Where do you come down on 1E Monks?

[Bard]

I like the monk exaclty because they are a workable class, but so hard to imagine using real world cultures... Things like this fire the imagination the most. Sometimes I feel this with the alignment system for example. If you look into it too hard it starts to fall apart philosophically, but if you just use it, it moves your mind to a very unreal state. This is part of the magic of AD&D.

[Tholianweb]

Who would enjoy a game where wearing plate mail makes you easier to hit then wearing no armor for instance?

Axe, I totally disagree with the majority of your post but let me just comment on this one here...

If you played the WH RPG, then you know the "naked dwarf" syndrome is just an awesome concept. LOL in the WH RPG, I rather be a naked dwarf then a fully armored dwarf....;D

[AxeMental]

Who would enjoy a game where wearing plate mail makes you easier to hit then wearing no armor for instance?

Axe, I totally disagree with the majority of your post but let me just comment on this one here...

If you played the WH RPG, then you know the "naked dwarf" syndrome is just an awesome concept. LOL in the WH RPG, I rather be a naked dwarf then a fully armored dwarf....;D

Well, there are plenty of instances of accepted fantasy where the guys in heavy armor are continually torn apart by guys in no armor (the Robin of Sherwood series for instance). And in the case of monks, you could argue that a guy in armor is more prone to being taken off balance and knocked to the ground. There is logic in either direction, but the important thing is that you establish whatever game system you use with something sound and consistent (that supports your particular world be it Eastern or armor light etc.). The "end result" is really what is key (ie. when played out 1E has a distinctive look and feel to it (guys in armor dominating). Compare that to 3E where your dex bonus gets reduced once you have heavy armor on (making the lightly armored for everyone look popular). The later resulted in less visual variation and thus a less rich game in some ways (and a game that felt less like 1E then it otherwise might have).

[sepulchre]

Tholianweb wrote:

here is a quote from a blog i just read...

While I appreciate the sentiment expressed in the post, in terms of rpgs it is must be balanced with that of Gygax's own words:

...this game is loosely based on Feudal European technology, history and myth (88 Dmg)

ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged (9 DMG)… In any event, do not allow either the demands of "realism" or impossible make-believe to spoil your milieu (88).

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 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 (21 DMG)!

and to your credit Tholian...

For fun, excitement, and captivating fantosy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure.
Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-thon-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste (9 DMG).

It would be no great task to devise an elaborate set of rules for highly complex individual combats with rounds of but a few seconds length. It is not in the best interests of an adventure gome, however, to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte. The location of a hit or wound, the sort of damage done, sprains, breaks, and dislocations are not the stuff of heroic fantasy (61 DMG)...The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes ~ or fails to escape- the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game (81 DMG).

what kind of a dragon hoard, for example, doesn't have gold and gems? It is simply
more heroic for players to have their characters swaggering around with pouches full of gems and tossing out gold pieces than it is for them to have coppers. Heroic fantasy is made of fortunes and king's ransoms in loot (Barter was common because hard money was so rare. However, in the typical fantasy milieu, we deal with great sums of precious metals 90 DMG) ,gained most cleverly and bravely and lost in a twinkling by various means - thievery, gambling, debauchery, gift-giving, bribes, and so forth. The "reality" AD&D seeks to create through role playing is that of the mythical heroes such as Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Kothar, Elric, and their ilk (90 DMG) ...If player characters are not of the same stamp as Conan, they also appreciate that they are in effect writing their own adventures and creating their own legends, not merely reliving those of someone else's creation (80).

I tend to part ways with Gygax on the latter perspective, preferring simulation in setting (i.e. historical places and semi-historical currency) and character class/profession (military orders in lieu of paladins). Yet, I remain a wanton devotee of abstract mechanics (thought some would challenge me on implementing the Weapon vs. Armor table - and I in turn would challenge them on weapon proficiencies and specialization).

[Tholianweb]

While I appreciate the sentiment expressed in the post, in terms of rpgs it is must be balanced with that of Gygax's own words:

I disagree soley on the fact that you used the word "must"...

Must means more and less that I have to do something and I do not prescribe to it. Not everything GG says is a must in my game because then I am playing his game. I rather play my game then his game.

I tend to part ways with Gygax on the latter perspective, preferring simulation in setting (i.e. historical places and semi-historical currency) and character class/profession (military orders in lieu of paladins). Yet, I remain a wanton devotee of abstract mechanics (thought some would challenge me on implementing the Weapon vs. Armor table - and I in turn would challenge them on weapon proficiencies and specialization).

