Interesting disconnect.

[thegreyelf]

So I saw that "Dwarven Paladins" thread and this just occurred to me. There's a passage in Men and Magic wherein Gygax states that there's no reason any player should be restricted from playing any kind of character, regardless of race or concept, so long as careful attention is paid to maintaining play balance and appropriate restrictions engaged. Even the extreme example of a player wanting to be a dragon is addressed.

And yet, severe character class restrictions are placed on all the standard nonhuman races. Dwarves and Hobbits, for example, can only be fighters, and then only restricted to very low levels of advancement. Why not a Hobbit Assassin or Dwarf Paladin??

[geoffrey]

I look at it the same way. If a balrog or a dragon is a viable PC, then why in the world not a dwarven druid (or whatever)? It would be like swallowing a camel but straining at a gnat.

[thorswulf]

Ironic isn't it. 3E and 4E got that part right.....

[austinjimm]

The fact that Gygax recommends a structure by which they "work their way up" seems to imply that there would be a certain amount of referee "management" of such characters. And, while not explicitly stated, the DM would be well within his scope to limit advancement for any non-human PC. That seems to be the precedent set by limiting hobbits and the like. It's also interesting that Gary revisited this issue in the DMG, devoting a goodly sized article to the problems arising from allowing monsters as PCs.

All that said, I have nothing against non-standard PC types. I wish my players would ask to play them.

[archersix]

I had a great deal of fun playing a half-ogre in the original Ravenloft module BITD. I'm getting ready to run a Labryinth Lord campaign soon, and hopefully someone will want to run something weird.

[inkmeister]

OP is right that it is a weird disconnect. Weird that I didn't even think of it.

Of course, I'm probably too anal, or too much of a D-bag or something, because I really feel differently than many of you; I DON'T want my players playing all kinds of weird stuff. I prefer to keep it pretty core. As a player, I always prefer to play a human, also. I have not even the slightest desire to pretend to be a dwarf paladin or a dragon or any of that stuff.

[talysman]

There's nothing in that statement that says the GM can't limit a particular concept, by for example starting an ogre PC at 1 HD, having them grow to 4+1 HD, and cutting them off there, or allowing just a couple more levels. And the examples of monster characters seem to imply that each monster variety has exactly one class, almost always "Fighter".

That being said, my attitude is to treat class restrictions as "what characters of that race can start with." There may be ways to become a dwarven druid or to advance a halfling fighter past 4th level, but that's something that must be figured out in-game.

[Deleted]

Jul 12, 2013 18:10:41 GMT -6 talysman said:

That being said, my attitude is to treat class restrictions as "what characters of that race can start with." There may be ways to become a dwarven druid or to advance a halfling fighter past 4th level, but that's something that must be figured out in-game.

Ding! Winner.

Gary wanted to prevent 75th level Dwarven druids with all the advantages of dwarves and druids and no disadvantages.

It's a play balance issue; every benefit should have a counter. Dwarves can see in the dark, are tough, and have great saving throws. The level limits are to balance that.

[Vile Traveller]

Coming from a RuneQuest background game balance (meta-game as opposed to in-game) has never been a big worry for me. One of the things that attracts me to the Blue Book is that Holmes obviously had no qualms about letting anyone play anything in his games. Level limits were obviously never a real problem - as he stated, his own "most successful" character was a dreenoi that reached 4th level. These days I favour XP requirements as a balancing factor if I feel the need.

[strangebrew]

Jul 12, 2013 15:45:38 GMT -6 austinjimm said:

It's also interesting that Gary revisited this issue in the DMG, devoting a goodly sized article to the problems arising from allowing monsters as PCs.

I think that's a nice example of the greater differences between OD&D and AD&D in mindset and practice, or at least how Gygax's official perspective changed over time.

As to what gronan said* about level 75 dwarf druids, one of my favorite parts of the book Playing at the World was how some circles would extrapolate the experience tables to ridiculous levels, like 100+. If I recall correctly the CalTech players in the 70's were notorious for this.

*: Not sure how to quote more than one post on ProBoards!

[blackadder23]

Jul 12, 2013 13:23:17 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I look at it the same way. If a balrog or a dragon is a viable PC, then why in the world not a dwarven druid (or whatever)? It would be like swallowing a camel but straining at a gnat.

Honestly, I don't think a dragon or a balrog would be a viable PC in a typical campaign world; it would cause no end of trouble with the populace and the authorities.  Frankly, the only reason I can see to play one of those creatures would be out of a desire to hog the spotlight and create headaches for the DM and the rest of the players. I call that bad sportsmanship myself.

As for forbidding things like dwarven druids, I guess it depends on the reason for restricting the classes. My personal view of dwarves and halflings is that their strong magical resistance comes from being unable to wield magic themselves. They are "non-conductive material" when it comes to magic, in other words. So I don't allow dwarven or halfling spellcasters of any kind. Similarly, in one of my campaigns the fey races (a term I prefer to the more prosaic "demi-humans") were somewhat antithetical to the gods; therefore, none of them were ever granted spellcasting power as a cleric or druid. I could see similar "flavor" reasons for restricting pretty much any class except for fighters and thieves. By the same token, I could see allowing pretty much any race and class combination. However, my personal opinion is that fey (or demi-humans if you prefer) lack something in flavor if they're treated as nothing more than undersized humans. Restricting the classes available to a particular race is a convenient way to emphasize that they are "other".

[Deleted]

I played a Balrog in three different campaigns, including Greyhawk itself. "Chaotic" does not have to mean "Psychopath." (This was in the days of the simple Law-Neutral-Chaos split).

Another reason for nonhuman level restrictions was, and I quote Gary here, "How many elves and dwarves do you see around nowadays?"

