Quote from: Benoist;740887It basically still is the best way to play, from my POV, and part of the reason for its growth in popularity in the first place.

I agree.  The game has always been about fostering imagination, and that's not just picturing a scene in your head or pretending to be Bob the elf, but also coming up with imaginative ways to resolve challenges and conflicts.

Quote from: Old Geezer;740874The game started with "Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll."

but it didn't end there. Thank goodness for that, otherwise the hobby would have died a long time ago.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740895I agree.  The game has always been about fostering imagination, and that's not just picturing a scene in your head or pretending to be Bob the elf, but also coming up with imaginative ways to resolve challenges and conflicts.

Exactly.  I've said many times that I still play this stupid game because if I've thought of ten ways to resolve something, the players will come up with ways eleven through spinach.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;740945but it didn't end there. Thank goodness for that, otherwise the hobby would have died a long time ago.

I doubt the tabletop RPG hobby would have died, but I guess the tabletop RPG industry might not have done as well. After all, the industry as we know it makes most of its money selling "rules" and if rules were only needed by GMs, the industry would not be what it is today.

Whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing depend on who you believe should be in the "game design" driver's seat: the hobby or industry.  Personally, I prefer the hobby. Just as my golf-playing uncle would prefer that the rules of the game not be subject to the commercial needs of those who make golf equipment, I'd prefer that the rules of tabletop RPGs not be driven by the commercial needs of publishers. Just because company X's sales are down doesn't mean that the hobby needs a new (and incompatible with the old) edition of their game A, for example.

Quote from: Iosue;740872Drawing (or stowing) is a Minor action.  So you can draw, move, and attack (or move, draw, and attack, or draw, attack, and move).


In AD&D, it goes like this.  A Turn is 10 minutes.  A Round is 1 minute, thus 10 Rounds = 1 Turn.  A Round is then further divided into ten 6-second Segments.  Initiative (and surprise) is a relative contest using a d6 to vie for those first six segments of a round.  So, if I roll a 4 and you roll a 2, my turn starts on segment 1, and yours starts on segment 3 (4-2=2, so I get a two segment headstart).  If I need to draw a weapon (or any other action, such as drinking a potion, etc.), the DM adjudicates how many segments it takes, based on the time frame of 6 seconds in a segment.  Drawing a weapon is not specifically spelled out in the rules.  However, in one example, it is suggested that pulling a potion out of a pouch and hurling it would be "1, possibly 2 segments", so I'm pretty comfortable saying that any DM charging more than 1 segment to draw and ready a standard sized weapon is doing it wrong.

Now, another thing to consider with AD&D is that the camera is "pulled back", and combat is resolved with more of an overview than simulated in the thick of it.  You can't close to striking range and attack in the same round, unless you charge.  This is to represent coming in carefully to engage the enemy without taking attacks.  Unlike with a charge, where you take an AC penalty in order to make your attack that round.  That said, you could certainly draw on the move, since the move will take up at least one segment.

I suspect that DMs forcing people to wait a round if they have to draw a weapon were applying a mistaken understanding of BD&D rules to AD&D.

Except that if you say for example use the weapon vs armour table and you have people selecting from a large menu of weapons to get the best bonus against a range of oponents then the ability to switch weapons with no pelalty in a combat round has a major impact and in doing so throws the abstraction of you are engaged in combat a mix of hack and slash until you land one genuine hit into a tail spin because if you are changing weapons and whatever you are not mounting an active defensive.

I always use the old standard of if you draw a weapon you add double the weapon speed to your initiative. But then i have always hated one minute combat rounds and moved to a 6 second round in about 1982 simply because whilst 1min rounds are fine at abstracting the melee of a battle they are crap at emulating the sort of combat that occurs in the genre fiction i was trying to emulate.
D&D's strength of course is that that doesn't matter cos the dm can just slide stuff about to meet the new time scale

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) I find most games boring. There is nothing worse than playing a fighter and:

a - waiting in a dungeon for three people crowding the hallway to die before you can take your turn.

b - playing in a game where your fighter can't interact with the world. Your -1 charisma adjustment never seems to be overshadowed by your deeds, so you can't get anything across by role playing, and all the enemies are immune to swords at high level unless you have or do just the right thing.

c - when your fighter is always a pud in the story. It doesn't matter if you are 12th level and killed the dragon, the king and all his men are 20th and will shit on you right now if you get off the rails.

2 - No, feats don't make fighters less boring. Feats make character creation more engaging if you like that sort of thing. Feats make a fighter more boring because before feats, I could say things like, "when he backs up, I follow," or, "I swing on the rope and shoot my bow." Now I can't do that stuff without "Step Up," or, "Shot on the Run."

