PDA

View Full Version : Race/Class Restrictions?



HolyCouncilMagi
2015-07-20, 10:48 PM
In a number of "old-school" games, especially (though not exclusively) the first couple of editions of D&D and its retroclones, the non-human playable races were restricted from taking certain classes. Was there generally a real rationale behind this, or was it simply because the common fantasy tropes didn't tend to include, say, Magic-User dwarves? If there was a real rationale, could somebody enlighten me on what it was?

Thrudd
2015-07-20, 11:11 PM
Part of the rationalle was as a means of demographic control. The game was meant to be human-centric, with other races being rarer and in support roles. The party should be mostly human with maybe 25% demi humans.
Also, the demi human races were described having specific cultures, and more or less isolated societies that dont usually travel with or interact with humans. They have clerics, for instance, but they stay in their communities and would never be adventurers. The adventurers from those races are envisioned as rare/outcast type members of their race, even moreso than human adventurers are.

goto124
2015-07-20, 11:17 PM
So, versimilutude (spelling) and setting control.

dream
2015-07-20, 11:26 PM
Part of the rationalle was as a means of demographic control. The game was meant to be human-centric, with other races being rarer and in support roles. The party should be mostly human with maybe 25% demi humans.
Also, the demi human races were described having specific cultures, and more or less isolated societies that dont usually travel with or interact with humans. They have clerics, for instance, but they stay in their communities and would never be adventurers. The adventurers from those races are envisioned as rare/outcast type members of their race, even moreso than human adventurers are.
QFT

+, if the other races weren't limited, playing a human became less a less attractive option.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-21, 01:55 PM
Part of the rationalle was as a means of demographic control. The game was meant to be human-centric, with other races being rarer and in support roles. The party should be mostly human with maybe 25% demi humans.
Also, the demi human races were described having specific cultures, and more or less isolated societies that dont usually travel with or interact with humans. They have clerics, for instance, but they stay in their communities and would never be adventurers. The adventurers from those races are envisioned as rare/outcast type members of their race, even moreso than human adventurers are.

Which is part of why thieves were unlimited for almost every race in 1e (half-orcs could be unlimited assassins)... the demihumans were outcasts.

Later games (3.0 is the first D&D edition, but other games were doing it long before) opened the options to everyone, but started giving humans something more. MERP, for example, gave humans a lot of "background options", indicating their flexibility. "Flexibility" is the usual human trait, with the idea that you can be anything if you're human, while other races are more limited.

Personally, I started loosening racial restrictions, but giving humans a +1 to Charisma and a +1 to all saves. It doesn't make humans powerhouses, but they are attractive character options based on the numbers, now.

Keltest
2015-07-21, 02:09 PM
So in my homebrew setting, I use restrictions like that as guidelines rather than hard rules I wont ever allow broken, but that comes with an expectation that if youre going to be a High Elven cleric, youre going to have a weird experience because youre unique. (in my setting High Elves are rather leery of the gods. Wood elves are closer to them, but culturally are inclined to have druids and rangers rather than clerics and paladins.)

Thrudd
2015-07-21, 02:24 PM
So in my homebrew setting, I use restrictions like that as guidelines rather than hard rules I wont ever allow broken, but that comes with an expectation that if youre going to be a High Elven cleric, youre going to have a weird experience because youre unique. (in my setting High Elves are rather leery of the gods. Wood elves are closer to them, but culturally are inclined to have druids and rangers rather than clerics and paladins.)

In my setting, clerics and druids are specific religious orders of the human civilization. A demi human would need to have been raised as a human in human lands to have become a member of either of those traditions and learn their magic traditions. If someone really wanted to be an Elf cleric or druid, I might allow it, but having been raised outside of elven society means no multiclassing, or access to specific racial abilities like the automatic sword and bow proficiency (and I dont do half breeds).

Psyren
2015-07-21, 03:26 PM
Pathfinder uses the carrot rather than the stick - each class has a number of favored class bonuses by race, and every race has a stat bonus and/or synergistic racial of some kind that encourages them to a specific class. These factors subtly nudge players of that class to specific races, and also provides an in-universe explanation for why Race X would gravitate towards Class Y. For example, Elves (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/core-races/elf) get a bonus to Int and Dex, get to use their wizard school powers more often, get bonuses to Spellcraft and to overcome SR, and have fairly long lifespans - thus wizardry as a common elven profession is very justified.

GungHo
2015-07-28, 02:19 PM
As Thrudd notes, D&D/AD&D was intended to be human-centric. The sociological aspects of the authors' worlds drove a lot of the rules.

The level restrictions were instituted to reflect that the long-lived races (elves, dwarves) would eventually get bored of adventuring and retire before they maximized levels, whereas humans had short life spans and made of it what they could. This in effect also reflected why humans more or less had the dominant civilization where elves and dwarves were either in decline or hiding out somewhere. If there were no caps on elven/dwarven performance, there's no reason they shouldn't be ruling the world, and therefore the idea of civilization would become a lot more alien than the general Ren Faire environment. This scenario was underlined in one of the "alternate worlds" or "alternate rules" sections (I can't give you a page quote, it's been 20~30 years). The long-lived scenario breaks down with halflings, but they also kept it with a the idea that they're lazy and flighty.

The class restrictions were instituted to reflect things like the authors feeling that dwarves (largely driven from the Tolkien expression) didn't do wizardly magic (though some literary license was given around being able to craft magic), or feeling that the concept of a paladin was a uniquely human idea that set humans apart (whereas anyone can steal stuff or stab stuff). Multiclass restrictions also played into that... a human changing careers was a big event whereas long lived elves and dwarves dabbling around played into them being mercurial.

Yora
2015-07-28, 04:38 PM
if the other races weren't limited, playing a human became less a less attractive option.

And that would be terrible.

DigoDragon
2015-07-28, 04:54 PM
And that would be terrible.

Well, not really that bad. It just seems a bit silly to me when humans were the least attractive race option in old school D&D campaigns because DMs didn't enforce the class restrictions, often to the point that the group has a "Token Human" running gag (I've been there). :smalltongue:

On the other hand, putting race/class restrictions kinda seems just as silly when there isn't a strong in-world logic for it.

But it can get sillier!

For example, I've seen a D&D 3.5 campaign converted to run with My Little Ponies races, and all the spellcasting classes were restricted to only Unicorns. Which means there are no earth pony or pegasi bards... or clerics... so when I mentioned to the DM why there was an earth pony deity when there aren't any earth pony clerics, and that it must be an imposter god from another plane, my logic was politely asked to leave. :smallbiggrin:

Telok
2015-07-28, 05:22 PM
And that would be terrible.

Well, sort of.

The older editions realized that people would essentially play humans and act like everybody was humans no matter what was actually on the character sheet. So they wrote rules and settings where most everybody was humans and the DM didn't have work as hard to keep the verisimilitude going.

Do you really want to deal with a party consisting of a drow, half-celestial dwarf, spellcscale kobold, tiefling, and ghoul who walk into a city that's 95% human, in a country that's 95% human, in a world that's majority human? You essentially have two choices, completely ignore the cognitive dissonance of everyone being human except the PC/heroes or try to portray the racisim that humans have historically shown in every culture and era?

