the question!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2012 7:45:11 GMT -6
One Elvis, many Elves ... ;D I have no doubt Cameron's information is correct. I'm always correct (and fabulous, too). Some anonymous dude on the internet said so! That's the best advice there is, right there See above, re: always correct! (chuckle)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 0:55:54 GMT -6
Is there a citation for this? I've seen posts by early D&D playtesters that state that even though the Greyhawk supplement didn't see publication until later, Gary ran D&D with Greyhawk rules since before the publication of the 3LBBs. And Greyhawk uses the evenly-split experience rule, which doesn't seem to mesh well with the forgetting spells while acting as a Fighter rule. Okay, Talysman ... here is the link to the post I made quoting EGG from his discussion threads on Dragonsfoot. That post, itself, contains a link back to the DF forum and the original posts from which I quoted. odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=delvingdeeper&thread=6529&page=3#74689
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 8, 2012 13:30:43 GMT -6
Thanks for the quote, Cameron. Looking at the original, I don't interpret it the same way you do, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere debating it, since it all hinges on nuance of meaning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 15:42:05 GMT -6
You're welcome. Elves are a subject of much discussion and, I know this phrase gets thrown around a lot but it is true: there really is no wrong way to run them.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 8, 2012 17:56:38 GMT -6
It is a shame that EGG didn't specifically answer the question about whether or not Elves enjoy the benefits of their two classes simultaneously. Or perhaps this is a boon, as it gives us room to continue the debate The take home message for me is that EGG says the booklets are clear enough (except on hit points). This implies that the 3LBBs contain all the necessary information (except on hit points), and therefore that a careful read is all that is required. Personally, I am okay with that... I posted my own reading over here a while back. Regarding hit points he further says that Elves should get half a hit die per level -- presumably meaning they simultaneously have one-half a hit die per fighter level and one-half a hit die per magic-user level. At the same time. The other thing that EGG reiterates is that Elves earn XP in only one class at a time. Just like all other PCs.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 8, 2012 18:04:41 GMT -6
The half-hit-die thing seems too complicated. I just give elves the best hit die of their two classes. So, a 2nd level Fighter/3rd level Magic-User has 2 hit dice, and if the player puts experience into M-U to reach 4th level, hit dice only go up to 2+1; they don't get 3 hit dice until either Fighter reaches 3rd level or M-U reaches 5th.
|
|