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!
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:
- Human Fighter
- Human Cleric
- Human Thief
- Human Magic-User
- Elf - Fighter/Magic-User hybrid
- Dwarf - Fighter with added defense and saves
- Halfling - Fighter/Thief hybrid
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.
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.
So, race-as-class sucks because you want to play a halfling druid, or a dwarf wizard?
ReplyDeleteSo, race-as-class sucks because "realism."
So, race-as-class sucks because you somehow linked "class," the classification of different in-game skills and roles, with "class," the classification of people in the socioeconomic sense?
So, race-as-class sucks because it died out with OD&D, which was technically race and class separate like AD&D, and BD&D, even though BD&D was in print almost until the end of TSR, like 2e AD&D?
So, race-as-class sucks because you don't understand that classes are for adventurers not the general populace?
So,race-as-class sucks because BD&D is totally completely incompatible with the separate races and classes of AD&D?
If you don't like the OSR games that based off of BD&D, then why don't you a) focus on the games that have race and class separate, and/or b) make your own OSR game that has all the freedom of post-TSR D&D.
See, the thing is, I like to run race-as-class when I run BD&D, because I tend to run it for people who are new to RPGs and it helps them get into the game with the restricted choices. Depending on how much Iike and want a player in my game, I have relaxed that stance or made custom racial classes. But, you or a player like you, I wouldn't. I'd simply tell you leave the table. I probably wouldn't even invite a player like you to a Pathfinder or similar variant of D&D.
Here is my situation: I love BECMI but it doesn't stop me from modifying it quite a bit. I have stayed with RAC.....but.....well, but a lot! Right off, all classes can progress to 36th level. I like a small number of classes that players can customize rather than a bunch of specialized classes. The foundation of this is BECMI's Weapon Mastery system which I have not seen (in the level of detail BECMI did it) in any of the other versions, though I may have missed it. I've extended Weapon Mastery to the use of armor and shields as well. This means that a Fighter can be an archer or skirmisher or knight, and have pro and cons, all with the same class. I've removed Thief as a class and moved all the Thief abilities into skills. I added a skills specialist class called Artisan, which even uses skill slots to improve their fighting ability as they level (but at most only as fast as Thieves). Characters can sacrifice weapon mastery slots to get additional skill slots, but not the other way around. Skills have five levels of aptitude like Weapon Mastery and success is based on half the related ability score plus a bonus for your level of mastery, rather than the whole related ability score. I also divided the spells up by Immortal Sphere (like the original Immortals set) and have Magic-users select a Sphere (so there really can be Fire and Air mages, and be in opposition) and Clerics use the Sphere of their Immortal. Oh, and all the race abilities have been turned into skills which. SO, what does all this have to do with RAC? This is what my RAC classes end up like -
ReplyDeleteElf: still a fighter / magic-user. but......a Time Sphere elf casts mostly healing spells. Elves can worship Immortals but being so long lived don't do so with the intensity of human clerics (with exceptions for the followers of some elven Immortals, which then grant elven followers Clerical abilities). Also elves can sacrifice Weapon Mastery slots to pick up thieving related skills. Or better scouting abilities. So you can have your elven archer, classic plate, shield, sword and spell elf, or even elven sage (with almost no combat abilities but wide ranging knowledge).
Dwarf:still a fighter, basically. Their high level of magic resistance precludes the study of magic for the most part with the exception of dwarven clerics as outlined in the Gazetteers. However, again by playing with their mix of weapon mastery and skills, you can have a classic heavy combat dwarf, a dwarven thief, even a dwarven master smith.
Halfling: this one bugged me the most. They are not that much longer lived than humans, and their extra abilities don't really paint a picture of a race that is that much different from humans. They have magical resistance, but not to the degree of Dwarves. So I kept them with RAC, but their biggest bonus is that for Wisdom, Dexterity, and Charisma based skills they use their entire ability score rather than half as the base of whether their attempt is successful or not. They can also train to become Masters at 9th (not 8th) level to gain magical abilities.
Humanoids: I allow all of the RAC listed in the Orcs of Thar Gazetteer. With the ability to trade weapon mastery slots for skills, and the ability to be woki / shamans, it allows plenty of variety.
This way.....when I use BECMI matierals that have RAC demihumans and humanoids in them, I can use them largely as listed. However, when my players or I (as a DM) want a character to be a demihuman or humanoid that isn't like the classics that they are presented as, that is an option as well.
Pippin, nice house rules.