Of course you can also go all in and make everything a playable race. Then the players get to browse through 50+ races for the best stat bonuses and the cultures in your setting ought to look like something from one of the Ringworld novels. But that's too much work so the setting is majority human and we're back to step one.

dream
2015-07-28, 05:33 PM
Most TTRPGs have some form of in-built restriction to provide mechanical balance. When you tamper with those restrictions, the system itself can fail. This is demonstrated in the power curve between D&D Fighters and Magic-Users as the original restrictions were pushed away. Or, as the late E. G. Gygax wrote,

" ... The complexities of a well-designed role-playing game are such that there is a balance that must be kept. Attempting to disrupt the balance while maintaining use of the system is an effort not dissimilar to attempting to graft wings onto pigs to enable them to fly. For instance, if the participant desires to play the game with a persona who engages in modern methods of crime detection, the basis for gaming should not be a system that does not feature this activity. In their desire to control, not master, the play of an RPG, some enthusiastic participants devise “improvements.” These alterations of the parameters of the system are usually aimed at producing a particular result-allowing the “improver’s” game persona to become the most powerful one within the particular campaign. In addition to accomplishing nothing in the way of making the person an expert in the field, such tinkering tends to destroy game campaigns-or even whole game systems, if a sufficient number of participants give credence to the merits of the supposed improvement. ..."
- Role-playing Mastery, 1987

" .... The character races in the AD&D system were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of those racial types give short-term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run, these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi-humans — or at least relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or eleven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, et al will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select those races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types. This bears upon the various hybrid racial types, as well. ...."
Dragon magazine, 1979

Lord Raziere
2015-07-28, 05:50 PM
personally, I don't like race/class restrictions.

when one race of people can seem to be able to do anything while another can only a limited amount of things despite being about roughly equally intelligent, then it ruins my suspension of disbelief. and it just seems to be another stupid campbellian relic of this weird notion that humanity is somehow inherently better than any hypothetical alien life we encounter.

so I say screw such restrictions really. and if you really want to complain about humans getting the shaft, remember that in the end race doesn't actually matter: its the class that does. a human wizard is still massively overpowered and godlike compared to any race that has LA or takes levels in their monster class before a normal one. so I don't really see how they really get shafted in the grand scheme of things. in fact you could argue that humans are the ones that need to be restricted from wizards, as they one of the races that can achieve the Wizards full potential at the earliest and therefore easily defeat everything else, earlier.

dream
2015-07-28, 05:56 PM
There's always GURPS:smallbiggrin:

If you don't like what a game offers, play something else. Whatever you find fun, is fun.

Nifft
2015-07-28, 08:15 PM
" .... The character races in the AD&D system were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of those racial types give short-term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run, these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise.

Hmm.

It sounds like 1e race level caps were kinda like a reversed Level Adjustment.

Instead of starting out slower and eventually catching up (which is what Level Adjustment kinda does), you'd start out stronger and then just STOP at some point, while other characters continued to advance.

In the end, a Level Adjusted character would be a few levels behind her compatriots -- and so would a level-capped demi-human.

That's kinda cool.

Psyren
2015-07-28, 10:01 PM
Well, sort of.

The older editions realized that people would essentially play humans and act like everybody was humans no matter what was actually on the character sheet. So they wrote rules and settings where most everybody was humans and the DM didn't have work as hard to keep the verisimilitude going.

Do you really want to deal with a party consisting of a drow, half-celestial dwarf, spellcscale kobold, tiefling, and ghoul who walk into a city that's 95% human, in a country that's 95% human, in a world that's majority human? You essentially have two choices, completely ignore the cognitive dissonance of everyone being human except the PC/heroes or try to portray the racisim that humans have historically shown in every culture and era?

Of course you can also go all in and make everything a playable race. Then the players get to browse through 50+ races for the best stat bonuses and the cultures in your setting ought to look like something from one of the Ringworld novels. But that's too much work so the setting is majority human and we're back to step one.

Agreed with all this. And as a result, the best option is to raise the other races up/make them as attractive as humans, rather than nerf humans down.

I like games where humans are the most adaptable and therefore are among the best choices for any given class, but that another race is usually the best choice (at least for the generally most viable builds for that class.)

Khedrac
2015-07-29, 06:36 AM
It's worth looking at the early incarnations of Gamma World to see a bit more on how the problem was perceived.

GW was superficially a very similar system, but it had some very fundamental differences (level didn't have that much effect on hp - your number of hit dice was your Con).
Iirc (it's been decades since I could find my copy) there were 3 races:
Pure Strain Humans
Mutants (humans with a few mutations, usually useful)
Mutated Animals (don't recall if these really were a playable race).

In the first edition the humans and the mutants were pretty much identical except that the mutants got useful mutations. About the only advantage in playing a "pure strained human" was that some computers and technology could be encountered that would only accept pure human users. That's a very big IF to balance playing a much weaker character.

In the second edition (which I had, I think) they added optional rules that appeared to be what was coming in in 3rd Edition:
Pure Strained Humans got a Hit Dice increase from d6 to d8.
I think they also got a couple of minor tweaks as well, but I don't recall what.

All because there was basically no point in playing a PSH unless you knew you would need one to get past some technology.

So again it's the "buff humans to make them worth playing" approach, but this time in a setting where humans (well PSHs) are supposed to be rare...

Earthwalker
2015-07-29, 07:22 AM
Does anyone else find it particular bad game designed where

(I am making level numbers up here)

For the first 8 levels humans are less disirable but elves are more desirable.
For levels 8 to 16 humans are more disirable but elves are less desirable.

Isn't it better just to make Humans and Elves desirable at all levels.

More so when you think that it can take 2 years of regular play to get past level 8.

goto124
2015-07-29, 07:28 AM
The real question is, why? Why the change in desirability?

Also, isn't speed of leveling rather dependant on how the DM rules leveling? 2 years to level to 8 may have more to do with how (in)frequently the group meets up.

SpoonR
2015-07-29, 07:32 AM
Right before 3E came out, I was thinking up 'worlds based on arbitrary or OOC restrictions' like that. Pretty simple one for this, although the exact class/level restrictions came out oddly:

If you go over the level limit, something eats you. :smalleek: Humans were less tasty because short generations allowed more evolution. (Also because humans were a created species, from spell designed to make creatures less tasty). So an elf, say, would hit their limit and either stop adventuring, do a ritual to prevent gaining xp, or keep going and risk being eaten.

Although, the bennies of demihuman didn't seem that great. "I can see in complete darkness." "That's nice, so can the monsters, but the elves can't so light a torch anyway."

Nifft
2015-07-29, 07:37 AM
Does anyone else find it particular bad game designed where

(I am making level numbers up here)

For the first 8 levels humans are less disirable but elves are more desirable.
For levels 8 to 16 humans are more disirable but elves are less desirable.

Isn't it better just to make Humans and Elves desirable at all levels.

More so when you think that it can take 2 years of regular play to get past level 8.

It really depends on what the game design is supposed to do.

1e was never a game about equality or balance.

You roll stats. If you get better stats, not only do you get better stats, you also get to advance in your class +10% faster than someone with worse stats.

Is that "fair"? Hell no.

D&D was not a game about being fair, though.

Your character was expected to die, and you'd roll another one, and you'd probably have the same stats as everyone else averaged across many characters. So no two characters were balanced against each other, but the experience of the player was balanced against all other players by statistical equality -- and by the great equalizer of death.

At some point, people decided that they didn't want their characters to die, and that added a new constraint to game design -- a constraint which was not part of the design that gave us rolling for stats and uneven racial power.

So, sure: it'd be bad design to keep elements from a previous set of constraints when your new constraints don't match. But under the old constraints? Nah. It was fine.

SpoonR
2015-07-29, 07:37 AM
It's worth looking at the early incarnations of Gamma World to see a bit more on how the problem was perceived.

GW was superficially a very similar system, but it had some very fundamental differences (level didn't have that much effect on hp - your number of hit dice was your Con).
Iirc (it's been decades since I could find my copy) there were 3 races:
Pure Strain Humans
Mutants (humans with a few mutations, usually useful)
Mutated Animals (don't recall if these really were a playable race).


Don't forget us mutant plants. :smallcool: Theoretically, GW was 'dungeon delving into high technology places', so having robots recognize you as human should come up fairly often. Dunno how often it came up in a normal game though. And I guess you're right about only needing the robot to recognize one party member. So someone had to sacrifice and be the token human - sorta like a healbot. :smallsmile:

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-29, 07:46 AM
Restricting access to classes and skills based on culture and species makes a lot of sense if you're building your game to emulate a specific theme (such as anthropocentrism of early D&D) or a specific setting (there just aren't any Hobbit wizards in Middle-Earth). I'm definitely adopting it for my next game project. I also have no problems retaining such restrictions for old-school games.

