4e: Is it D&D to you?

[alhoon]

Again, it's fine to dislike 4e. But be honest with yourself and us.
Player's have always wanted to play monster races (that's why it was discouraged so harshly in the AD&D DMG, Gygax was cracking the arbitrary whip that said it was okay to play an elf or gnome but a goblin was out).

Eh? Why a goblin is out? What justification Gygax gave over NOT playing something you like? There was one thing in the front of the Basic rules D&D Box. Something like: "This is not a game that you would say "Good but not what I wanted", you make what you want of this game."

One of the best 3rd edition sessions I had was a game with a single player, playing an orc that could barely count to 12.
Another nice one was back in 2nd edition when I was playing a mind flayer. And another when I was playing a vampire (the 9HD one) wizard 11th.

And of course, I won't forget the time when I told two players: "We're playing dungeons and dragons but you haven't ever played a dungeon" And they made a dungeon character. You know they started small (Wooden 3x3 rooms, single door, 2d10+5 hp damage when hitting someone with the walls) and started advancing. Adventurers were coming and killed, the loot sold and they were equiped with traps.

[Jester of the FoS]

I was responding to this...

Half-dragon (a la DragonLance draconians), half-demon/devil/insert lower planar creature name here (a la AD&D MMII Cambion) and other such critters were meant as NPCs to use as foes of the heroes. Now they are superkewl, badarsed superhero player character races with kewl powerz. For some perspective from the creator of the game please see the AD&D DMG p.21 "The Monster as a Player Character."

But didn't feel like running up and down two flights of stairs for my AD&D books.
And now having done so, I'm wishing I hadn't... I like to avoid reading the old AD&D stuff because it makes me realize how much I disliked Gygax's stuff....

It deserves it's own post:

[Jester of the FoS]

THE MONSTER AS A PLAYER CHARACTER
On occasion one player or another will evidence a strong desire to operate as a monster, conceiving a playable character as a strong demon, a devil, a dragon, or one of the most powerful sort of undead creatures. This is done principally because the player sees the desired monster character as superior to his or her peers and likely to provide a dominant role for him or her in the campaign. A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind.

ADVANCED D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes are more fearsome - the 3 D s of demi-gods, demons, and devils are enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods themselves are brought into consideration. Yet, there is a point where the well-equipped, high-level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. In co-operation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have no upper limits as to level or acquired power from spells or items.

The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for a11 players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough without becoming that too! Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness. Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair.

By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either). Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon. Those which do not deal with men at all are scarce indeed. To attempt to utilize any such bases as the central, let alone sole, theme for a campaign milieu is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu. Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?

Having established the why of the humanocentric basis of the game, you will certainly see the impossibility of any lasting success for a monster player character. The environment for adventuring will be built around humans and demi-humans for the most part. Similarly, the majority of participants in the campaign will be human. So unless the player desires a character which will lurk alone somewhere and be hunted by adventurers, there are only a few options open to him or her. A gold dragon can assume human shape, so that is a common choice for monster characters. If alignment is stressed, this might discourage the would-be gold dragon. If it is also pointed out that he or she must begin at the lowest possible value, and only time and the accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age), the idea should be properly squelched. If even that fails, point out that the natural bent of dragons is certainly for their own kind - if not absolute solitude - so what part could a solitary dragon play in a group participation game made up of non-dragons? Dragon non-player characters, yes! As player characters, not likely at all.

As to other sorts of monsters as player characters, you as DM must decide in light of your aims and the style of your campaign. The considered opinion of this writer is that such characters are not beneficial to the game and should be excluded. Note that exclusion is best handled by restriction and not by refusal. Enumeration of the limits and drawbacks which are attendant upon the monster character will always be sufficient to steer the intelligent player away from the monster approach, for in most cases it was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination. The truly experimental- type player might be allowed to play such a monster character for a time so as to satisfy curiosity, and it can then be moved to non-player status and still be an interesting part of the campaign -and the player is most likely to desire to drop the monster character once he or she has examined its potential and played that role for a time. The less intelligent players who demand to play monster characters regardless of obvious consequences will soon remove themselves from play in any event, for their own ineptness will serve to have players or monsters or traps finish them off.