DeleteI love the simplicity of B/X, but also loved the way AD&D separated race and class. This is why I love BFRPG. This is my go to system when I want to rock the OSR so it doesn't suck :)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jay! Though I think the OP would still dislike Basic Fantasy... he's never going to be happy with our games, because OSR Sucks! (That's what it says at the top of the page, after all.)
DeleteIt would be nice, Kyle, if you got the rules you're complaining about right. In the 1981 Red Book, Halflings and Dwarves were very, very similar; the only "thief" ability Halflings got was the ability to hide in the wilderness... not a proper "thief" ability at all. They were, for all intents and purposes, short Fighters who got really good saving throws.
ReplyDeleteI'm not defending race-as-class (I did away with it in Basic Fantasy RPG, after all). But it is a stylistic decision that, as they say, made sense at the time. Gary imagined a humanocentric game, where non-humans were rarities. Indeed, I'm told by those who were present at the time that he had practically no non-humans in his original campaign. Tom Moldvay, writer of the Red Book rules you speak of, was tasked with creating a simplified version of the original game, one that was easy enough for beginners to learn. (He was, of course, writing a successor to Holmes' Blue Book Basic.) Tom simplified the game to suit the audience as he saw it. I learned from that book, and from the Cook/Marsh Expert set, and I always loved how easy it was to start a new game, and how natural it was to play.
I've played, and written, a broad variety of games since then. I created Basic Fantasy RPG because I wanted that classic experience, but without some things I didn't care for (like race-as-class, for example).
I still don't allow Dwarves and Halflings to be Magic-Users. It's not how my world works. I'm not saying that you shouldn't allow it... that's one of the basic tenets of the Old School, that the rules are meant to serve the GM and not the other way around. But the classic games didn't allow it, and so neither do I.
People come to the OSR because the rules or the style suit them. Most do so because they are able to reproduce the style and feel that they remember from "back in the day." Some come to the OSR because most of our games are simpler and easier to run, involving less paperwork and less "crunch."
... and all of that leads me to one inescapable truth:
You, sir, will never convince anyone that the OSR Sucks!
Either they will arrive here already convinced you are right, or they will show up here, get mad and post huge long diatribes against you or your position.
There is, in other words, no way this blog will ever serve a useful purpose. After all, you can hardly stamp us out... we will create and play the sort of games we want, without regard for your opinion. You will only ever preach to the choir, so to speak, and never turn a single head away from the OSR.
I think I mostly just wrote all that for myself. Having my position challenged always makes me think about it more closely, but as I just predicted, I find my opinion unchanged.
Honestly, it would serve your purposes much better if you spent the time and effort you put into your posts here into creating games or game materials for the type of RPG you prefer, whatever that might be. Those who appreciate your style will benefit far more from having more materials to use in their own games than from reading your complaints about ours.
Good luck, sir.
Hi Chris!
DeleteThanks for gracing my humble blog with your presence. This blog is actually tongue and cheek satire. I don't think OSR sucks, I actually love OSR games and have been releasing products for the community. I consider myself "one of you". I do, however, want to see the community grow, thrive and better itself; and I think it's important we are brave enough to call bad design what it is; and admit the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. I believe we should cast off that which doesn't work and embrace that which is fun, efficient and practical.
I hope you read my introduction for more information: http://osrsucks.blogspot.com/2015/09/introduction-id-like-to-welcome.html
I see. Your approach is perhaps a bit too far over the top; just as I did, most who come here will read whichever post they see first, first, without looking for your introduction for an explanation.
ReplyDeleteAs far as being "brave enough to call bad design what it is," I have to say, you're being a bit heavy handed. Race-as-class is not my favorite mechanic (again, I dropped it from BFRPG), but for those who have chosen Labyrinth Lord, understand that they did so intentionally, knowing that the rules work that way.
In other words... things that you call bad design, others consider style or flavor. You run the risk of alienating people in this way. Point out something that I personally like (for example, the five saving throw system) and call it "bad design" and hey, I'm going to be personally insulted.
Saying that you don't care for something is one thing. Calling it "bad" implies that anyone who likes that thing must be somehow stupid, as only a stupid person would intentionally choose the "bad" thing.
Most of the commenters here need to re-read the sub-title on this blog. There's a lot of outrage being flung over something that is intended as satire.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall seeing his subtitle, and that was even after I read all four of his blog-posts.
DeleteAs it is, even assuming he actually originally meant it as tongue-in-cheek or satire, he still comes off as whining. He is complaining, and despite "join in the discussion of how we can make OSR better than it has ever been" also being part of the subtitle, he doesn't offer up any ideas of his own.
However, "it's just satire" is one of those go to phrases of a failed troll when their trolling falls flat.