Why does LL hate Dwarves??

[kingius]

Tolkien, as well as other Appendix N authors, is an appropriate point for reference for D&D and clones.

Not for everything, none of the authors are. D&D and its clones are a mix up of everything. Non-conformance to Tolkien with Dwarven weaponry is to be expected, it's not an error. It's not Middle Earth - these are not Tolkiens Dwarves, but Labyrinth Lord's.

[aspiringlich]

Dude, it makes no sense. The restriction on two-handed weapons means that an army of dwarves would get mowed down because they couldn't form a front rank of pike-men. Moldvay's rule is that they can't use two-handed swords and longbows, not two-handed weapons in general. And whatever you want to say about Tolkien, you have to grant that B/X is an appropriate reference point for Labyrinth Lord.

[kingius]

An army of dwarves would get mown down by what exactly because they didn't form a rank of pikemen? Cavalry? Good luck getting your cavalry into a Dwarven mine considering ...

1) Horses do not like to be underground
2) Dungeon flooring is hard and uneven and full of hazards
3) Dungeons corridors are going to force any cavalry that somehow teleport down their into a single file
4) The speed and mobility of a horse is going to be impossible to utilise in tight, twisting passages, just the kind that you get in dungeons.

Advantage dwarf. Your cavalry never even made it to the battle.

As for B/X, you have a point there, but this is Labyrinth Lord and the rules changes help to make it its own game, give it its own bit of flavour. So dwarves don't get to use battle axes. It's hardly game over for the little fellas. They have the hand axe which they can throw, the crossbow which is ideal for shooting down tight twisty corridors and no one knows the underground like a dwarf. And they are tough little fellas.

[aspiringlich]

Dwarves never fight on battlefields?

[kingius]

Dwarves that wanted to wage war above ground would play to their strengths and not their opponents. They would undermine castles rather than try protracted sieges, attack by surprise (especially at night when their eyes work good) and generally try to restrict the mobility of faster and taller opponents by choosing gorges, caverns and indoor places to fight in. Think about it.

Come to think of it, horses don't like fire or loud noises either, so traps or devices that involve either of these would work well to spook cavalry. I could easily whip up a winning strategy for a dwarf force because it involves (like all warfare) playing to your strengths and neutralising your opponents. So its reasonable to assume that a Master Dwarf could do the same.

[aspiringlich]

Unfortunately, wars don't always work out they way you want them to, and you have to use tactics that you wouldn't otherwise use. Yes, dwarves might prefer to fights wars in the ways you mentioned, but it's perfectly conceivable that they might not be able to. Perhaps the enemy outsmarted them, or fortune has simply turned against them; whatever the reason, their last stand is on a battlefield with a line of warhorses charging in their direction. And to say they can't use the only tactic that stands a chance against charging warhorses just because the rules say they're not allowed to use two-handed weapons is absurd.

[Urieal]

I'm with aspiringlich on this one.

Dwarves should be able to use every weapon in the game except two-handed sword and longbow, just like it is in Moldvay.

[greyarea]

Tolkien, as well as other Appendix N authors, is an appropriate point for reference for D&D and clones.

Not for everything, none of the authors are. D&D and its clones are a mix up of everything. Non-conformance to Tolkien with Dwarven weaponry is to be expected, it's not an error. It's not Middle Earth - these are not Tolkiens Dwarves, but Labyrinth Lord's.

As you put it: "D&D and its clones are a mix up of everything" which suggests that all bits of those influences are fair game. Hence we can have albino warrior-witches with cursed blades. Or paladins fighting for Law against Trolls that require fire to fix their wounds. Or albino-apes attacking from otherwise abandoned cities in the desert.

"Non-conformance to Tolkien with Dwarven weaponry is to be expected, it's not an error," may be true in your campaign but not all. The Tolkien idea of dwarves is obviously expected by many players, hence the repeated requests for dwarves with battle axes. And note that it's dwarves, not dwarfs, and dwarven, not dwarfen: there's Tolkien's influence right there. That said, Gygax and Arneson were certainly not deeply influenced by Tolkien's works, as later grumblings about hobbits made clear.

D&D, LL, and other clones are generally very setting-light, partly in order to accommodate many visions of a similar concept. They tend to rely on settings, like Backmoor, Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, etc. to set things in stone and house rules are the norm rather than strict by-the-book.

That said, Moldvay allows battle-axes, and it serves as the basis for LL, so they should be by-the-book, allowed in LL, IMHO.

[kingius]

Aspiring Lich : You say Dwarves not using valid tactics against cavalry is absurd; I say that because Dwarves do not fight wars in this way they do not use these tactics. Who is right in the context of this game called Labyrinth Lord? Not Tolkien or B/X, but Labyrinth Lord? And does it even matter, really?

If you want to house rule differently that is fine, but to claim that those of us who play by the rules as written and then justify their existence because we can see the logic are being absurb is very much against the spirit of the OSR. There is not one true way to play. If you want to change the rules that's fine but don't think it's because the rules as written are somehow logically inconsistent; they are not. They paint a different picture of a dwarf to what you are used to - and that's fine. It may not be the dwarf you want to use and that's fine too.

Others : if you want to house rule it to work differently then do so. But don't claim that the rules should be changed to accomodate your play style. Down that path lies 2e... 3e... 4e... We can embrace the old ways and let people play how they want to play without forcing rules changes onto everyone else.

[aspiringlich]

Aspiring Lich : You say Dwarves not using valid tactics against cavalry is absurd; I say that because Dwarves do not fight wars in this way they do not use these tactics. Who is right in the context of this game called Labyrinth Lord? Not Tolkien or B/X, but Labyrinth Lord?

And I'm saying that it's completely arbitrary to stipulate that dwarves don't use those tactics, because a very plausible assumption about how wars go is that they often force tactics on you that you would rather not use. It's like saying, "US air power is so far superior to the Afghan taliban's that they wouldn't ever use infantry to fight them." Well, guess what, things have taken a turn where the US ended up having to use infantry, much as they would have liked not to. Likewise, it's altogether possible that dwarves, try as they might not to fight wars on battlefields, just might have to, in which case the rule against their using two-handed weapons makes no sense. Your argument is: the rule says dwarves can't use two-handed weapons, therefore, they just won't fight in situations that require two-handed weapons. My argument is: it's altogether reasonable to think that dwarves might find themselves in situations where two-handed weapons (in this case, pole arms) are necessary to survive, therefore the rule that says they can't use such weapons is not a very good rule. In other words, you're taking the rule as given and then trying to rationalize it; I'm saying that what's reasonable should come first, and the rule should follow upon that.

And does it even matter, really?

If you think it doesn't matter, then why are you arguing?

If you want to house rule differently that is fine, but to claim that those of us who play by the rules as written and then justify their existence because we can see the logic are being absurb is very much against the spirit of the OSR. There is not one true way to play. If you want to change the rules that's fine but don't think it's because the rules as written are somehow logically inconsistent; they are not. They paint a different picture of a dwarf to what you are used to - and that's fine. It may not be the dwarf you want to use and that's fine too.

Others : if you want to house rule it to work differently then do so. But don't claim that the rules should be changed to accomodate your play style. Down that path lies 2e... 3e... 4e... We can embrace the old ways and let people play how they want to play without forcing rules changes onto everyone else.

It's also an old-school dictum that, all else being equal, the rules should be less restrictive rather than more restrictive. In this case, the rule is more restrictive: dwarves can't use two-handed weapons. I'm simply arguing (based in large part on the game that Labyrinth Lord is derived from) that the less restrictive rule should be the norm, and the more restrictive rules should be the ones to be house-ruled in.