Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMYeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

The original AD&D had half-orcs as a core PC race. And Gygax added drow as a PC race in Unearthed Arcana years before the first Drizzt book was published.

AD&D didn't assume that the PCs were always shiny good guys. It was understood that the PCs might be neutral or evil-aligned mercenaries trying to loot and collect as much gold as they could. Paladins were powerful, but ever since the start they had the reputation of being a pain in the ass compared to normal adventurers. Gygax wanted to make sure that monsters and/or evil didn't take over as the default for PCs, but he wanted it to be an option.

That's consistent with the wargaming roots - sometimes you play the good guys, sometimes you play the bad guys, and sometimes there are no good or bad guys.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMYeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

DRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.

While AD&D specifically says it's a bad idea:

Quote from: AD&D Dungeon Masters GuideA 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."

OD&D is the opposite:

Quote from:  Men and Magic"There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee."

Both ideas are branches of D&D.

Quote from: Tristan on February 05, 2025, 05:57:13 PM...
While AD&D specifically says it's a bad idea:
...
OD&D is the opposite:
...
Both ideas are branches of D&D.

The correct order is this:

OD&D Gygax let the players do what they want:

Quote from: Men and Magic"There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee."

A few years later...

AD&D Gygax learned from his mistakes:

Quote from: AD&D Dungeon Masters GuideA 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."

"Monsters as PC's" has always been a mistake.



And like clockwork, the typical but, but, but (insert 'muh exception' here) response...

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 02:47:01 PMThe original AD&D had half-orcs as a core PC race. And Gygax added drow as a PC race in Unearthed Arcana ...

AD&D half-Orcs were specifically noted as able to pass as human.

Drow were also specifically noted as being viewed with suspicion and hostility by other races. As you well know from the Racial Preferences Table p.12 Unearthed Arcana, that no race is more hated or treated with antipathy.

i.e. There were supposed to be enforced in-game social implications to playing a Drow.

All that has long since been yeeted from the game, contrary to the original intent.

Hence the current well-deserved disdain for allowing Drow to be PC's.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 05, 2025, 09:54:09 PMAnd like clockwork, the typical but, but, but (insert 'muh exception' here) response...

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 02:47:01 PMThe original AD&D had half-orcs as a core PC race. And Gygax added drow as a PC race in Unearthed Arcana ...

AD&D half-Orcs were specifically noted as able to pass as human.

Drow were also specifically noted as being viewed with suspicion and hostility by other races. As you well know from the Racial Preferences Table p.12 Unearthed Arcana, that no race is more hated or treated with antipathy.

i.e. There were supposed to be enforced in-game social implications to playing a Drow.

All that has long since been yeeted from the game, contrary to the original intent.

Hence the current well-deserved disdain for allowing Drow to be PC's.

Don't read anything to the order I presented, obviously AD&D came later.
My comment about branches of D&D is that there are players who didn't jump to AD&D because of the increased restrictions. The basic line of D&D was way more 'free form', being tied to OD&D.

It wasn't just Drow tho. Deep Gnomes, Grey Elves, etc. were also added so there was some call for expanding the playable roster.

Gygax talks about his AD&D thoughts in the Half-Ogre article in Dragon #29.

QuoteConsider the various factors which must be taken into account when designing a race for game purposes. Remember that last part, game purposes; AD&D is, first and foremost, a game. Races, just as with classes, must be in relative balance with each other, as well as with the game as a whole. Setting this balance is a difficult and delicate operation!
So we have

• character class limits due to race
• level limits due to race
• ability adjustments due to race
• racial minimums and maximums of abilities
• racial preferences, and
• special characteristics of racial types, i.e. magic resistance, saving throws, combat versus specific monsters, visual and other sense capabilities, and "sixth-sense" or innate skill capabilities (such as detection of grades, and underground conditions, etc.)

It's not so much that they were a bad idea, just that getting the balance right as he saw it was nearly impossible.

QuoteIf these six factors are considered only as single entities, not as multi-faceted ones, there is still plenty of work to do in setting up even a single additional character race, for each must be meshed with and balanced against all other such races. Now consider the possible cross breeds, and multiply your DMing woes by a thousand!