@Earthwalker: No, I don't find that bad game design. The thought that it is bad design is based on the assumption that there should, for some reason, be equal representation of humans and elves at all levels. It also makes the assumption that mechanical capability is the sole reason why certain character types are desireable. It ignores, for example, the thought that someone might choose to play the mechanically weaker character as some form of self-imposed challenge.

In order to discuss and answer the question fully, you'd have to name a specific game system and rules as well as the intent behind those rules. In case of early D&D, the intent is clear and the rules support it; calling something "bad design" when it's working as intended is questionable, even if you personally don't like the rules.

Yora
2015-07-29, 07:48 AM
But it doesn't work as intended, that's the worst part about it.

Frozen_Feet
2015-07-29, 08:10 AM
Those rules only had two real jobs, to prevent everyone from being a metahuman and to explain why the world isn't swamped in high-level demihuman characters. As far as, say, BECMI and AD&D go, I'm finding it hard to think how someone could use the rules-as-written and not achieve those two things.

Earthwalker
2015-07-29, 08:45 AM
Restricting access to classes and skills based on culture and species makes a lot of sense if you're building your game to emulate a specific theme (such as anthropocentrism of early D&D) or a specific setting (there just aren't any Hobbit wizards in Middle-Earth). I'm definitely adopting it for my next game project. I also have no problems retaining such restrictions for old-school games.

@Earthwalker: No, I don't find that bad game design. The thought that it is bad design is based on the assumption that there should, for some reason, be equal representation of humans and elves at all levels. It also makes the assumption that mechanical capability is the sole reason why certain character types are desireable. It ignores, for example, the thought that someone might choose to play the mechanically weaker character as some form of self-imposed challenge.

In order to discuss and answer the question fully, you'd have to name a specific game system and rules as well as the intent behind those rules. In case of early D&D, the intent is clear and the rules support it; calling something "bad design" when it's working as intended is questionable, even if you personally don't like the rules.

Ahhh I didnt not include what I was first replying to with my first comments.

I was thinking of this post in the thread




[snip]

" .... The character races in the AD&D system were selected with care. They give variety of approach, but any player selecting a non-human (part- or demi-human) character does not have any real advantage. True, some of those racial types give short-term advantages to the players who choose them, but in the long run, these same characters are at an equal disadvantage when compared to human characters with the same number of experience points. This was, in fact, designed into the game. The variety of approach makes role selection more interesting. Players must weigh advantages and disadvantages carefully before opting for character race, human or otherwise. It is in vogue in some campaigns to remove restrictions on demi-humans — or at least relax them somewhat. While this might make the DM popular for a time with those participants with dwarven fighters of high level, or eleven wizards of vast power, it will eventually consign the campaign as a whole to one in which the only races will be non-human. Dwarves, elves, et al will have all the advantages and no real disadvantages, so the majority of players will select those races, and humankind will disappear from the realm of player character types. This bears upon the various hybrid racial types, as well. ...."
Dragon magazine, 1979

So its talking about a short term pay off against the long term pay off of being human. That is what I was replying to. Now if this post was saying I want a system where we have no high level demi-humans and so demi-humans cant advance beyond lvl 10 I would say that meets the design goals.

Instead it is talking about wieghing up the advantages when choosing your race between long term desirability and short term.

Oddly in this thread where early DnD is descrbed as a game where you Die. Thats the point, you might get random stats but its ok you will be dead soon to try again.

How much does having a system where it is expected you die alot and only ever get to a level where being human pays off, work with a design goal of wanting humans to be more popular ?

Play human its great past lvl 10 as you are the only one still gaining levels, oh and also most games don't get past lvl 3. This will make all human groups more common.

@Frozen_feet: You you are right, I was only looking at the system from a perspective of wanting all levels of play to be fun and not having to "pay" for your fun. I think I have bought into modern gaming trends

LibraryOgre
2015-07-29, 11:09 AM
Not to mention that, while it was nice to have, the 10% XP gain was really pretty minor, since most levels cost double the previous level. Someone with a PR bonus would advance, at most, one session ahead of someone without it, assuming all sessions had an equal and reasonable amount of XP (i.e. not counting the "we dicked around for four hours and then got into a tavern brawl" sessions on par with the "we raided a dungeon and came away with treasure" sessions). Even the 2e Complete Humanoid solution, where some races required double XP to advance, didn't put you too far behind.

Class/Race restrictions were designed to create a given world; most of the worlds produced in that time reflect those (i.e. Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and Greyhawk are all heavily human dominated). They may not have been the best instrument to do so, but they did what they set out to do. When folks wanted the games to do other things, they got in the way, and other solutions had to be found.

Keltest
2015-07-29, 11:23 AM
Its also worth noting that leveling past about 10-12 in the earlier editions was significantly less beneficial than it is now. For example, you stopped gaining full hit dice, instead being limited to a very low number of additional HP (something like 2 or 3, depending on the class) plus your con bonus. You stopped gaining new class features as well around that time. So while a human could level up indefinitely, doing so would more than likely not put them significantly more powerful than an elf of the same class.

Thrudd
2015-07-29, 11:47 AM
Its also worth noting that leveling past about 10-12 in the earlier editions was significantly less beneficial than it is now. For example, you stopped gaining full hit dice, instead being limited to a very low number of additional HP (something like 2 or 3, depending on the class) plus your con bonus. You stopped gaining new class features as well around that time. So while a human could level up indefinitely, doing so would more than likely not put them significantly more powerful than an elf of the same class.

The thing that did keep increasing was the attack matrix and saving throws, spells and thief skills (though all races were unlimited in thief levels in 1e). The 9th level elf magic user vs a 15th level human would be a big difference. Demi humans are favorable for their ability to multiclass, which can be very useful, especially at lower levels.

By the time an elf has hit their max 7 fighter/9 magic user (assuming they didnt have extraordinary stats that let them go higher), a human fighter with same amount of XP is still level 8, human wizard is still level 9, due to how the XP charts require vastly more XP at those levels. So the elf will still be quite effective relative to the humans for some time to come.

Telok
2015-07-30, 03:12 AM
Oddly in this thread where early DnD is descrbed as a game where you Die. Thats the point, you might get random stats but its ok you will be dead soon to try again.

How much does having a system where it is expected you die alot and only ever get to a level where being human pays off, work with a design goal of wanting humans to be more popular ?

Play human its great past lvl 10 as you are the only one still gaining levels, oh and also most games don't get past lvl 3. This will make all human groups more common.

Yes early D&D was a game where you died. You could walk into a spiked pit trap, fail a saving throw, tick off a balor, you can die. Every version of D&D after that has made dying harder and harder to acheive. But characters still die to the same traps, demons, and spells that they used to. The difference was that early versions don't encourage mindless hack-n-slash and don't take an hour or more to make a character.

You died faster to stupid decisions and other mistakes. Plus, making a new character if your party didn't raise you from the dead wasn't a session ending penalty.

Then too, if you didn't do things like jump off cliffs and insult dragons or demons, you had a decent chance to level pretty well. The games I played in usually leveled up ten or twelve times a year from playing four or five hours once a week with the usual interruptions of life canceling some games. Include in that the fact that not only some games started at higher levels, but many started at level three. So adventurers above level ten weren't the majority of my games, but we did have several games go there.

The times we played without level limits everyone picked long lived races. Having humans around... Well, they complained about the Haste spamming and died early deaths.

dream
2015-07-30, 12:38 PM
But it doesn't work as intended, that's the worst part about it.
Explain please.


It really depends on what the game design is supposed to do.

1e was never a game about equality or balance.

You roll stats. If you get better stats, not only do you get better stats, you also get to advance in your class +10% faster than someone with worse stats.

Is that "fair"? Hell no.

D&D was not a game about being fair, though.

Your character was expected to die, and you'd roll another one, and you'd probably have the same stats as everyone else averaged across many characters. So no two characters were balanced against each other, but the experience of the player was balanced against all other players by statistical equality -- and by the great equalizer of death.

At some point, people decided that they didn't want their characters to die, and that added a new constraint to game design -- a constraint which was not part of the design that gave us rolling for stats and uneven racial power.

