Thursday, October 22, 2015

Race-as-Class is a Terrible Idea


An undercooked idea that should have died in the brainstorming stage, some game designers actually continue this practice. Why? What is RAC, and why is it so bad? I'll answer these questions and more in this week's reason why OSR games suck!
To better understand this terrible idea, we first have to go back to the start of role-playing games. RPGs were born in-part from tabletop war games. These are games where you have different "units" of characters in a battlefield simulacrum waged within a diorama usually setup on a board or tabletop.

Similar to little plastic army men, players might have one unit be a "minesweeper" army figure, another "crawling on the ground prone" figurine and another "aiming a rifle" miniature. Each unit had certain strengths, weaknesses and capabilities associated with it. This idea seems ok for a game that focuses on the "big picture" of an entire battle; but it is as primitive as a flint-knapped knife when it comes to roleplay and adventure games.

"This game uses race-as-class?! NNNNOOOO!!!!"

In Basic Dungeons & Dragons (red book), for example, you had a few choices when choosing what "type" of character you wanted to play:
  1. Human Fighter
  2. Human Cleric
  3. Human Thief
  4. Human Magic-User
Now, I know some of you are probably screaming at your screens saying that there were really seven choices, not four. But you'd be wrong. The other three options (which all subscribe to the "race-as-class" methodology) are simply a re-hash of two or more of the above classes. Let's review:
  1.  Elf - Fighter/Magic-User hybrid
  2. Dwarf - Fighter with added defense and saves
  3. Halfling - Fighter/Thief hybrid
You'll notice that humans have four choices while elves, dwarves and halflings only have one choice each. This means if you want to be some kind of badass book-thumpin' cleric who calls down the wrath of <insert patron deity>, you can only be human. But what if you were envisioning some kind of awesome dwarf-turned-holy-man? Kind of like how Worf worked for Starfleet or Chewbacca hung out with humans. Well, too bad, you're out of luck. Apparently only humans are noble enough for religion and spirituality.

What about a ninja-like elven thief? Sorry, not in the cards. Only humans can be thieves. Don't even ask about magical halflings, because it isn't going to happen.

Not allowed!

You see, race-as-class means that whatever class, or style of play, you choose for your character, their race (or more appropriately called "species") is inexorably linked to that socio-economic class. This in turn "type casts" less common races--such as halflings--into a certain style of play. There is no room for mixing and matching, no room for flexibility or customization. You're forced to play the style that the game designers chose for you.

And why? To what end were the game designers hoping to achieve? Some may say it's to make humans be the predominant species of the land by there being a 4 out of 7 chance a human-based character class is chosen by players. But who said that humans should be the dominant species in the adventure you want to run? This is really just the designer's way of saying that their notion of "realism" within a fantasy world outweighs your desire to have fun. Effectively, the original D&D designers are either insulting your intelligence by making the choice for you, or flipping you the bird.

 Say YES to choice!

It's no wonder this completely unnecessary and absolutely asinine practice went extinct when the BD&D lineage died out. Even Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition, which was released around the same time as Basic Dungeons & Dragons, knew better. Their system wasn't perfect (still denying players the satisfaction of certain race/class combinations because realism), but at least they recognized that players deserve a choice.

So why in the world would certain game designers perpetuate such a silly practice? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they are suffering from the Stradivarius myth by believing that everything the founders touched turned to gold. The reality was that they were a bunch of guys who were quite literally making it up as they went. Maybe these offending game designers just want to continue the status quo, without a single forethought into whether it's even a good idea.

I've even heard some apologist old-school gamers try to defend race-as-class by saying that classes are really just a big blurry abstraction and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Um, what? Are you saying I'm wrong in thinking that combination X & Y is more fun for me than just X?

This whole thing is racist, really. No, not real-world racist; but fantasy-racist. It's saying that all dwarves, no matter their background; their upbringing, their homeland, their life choices, etc. all inherently understand gnome, goblin and kobold languages and have a 33% chance of recognizing new construction (Rulescyclopedia page 23). How is that realistic? How is that "just an abstraction"? It certainly isn't worth denying me my halfling magic-user!

 "But why can't we use magic?"

The fact of the matter is that life is a very complex and beautiful thing. Take humans as an example. We come in many different sizes, shapes, colors, cultures, expertise, strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and so on. To type cast humans by saying we are all one and a half to two meters tall would just be wrong. Saying we all have an inherit know-how to use computers, swords, vehicles or science is also wrong. It would be like saying we all run around stealing stuff from people's pockets, or carry battleaxes wherever we go.

Do yourself, your game and the community as a whole a favor; and do right with the players. Give them what they want. Don't force your preconceptions and bias onto everyone else. Let us customize the game how we want.