Because I love the occasional hot-button topic, I'll be weighing in on the "race as class" debate. For those of you unfamiliar with the debate, there are two schools of thought in the D&D community:
One favors the idea of "race as class," that is, if you're a non-human such as a dwarf or an elf, your character type is automatically accounted for and the ability to fight or cast spells is a racial ability. There is no selection of Elven thief, as you are automatically either a mage or a warrior.
Another favors selection of race and class. That is, you can take a Dwarven Cleric, you're not automatically a warrior-type simply because you chose to play a Dwarf. This would be the more familiar type to modern day players.
We will now contrast how the various editions handle races and classes:
OD&D
The LBBs (little brown books) seem to indicate that if you were one of the non-human races, then you were already in a "class:"
There are three (3) main classes of characters:
Fighting-Men
Magic-Users
Clerics
Fighting Men includes the characters of elves and dwarves and even hobbits. Magic-Users includes only men and elves. Clerics are limited to men only. All non-human players are restricted in some aspects and gifted in others. This will be dealt with in the paragraphs pertaining to each non-human type.
It is interesting to note that OD&D never defines the term "class." The LBBs also do not use the term "race." The only idea of race that creeps in is that the non-human player's choice plays differently depending on whether you select Elf or Dwarf, and the Dwarf has a level limitation.
D&D (Holmes Blue Book)
In Eric Holmes' edition of Dungeons & Dragons (blue book, cover by David C. Sutherland III), the trend of using race as class appears to continue. I say *appears* because the one reference to race on page 7 reads: "the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish)..." But the classes and races are all lumped together in the experience tables, and page 6 says "any human character can be a fighting man and all halflings and dwarves are members of the fighter class, unless they opt to be thieves."
The terms "class" and "race" are not defined. There is a third way Holmes refers to characters, and that is "character type" (page 7), indicating class and race, which perhaps is the term that should have been used in later editions.
AD&D1e
AD&D hardcover Player's Handbook, first edition, is the first clear delineation between class and race. There you can be one of quite a few races, and you first select your race, then you select your class. There's also quite a bit of fiddly bits that make little sense, like level limits for non-humans. But this has been torn apart in many, many magazine articles, so we won't tackle this here. The interesting thing about the classes is that they now had "minimum ability scores" that you had to roll to be certain classes (like the Paladin). If you didn't roll it, you had no chance to be that class.
Basic/Expert D&D (Moldvay) & BECMI (Mentzer)
The simple race as class structure can be seen here, hearkening back to the LBBs and Holmes. The trend continued in Mentzer's BECMI. In contrast to AD&D, Moldvay had a "prime requisite," which meant the highest ability score you had was used to help determine class selection.
AD&D2e
AD&D2e was, for the most part, a cleaned up revised version of AD&D1e, and the final nail in the coffin for any royalties Gygax might have received. Race and Class are separate entities, and for the most part resemble their 1e counterparts. The main difference was in the fantastic settings created for 2e, introduced "Kits" which could be special classes designed for a specific race (like Elven BladeSinger or Dwarven Chanter).
D&D 3.X
The 3.X naming convention is strange, since its simplified ability bonus tables remind one of B/X or BECMI, but Race and Class are distinct and separate, like AD&D. Eventually 3.X would ape 2e by doing "racial kits" (like the Dwarven BattleRager). Dropping the "Advanced" moniker sent a clear message that this was the only Dungeons & Dragons we would see from WotC, and that B/X and BECMI were effectively unsupported.
D&D 4.X
Does the same thing as 3.X, races and classes are discrete groups, and one must select a race and a class.
My take:
I never had a problem with "race as class" because I'm aware of one of the dictionary definitions. From Dictionary.com:
27. to place or arrange in a class; classify: to class justice with wisdom.
28. to take or have a place in a particular class: those who class as believers.
The word comes from the Latin "classis," which meant class, fleet, division, army, etc. So we can infer that the D&D "class" is merely a grouping, and the only thing in the dictionary that implies profession is class as social standing or caste, hardly an ironclad case. So the snarkiness that I have observed (and been the target of) could have been avoided simply by cracking a dictionary.
Do I prefer race as class? For some things it works well. It gels nicely with the simplified structure of B/X. In the "clone" I'm working on, I have them separate as of this writing, though I'm thinking of leaning toward the race as class model and giving them different "builds" for race-specific classes. Time will tell...
The purpose of my authoring this game was to write a fantasy game that gets back to the "feel" of Dungeons & Dragons. The Original Edition, while playable in its own right, had too little of what I wanted, so I wasn't too interested in playing something that limited my options. The Supplements added complications I wasn't keen on dealing with either.
I got more of a charge out of the Basic rulebook as authored by Moldvay. Erol Otus, David Sutherland, David Trampier, Jeff Easley, Bill Willingham, Jeff Dee, together with Elmore's early work really defined what I thought D&D looked like. Despite the art, I felt AD&D was rather a chaotic mess that the PHB and DMG did nothing to clear up, system-wise (though I loved adapting everything else under the AD&D banner).