So, sure: it'd be bad design to keep elements from a previous set of constraints when your new constraints don't match. But under the old constraints? Nah. It was fine.
So PCs can't die in other TTRPGs? That's ridiculously incorrect.

Psyren
2015-07-30, 03:44 PM
So PCs can't die in other TTRPGs? That's ridiculously incorrect.

I think he's saying that death was explicitly an expectation in early D&D, not that it was impossible in other games. Given how easy it was to die back then (not to mention things like Tomb of Horrors) I'm inclined to believe it.

Brookshw
2015-07-30, 04:10 PM
I think he's saying that death was explicitly an expectation in early D&D, not that it was impossible in other games. Given how easy it was to die back then (not to mention things like Tomb of Horrors) I'm inclined to believe it.

That sounds fair, certain games go a long way to discourage player death, the Doc Wagons in Shadow Run being a decent example with players being able to basically purchase an "I won't die" clause. Oddly, though I realize no one ever really plays this way, 3.5 actually encourages a higher level of lethality in some ways than previous edition, for example based on the likelihood of running up against a great wyrm red dragon, you're looking at a 4% chance in 2e for a very rare encounter, vs. a 5% chance by 3.5 of encountering something 5+ levels above party level with no upwards cap. Admittedly it's an imperfect comparison given the two editions used different systems but looking to milestones for comparison is probably the best that can be managed on a practical level. No idea anymore what 4e did and haven't tried 5e.

DigoDragon
2015-07-30, 04:39 PM
The times we played without level limits everyone picked long lived races. Having humans around... Well, they complained about the Haste spamming and died early deaths.

I've never had a DM who ever enforced that Haste quirk. Maybe I just lucked out.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-30, 04:50 PM
I've never had a DM who ever enforced that Haste quirk. Maybe I just lucked out.

We'd cast haste on Dragons to make them more powerful.

Zombimode
2015-07-30, 05:04 PM
We'd cast haste on Dragons to make them more powerful.

That doesn't seem like a viable strategy since dragon age categories are measured in decades and centuries while haste ages the subject for measly two years.

Nifft
2015-07-30, 05:12 PM
So PCs can't die in other TTRPGs? That's ridiculously incorrect.
I didn't talk about other TTRPGs, so whatever you're pulling that absurd idea from -- it wasn't my post.


I think he's saying that death was explicitly an expectation in early D&D, not that it was impossible in other games. Given how easy it was to die back then (not to mention things like Tomb of Horrors) I'm inclined to believe it. Yep.

IIRC there was an interesting write-up of Gary's experience in running Tomb of Horrors as a tournament dungeon at a public venue, and it showed the generational disconnect between killer DMs (like Gary) and the newer players who expected fairness -- Gary was flabbergasted that none of the player parties lasted more than 15 minutes, nor penetrated even beyond the first trap.


We'd cast haste on Dragons to make them more powerful.

That's awesome.

Keltest
2015-07-30, 05:18 PM
That doesn't seem like a viable strategy since dragon age categories are measured in decades and centuries while haste ages the subject for measly two years.

Well yeah, but meanwhile the dragon is hasted.

LibraryOgre
2015-07-30, 05:20 PM
That doesn't seem like a viable strategy since dragon age categories are measured in decades and centuries while haste ages the subject for measly two years.

Haste ages them one. And, you're right, it's not so good on the older ones. The younger ones? Two weeks work turns a hatchling (Cat1) into a sub-adult (cat3), assuming you have 1 3rd level spell per day. If you can devote a month to it, a 5th level wizard can turn a hatchling into a Young Adult; a 6th level wizard can turn them into an adult.

Sure, that's a month where your day is pretty much "Cast single 3rd level spell, fart around on the internet, sleep", but a 6th level caster can rocket them up 60 years in a month... and that's half a year to having an very old dragon who owes you several favors.

LogosDragon
2015-07-30, 05:20 PM
Well yeah, but meanwhile the dragon is hasted.

Was Haste as awesome in the earlier editions as it was in 3.0? I can't remember exactly how it worked in older editions.

DigoDragon
2015-07-30, 06:02 PM
Was Haste as awesome in the earlier editions as it was in 3.0? I can't remember exactly how it worked in older editions.

Haste Through the Ages (http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2010/04/spells-through-ages-haste.html)

goto124
2015-07-30, 08:43 PM
Doc Wagons in Shadow Run

*calls Digo for an explanation*

J-H
2015-07-30, 08:53 PM
I prefer the slowed HP growth of 2nd and earlier editions. If I ever run a game of 3.5 or anything else, I'll do the same thing around 9th-10th level. HP bloat is a large part of why both blasting and martial characters can't keep up in mid/high level combat without optimization (Pouncing Shocktrooper). SoD/SoS for two rounds ends up much more effective than two rounds of hitting someone in the face 8 times with a greatsword or blanketing an area in a magical firestorm.

Telok
2015-07-30, 11:32 PM
Was Haste as awesome in the earlier editions as it was in 3.0? I can't remember exactly how it worked in older editions.

It was better.

You aged a year, got a minor bonus to hit, and took two turns to the un-hasted's one turn. Land a Slow spell on the opposition and it was pretty much game over.

DocWagon.
So Shadowrun is a 2075AD+ sci-fi game where magic came back around the turn of the millenium. Multinational corporations have become their own nations that cut treaties and their campuses are extra national territory the same way that natoinal embassies are.
DocWagon is not a megacorp. It's a national/regional corporation that's pretty much ambulance service on steriods, with guns. You pay for a contract and they give you a high tech bracelet that monitors your location and vitals. If you get messed up they send a retrieval team and try to whisk you off to a hospital. Better (more expensive) contracts get you faster and more heavily armed retrieval teams.
They won't go into places where there's currently a firefight unless you've paid for a pricy enough contract. There's a sort of scale from 'gangers with pistols who winged you while you were crossing the street' to 'anti-tank rockets and force 12 insect spirits going off'. And if you're on megacorp territory they'll call the corp and politely ask if they can come in and get you.
But it's perfectly acceptable to die in Shadowrun even with a platinum DocWagon contract. I've seen anti-tank rockers used as sniper weapons against people in fast food restraunts. There was the four car bomb plan to level an apartment building, when the demo guy glitched the roll to parallel rig the detonators. Getting trapped in tunnels the Barrens with toxic shamans and insect spirits. The 'throw a grenade in the park at the mayor's hot dog fundraising picnic', the police helicopter hosed them with heavy machineguns twelve seconds later. Oh, and DocWagon helicopters are not immune to shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Almarck
2015-07-30, 11:49 PM
*calls Digo for an explanation*

I don't play Shadowrun myself, but I know a bit about Doc Wagon.

Imagine that you have a contract that states if your life is in grave danger because an unlucky dodge has left you sprawled on the floor and bleeding, the closest team of high level combat paramedics in the city comes towards you and makes for an immediate evac for you and you alone, gunning down anyone and anything that plans to stop them.

The only things that can really stop them are being out of their service area or being caught on the grounds of a Corporate Headquarters. Coverage resumes soon as you return to your normal service area.

Essentially, Doc Wagon combines an Ambulance... with an Armored Personnel Carrier.


Anyways, back on topic. Class restrictions are in the context of a setting make quite a bit of sense at times. You don't expect professional gunmen in say 12th Century Mongolia.

dream
2015-07-31, 12:04 AM
I think he's saying that death was explicitly an expectation in early D&D, not that it was impossible in other games. Given how easy it was to die back then (not to mention things like Tomb of Horrors) I'm inclined to believe it.
So the Cleric class and the Healing skill ..... that didn't support PC survival? This line of "D&D kills characters as a design feature" has nothing behind it. Do you folks even play D&D? Have you played BECM rules? Based on the comments I'm seeing in regard to the older editions of D&D, it doesn't seem so :smallsmile:

Nifft
2015-07-31, 12:32 AM
So the Cleric class and the Healing skill ..... that didn't support PC survival? This line of "D&D kills characters as a design feature" has nothing behind it. Do you folks even play D&D? Have you played BECM rules? Based on the comments I'm seeing in regard to the older editions of D&D, it doesn't seem so :smallsmile:

BECMI and 1e have low-level poisons with "save or die" as their effect. Rot grubs and green slime are another two low-level character-enters.