So you are virtually on your own with regard to monsters as player characters. You have advice as to why they are not featured, why no details of monster character classes are given herein. The rest is up to you, for when a11 is said and done, it is your world, and your players must live in it with their characters. Be good to yourself as well as them, and everyone concerned will benefit from a well-conceived, well-ordered, fairly-judged campaign built upon the best of imaginative and creative thinking.

[Jester of the FoS]

On occasion one player or another will evidence a strong desire to operate as a monster, conceiving a playable character as a strong demon, a devil, a dragon, or one of the most powerful sort of undead creatures.

Or a goblin or lowly kobold…

This is done principally because the player sees the desired monster character as superior to his or her peers and likely to provide a dominant role for him or her in the campaign.

Or they want to play something different. They might have an interesting character in mind.

A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind.

“Unalterable”?!

ADVANCED D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users - whether singly, in small groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes are more fearsome - the 3 D s of demi-gods, demons, and devils are enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods themselves are brought into consideration.

It is worth noting that this is because of design, and that rules were added to keep humanity (and the PCs) on the top in spite of all logic.
It’s also interesting that he’s dismissing “men” as monsters when pretty much every early campaign had an evil wizard or necromancer as the bad guy at some point.

Yet, there is a point where the well-equipped, high-level party of adventurers can challenge a demon prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be human. In co-operation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have no upper limits as to level or acquired power from spells or items.

Why are the leaders human?
Oh, that’s because demi-humans have level, class, and stat limits compared to humanity, which has none.
Why do all demihumans have these hard caps on advancement? Oh, that’s because they live hundreds or thousands of years. So with a similar rate of level advancement as humans, they’d take-over the world with their much more experienced forces (because all rulers and leaders are high-level) so the demi-humans have a hard, artificial limit to make the game how the writer wants it to be.

The game features humankind for a reason.

Yes, you wanted it to.

It is the most logical basis in an illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough without becoming that too!

Really, this is a reasonably solid argument.
The world is fantastic and humans are the central framework with which everything else is contrasted. And fantasy humans and nations, all based on historical nations and societies, make it easy to understand the world.

Of course, this all falls apart when you consider the many fantasy worlds, both before and after, that place humanity in an equal role to the non-humans, or have humanity as new and different and not in charge.
It’s also insulting to the role-players, suggesting that because they are human they cannot, ever play or think like a monster. While, at the very same time, asking the DM to do it each and every single game!

Consider also that each and every Dungeon Master worthy of that title is continually at work expanding his or her campaign milieu. The game is not merely a meaningless dungeon and an urban base around which is plopped the dreaded wilderness.

Unless you’re playing his Greyhawk campaign, or starting with Keep on the Borderlands in which it totally is.

Each of you must design a world, piece by piece, as if a jigsaw puzzle were being hand crafted, and each new section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces. Faced with such a task all of us need all of the aid and assistance we can get. Without such help the sheer magnitude of the task would force most of us to throw up our hands in despair.

So… without humanity as the clearly dominant force that rules the entire world and easily subjugates all other races, the world would be too complicate to work?
So any world where humanity is not the center of the solar system with all the other “demi-humans, semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of humanity” no DM could possibly make the game work?

By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either). Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon. Those which do not deal with men at all are scarce indeed.

Fiction with humanity (or real humanity) in a minor role?
Gulliver’s Travels, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Tarzan of the Apes, A Princess of Mars, The Jungle Book, the Flash Gordon serials, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and the freakin’ Hobbit!

And when you look at worlds that have no historical bearing and nothing in common with historical humanity you have such works as Elric, Jack Vance’s Dying Earth, the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and pretty much everything by Tolkien and Robert E. Howard. Both, with the exception of Tolkien and Donaldson’s Covenant books, most of those were set on ‘Earth’, so they had to feature humans and couldn’t have elves and dwarves and such.

To attempt to utilize any such bases as the central, let alone sole, theme for a campaign milieu is destined to be shallow, incomplete, and totally unsatisfying for all parties concerned unless the creator is a Renaissance Man and all-around universal genius with a decade or two to prepare the game and milieu.

