What is wrong with race class limits?

[Geoffrey]

If I played in a game where the DM considered himself imaginative enough to roleplay dragons, gods, monsters of all kinds and every NPC we encountered, but I wasn't allowed to play a dwarf because I simply can't fathom the intricacies of roleplaying a non-human race, I think I'd start looking for another game.

My campaign philosophy is similar to that of the Dungeon Crawl Classics: "Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed. Each adventure is 100% good, solid dungeon crawl, with the monsters you know, the traps you fear, and the secret doors you know are there somewhere."

In other words, non-human NPCs are there to elicit wonder, horror, and combat. Roleplaying is at a minimum. Non-human NPCs are merely part of the setting and thus do not require more than a mere modicum of role-playing. Contrast that with a PC, who has to be role-played for hours on end, week after week, year after year. Further, PCs tend to have similar goals: acquiring experience points and treasures. As a Judge I can make an NPC do something so bizarre and off the wall as to make no rational sense, but if a PC were to do that, the player would probably have to roll-up a new character in short order.

The very structure of the game virtually guarantees that PCs have to be played as humans, otherwise they'd not be successful. But the Judge's NPCs are a dime-a-dozen, since he can call upon any number of them, allowing the Judge freedom to have the NPCs do things that no sane PC would ever do.

 

[Storm Raven]

I can imagine being a human with magical powers because I am human. Magical powers are not who you are, they are something you have "in your pocket", so to speak.

No, actually, you can't. Not any more than you can play a non-human being. Magical powers change the base line so dramatically that your real world experiences are simply not relevant.

Conversely, one's race (human, elf, dwarf, or whatever) is who you are, not merely something you have. I can't imagine being a non-human because I am human. Seriously, try to imagine being an eagle. The best we humans can do is imagine being a human mind inside of an eagle's body. That is why the best we can do is imagine being a human mind inside of a demihuman's body, which results in players playing demihumans merely as humans in demihuman bodies.

If I had a dollar for every time I have seen a PC "elf" played as a human who likes trees, or a PC "dwarf" played as gruff human who likes ale, I wouldn't have to be posting this from work.

This might be a valid point, except that the source material from whence these nonhuman races were derived was (and is) human imagination. Elves are the personification of nature-friendly humans, dwarves are hard drinking miners with an affinity for rock and stone - because that was how they were conceived in legends and stories. They are relatable to humans because if they were not, then they would not have made interesting characters in the tales in which they were placed.

Trying to assert that nonhumans like dwarves, elves, gnomes, and so on are so alien that they are incomprehensible to human experience misses the point. They are human experience, that is where they got their genesis. Making them wholly inscrutable simply makes them irrelevant as players on the stage, and is a betrayal of the source material that engendered them.

It would be interesting to know how many players who supposedly want to play demi-humans would still want to play demi-humans if they received no bonuses for doing so (e. g., no infravision, no combat bonuses, no special abilities, etc.). I think the number would be pretty low.

Actually, it would likely surprise you. Look at a game system like GURPS where you pay for your nonhuman racial abilities (it costs points to take a racial package). Lots of players play nonhuman characters in game systems like that, even though they gain no mechanical advantage by doing so.

 

[Storm Raven]

Is that a serious question?

Sure. If you are going to apply the "if they are in the MM then it is a privilege to play them" logic to things like dwarves and elves, why do you not apply it to humans as well?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Sure. If you are going to apply the "if they are in the MM then it is a privilege to play them" logic to things like dwarves and elves, why do you not apply it to humans as well?

I didn't say "if they are in the MM it is a privilege to play them." I said it is a privilege to play monsters as player characters. A human is not a monster in AD&D. The definition of monster is not "all creatures appearing in the MM."

It should be noted I'm speaking of pre-d20 D&D, although the same principle could be applied to the current game.

 

[Storm Raven]

I didn't say "if they are in the MM it is a privilege to play them." I said it is a privilege to play monsters as player characters. A human is not a monster in AD&D. The definition of monster is not "all creatures appearing in the MM."

It should be noted I'm speaking of pre-d20 D&D, although the same principle could be applied to the current game.

Well then, dwarves, eleves, halflings, and so on all appear in the PHB. Playing them is not a privilege. Arguing for class and level limits on that basis would seem to be a nonstarter.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well then, dwarves, eleves, halflings, and so on all appear in the PHB. Playing them is not a privilege. Arguing for class and level limits on that basis would seem to be a nonstarter.

I said the privilege can be granted by the rules. The point is that they are monsters, so the privilege of using them as PCs can rationally come with restrictions (class/level limits).

 

[dcas]

One might say that doing anything is a privilege.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Is playing a monster as a PC a privilege (either granted by the rules or by DM)?

No. There's a difference between something being allowed or disallowed and something being a privilege.

 

[Storm Raven]

I said the privilege can be granted by the rules. The point is that they are monsters, so the privilege of using them as PCs can rationally come with restrictions (class/level limits).

Except that they are not monsters any more than humans are. At that point, your logic breaks down entirely, and your justification for class and level limits falls apart. Now you are just making arbitrary rules with no rationale other than "I said so". That is very poor game design.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

But I don't think it's the DM's job to come up with good reasons for his house rules. If the players don't like it, they can play in someone else's game or run a game themselves. Conversely, if the DM is having trouble attracting players to his game, maybe he needs to take a close look at his house rules.

This whole statement basically negates itself - you're essentially saying "DMs shouldn't have to explain themselves, except when they might have to in order to avoid losing all their players." I mean, that's not exactly how you phrased it, but presumably you do see that there's a medium of "explaining yourself so as to convince players of the coolness of your house rules" between "house-ruling whatever you like" and "changing your house rules to attract players".