That is why I play Harnmaster and Chivalry & Sorcery... ;D

[Philotomy Jurament]

I never cared for monks in D&D. While I agree that "anything goes" in fantasy, and could come up with something to work them in, they still feel kind of out of place and "forced," to me. I wouldn't totally rule them out, and I don't hate them, but I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to play a monk.

Actually, I can only think of one time that anyone wanted to play a monk. His monk PC ended up dead pretty quickly, and he moved on to playing a Ranger, if I remember correctly.

[MojoBob]

The only thing really wrong with monks in 1e is that they're the only non-western-mainstream-fantasy trope presented. If there had been otheres -- even just one or two -- monks wouldn't raise an eyebrow. If an Amerindian shaman-type had been included, or an African beast-master, it would just have been one more character class.

I do think the "monk" name could have been better considered. I think the BECMI/RC "Mystic" was a better choice, but even that isn't great.

For what it's worth, my one and only monk character, "The Immaculate Po", was and is one of my favourite characters ever, even though he's probably my least-played (survivor). However, I think my affection for him has more to do with his character than any of his class abilities.

[Matthew]

If you played the WH RPG, then you know the "naked dwarf" syndrome is just an awesome concept. LOL in the WH RPG, I rather be a naked dwarf then a fully armored dwarf....;D

Huh? That is not how naked dwarf syndrome works. The point is that a naked dwarf is frequently more resistant to damage than an armoured human, but an armoured dwarf is just even harder to harm (because toughness + armour = resistance to damage).

Monks are not my cup of tea in typical D&D; off the top of my head, I cannot recall having seen one I liked in game, except for maybe "Whirlwind Joe", but that was more a case of comic relief.

[sepulchre]

Tholian, 'must' here implies Gygax's words bare a wisdom that seems proper and compelling to the subject at band.

As for Harnmaster, I have never played it but have always been curious. What aspect of it is simulationist, the setting, the mechanics?

As for Chivalry and Sorcery, I bought a box set with all sorts of expansions, but all the charts made me feel like I was re-entering Rolemaster. The latter in its own right, is a great game, but it is no longer to my taste.

[laowai]

I like the 1E monk as written. I've had fun playing them. The oriental influence seems obvious to me. I mean, look at the monk's level titles -- they're practically a list of mahjong tiles

As for the complaints that the eastern monk doesn't "fit in," that seems a bit odd to me. DnD has always been a mash-up. Like Jeff Rients said, "You play Conan, I play Gandalf. We team up to fight Dracula" (or we fight a Greek minotaur, or a Chinese dragon, or an Arab djinni, or a Hindu rakshasa, or a bulette...)

[Matthew]

I cannot say it strikes me as particularly odd to say the monk is recognisably different from the other classes, heck even the designer notes that by treating it outside the alphabetical ordering of the other classes. Can it work in context? Sure, but we should not simply gloss over the reality of its oddity with wishful thinking.

[laowai]

I cannot say it strikes me as particularly odd to say the monk is recognisably different from the other classes, heck even the designer notes that by treating it outside the alphabetical ordering of the other classes. Can it work in context? Sure, but we should not simply gloss over the reality of its oddity with wishful thinking.

Oh sure, they're recognisably different. Gygax even calls them the "most unusual" class. But several posters remarked that they were "tacked on,""forced,""didn't fit" or "didn't work." I just wouldn't go that far. One might argue that the monk is an early step toward "Oriental Adventures," an idea that has haunted DnD ever since that "inescapable slide" at the bottom of Castle Greyhawk which took the players clear through "to China"

Does anyone have any info on how Gygax himself came up with the monk? Did it arise from actual play? Was it part of Greyhawk?

[Ska]

IMO the 1e monk works fine. Played a few, actually played one in the incredible on-line game DMed by Axe at the Old School site. (It was a great game)

To me, the 1e monks somehow felt almost Jedi-knightish in some ways. With the cool powers granted at various levels, incredible speed, etc they are fun to play.

I remember escaping from some zero level teenage punks who beat my 1st level monk to a pulp, by feigning death. They took my dagger and jo stick, but left me alive! Just kidding, Monks are a great class and part of the AD&D world.

As to Axe's game---who was it here who played the thief that saved my monk once and I believe I returned the favor?