Starting with 3e, those class rules started being chipped away. By the time 5.5 came out the only thing left was #6 and it wasn't exactly for balance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the wandering menagerie parties. It sucks when I hear people talking about D&D and I have no idea what they're talking about, but some of that started with Planescape in 2e.

Regarding Drown: hey now, my pre-Drizzt Drow dual wielding longswords was really cool. Until he fumbled in his first attack and cut off his own leg with our houseruled fumble chart.

Quote from: Tristan on February 06, 2025, 12:33:17 PMIt wasn't just Drow tho. Deep Gnomes, Grey Elves, etc. were also added so there was some call for expanding the playable roster.

I agree, that there was always a noisy minority faction in the hobby agitating for a menagerie of playable PC races.

And it is always a mistake to cater in any fashion to that minority faction.

Because this:

Quote from: Tristan on February 06, 2025, 12:33:17 PMStarting with 3e, those class rules started being chipped away.

They always want to have their cake and eat it too... 

Although the phrase was coined by a crpg guy, it absolutely applies to real RPG's: "Given the opportunity players will 'optimize' the fun out of a game."

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMYeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

DRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.

Hate to burst your bubble... but Drow were a playable race 6 years before Drizzt was even created. Fiend Folio.

Hate to burst your other bubble... but players were playing monsters from the get go practically. It was pretty common to "unlock" new PCs by recruiting monsters into the retinue. AD&D curbed this quite a bit.

Gonna burst another bubble... Gygax himself portrayed monsters as potentially not always hostile well before that with modules like Keep on the Borderlands and so on. Which follows through on BX's ideal that anything could be good or bad.

Also Quag Keep had amongst the party a wereboar and a lizardman back in the late 70s.

Drizzt was merely a byproduct of something already a thing long before he was created.

Play what you want. It's your game. 

Quote from: weirdguy564 on February 07, 2025, 02:07:03 PMPlay what you want. It's your game. 

Theres an unhealthy number of fuckwits here who think otherwise and have it in their walnut sized brains that no one ever never evwer played anything but the dwarvsis and the elfsies and the hobbitsis. This seems to pervade the lOSR as well.

And some who despise anyone playing anything but humans.

So now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2025, 03:10:40 PMHate to burst your bubble... but Drow were a playable race 6 years before Drizzt was even created. Fiend Folio.

Hate to burst your other bubble... but players were playing monsters from the get go practically. It was pretty common to "unlock" new PCs by recruiting monsters into the retinue. AD&D curbed this quite a bit.

Gonna burst another bubble... Gygax himself portrayed monsters as potentially not always hostile well before that with modules like Keep on the Borderlands and so on. Which follows through on BX's ideal that anything could be good or bad.

Also Quag Keep had amongst the party a wereboar and a lizardman back in the late 70s.

Drizzt was merely a byproduct of something already a thing long before he was created.

Two things can be true at the same time.  A thing can exist in the periphery of a hobby as a niche choice for years and then something similar can then later breakthrough to the relatively mainstream audience years later making it much more popular.  Comic book films existed for decades and were even memorable, profitable, and popular to a degree depending on the film/franchise... But the MCU tweaked that basic formula and took it to an entirely different level.  I think the same can be said of a certain good Drow ranger and playing "monster" races.

To me, these are orcs doing typical orc things.

We kill orcs on sight.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 05, 2025, 02:25:29 PMDRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.

You missed Council of Wyrms by about two decades.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 07, 2025, 02:55:38 PMSo now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

Well, I guess that's one way to solve the orc problem.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2025, 09:13:25 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 07, 2025, 02:55:38 PMSo now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

Well, I guess that's one way to solve the orc problem.

That was how they got rid of elves and dwarves in 2014, so it fits that they would do the same to orcs.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2025, 09:30:38 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2025, 09:13:25 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 07, 2025, 02:55:38 PMSo now that people have the 5.5e MM in hand, it is confirmed that there are no Orcs, and all it has is a bunch of generic 'humanoid' listings after all...

Well, I guess that's one way to solve the orc problem.

That was how they got rid of elves and dwarves in 2014, so it fits that they would do the same to orcs.

Keep in mind marketing pushed that players are stupid and can not understand things like PC races being in the MM.