I want to get my rage on.

[Silent Wayfarer]

I know Hicks froths incoherently whenever 1E D&D and its GM's guide comes up, but I'm sure that's not all the rageworthy stuff there is out there.

So tell me, what stuff makes you rage> And if possible, where can I find it? I'm looking for the 1E D&D stuff in particular, since it's pretty much OOP and nowhere, but I'm sure someone's scanned it already.

[shadzar]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads

What makes me rage? People never having played D&D before 3rd edition, and thinking they know all about it.

[Username17]

The biggest thing that makes me rage in AD&D is not the psionics table where you had a chance of getting "disintegrate" at first level that apparently did not have a save, it's not even the suggestion that people who randomly rolled those powerful abilities were powergamers that were trying to ruin the game for everyone and that you should weed them out by sicking powerful psionic monsters on them. That shit is crazy fucked up, but the big offense is the essay in the Dungeon Master's Guide called "The Monster as a Player Character." It's in the AD&D DMG, on like page twenty something.

Hoo boy. It starts with the supposition that since your players are humans they can't actually identify with anything that isn't a human. This mans in rather explicit terms that, according to the author, players who play elves and dwarves are deliberately distancing themselves from role playing in order to get power. Seriously, it says that. But even worse is apparently people who want to play things that are not "demihumans" because apparently it is totally inconceivable that such players could empathize with a character who was that different from themselves.

It gives a brief psychological profile on the kind of player who would put power before role playing. Also it suggests that towns would never accept something that doesn't look human (thus apparently making "town" the villains and the "dungeon" the good guys?). Then it suggests that the most likely player character choices are apparently Ogre and Gold Dragon (!). But the real charm is that apparently what you should do as the DM in the face of such a request is to let them do it. They start at level 1, they get all the powers and monster hit dice out of the monster manual for free. Yes, including for gold dragons. Then, to teach the player the error of their ways, you should increase difficulty until their character dies. And when they make a new character, you should ramp up the difficulty some more and kill that one even faster. And so on and so on until they "learn" and make a human character.

So seriously, Gygax's suggestion for players who want to play something nonhuman is to TPK the party over and over again until they get the idea out of their system. This is in the DMG as serious advice.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Then, to teach the player the error of their ways, you should increase difficulty until their character dies. And when they make a new character, you should ramp up the difficulty some more and kill that one even faster. And so on and so on until they "learn" and make a human character.

So seriously, Gygax's suggestion for players who want to play something nonhuman is to TPK the party over and over again until they get the idea out of their system. This is in the DMG as serious advice.

Actually no. That's not what he says. What he says is something that's dumber than that.

Gygax basically says that a PC who wants to play a monster is going to be some inexperienced newbie and he'll end up making bad decisions and getting himself killed, regardless of the special powers that he gets from being a monster. Because Gygax can't fathom any experienced player wanting to play a monster. It's just a statement made of pure short-sighted arrogance that only Gygax could pull off.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If you're just looking for 1E stuff, I can't help you there.

But one of my more persistent irks about 3rd Edition are prestige class prerequisites. While I find finding the perfect progression fun, for a lot of prestige classes it's almost impossible to organically qualify for them, especially the ones that have bupkiss prerequisite feats like Skill Focus.

This has given prestige classes a not wholly-undeserved reputation of being a powergamer's wet dream, because people who are into that shit are just more likely of being able to get the PrCs that they really want. There is almost no reason not to be a Church Inquisitor if you're a cleric unless you're angling for a prestige class with completely different skill prequisites than that or you want to be something stupid like a Mystic Theurge. But few people who pick up the game know that.

That is one thing 4th Edition does get genuinely right over 3rd Edition. It's much easier to get into paragon paths and epic destinies without planning your character build out ahead of time. Unless you're going for something really unusual like a Battle Engineer Ranger, you can often slip your dick into one of these things with as little notice as at level 10.

...

Which brings me to my other irk, this time it's about 4th Edition.

The PPs and especially the epic destinies don't actually change your character around. Off of the top of my head, there are seriously two paragon out there that can substantially change someone's tactics or grow their character--the Warpriest (turns a cleric into a credible 'defender'--actually extremely useful for a polearm fighter) and the Valadis Griffonmaster (which gives you an always-level appropriate flying mount).

Now, the number of 3rd Edition prestige classes which shook up your tactics were also appallingly low. I'd say that only about 30% of them did that--Assassin, 3.0E Order of the Bow Initiate, 3.0E Drunken Master (seriously), Lasher, Ghostwalker, Ninja of the Crescent Moon, etc.. But that's still much, much better than 4th Edition.

Epic Destinies are the biggest shit-biscuit of 4th Edition, too. For the last third of the game, your ability gain rate is appallingly low. Which wouldn't be so bad if the abilities you actually gained weren't so fucking weaksauce. Seriously, Demigod is considered one of the best EDs out there and it does nothing but move around numbers and then break the game at level 30.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Maybe for my next 4E power build I should trot out the Warpriest Polearm Fighter. Seriously, he's pretty fucking sweet.