Those things appeared in published adventures.

If you never met any of those things, well, that's just your lack of experience talking.

But, I do want to give you a fair chance to respond, so: How would your 1e level 2 Cleric help save the life of a character who just failed his save vs. poison and died? List specific spells, tactics, or items which you'd need.

dream
2015-07-31, 12:51 AM
BECMI and 1e have low-level poisons with "save or die" as their effect. Rot grubs and green slime are another two low-level character-enters.

Those things appeared in published adventures.

If you never met any of those things, well, that's just your lack of experience talking.

But, I do want to give you a fair chance to respond, so: How would your 1e level 2 Cleric help save the life of a character who just failed his save vs. poison and died? List specific spells, tactics, or items which you'd need.
You're showing your lack of mechanical comprehension in regard to TTRPGs.

Any kind of roll vs. possible harm can be a "save or die" situation. All saves in original D&D were not "save or die" situations. You posted Rot Grub were "save or die" but (1) the chance the creature even touched the skin was AC x10, (2) simple fire, or a Cure Disease spell, destroys it. How is that "save or die"? You mention "low-level poisons" without any specific poison listed, so I'll stack that with your mistaken Rot Grub reference (as errors resulting from a lack of knowing the system).

Again, are you suggesting (I just asked this above, but not as specifically) that other tabletop role-playing games do not have poisons, monsters, or situational dangers that can kill a PC immediately?

Nifft
2015-07-31, 02:38 AM
You're showing your lack of mechanical comprehension in regard to TTRPGs. It's cute how you're trying to condescend, while being wrong. :smallsmile:


Any kind of roll vs. possible harm can be a "save or die" situation. All saves in original D&D were not "save or die" situations. You posted Rot Grub were "save or die" but (1) the chance the creature even touched the skin was AC x10, (2) simple fire, or a Cure Disease spell, destroys it. How is that "save or die"? You mention "low-level poisons" without any specific poison listed, so I'll stack that with your mistaken Rot Grub reference (as errors resulting from a lack of knowing the system). That's because the default effect for non-specific poisons was instant death.

Giant centipedes are common, 1/2 HD monsters who appear in batches of 2-24 (that means you ought to expect 13 of them). Their poison is "weak", so you get a +4 on your save. But if you fail your save, you die instantly.

Tell me, though: how did your level 2 Cleric get this cure disease spell?

As usual, though, you're failing to read the words which were written: nowhere did I call rot grubs a save-or-die. Please limit your delusions to the rules of the game, and leave my words alone. Thanks. :smallsmile:


Again, are you suggesting (I just asked this above, but not as specifically) that other tabletop role-playing games do not have poisons, monsters, or situational dangers that can kill a PC immediately?
Again? Sure, you can read the answer again. Here, I'll quote it:

I didn't talk about other TTRPGs, so whatever you're pulling that absurd idea from -- it wasn't my post.

Hope that helps, have a nice night. :smallsmile:

Lurkmoar
2015-07-31, 03:27 AM
We'd cast haste on Dragons to make them more powerful.

We used the Staff of Withering for that. 2 charges=10 years of aging. Could usually age them up about a 100 years before the staff turned to dust.

Dwarves, elves, gnomes halflings and half-elfs had a fair number of mechanical advantages over humans. The long term advantage that a human got was access to any class and unlimited advancement. Though I think that was already mentioned before.

caden_varn
2015-07-31, 03:45 AM
Haste ages them one. And, you're right, it's not so good on the older ones. The younger ones? Two weeks work turns a hatchling (Cat1) into a sub-adult (cat3), assuming you have 1 3rd level spell per day. If you can devote a month to it, a 5th level wizard can turn a hatchling into a Young Adult; a 6th level wizard can turn them into an adult.

Sure, that's a month where your day is pretty much "Cast single 3rd level spell, fart around on the internet, sleep", but a 6th level caster can rocket them up 60 years in a month... and that's half a year to having an very old dragon who owes you several favors.

So - if it works like that on dragons, you should be able to do the same thing on (demi)humans I guess? Just imagine - a few Haste spells on your newborn, and no nappy changes (that's diapers to the Americans), no teething, and they will sleep through the night. I imagine you could find people willing to pay good money for that...

Save up a few more for later, and you can fast-forward through the teenage years too :smallbiggrin:

goto124
2015-07-31, 04:12 AM
Makes me wonder about the implications of hasting if it were made more realistic. Your mind doesn't grow up with your body, for one thing...

Keltest
2015-07-31, 04:13 AM
So - if it works like that on dragons, you should be able to do the same thing on (demi)humans I guess? Just imagine - a few Haste spells on your newborn, and no nappy changes (that's diapers to the Americans), no teething, and they will sleep through the night. I imagine you could find people willing to pay good money for that...

Save up a few more for later, and you can fast-forward through the teenage years too :smallbiggrin:

Sure, but now suddenly you have a person with the body of an adult and all the knowledge of a 1 year old.

goto124
2015-07-31, 04:16 AM
Aging a baby a few months may help a bit. The above is why it may be bad to overuse it. (I realise this method is unlikely to become useful in a typical adventure, though I suppose if you suddenly found yourself with a baby...)

The examples previously given were immortals who are already fully grown.

Telok
2015-07-31, 04:32 AM
In BECMI the Neutralize Poison spell would return someone to life if cast within ten minutes of them dying by poison. So the poison more knocked you out or disabled you truely died ten minutes later.

And of course there are real life animals and insects with poisons that will kill you. I hardly think that a coral snake is anything but a one or two hit point animal. As for centipedes you just leave them alone or throw meat or burning oil at them and go on your way. If you stuck your bare arm into the dark hole without checking anything first then you were probably too stupid to live.

LibraryOgre
2015-08-04, 09:09 AM
Dwarves, elves, gnomes halflings and half-elfs had a fair number of mechanical advantages over humans. The long term advantage that a human got was access to any class and unlimited advancement. Though I think that was already mentioned before.

I've always been skeptical of that "advantage". "Oh, my racial advantage is that I can take two classes I don't qualify for anyway? And I can advance to a level above anyone, even though our games seldom make it beyond level 7?" It's of dubious utility to an individual.


So - if it works like that on dragons, you should be able to do the same thing on (demi)humans I guess? Just imagine - a few Haste spells on your newborn, and no nappy changes (that's diapers to the Americans), no teething, and they will sleep through the night. I imagine you could find people willing to pay good money for that...

Save up a few more for later, and you can fast-forward through the teenage years too :smallbiggrin:

Well, there is the problem that magical aging forces a system shock roll, and might kill you. A dragon with a fantastic constitution might be willing to risk it (especially if they can make themselves more or less immune to failure with a Luckstone or something), but most parent's won't use it to turn their newborn into a toddler... even if your newborn is occasionally just a possessed sack of potatoes.


Makes me wonder about the implications of hasting if it were made more realistic. Your mind doesn't grow up with your body, for one thing...

Back in the day (when the WotC message boards were read through newsreaders, mind you), I knew of someone whose character was born when her mother, just a few days pregnant, was hit by a haste spell.

goto124
2015-08-04, 09:46 AM
System shock roll + pregnancy = Don't try this please 0-0

Did the mother survive? At least the child did.

LibraryOgre
2015-08-04, 10:18 AM
System shock roll + pregnancy = Don't try this please 0-0

Did the mother survive? At least the child did.

The mother did not survive.

DigoDragon
2015-08-04, 11:15 AM
*calls Digo for an explanation*

DocWagon.

Doc Wagon.

Doc Wagon. :smallbiggrin:
http://pre04.deviantart.net/5096/th/pre/f/2015/212/a/b/doc_wagon_by_digoraccoon-d93nzbk.png (http://digoraccoon.deviantart.com/art/Doc-Wagon-550353296)


Old D&D Haste spells were just chock full of dark shenanigan potential.

