D&D General On Powerful Classes, 1e, and why the Original Gygaxian Gatekeeping Failed

[steeldragons]

I think, and I certainly can not speak for the actual reasons and mindset of Gygax, but it always seemed/made sense to me, that gatekeeping the subclasses (and monk and bard) behind ability scores served more than a "power-brokering" thing or any attempt at what we'd now call class "balance"...NOT Gygax's strongest suit...

...But it was a function for the narrative/story side of the game. That in the world of D&D, there would/"should" just be fewer paladins running around than fighters. That Rangers, Druids, Illusionists, Assassins, and especially Monks, should be more uncommon in the world simply by virtue that having the traits that "permitted" those classes were found fewer and farther between among people.

I mean, sure, folks "cheated" more and more to end up with the character they wanted. Human nature, I think, moreso than anything UA said was "ok/now allowed."

But I always read the 1e PHB, and UA, and all of the ability limits and scores (we flat out ignored racial level limits across the board, the entirety of our play experience) as an attempt to limit the number of such classes (and creatures), by the dice, in the narrative. Racial ability minimums were set to make the elf and dwarf characters more rare than a human one -strictly by the rolls. The ability criteria of the Ranger was to make sure there were very few "Rangers" running around in the same fashion...though a green-cloaked "Woodsman/Archer/Monster Hunter Warrior guy" Fighters (or thieves) were a dime a dozen.

But I honestly can't recall being at a table, back in the 1e [glory] days that stuck by 3 (or 4) d6 in order rolling when it came to making characters. More often than not, you just rolled...over and over and over until you got what you wanted.

 

[Stormonu]

I must have been one of the very few that was fairly strict on the aspects mentioned above (though once UA came out I did let players use the Method V, if they were going to play a human character). Most of that went out the window once 2E rolled around, though.

Another gatekeeping aspect that made its way into 2E was the “% to know spell” on the Int table - I got zapped by it when my Witch character couldn’t learn Fireball, and I had another player who was incensed they failed to learn Magic Missile. And of course, there was the cleric not only unrestricted in learning a spell, but get bonus ones to boot.

I’ll also mention that while AD&D supposedly didn’t have a maximum level, it was pretty clear Gygax didn’t intend for the game to play into the double-digit levels (except for maybe magic-users); strongholds and armies were clearly the end-game abilities that kicked in around 9th. This meant that the “unlimited level human advancement” is a bit of joke, and multiclassing as a demihuman was the de facto way to go.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do consider them separate. While these other Gygaxian mechanisms have also been discarded over time, I think that there are other reasons for both using them and discarding them- honestly, they are (as you state) balancing mechanisms.

The issue I highlight, IMO, aren't balancing mechanisms. They are, pure and simple, gatekeeping functions that primarily allow those with higher ability scores (which are randomly generated) access to more and more bonuses, powers, and so on.

In a way that is a balancing factor though. Higher bonuses and subclasses with more powerful abilities were “balanced” by the fact that they were rarer. Richard Garfield tried to do the same thing with Magic: the Gathering, “balancing” the most powerful cards by making them the rarest. On paper it makes sense, especially in a competitive gaming context like the wargames Gygax’s background was in. In practice of course, people are going to find a way to play what they want to play, be it through cheating, house ruling, or just re-rolling tons of times (or buying tons of packs, in the case of M:tG).

 

[Charlaquin]

I think, and I certainly can not speak for the actual reasons and mindset of Gygax, but it always seemed/made sense to me, that gatekeeping the subclasses (and monk and bard) behind ability scores served more than a "power-brokering" thing or any attempt at what we'd now call class "balance"...NOT Gygax's strongest suit...

...But it was a function for the narrative/story side of the game. That in the world of D&D, there would/"should" just be fewer paladins running around than fighters. That Rangers, Druids, Illusionists, Assassins, and especially Monks, should be more uncommon in the world simply by virtue that having the traits that "permitted" those classes were found fewer and farther between among people.

I imagine it was a bit of both. Yes, from a world building standpoint it makes sense that Fighters are more common than Paladins and Rangers. But also, Paladins and Rangers ought to be more powerful if they’re rarer, no? If nothing else, to at least make them something worth aspiring to. Give them the cool abilities to make them the classes players hope to roll high enough to play.

Again, it makes sense on paper. It just fails to account for the fact that in practice, players will go to great lengths to play what they want to play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’ll also mention that while AD&D supposedly didn’t have a maximum level, it was pretty clear Gygax didn’t intend for the game to play into the double-digit levels (except for maybe magic-users); strongholds and armies were clearly the end-game abilities that kicked in around 9th. This meant that the “unlimited level human advancement” is a bit of joke, and multiclassing as a demihuman was the de facto way to go.

We say that, but ...

1. Several classes had capped level limits that were well above 9th level. Druid (14), Assassin (15), and Monk (17) all indicated that those hard caps were supposed to be meaningful, and all were well above 9th level.