[Roy]

I know Hicks froths incoherently whenever 1E D&D and its GM's guide comes up, but I'm sure that's not all the rageworthy stuff there is out there.

So tell me, what stuff makes you rage> And if possible, where can I find it? I'm looking for the 1E D&D stuff in particular, since it's pretty much OOP and nowhere, but I'm sure someone's scanned it already.

I did a fair bit of raging at 2nd edition. Just look for 'Anatomy of Failed Design: 2nd edition' or something to that effect.

[Hicks]

Honestly, the 1e DMG is just the greatest concentration of what makes me rage: needless suffering. Though like most people one the planet I do not enjoy being lied to, I H8te111OMGBBQ!! when someone goes out of their way just so they can say "Ha ha, I fooled you! Now suffer for believing me!". The 1e DMG, 3.0 and Co. Beatsticks, 3.0 Savage Species, 3.5 Level Adjustment... all these things exist to make people needlessly suffer because someone was too chicken-shit to say "No, that would be a Bad Idea, do not fit in my game world, and would hurt my gaming experience; please pick something else."

It all started back when I palyed suffered through this 2e ravenloft game... The company was great, the DM was greater, but everything I did turned to ash in my hands. Twice I "succeeded" once because I probably cheated by miscalling a success and not correcting my mistake when yet again, I would have wasted mine and everyone else's time in failure, and again where my character was murdered by my good friend (both in game and out of game) so she could become a dark lord and kill the BBEG, then recant and refuse her dark lord "gift" and ascend out of the demiplane of terror because she ended a great evil and refused greater power; my character got reanimated by the party Cleric as a revenant and was bound to ravenloft for eternity. CAMPAIGN END.

We are still good friends. My one regret is that she did not murder me sooner so I could play a decent character who didn't, literaly, fail at life.

[NineInchNall]

Now, the number of 3rd Edition prestige classes which shook up your tactics were also appallingly low. I'd say that only about 30% of them did that--Assassin, 3.0E Order of the Bow Initiate, 3.0E Drunken Master (seriously), Lasher, Ghostwalker, Ninja of the Crescent Moon, etc.. But that's still much, much better than 4th Edition.

A case could also be made for: Bloodstorm Blade (melee -> ranged), Shadowcraft Mage (almost everything -> everything), Planar Shepherd (... -> OMGWTFBBQ), Ur-priest (non-caster -> caster), ...

[Psychic Robot]

Hicks, you should do a full write-up of that campaign.

[Midnight_v]

Hicks, you should do a full write-up of that campaign.

+1

[Roy]

Hicks, you should do a full write-up of that campaign.

+1

+2.

[Maxus]

Hicks, you should do a full write-up of that campaign.

+1

+2.

+3. I love hearing about Ravenloft games.

[tzor]

The biggest thing that makes me rage in AD&D is not the psionics table where you had a chance of getting "disintegrate" at first level that apparently did not have a save, it's not even the suggestion that people who randomly rolled those powerful abilities were powergamers that were trying to ruin the game for everyone and that you should weed them out by sicking powerful psionic monsters on them. That shit is crazy fucked up, but the big offense is the essay in the Dungeon Master's Guide called "The Monster as a Player Character." It's in the AD&D DMG, on like page twenty something.

First and foremost, one of the things about 1E AD&D is that few people played all the rules as written. Most people simply didn’t use certain rules either because they were too complex or because they were crap. That’s one of the nice features of a lot of the rules being in the DMG (in part because Gygax couldn’t make half of the 1E incompatible crap on the first pass of the PHB).

The question of PC monsters is an interesting one. I’m not going to even suggest that I know the mind of Gary Gygax of blessed memory but I can look back and I can speculate. Gygax’s game was mostly human centered; elves started out as being a “class.” When AD&D came out he added very “human” type creatures to the mix, but they are still well within human parameters.

Others did go further well before Gygax’s racial expansion in AD&D and here we can see the chip that forms upon Gygax’s shoulders. The Arduin Grimoire’s use of such races as the Phraint (even though cruel irony would have it rise from the dead decades later as the AD&D Tri-keen) along with Gygax’s vigorous attack of Hargrave only further engraved his human centric model in his mind.

In Gygax’s AD&D the human is the pinnacle of all creation. Non human character classes all had limitations; either in terms of what classes they could become or what levels they could obtain. The highest natural strength (18/00) belonged to the human. Monsters could be better than humans at any given point but they were not capable of real advancement.

Thus the notion of “monster characters” was, or could be argued from trying to understand the mind of Gygax, outright cheating; combining the power of the non adventuring classes with the advancement that even most non human character races did not have.

I have to go back and read his old tirade, but I think that is the core that drives his thinking. He doesn’t flat out state that of course, because he has this self righteous attitude in that he is the source and summit of his game. Again, I’ll never accuse him of being a “saint.” I do remember both the Arduin Trilogy and the All the Worlds’ Monsters Trilogy and how hard Gygax fought to suppress them. (I can forgive, but I’ll never forget.)