[blackadder23]

Jul 16, 2013 10:27:30 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I played a Balrog in three different campaigns, including Greyhawk itself.

That's interesting. What was your reason for doing so (if I may ask)? I'd be interested in a perspective on what playing a very non-standard race offered, compared to playing one of the standard races.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 10:27:30 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Another reason for nonhuman level restrictions was, and I quote Gary here, "How many elves and dwarves do you see around nowadays?"

I always considered the level limits to be an artificial attempt at balance, and never held up to scrutiny, not even being justifiable by culture. The extreme end of that culminated with AD&D, where half-orc and half-elven munchkins were all the rage. At the risk of seeming Un-PC, I see a lot of minorities here IRL, stuck at "low-level" positions, so the population thing doesn't sit well with me. I threw the limits out and tended toward a play style of "everyone's good at something." That's the great thing about OD&D, if you don't like something, change it (that has been lost as D&D's gotten more complex).

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 10:42:37 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

Jul 16, 2013 10:27:30 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I played a Balrog in three different campaigns, including Greyhawk itself.

That's interesting. What was your reason for doing so (if I may ask)? I'd be interested in a perspective on what playing a very non-standard race offered, compared to playing one of the standard races.

1) I thought Balrogs were cool.
2) I wanted to fly and set things on fire. Which may just be restating #1.

[blackadder23]

Jul 17, 2013 1:02:07 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

1) I thought Balrogs were cool.
2) I wanted to fly and set things on fire. Which may just be restating #1.

Ha ha fair enough.

[Falconer]

I don’t think it’s a disconnect, actually. The books establish some basic character types, and anything that you want to add should be relatively balanced to that. If you envisage each such addition as a negotiation with the DM, you might have such a conversation:

PLAYER: Can I be a hobbit?
DM: I guess so, but you can only go up to level 4.

* * *

PLAYER: Can I be a Paladin? You know, like a fighter but I could also lay on hands?
DM: Sure, but you have to have 17 Charisma and behave strictly Lawful. Human only.

* * *

PLAYER: Can I be a Half-elf?
DM: Sure, but you can only be a Fighter/Magic-User (not a Cleric).
PLAYER: But I REALLY want healing, like Elrond.
DM: Okay, but you can only go up to level 4, and you have to split XP among 3 classes, so you advance slowly.

* * *

PLAYER: Can I be a Balrog?
DM: Um… Yes… but you’ll start as a “young” one (Fighter with no special abilities) and advance very slowly.

* * *

PLAYER: Can I be a Paladin? You know, like a fighter but I could also lay on hands?
DM: Sure, but you have to have 17 Charisma and behave strictly Lawful. Human only.
PLAYER: But I REALLY want to be a Dwarf Paladin! Surely Charismatic Lawful Dwarves exist.
DM: You want all the special abilities of paladins plus all the special abilities of dwarves?
PLAYER: I guess that wouldn’t be fair. But I still like the concept.
DM: Okay, let’s say you devoted your life to paladinhood and so never mastered the Dwarven ways. So you only get half your Dwarven benefits. But Paladinhood is a Human order, so you’ll never achieve 100% skill in it (Dwarven Law is different from Human Law; Dwarven Charisma isn’t as effective outside Dwarven lands; etc.). So you advance more slowly, and lay on hands for only 1 hp/level instead of 2/level.

[Finarvyn]

Nice catch, greyelf. An interesting disconnect, indeed!

I think the thing to focus on is the "rules are guidelines" aspect of the game. Basically, the rules say there are a bunch of options open to the players. But, if a player has a different concept in mind, the DM always has the right to adjust things to allow the player's concept to work.

For example, Gronan's balrog. OD&D doesn't give rules for Balrog characters because they aren't the norm and they don't want to "sanction" Balrog as a core class. But clearly the Balrog was allowed.

In the same way, I assume that if a player wanted to be a dwarven Paladin I would work with him to achieve that concept. Maybe he would advance slower. Maybe there would be certain sanctions, in rules or in campaign background, that would apply. I'm not sure how I would handle it, but that player could run his dwarven Paladin if he really wants one. But I wouldn't expect to see "Dwarven Paladin" appear as a new character class in the next issue of Dragon, either.

[thegreyelf]

Indeed, Greg Svenson (the Great Svenny) has an interesting story in his introduction to The Dungeons of Castle Blackmoor that implies that in Dave's original game, the "team" of players that were on the evil (chaotic) side included a player running a Balrog...just some food for thought.

As for the game balance question, I have a hard time reconciling that because compared to later games, the balance inherent in OD&D is slim at best--it's really left to the GM to maintain. The question of "how many elves have I seen lately," can be answered as, "None; they all went off to the Undying Lands," which has nothing to do with humans being inherently more powerful.

I get what the game balance point is trying to say; I just don't necessarily agree. Gary was nothing if not inconsistent in the things he put forth. Anyway, it's more of an academic point of interest, the disconnect. I let players do pretty much whatever they want, though I enforce balance in other ways similar to how Falconer presented it above.

[oldkat]

Without trying to actually explain the Authors' reasons, I think one element of "restriction" (whether it is race to class, race to level limit, or whatever)is the plain necessity of functional-handability. As I try to imagine what the times were like(back then) as this was all being created, it seems to me that the inability to handle every-possibility-that-players-might-want/expect/demand, by the fledgling GM might have been taken into consideration. It is one thing to offer the proviso to experienced moderators, and quite another to expect neophyte referees to be able to handle everyd**nthingintheworld! Whether this consideration is the case or not I do not know, and would like to. Certainly from a marketing pov, keeping it simple is a good strategy--and it worked.