AD&D 2nd edition and 3rd edition really did nothing for me. Whatever happened to the days when players were supposed to be clever instead of just relying on dice and character sheets? So gone are the the 3300 Feats, 187 Base Classes, and the 762 Prestige Classes from D&D3E. Overkill doesn't even begin to describe it.
When I was young, players described what they were doing. The best of them were precise (“I check the 3rd block from the right, five blocks up, to trigger the secret door”) or cool (“Ragnar leaps into battle, his axe drinking blood from foes left and right”). There were no rules for this, per se, just people's imaginations – and they were rewarded for it. Nowadays, the style of play appears to be min-maxing to squeeze every last “plus” out of the rules. Half a dozen bonuses from this and that and the other to give you this number which affects that number. Why use your imagination when you can just read what's on your character sheet and roll some dice? The author of this game prefers the first option, and wrote this game to help address it. Characters shouldn't take longer than 10 or 15 minutes to whip up, and should have a fair amount of leeway in what they're allowed to do.
What I'm trying to do here is to re-create the early feel of D&D, trying hard to give it the same “gee whiz” factor it had back in the day. The editions by Moldvay and Holmes; the Judges Guild add-ons, the Arduin Grimoire booklets, and Role Aids supplements; all of these have tons of flavor. I would love to give back to D&D what I got out of it, and more. My hope is, as you read this, is that I succeed.
Choose from unique races, such as the Pa'arr (Tigermen), S'srath (Lizardmen), Pachyars (Elephant men), the Aerosi (winged humans), and Skrettle (mouse men). Yes we have Elves, but we have other races as well!
No skills! Your character is unique and does have abilities all his own, and the rules allow anything to be attempted easily!
Experience points reward actually doing things during the adventure. Treasure allows for a wide variety to be collected, but in a plausible manner. Hint: collecting spider venom sacs to sell in town is more realistic than collecting coins or gems from its lair.
New combat mechanics allow for any action to be taken, with instant effects rather than “+2 to Armor Class!”
Almost infinite variety. We have nearly 40 character classes with 15+ types of Spellcasters and Priest-types. Unique mechanics allow selection to be a breeze! Get a character up and running in 10 minutes!
New and different spells, contained in the same Vancian spell slot system, but now with full power over your spells and how they're cast! Options for variants allow for a richer magic system! You have 8 different schools of magic to choose from. A 9th, "Prayer," works the same way as the others, we just refer to it differently.
Rules on gadgets, potion creation, golems, homunculi, and more. Easy, logical, and consistent rules.
All this together with a unique fantasy setting informed by the works of Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, Fritz Leiber, H.P. Lovecraft, and more! Make a name for yourself in the magical land of Andurantha!
Not Old School, not New School, but rather Alternative School. Backwards compatible with most editions of D&D.
I announced in my last post that I was disenchanted with most RPGs and was hard at work writing a new one.
I think in some ways what I'm disenchanted with is the tendency to cram a million rules into 300 pages, and the set in stone mentality of many rules systems. I think I know why the bulk of these rules are written, though. Aside from a bottom line, the authors usually assume that at least some of their core audience have never picked up a game before. Never played anything more challenging than Chutes & Ladders.
Which, to be fair, may well be the case.
Now, if you were the tyro, and you'd never seen a role-playing game before, which would you prefer? Something that you can pick up and understand immediately, or something that you have to study in order to play the game efficiently?
All things being equal, I'd rather someone hand me a 30-page intro and by the end I'd have a character and a basic idea of how to play. Here's a look at how this has changed over the years:
OD&D (Gygax, Arneson): 18 pages
D&D (Holmes): 17 pages
Basic D&D (Moldvay): 13 pages of character creation
Basic D&D (Mentzer): 52 pages (to be fair, this was the best intro to the game I've ever seen)
AD&D Player's Handbook (1st Ed): 40 pages
In 3.0, this inflated to monstrous proportions. By page 114, they had not even gotten to Movement yet.
For fun, let's take a look at some licensed properties of TSR, both for AD&D 2E:
Adventures in Lankhmar: 35 pages (and very well-done)
Diablo II: This is a weird one, so it's hard to codify. Each character received a sort of a character folio, with all the numbers filled in. There were instructions on the sheets as well, everything from an XP chart to take 'em to 5th level, and explanations of how to make a Hit Roll or a Saving Throw. The actual rulebook itself was 32 pages long.
The licensed ones were not only fairly short, they were also the most fun to read. Diablo II started it out as its own game system, with some additions not found in AD&D before (like their powers, which cost mana). Diablo II later became entwined in 3.0, and spiralled out of control, but the basic boxed set is fun.
By contrast, reading The 3E Player's Handbook was a great cure for insomnia. Watching paint dry was not only more interesting, but seemed to be more useful. I dunno, I guess the pretty pictures inside failed to suck me in.
This is what I don't understand. If you assume your core audience has never gamed before, why cram your product full of rules that they must learn? Why not provide a good framework, explain how to create a character well, and create systems that are intuitive so that there is less to explain? I'm looking at you, WotC!
This post, however, is very much YMMV. There are some people who love 3.x, and more power to them. For my own buck, I'd rather find something else. I just wish I could take a large number of followers with me...