3 - That is what matters most. Unfortunately the fighter (unless there is a Paladin around) is the fall guy for all the GM's antics. Only the GM can make the fighter fun by running a good game. A wizard can still be played in a fun way against a bad GM because a wizard can be abusive.

4 - Yes

5 - Can he run out of sword?

6 - Sex

Quote from: Iosue;740763If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

And a DM who is willing to let the Fighter pause the game world so he can don the new armor for just this right situation?
Have numerous Shield and Weapon Bearers to carry the golf bags of weapons so the Fighter is able to maximize his ability to use oodles of weapons?

Quote from: Iosue;740763For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

For some odd reason a lotta folks said "How the hell does the Fighter carry all these weapons and armors?" And had their Fighter carry one set of armor and a select few weapons that were easily at hand.  They thought long and hard on how to carry a long spear, bow and quiver, shields and bastard sword, multiple armors, adventuring equipment, while also having at least a hand free to manipulate the world. Just couldn't figure out how to do that. Their Dm had adjudicated that the shear bulk of the items they wanted was too much for one person to carry.
Shame on them for not realizing that is why you have henchmen.  You pay someone to carry your weapons and extra armors for the off chance you will be able to use it enough to justify the expense of hiring them.  The ablative hitpoints is a bonus though.  

Quote from: Iosue;740763Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

And what about the Ranger and Paladin in 1e?

Quote from: Iosue;740763I like the 4e Fighter well enough for its purposes given the granular "one attack is one-swing" mode of play in 4e.  I don't think it's especially a step up from the AD&D fighter in the "camera-pulled back, more abstract" mode of play in 1e.

And for a lot of people it is.

Quote from: estar;740851Adding to Iosue excellent reply. You are forgetting that human referee is there to adjudicate ACTIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED. The rules are just a aide for the referee in making his judgments consistent.

In the tabletop roleplaying the rules don't define the limit of what the character can do. The setting is what ultimately arbitrate what physical actions are possible.

If using the quasi medieval setting implied by the D&D game then things like body slams, disarming, and whacking an opponent hand are possible. Because the setting is a reflection on our own medieval time period. And those actions were possible then. Granted not as easy just trying to whack the enemy.

So?

My point way back there has nothing to do with this.
Do people find Old School Fighters Boring?
Yes some do.
Why?
Because they have nothing.
"The principal attribute of a fighter is strength. To become a fighter, a character must have a minimum strength of 9 and a constitution of 7 or greater. A good dexterity rating is also highly desirable. If a fighter has strength above 15, he or she adds 10% to experience points awarded by the Dungeon Master. Also, high strength gives the fighter a better chance to hit an opponent and causes an increased amount of damage.
Fighters.have a ten-sided die (d10) for determination of their hit points per level. No other class of character (save the paladin and ranger (qq.v.) subclasses of fighters) is so strong in this regard. Fighters ore the strongest of characters in regards to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat Any sort of armor or weapon is usable by fighters.
Fighters may be of any alignment - good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neutral.
Although fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and weapons can compensate. They have the most advantageous combat table and generally have good saving throw (q.v.) possibilities as well.
Fighters can employ many magical items, including potions; "protection" scrolls; many rings; a few wands; one rod; many other magic items; and all forms of armor, shields and weapons.
When a fighter attains 9th level (Lord), he or she may opt to establish a freehold. This is done by building some type of castle and clearing the area in a radius of 20 to 50 miles around the stronghold, making it free from all sorts of hostile creatures. Whenever such a freehold is established and cleared, the fighter will:
1. Automatically attract a body of men-at-arms led by an above average
fighter. These men will serve as mercenaries so long as the fighter maintains his or her freehold and pays the men at-arms; and
2. Collect a monthly revenue of 7 silver pieces for each and every inhabitant of the freehold due to trade, tariffs, and taxes."
This is what players see in their handbook for the game.
Some people like nifty things that a class offers.  Ima MU. I cast spells. I(Jon) get to choose what spells my character memorizes.  I do not need to pass it by the DM to get his adjudication on the matter.

I know around here that idea is heretical.  Around here a player wanting to have choice without the DM giving his approval strays over that storygame line.   That is, bad.
Makes one think that perhaps that is the real issue.

I think most of the people who've played fighters in any of my old-school campaigns would certainly say that playing a fighter isn't boring.

Playing a fighter is kind of a "boring-Rorscach" test for some combination of the player and the game.

If it's boring, either you, or the game, is actually the boring thing.

Quote from: robiswrong;742947Playing a fighter is kind of a "boring-Rorscach" test for some combination of the player and the game.

If it's boring, either you, or the game, is actually the boring thing.

If others in the same game are playing fighters and are NOT bored, then that narrows things down a bit further.

We've had plenty of fighters who were awesome.  If you want a guy who's always on the frontline then that's the class for you.