Way to encourage us Ernie.
I *love* that he just outright says a human-less campaign, or even one with humanity in a minor role, would automatically fail.
But it’s nice to know the creators of Dark Sun and PlaneScape were all a “Renaissance Man”…

Even then, how can such an effort rival one which borrows from the talents of genius and imaginative thinking which come to us from literature?

It rivals it by borrowing from the “talents of genius and imaginative thinking” that wrote fiction that downplayed humanity.
It rivals it by daring to imagine a world that is not like ours 500 years ago, but with elves and dragons.

Having established the why of the humanocentric basis of the game, you will certainly see the impossibility of any lasting success for a monster player character. The environment for adventuring will be built around humans and demi-humans for the most part. Similarly, the majority of participants in the campaign will be human. So unless the player desires a character which will lurk alone somewhere and be hunted by adventurers, there are only a few options open to him or her.

Translation: I’m right, play the game how I think it should be played. And instead of giving *any* advice on how to make it work I’m going to give advice on how to not make it work and how to punish those who try.

A gold dragon can assume human shape, so that is a common choice for monster characters. If alignment is stressed, this might discourage the would-be gold dragon. If it is also pointed out that he or she must begin at the lowest possible value, and only time and the accumulation and retention of great masses of wealth will allow any increase in level (age), the idea should be properly squelched.

Because you can never have a game that starts above 1st level.
And you cannot add class levels to monsters.
(I also personally loath that last sentence: I’ve always found Gygax’s prose terrible and a mass of awkward structure or poor word choices. Whenever I’ve updated his work, I’ve revised the heck out of it.)

If even that fails, point out that the natural bent of dragons is certainly for their own kind - if not absolute solitude - so what part could a solitary dragon play in a group participation game made up of non-dragons? Dragon non-player characters, yes! As player characters, not likely at all.

So… the DM can do it but the PC cannot.
It’s fine to have a humanoid dragon shooting the breeze with humans when it’s the DM’s pet character, but players better play humans and darn well like it.

As to other sorts of monsters as player characters, you as DM must decide in light of your aims and the style of your campaign.

Nice of you to give us permission.
How about some advice on how to do so?!?

But considering this is the ‘key’ rule of the piece/essay, it sure was buried.
Monsters as PCs: It can be done. No rules against it. Up to the DM. Here’s an essay on why I think humans rock.

The considered opinion of this writer is that such characters are not beneficial to the game and should be excluded.

Yes, I think I’ve got that.

Note that exclusion is best handled by restriction and not by refusal. Enumeration of the limits and drawbacks which are attendant upon the monster character will always be sufficient to steer the intelligent player away from the monster approach, for in most cases it was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination. The truly experimental- type player might be allowed to play such a monster character for a time so as to satisfy curiosity, and it can then be moved to non-player status and still be an interesting part of the campaign -and the player is most likely to desire to drop the monster character once he or she has examined its potential and played that role for a time. The less intelligent players who demand to play monster characters regardless of obvious consequences will soon remove themselves from play in any event, for their own ineptness will serve to have players or monsters or traps finish them off.

This paragraph is all kinds of awesome.
To summarize:
1) Don’t say “no” when players ask to be monsters. Just make their life miserable and punish them for trying something new
2) Add lots of drawbacks to steer them away to the proper course
3) Those who enjoy playing non-humans are obviously less intelligent
4) Don’t worry, because they’re dumb, the monster-players will quickly die in a trap
5) Allow other PCs to gank people playing monsters.

So you are virtually on your own with regard to monsters as player characters. You have advice as to why they are not featured, why no details of monster character classes are given herein. The rest is up to you, for when a11 is said and done, it is your world, and your players must live in it with their characters.

Nice.
Glad I didn’t pay $20 in 1979 bucks for this back in the day.

Be good to yourself as well as them, and everyone concerned will benefit from a well-conceived, well-ordered, fairly-judged campaign built upon the best of imaginative and creative thinking.

“You know, as long as that imagination and creative thinking is of things I approve of.”