[MGuy]

I've never played 1E and my experience with 2E is limited. I can ignore a number of the faults of a system if the people are good as long as the system isn't overly constraining (like 4E). I could've saved some money by not buying books with less than satisfactory content in them but, meh, you live and then you learn to just download them online first before deciding whether to buy them. My real rage comes from DMs or players who make me not want to play the game.

[Username17]

Fortunately, all that bullshit is available to just Read Online (warning: 44meg file).

But here's the relevant section:

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 hm or her in the campaign. A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion hat 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 illogcal 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-believ 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 piecem 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 much in 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, heme 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 in 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 hm 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 of great masses of wealth with 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 the 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 b excluded. Note that exclusion is best handled be restriction and not by refusal. Enumeration of the lmits 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 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 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 all 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.

-Username17

[shadzar]

He doesn’t flat out state that of course

Actually Gary DID say that it was human-centric. I don't know if in 1st edition, or one of the dragon magazines, but will look in them a little later to see if I can find it.

He may have said it on one of the forums where he had FAQs as well.

EDIT: And what Frank presented about it....

It is because that D&D was built off of Chainmail, which was built off of what Gary and his group liked. Wargames mostly had humans fighting out real world wars.

This is what they knew. This is what they played. This is what they liked.

When bringing it to light fighting only human would have got boring, so mythology was borrowed to give these humans other things to fight in Chainmail, the D&D.

He kept working on what he knew and liked. Also it is easier for a human player to get into the mindset of a human character. Whether he was thinking this or just felt it like anyone else would see it to be intuitive, who knows.

This is why you didn't need a rule for everything, because you could just use your judgment for what a human could do for your character, and character abilities were based around that.

Elf, dwarf, etc as classes were to give something else. Poorly named, but gave you the LotR abilities of Gimli and Legolas as references since most people today don't go around shooting bows or swinging axes.

It also prevents thing like today where you have things on the other side of the screen working differently. A gnome character in 4th (rawr), doesn't work the same way as a gnome monster. Why wouldn't they? Why isn't a bugbear a bugbear no matter which side the screen it is on and use the same rules for creation? Because you had a bugbear only on one side of the screen, and the few races allowed for characters meant the game doesn't start breaking down when you get the same race working differently on both sides of the screen. Also why NPCs were humans because you used the same rules to create them as PCs.

While it may seem wonky, it was balance so that the game didn't become distorted with two different sets of rules for characters such as with 4th.

PC races act differently now when used as a PC, than when as not a PC, and something doesn't look right about that in the game.

[Tequila Sunrise]

It makes me giggle more than rage, but the phrase "3e/4e isn't D&D" is retarded, whatever response it gets.

[Silent Wayfarer]

If you're just looking for 1E stuff, I can't help you there.

Nah, it's cool. I'm looking for all sorts of rage. Mainly because I want to see what's the big deal.

I did a fair bit of raging at 2nd edition. Just look for 'Anatomy of Failed Design: 2nd edition' or something to that effect.

I also know you rage about the Paizils; I may have ended up talking to you on the Brilliant Gameologists forum.

Fortunately, all that bullshit is available to just Read Online (warning: 44meg file).
-Username17

God bless your evil, twisted heart. Or at least shower you in riches and women.

[Hicks]

+1

+2.

+3. I love hearing about Ravenloft games.

Well, here is How I Failed at Life and Ravenloft.

[God_of_Awesome]

As a DM and a harsh self-critic, my biggest rages have been over my own blunders.

I made a tiger claw katar a 3d4 slashing weapon under the assumption that it was 3 1d4 weapons in one. I ended up killing a PC's cohort. I then fixed my mistake and said the cohort lived, because I liked the cohort and didn't want to have to read whether or not and how (Or subject the play to) to get a new cohort.

So yeah... I raged when my second though strolled around.

[Koumei]

I made a tiger claw katar a 3d4 slashing weapon under the assumption that it was 3 1d4 weapons in one.

Reminds me of a WotC thread (it was actually funny!) where someone suggested attaching 100 daggers to the end of a pole for 100d4 piercing. Complete with stick figure diagram.

[Silent Wayfarer]

Well, here is How I Failed at Life and Ravenloft
.

I do not know how you did not slap her so hard every pimp in the city would be lining up to take notes.

[Hicks]

Chrissy has been, and still is, a very good friend. Besides, my father taught me to never hit a woman, no matter how much she deserved it .

[Silent Wayfarer]

Chrissy has been, and still is, a very good friend. Besides, my father taught me to never hit a woman, no matter how much she deserved it .

Glad to know you're still on good terms, at least.

Some White Wolf stuff makes me rage, usually the essays written by the Fukken Freelancers (esp. the foreword to Aberrant Player's Guide and Exalted Player's Guide). The WW crunch is also shit, but everyone knows that..