TheOOB
2015-08-06, 02:03 AM
The race/class restrictions seem to be removed as D&D(and RPGs in general) try to be more flexible and player empowering. Sure you can be a half-orc wizard, even if that doesn't make sense in the setting, you're a hero, an exception. This is great for D&D, and most games, but I don't thing race/class restrictions are bad. They can make world feel more gritty or make the players feel less important. In Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for example, you're not some special hero, you're just a dude who's slightly more skilled and lucky than most. There are classes and abilities you will never get because of your race, and that's just the way the world is. You have to live with it like everyone else in that frankly crapsack world.

goto124
2015-08-06, 02:10 AM
Are Race/Class restrictions ever used for game balance?

Nifft
2015-08-06, 02:23 AM
Are Race/Class restrictions ever used for game balance?

In 1e and OD&D, yes they were.

The game balance wasn't quite as well-structured as more recent editions, of course.

LibraryOgre
2015-08-06, 09:17 AM
Hackmaster handles many race/class restrictions by BPs spent to learn your class... you CAN be a dwarven mage, but mages are rare in dwarven society and you have little natural talent for it, meaning you're going to have to spend 75 BP to learn magery... while you only have to spend 20 BP to be a Dwarven Fighter. The result is that there are a lot more dwarven fighters than there are dwarven mages.

DrewID
2015-08-06, 08:10 PM
In 1e and OD&D, yes they were.

The game balance wasn't quite as well-structured as more recent editions, of course.

It also balanced it badly. In the low-level portion of a D&D campaign, level limits have zero effect. What's more, the benefits that demi-humans get are really beneficial then. In a mid-level campaign, a few race/class combinations hit the limit, but most are still going fine. The demi-human benefits are useful here, but nothing you can't match with a fairly low-level spell or minor magic item. But in a high-level campaign, not only are the demi-human benefits trivial (except for multi-classing), but the level limits are crippling. Unless you multi-classed to thief, advancement is over. All that's left for you to do to be able to improve is to hoard money and magic items. Or pester your DM for an exception that will let you go up levels ever again.

DrewID

D+1
2015-08-06, 11:22 PM
It sounds like 1e race level caps were kinda like a reversed Level Adjustment.

Instead of starting out slower and eventually catching up (which is what Level Adjustment kinda does), you'd start out stronger and then just STOP at some point, while other characters continued to advance.

In the end, a Level Adjusted character would be a few levels behind her compatriots -- and so would a level-capped demi-human.

That's kinda cool.
Actually it's a complete crock and always has been. Whatever Gygax's intentions and attempted justifications this was an area of the game that was badly done and never actually worked as it was THOUGHT it did. The classes allowed/disallowed to a given race were never actually explained in any fashion and DM's were never given any advice about how such choices might be altered to individualize a campaign world. The levels that such characters were limited to was also never explained - why limit X race to Y level as Z class rather than a higher level? Why were some multi-class options allowed for one race but not for others? Why for example, in 1E, were clerics not an allowed player character class to ANY race except the bizarre trio of half-elves, half-orcs, and humans - and for halflings not even allowed as NPC's? Why is every race but half-orcs unlimited in level as a thief? Why do half-elves get SO MANY multi-class options - and so many combinations not even remotely allowed to other races?

If non-human PC's actually get into higher levels (like, say teens) was it thought it would actually BREAK THE GAME? Were players actually going to NEVER play humans if the non-humans weren't flatly capped in level advancement and why was the cap important for SOME classes and races but not others? Why can a half-elf be unlimited in level as a druid but a halfling is forbidden to be higher level than 6th as a druid? What was the PROBLEM with that which was going to arise?

Fact is - there was no such problem. You could have 18th level dwarf magic-users and elf paladins and halfling monks and it WOULD NOT MATTER. Players would not and do not abandon the play of human PC's even when demi-human races have all the advantages and no disadvantages. Gygax was wrong.

And that doesn't even get into the utterly bankrupt notions of, say, putting the screws to magic-users at low levels because IF they ever survive to higher levels they'll dominate the game and paying dues at 1st level that may never pay off at 14th level (in fact, seldom DOES) is somehow fair and sensible?

Really, there's nothing wrong with level limits, or restrictions on what race can be what class or mulit-class - but those are GAME SETTING DESIGN decisions. They're flavor. They have diddley-squat to do with balance (as most people have always assumed and perpetuated the notion) because they colossally fail at actually achieving the other effects people would claim they're intended to have.

But maybe that's just me.

Thrudd
2015-08-06, 11:42 PM
Actually it's a complete crock and always has been. Whatever Gygax's intentions and attempted justifications this was an area of the game that was badly done and never actually worked as it was THOUGHT it did. The classes allowed/disallowed to a given race were never actually explained in any fashion and DM's were never given any advice about how such choices might be altered to individualize a campaign world. The levels that such characters were limited to was also never explained - why limit X race to Y level as Z class rather than a higher level? Why were some multi-class options allowed for one race but not for others? Why for example, in 1E, were clerics not an allowed player character class to ANY race except the bizarre trio of half-elves, half-orcs, and humans - and for halflings not even allowed as NPC's? Why is every race but half-orcs unlimited in level as a thief? Why do half-elves get SO MANY multi-class options - and so many combinations not even remotely allowed to other races?

If non-human PC's actually get into higher levels (like, say teens) was it thought it would actually BREAK THE GAME? Were players actually going to NEVER play humans if the non-humans weren't flatly capped in level advancement and why was the cap important for SOME classes and races but not others? Why can a half-elf be unlimited in level as a druid but a halfling is forbidden to be higher level than 6th as a druid? What was the PROBLEM with that which was going to arise?

Fact is - there was no such problem. You could have 18th level dwarf magic-users and elf paladins and halfling monks and it WOULD NOT MATTER. Players would not and do not abandon the play of human PC's even when demi-human races have all the advantages and no disadvantages. Gygax was wrong.

And that doesn't even get into the utterly bankrupt notions of, say, putting the screws to magic-users at low levels because IF they ever survive to higher levels they'll dominate the game and paying dues at 1st level that may never pay off at 14th level (in fact, seldom DOES) is somehow fair and sensible?

Really, there's nothing wrong with level limits, or restrictions on what race can be what class or mulit-class - but those are GAME SETTING DESIGN decisions. They're flavor. They have diddley-squat to do with balance (as most people have always assumed and perpetuated the notion) because they colossally fail at actually achieving the other effects people would claim they're intended to have.

But maybe that's just me.

No, 1e is not supremely balanced or even logically designed. Its more a collection of evolving rules and arbitrary design choices meant to give people a single baseline to play from, so that at least different groups were playing somewhat similar games.

Mechanically, what the level limits end up doing from an optimization standpoint is encouraging demihumans to multiclass. There is no benefit for an elf being single class fighter or magic user. Which classes each race can be, andthe exact level limits, as was pointed out, is completely an arbitrary setting decision, I think.

Regardless of the reason for it, the practice of applying the rules doesnt result in a terrible unbalanced game. The multiclasses end up not significantly behind single classes unless the game goes on for an extremely long time, which they rarely do. It may not be good, universal design, but it wasnt a horrible broken game experience.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 04:43 AM
It also balanced it badly. In the low-level portion of a D&D campaign, level limits have zero effect. What's more, the benefits that demi-humans get are really beneficial then. (...)
Yeah I don't think anyone would argue that the balance was particularly good back then.

But the question was: were these limits part of the intended balance? And the answer is yes, they very much were.


Actually it's a complete crock and always has been. Whatever Gygax's intentions and attempted justifications this was an area of the game that was badly done and never actually worked as it was THOUGHT it did.
The first try wasn't perfect. This shouldn't be much of a surprise.

You're wrong, though. It's not a "complete crock" (nonsense, or deception). It's just a genuine flawed attempt.


No, 1e is not supremely balanced or even logically designed. Its more a collection of evolving rules and arbitrary design choices meant to give people a single baseline to play from, so that at least different groups were playing somewhat similar games.

