What is wrong with race class limits?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, why can't dwarves be great fighters, then? I mean, I just can't see Moradin saying, "I shall make a race of dwarves, in mine own image, but they shall never be all that great with their axes and hammers."

Because he created them in his own image as a smith. Obviously, being strong and stout and good with a hammer will take you so far, but it won't take you an unlimited distance in the 1E cosmology.

 

[WayneLigon]

Their goodness or badness as game rules is unrelated to how or if they are given a game-world explanation. (Such explanations can be created after the fact.) Their goodness or badness as game rules depends on their function and utility and actual balancing affects for the game (not the campaign world).
Quasqueton

No. Straight up, flat out, no. They are bad rules and if you come up with things of that caliber as a designer, there had better be an explanation for them. And it had best be a darn good one, too.

 

[Quasqueton]

No. Straight up, flat out, no. They are bad rules and if you come up with things of that caliber as a designer, there had better be an explanation for them. And it had best be a darn good one, too.

No? You are disagreeing with me how? I’ve said I think race/class restrictions and level limits, as implemented in AD&D1, are bad rules. You seem to be saying that too, but you state a disagreement with me. ??

What you quote above is just me saying that a bad game mechanic is a bad game mechanic, independent of a game-world explanation. Just as a good game mechanic is a good game mechanic, even without a game-world explanation.

Coming up with a game-world explanation does not make a bad game mechanic into a good game mechanic. And lacking a game-world explanation does not make a good game mechanic into a bad game mechanic.

Edit: By the way, I also beleive there are such things as "neutral" game mechanics. Such rules don't hinder or help the game, again, independent of a game-world explanation.

Quasqueton

 

[molonel]

Race limitations were a bad game mechanic, both in design philosophy and implementation. The absolute worst was 1st Edition AD&D, were in the core books only humans could be rangers or druids or paladins. Dwarves could be fighters, but they could only go so high.

The design philosophy was an attempt to give humans something over the "demihuman" races, which were generally much cooler and more powerful.

In implementation, your advancement was tied to your primary stat. So the wise old dwarven king, the veteran of a thousand battles, could never rise as high as a fighter as the young buck who could benchpress more weight. Because, you know, stronger fighters are better fighters.

 

[WayneLigon]

What you quote above is just me saying that a bad game mechanic is a bad game mechanic, independent of a game-world explanation. Just as a good game mechanic is a good game mechanic, even without a game-world explanation.

Apparently I'm still three-quarters-asleep from the huge meeting this morning. Never, mind, nothing to see here.

 

[dcas]

You mean like Dark Sun's 7 foot tall desert nomad elves, for example?

Sure, why not?

The stance you seem to be taking is that class restrictions were/are part of a race's physical makeup. Hard concept to swallow.

Why is that?

Your physical parameters are established when you're conceived, your height, weight, age, etc.

I think environment has something to do with it, too, but I don't want to start the classic nature-nurture debate here.

Class is something you learn. Are you born with limits on what you can learn by means of genetics?

Sure, why not? Some people are much better at math than others and this difference can't all be because of environment.

Half orcs can't learn to juggle, elves can never drive stick, and halflings will never be able to grasp long division.

But a certain character class is much more than just one skill -- it is an entire bundle of skills, and if even one of them is missing, then the PC just doesn't have that character class.

Besides, why is it so weird to believe that in a world in which wizards actually exist that dwarves, gnomes, and halflings, and half-orcs can't be wizards? Maybe if dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and half-orcs actually existed in our world, they wouldn't be able to be accountants or computer programmers.

Sorry Dcas, but your argument is a tad fallacious.

You might not find it convincing, but it does not follow that it is fallacious. In fact one might argue that you have engaged in fallacious reasoning by suggesting that genetics do not play a part in what a person is able to learn.

Seriously though, such a limitation was never stated anywhere that I remember seeing. Limits were limits, they wern't just for PCs.

It's quite clear in the first edition AD&D PHB that dwarven, elven, and gnomish clerics, and halfling druids are NPCs and only NPCs. I'm merely extrapolating.

 

[dcas]

Magic makes the extraordinary ordinary, granted, what's the justification for a racial learning disorder and why does it only apply to adventuring classes?

Who says it only applies to adventuring classes? One doesn't read often of dwarven shepherds or cranberry farmers, does one?

Why should I accept, for example, that dwarves are well-adapted to living underground? Maybe that's just "flavor," too (after all, it does affect game mechanics). All adventuring dwarves seem to have an excellent knowledge of stonework. Is that genetic?

 

[dcas]

No. Straight up, flat out, no. They are bad rules and if you come up with things of that caliber as a designer, there had better be an explanation for them. And it had best be a darn good one, too.

Whether or not they are bad rules seem to be a matter of opinion. Likewise the quality of the explanation.

 

[dcas]

In implementation, your advancement was tied to your primary stat. So the wise old dwarven king, the veteran of a thousand battles, could never rise as high as a fighter as the young buck who could benchpress more weight. Because, you know, stronger fighters are better fighters.

That's not much different than the 3e mechanic of tying one's ability to cast high-level spells to one's Intelligence (or Wisdom) score, is it?

Yes, stronger fighters are better fighters, more intelligent wizards are better wizards, etc. It may not be the most realistic rule in the world but it works just fine in the game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Who says it only applies to adventuring classes? One doesn't read often of dwarven shepherds or cranberry farmers, does one?

<--- had a halfling shepherd as a major NPC in his Five Shires campaign