Other Character Types: 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 wold have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.This is echoed in Holmes's rulebook, where he says:
At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halfling), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese samurai fighting man.Meanwhile, the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, at the end of a long discussion of the game's humanocentric focus states:
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.Quite the difference, isn't it?
So, who among us allowed non-standard -- monster -- PCs in their old school D&D games? I recall two in my campaigns. One was a leprechaun (unfortunately named Leo), whom we treated more or less as a small elf. The other was a young bronze dragon who spent a good portion of his time polymorphed into human form and thus unable to use most of his draconic abilities. Other than these, I don't recall anyone's ever wanting to play a monster character, but my attitude back then was to allow them more or less according to the advice given in Volume 1 of OD&D. Anyone else do this?
I'm off for the day till tomorrow. Have fun while I'm offline.