Mechanically, what the level limits end up doing from an optimization standpoint is encouraging demihumans to multiclass. There is no benefit for an elf being single class fighter or magic user. Which classes each race can be, andthe exact level limits, as was pointed out, is completely an arbitrary setting decision, I think.

Regardless of the reason for it, the practice of applying the rules doesnt result in a terrible unbalanced game. The multiclasses end up not significantly behind single classes unless the game goes on for an extremely long time, which they rarely do. It may not be good, universal design, but it wasnt a horrible broken game experience. Yeah.

Plus, the character's mechanics weren't the only thing which determined success or failure (or death). A lot of gameplay back then was seat-of-the-pants improvisation. That meant stacking mechanical bonuses wasn't a foolproof strategy, since your survival was only partially based on interaction with character mechanics.

It also meant games were VASTLY different between different groups. Between 3e and the Internet, the gameplay experience is much more unified these days. IMHO that's a positive thing, just like the better understanding of game balance is a positive thing.

Still not perfect, but progress can be seen.

goto124
2015-08-07, 04:55 AM
So... what modern* uses of Race/Class restrictions are there? The only** use I've seen so far is 'verisimilitude' and 'giving a gritty feel, by making the PC feel not so powered and unique compared to everyone else'. Since it's a setting thing, shouldn't the restrictions be individualised to the... well... setting? Shouldn't it be up to the DM to make the call?

* By some arbitrary meaning of modern. I'm being loose here.

** Okay, I think I saw it used for game balance. But it seems it's both uncommon, and very old.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 05:04 AM
So... what modern* uses of Race/Class restrictions are there? From 3.5e:

Only an Elf can be an Arcane Archer.

Only a Gnome can be a Shadowcraft mage.

Only a Human or Changeling can be a Chameleon.

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 06:16 AM
From 3.5e:

Only an Elf can be an Arcane Archer.

Only a Gnome can be a Shadowcraft mage.

Only a Human or Changeling can be a Chameleon.

Which are respectively, illogical fluff reasons, fluff reasons (which they follow up by saying 'feel free to change this' in the adaption section), and for fluff reasons. Still nothing about balance.

Daedroth
2015-08-07, 06:28 AM
The only restriction that can be really balance justified of this nature are:

- A compensating prestige class for a race poor suitable for a class, for example a prestige dwarf sorcereer class por D&D 3.5. Balanced for dwarfs but maybe unbalanced for someone without a Charisma penalty.
- A powerful race-combo that need to be avoided, for example a class that become OP with too many feats banned for humans in D&D 3.5.
- A compensating class for a race with poor racial features, for example a powerful class for Hobgoblin that compensates its suck.

Anonymouswizard
2015-08-07, 06:32 AM
But, as we all know, adventurers have no class.

Keltest
2015-08-07, 06:48 AM
Which are respectively, illogical fluff reasons, fluff reasons (which they follow up by saying 'feel free to change this' in the adaption section), and for fluff reasons. Still nothing about balance.

Well, a significant component of any non-murderhobo game is going to be "fluff" anyway, so...

it just seems like dismissing it as fluff is neglecting a significant part of the game.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 06:51 AM
Which are respectively, illogical fluff reasons, fluff reasons (which they follow up by saying 'feel free to change this' in the adaption section), and for fluff reasons. Still nothing about balance.

"Game balance" has no in-universe reasoning nor justification.

Therefore all game balance is targeted at the players, specifically to elicit certain positive feelings in the players.

Therefore, all game balance is fluff.

Your move.

Telok
2015-08-07, 01:46 PM
There is of course the actual given reason for the old level limits too. If nobody is restricted in level or class then you see two things happen.

First the players scrounge through races for mechanical advantage and then play human characters who see in the dark and have 'water orc' written on the character sheet. Said orc may even be a nice prince from a desert city when the game world says that all orcs are barbaric telepathic thralls of the swamp monsters.

Second is that the best response to the question "Why is the 800 year old elven wizard who has been trying to get better at magic through research and study sixth level while my 18 year old human is a 12th level wizard because he sets things on fire?" is to stick your fingers in your ears and yell loudly untill the question goes away. Either skill and experience are reflected in character levels and longer lived and more powerful races should have super-wizards who rule the world, or you have to start making excuses for why that isn't so.

The demi-human level limits were the excuse that made the default setting a little more beliveable and discouraged a non-human only party in a human world. If you want a game where every race is equal that's fine, but you have to make excuses and rationalizations in order to have a majority human setting and explain the majority non-human adventuring parties.

Psyren
2015-08-07, 01:50 PM
So... what modern* uses of Race/Class restrictions are there? The only** use I've seen so far is 'verisimilitude' and 'giving a gritty feel, by making the PC feel not so powered and unique compared to everyone else'. Since it's a setting thing, shouldn't the restrictions be individualised to the... well... setting? Shouldn't it be up to the DM to make the call?

Er... isn't it? "Houserule" isn't a dirty word, ya know...

Just because the designers intended, say, a Treesinger Druid to be an Elf and a Dirty Fighter... Fighter to be an Orc, doesn't mean you have to go along with it at your table. You can even combine ACFs and Archetypes that replace the same things if you want, or give out their benefits for free. The Fun Police will not show up at your door to clap you in irons, promise :smallwink:

hiryuu
2015-08-07, 03:08 PM
Personally, I started loosening racial restrictions, but giving humans a +1 to Charisma and a +1 to all saves. It doesn't make humans powerhouses, but they are attractive character options based on the numbers, now.

Oh, man, I did the exact same thing. I also gave humans standard multi-classing and you could either pick that or the dual classing (which really slowed them down and worked out great), but I don't remember the other thing I did. Something with the non-weapon proficiencies?

Necroticplague
2015-08-07, 09:42 PM
"Game balance" has no in-universe reasoning nor justification.

Therefore all game balance is targeted at the players, specifically to elicit certain positive feelings in the players.

Therefore, all game balance is fluff.

Your move.

I see the logic chain, and its invalid on a couple levels

1. Not everything that isn't justified in-univers is targeted at the players.

2. Balance isn't specifically to elicit feelings.

3.Things meant to elicit feelings isn't the meaning of fluff in any sense.

Nifft
2015-08-07, 10:37 PM
1. Not everything that isn't justified in-univers is targeted at the players. Okay. What is the audience, if not the people playing the game?


2. Balance isn't specifically to elicit feelings. What's it for then?


3.Things meant to elicit feelings isn't the meaning of fluff in any sense. What is the meaning of fluff?

TheOOB
2015-08-08, 01:47 AM
What is the meaning of fluff?

Fluff is any part of a game system/world that doesn't relate to game mechanics.

For example, in 7th Sea the magic of Porte causes the sorcerers hands to become permanently bloodstained. This doesn't actually have any effects on how the abilities work, that's mechanics, but it's still part of the setting that may affect how players or NPC's use the abilities and can change how encounters or even the entire setting work(eg gloves are always in fashion in the country where this magic is common, so not wearing gloves makes you out of fashion even if you are not a sorcerer).

Milo v3
2015-08-08, 01:55 AM
I've nearly use Race/Class restrictions, but it's technically Culture/Class restrictions since certain power sources are only understood by some cultures so you needed to have been in that culture at some stage to learn how to use it.

Necroticplague
2015-08-08, 01:59 AM
Okay. What is the audience, if not the people playing the game?

What's it for then?

What is the meaning of fluff?

Respectively: people who like the setting or the those who run the game;to create a more detailed setting;part of the game that are not mechanics.

I'll admit, saying those things were fluff was inaccurate. They were mechanical decisions made entirely for (somewhat illogical) fluff reasons.

Frozen_Feet
2015-08-08, 05:00 AM
There is no hard distinction between fluff and crunch when it comes to traditional RPGs. The bloodstained hands above are a great example: they don't give an obvious numerical effect, but still alter a game fact observable from in-universe and can hence alter NPC reactions.

Hence, the bloodstained hands do have an impact on the game and setting; they're as much a rule and part of the mechanics of the game as any numerical modifier would be.