2. Weird class abilities- such as the Fighter multi-attack. You didn't get the 2/1 until level 13 (Paladin & Fighter) or 15 (Ranger).

3. The existence of those insane spell tables ... the Cleric spell tavle went up to level 29, and there were no level 7 spells until level 16; the Illusionist went to level 26 and you didn't get level 7 spells until 14; and the MU table went to ... checking again ... squints ... LEVEL 29! And you didn't get those precious, game-destroying 9th level spells until level 18.

4. The occasional letter to Dragon Magazine, as well as the existence of Deities and Demigods and Q1, seemed to indicate that some people didn't just build strongholds, unless they did so ON ORCUS'S BONES.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I imagine it was a bit of both. Yes, from a world building standpoint it makes sense that Fighters are more common than Paladins and Rangers. But also, Paladins and Rangers ought to be more powerful if they’re rarer, no? If nothing else, to at least make them something worth aspiring to. Give them the cool abilities to make them the classes players hope to roll high enough to play.

Again, it makes sense on paper. It just fails to account for the fact that in practice, players will go to great lengths to play what they want to play.

You don't say!

From the OP:

Without trying to be controversial, there does exist a basis for this original design decision. While Gygax explicitly eschewed the idea of D&D being "realistic" in the DMG, it is also true that he came from wargaming route; there is a constant tension in 1e between verisimilitude and just being a game. If you were to assume that Paladins and Rangers are more rare than Fighters ... that they are the best of the best ... then it would make sense that they would be restricted. Not every person can be (for example) a Green Beret or a Navy SEAL. We often see this play out in different spheres- put this under the "rich get richer," category. Sure, it may not be fair or right that (say) an actor who is already making a lot of money is then gifted with a lot of freebies at an awards show, but it often plays out that these types of advantages steamroll.

But that doesn't make for a fun game, necessarily. If you really want to play a Paladin (for example), it would truly suck that you would have to wait for the stars to align and to get that 17 charisma. On the other hand, if you are playing your "regular old fighter" it might seem almost unfair to be in a party with Rangers and Paladins, both of whom not only have special abilities, but also likely are just plain better since they needed great abilities already just to qualify for the class!

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ll add that I really like the idea of rarity as a balancing tool. But it requires a different type of game to work. That’s why limited formats are a thing in magic - instead of building decks from your whole collection, everyone gets a fixed amount of sealed product and has to build a deck with whatever they get, or else draft picks from a shared pool and build with what you draft. To make rarity as balance work in D&D, you would need a similar restriction.

Again, theoretically you could achieve this by strictly enforcing 3d6 in order (or whatever method of rolling stats, the important part is just that everyone has to use the same method), with no rerolls. But in practice, players can just have their characters commit suicide (or play them suicidally if that’s not allowed) so they can roll up a new character, until they get a set of stats they like. Maybe the thing to do would be to let everyone roll up a certain number of characters (again, enforcing the same rolling method for everyone), and once your characters are all dead, that’s it. You’re out. This would work better for a more competitive form of D&D, where the DM tries to kill the PCs and the players try to keep their characters alive as long as possible.

 

[Charlaquin]

You don't say!

Right, I was agreeing with your thesis, and framing it in slightly different terms.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’ll add that I really like the idea of rarity as a balancing tool. But it requires a different type of game to work. That’s why limited formats are a thing in magic - instead of building decks from your whole collection, everyone gets a fixed amount of sealed product and has to build a deck with whatever they get, or else draft picks from a shared pool and build with what you draft. To make rarity as balance work in D&D, you would need a similar restriction.

So, to more fully explain why this isn't a balancing tool (unlike XP charts, level caps for demi humans, or the way some classes sucked at lower levels compared to other classes) as opposed to a rarity issue-

Look back at the entirety of section 1. Throughout OD&D and into 1e, the use of high ability scores for gatekeeping was prevalent. High ability scores gave you all sorts of bonuses; not only the bonuses you got from the high ability scores (such as advantages to armor class, ability to be resurrected, advantages to thieving abilities, or even bonus spells), but they also allowed access to everything from special classes to XP bonuses to optional abilities (like psionics).

That's why this wasn't a balancing mechanism, but a gatekeeping mechanism. It had nothing to do with game balance, but instead provided cascading advantages for having high abilities.

 

[Voadam]

I’ll add that I really like the idea of rarity as a balancing tool. But it requires a different type of game to work. That’s why limited formats are a thing in magic - instead of building decks from your whole collection, everyone gets a fixed amount of sealed product and has to build a deck with whatever they get, or else draft picks from a shared pool and build with what you draft. To make rarity as balance work in D&D, you would need a similar restriction.

I think this works better by limiting rare things per PC rather than balancing with the rarity for the group in general. So if you wanted to make magic items rarer only allow three magic item slots per PC. Or go all in on the no more than three rangers restriction. Or classify some things as rare and you can only get one rarity (subclass add on powers, psionics, ridiculously high stats). Otherwise you get one player playing the rare card instead of everyone only getting one rare card in their pack.