[alhoon]

Nice.
Glad I didn’t pay $20 in 1979 bucks for this back in the day.

Back in 1979s there was nothing as good. Gygax had his views but remember: He is the one that wrote the DM is free to do in his world whatever he likes. So I bet there were far too many "Renaissance men" before the book that allowed monsters as races.

[Jester of the FoS]

I'm cynical and more than a little hard on Gygax.
I've also been hard on 4e because the game is set-up to play how they want you to, not how you want to. But I've been reminded that earlier versions were limited as well and that 3e was an anomaly.

[Troile]

It is interesting to see how the Ravenloft people feel about 4e.

More systems means it is easier to find the style of play that you want out of the game.

To me the intent that I feel when I read 4e is against what I want out of the game. From the half-dragon/celestial/demon core races to healing surges to the classes themselves.

3.5e does everything I want it to, its as close to perfect as I'm going to get. Though I see a lot of people that continue to play 3.5e and complain about it a lot, so maybe the edition they're looking for hasn't been made yet.

I find it gives the most freedom to creating the kind of character that you want and I find house rules to be very easy to create.

Everyone's game of d&d is different though, like a previous poster said, so I'm glad people are finding what they want out of 4e.

I just wish people would stop complaining about 3.5e now. (:

[HuManBing]

It is interesting to see how the Ravenloft people feel about 4e.

Well I'm sure S. is going mental about healing surges now. Those would have come in handy when she was being chased by those wolves in Verbrek


...


I'll get me coat.

[Lord Soth]

I just wish people would stop complaining about 3.5e now. (:

NEVAH!

Well I'm sure S. is going mental about healing surges now. Those would have come in handy when she was being chased by those wolves in Verbrek

You can only use them after a five minute rest, so they're not of much use when you're busy running for your life.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Nice.
Glad I didn’t pay $20 in 1979 bucks for this back in the day.

Back in 1979s there was nothing as good. Gygax had his views but remember: He is the one that wrote the DM is free to do in his world whatever he likes. So I bet there were far too many "Renaissance men" before the book that allowed monsters as races.

Of course, this is the same guy whose Rogue's Gallery included a lizardman and a centaur as ex-PCs from his campaign. Granted, they were products of the 1E Reincarnate spell, but he didn't have any problem letting them advance by character class....

[Dion of the Fraternity]

I like chocolate sundae and pesto pasta.

[Le Noir Faineant]

Personally, I think Gary was right about this - AD&D had a distinct flavour that was based on the players being human. The ruleset was tailored around that basic principle. For more open gaming (with monster characters), there were other, equally good systems that simply had a better rule base for that.

Also, to get an idea of how early D&D worked and how many of the principles were established, check Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. Greyhawk really gained a lot from it.

[alhoon]

I agree. That Gary Gygax said "A campaign with non-humans is doomed to fail" doesn't mean he believed it. He just gave an advise out of personal taste and knowledge of the rules.

I just wish people would stop complaining about 3.5e now. (:

Oh, it's not that easy. 3rd edition is better than 4th in many aspects and 4th edition is better than 3rd in many other aspects. I'll just keep bitching about both, why I enjoy both very much.

[HuManBing]

I like chocolate sundae and pesto pasta.

Well I like to roll in the mud, but you don't hear me proclaiming it proudly on the message boards do you?

...

Aw, heck.

[Troile]

You can only use them after a five minute rest, so they're not of much use when you're busy running for your life.

Think of a world where everyone can spontaneously heal themselves...I don't even want to start imagining the changes you would have to make. Everyone would have a completely different mindset.

Oh, it's not that easy. Smile 3rd edition is better than 4th in many aspects and 3rd edition is better than 3rd in many other aspects. I'll just keep bitching about both, why I enjoy both very much.

Well 3.5 isn't perfect, but I was just venting about people complaining about silly things.

I'm finding that a lot of people like to play at levels 18-30 and then they complain that the game is unbalanced and doesn't work. Well yeah, campaigns I play in rarely go past 15th level and then its for some grand purpose.

The other major complaint is in trying to take the rules by the letter and literally. Mostly people are ridiculous.