If you disagree with the above, consider the following: d20 and many other games have an universal mechanics, roll X, add modifiers, compare to target number, and this is shared between all skills. So what actually tells you what a skill does in-universe is not the mechanics, but the name and description of the skill, the supposed "fluff".

As described by 1st Edition DMG, (A)D&D is a humanocentric game, where men are the greatest heroes and the greatest monsters, and hence demihumans are limited so that human will eventually eclipse them. This is perfectly clear and it's near-impossible to not achieve this by using the rules-as-written.

Some people have said they don't consider this much of advantage as players. Uh, that's what Gygax was talking about when he said a player should weight the advantages and disadvantages carefully. Are you playing a one-shot or very short campaign? Play a demihuman best suited for that game. Are you expecting the campaign will carry on for a long time? Maybe pick a human.

It's good to remember, there were tourneys in conventions and people could hop from DM to DM, taking their character with them. In such an environment, were advanced characters were very much possible. "How many games I'm going to play with this character?" was something for the player to think about as well, not just the DM. And there are still gaming environments where this holds. It's true for OSR convention games I hold, and I think Pathfinder Society has something similar.

Milo v3
2015-08-08, 05:04 AM
Are you playing a one-shot or very short campaign? Play a demihuman best suited for that game. Are you expecting the campaign will carry on for a long time? Maybe pick a human.

Shouldn't that be the opposite though... since humans have the shortest lifespan.

Frozen_Feet
2015-08-08, 05:31 AM
Real-life time versus in-game times.

By a campaign that lasts a very long time, I mean one that last for many sessions, has many adventures, and hence many opportunities for gaining experience and levels. This allows for a human character to pull ahead of demihumans.

The actual combined in-game time might still be less than what passes in a single one-shot. In cases where you can expect in-game time to pass really fast compared to actual number of sessions and adventures, you might want to play a demihuman.

LibraryOgre
2015-08-08, 08:24 AM
I have long hated "Fluff" and "Crunch"; I prefer "meat" and "bone"... the bones being the structure that holds everything together, the meat being the story stuff that gives everything shape and dimension.

Nifft
2015-08-08, 06:19 PM
Respectively: people who like the setting or the those who run the game;to create a more detailed setting;part of the game that are not mechanics.

I'll admit, saying those things were fluff was inaccurate. They were mechanical decisions made entirely for (somewhat illogical) fluff reasons. People running a game are also playing the game, even if they are not referred to as "the players". It's an odd case of one use of the word becoming a term of art.

Since my point was that fluff is often the basis for mechanics, I think your final revelation has you largely in agreement with me.

hiryuu
2015-08-09, 01:29 PM
I have long hated "Fluff" and "Crunch"; I prefer "meat" and "bone"... the bones being the structure that holds everything together, the meat being the story stuff that gives everything shape and dimension.

Oh, that's a good one. I also use "nougat" instead of "fluff." Nougat is thick and creamy and delicious, fluff is just white sugar with no point.

Necroticplague
2015-08-09, 07:24 PM
Since my point was that fluff is often the basis for mechanics, I think your final revelation has you largely in agreement with me.

It's not a revelation, it's clarifying what I meant. I don't think mechanical restrictions should come from fluff,though I know they annoyingly do with some frequency (actually, I think it should be the other way around, the fluff should come from the mechanics. That way, the mechanics can be used in a wider variety of situations without having some annoying hang-ons from the fluff it was meant for). My original statement was merely pointing out those things were based on fluff, not balance reasons (because the question had been asked if any modern system balances things using such restrictions). So it looks like we've been two people on the same side arguing over poor wording. Sorry, my bad.

Jay R
2015-08-09, 11:40 PM
All guesses about the effect of level limits are incorrect until you realize that the purpose was to change what we did during character conception, to increase the percentage of PCs who were human.


It also balanced it badly. In the low-level portion of a D&D campaign, level limits have zero effect.

Simply untrue. It had its biggest effect exactly when it was intended to: during character creation. Because we knew about the potential limit, a character was always human unless there was a specific, clear, strong reason to make a non-human.


Actually it's a complete crock and always has been. Whatever Gygax's intentions and attempted justifications this was an area of the game that was badly done and never actually worked as it was THOUGHT it did.

Simply untrue. The purpose was to make people think twice before creating a non-human PC, and that's exactly what we did.

My first nine characters included one dwarf and one hobbit, and in both cases, I decided to risk the limits for specific reasons. That was the goal of the rules, and they worked.

Yora
2015-08-10, 07:36 AM
Simply untrue. It had its biggest effect exactly when it was intended to: during character creation. Because we knew about the potential limit, a character was always human unless there was a specific, clear, strong reason to make a non-human.
But that's not balance. Say someone decides to play a nonhuman anyway, even knowing the restriction. Until the characters reach the maximum level, there is nothing "balancing" their aditional abilities they have over humans.

Jay R
2015-08-10, 08:22 AM
But that's not balance. Say someone decides to play a nonhuman anyway, even knowing the restriction. Until the characters reach the maximum level, there is nothing "balancing" their aditional abilities they have over humans.

Correct. The idea of a characters who were perfectly balanced throughout their lifetimes simply did not exist yet. First level fighting men (yes, that was the class name) excelled over first level magic-users; high level wizards excelled over high-level fighting men. And nobody objected.

The rule's intent was to discourage non-human characters except as exceptions, and it worked fine.

goto124
2015-08-10, 08:23 AM
Doesn't 'balance' refer to mechanical balance, that prevents any one race/class/etc from become over/underpowered?

In that line, isn't balance a purely crunch thing, that has nothing to do with fluff?

GungHo
2015-08-10, 10:32 AM
Doesn't 'balance' refer to mechanical balance, that prevents any one race/class/etc from become over/underpowered?

In that line, isn't balance a purely crunch thing, that has nothing to do with fluff?

Yes, but that's not what the restrictions in question were for. The "balance" for these restrictions was entirely fluff and meant to address the Tolkienization of the "standard" D&D world. Dwarves and Elves were on the decline. The designers thought, logically, if Elves and Dwarves could be 20th level - and they certainly had lifespans to get there - that there was no reason they should be on decline. They should be ruling the world. In the Tolkienized setting, humans were on the rise and would be ruling the world. Therefore no caps for them.

Subsequent updates to the rules rightly figured out that people were ignoring the level restrictions and were going to create worlds as they damn well wished and were going to deal with Elves and Dwarves having access to level 20 abilities in different ways.

ShadowFighter15
2015-08-11, 08:22 AM
I don't mind them so long as they fit in the setting and aren't too restrictive. Iron Kingdoms Unleashed kind-of swung too far to the latter; most of the careers in that were restricted to particular races, particularly the spellcasting classes (only one of them didn't have a racial restriction and that was the Sorcerer, which is more of an elemental specialist rather than a general-purpose arcanist - maybe also the Bone Grinder, but I can't recall off the top of my head if that actually had a spell list or not).

But even then, the restrictions that are there do make sense - Fell Caller is a trollkin-only one because the ability to project Fell Calls is unique to the descendent of Bragg, who was a trollkin and the Iron Kingdoms doesn't have hybrids (meaning Bragg's blood would only ever be found in trollkin). Priest of Nyssor is restricted to Nyss because of their close ties to Nyssor. Bokor is Gatorman-only because they're the only ones with a voodoo-esque tradition of magical corpse reanimation. Even in the previous Iron Kingdoms RPG, Full Metal Fantasy (the one that came out in 2012, not the old d20 one) the restrictions fit; Knight was a good example and was restricted to just Iosan elves and humans. And it made sense because the human kingdoms and Ios are the only cultures to have actual knightly orders in the setting - everyone else is either too savage for it, their communities too small for knightly orders to ever be formed, simply don't have the culture or military structure for them or have had their culture obliterated by a disembodied dragon (okay; that last one's just the Nyss).

Jay R
2015-08-11, 04:20 PM
The actual effect in our games was that humans got to use their first Wish for something else, while elves, dwarves and hobbits always used their first Wish to get rid of level limits.