Quote from: Sacrosanct;740067And?  None of those things factored into the fact that with Merdock (both), I played them as front line defenders, always trying to protect the weaker classes and using formations and tactics when I could, and with Orion, he would just bull rush into battle and let the other PCs figure out what they wanted to do on their own.  Or Thonolen, who preferred to use a bow before resorting to melee as a last resort.  The PCs could have similar AC, THAC0, and # of attacks, but they played very differently.

I was agreeing; being sarcastic.

Quote from: Bill;740078I was agreeing; being sarcastic.

I think the big disconnect here is the lack of acknowledgement of the middle ground, which is the position I'm arguing for.  The fact that there are exceptions doesn't contradict my point, but in fact supports it.  Likewise, those exceptions don't override the rule.

While you are not forced to role-play any particular class a certain way, it is true that as a general rule, the class type does impact how you role-play that character outside of the mechanical class features.

I.e., if the typical person is playing a fighter, they will not role-play that character to avoid getting into a combat at all costs.  That's why they are a fighter.  Just like for the typical person playing a magic user, they will not role-play that PC with an attidue and personality where they want to leap directly into the fray of every battle.  Just because there might be someone who does here and there, in no way disproves the general rule.

As I mentioned in my comment that was in response to yours, I clearly illustrated how even though the mechanical parts were the same, I played the PCs all differntly.  However, I also played them similarly in that because they were fighters, they were not adverse to getting in a fight and using their size/martial ability to impact their behaviors and how I role-played them.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740058It's also independent of the class.  

It's the old fallacy, "The rules are brilliant because I rewrote them to suit my tastes."  No.  The rules sucked.  Your input was the portion that had merit.

It's the old fallacy, "The rules suck because I don't like them."

No, the rules were brilliant.  Your imagination sucked.

If you're playing a fighter in a pre-WotC version of the game and all you can do is charge every time and let the dice and pure statistics decide the outcome of every combat situation, I'm very sorry for you. It means you suck both at tactics and role-playing. I'd suggest you stick to tic-tac-toe. Less of a risk of a potential seizure that way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740075I think you're trying to dance a dance and refuse to admit that as a general rule, a player who chooses to play a fighter will role-play that character differently than they would if they were playing a magic user, outside of defined class features.

Also, personality is what drives behavior.  Come on now.

I think there are some people that see classes as just templates.

I see the personality as discrete from the class.

In the world of D&D what a PC "does" is, arcing back to Gnomeworks earlier post, determined to a large extend by their mechanical abilities. How they do it and their personality is the roleplay part.

So two characters might both decide to get revenge of the goblins raiding their town how they do that will vary with their abilities.

Quote from: Benoist;740082If you're playing a fighter in a pre-WotC version of the game and all you can do is charge every time and let the dice and pure statistics decide the outcome of every combat situation, I'm very sorry for you. It means you suck both at tactics and role-playing. I'd suggest you stick to tic-tac-toe. Less of risk of a potential seizure there.

Yep.

The fighter whose only tactic is "CHARGE!" will last about half of one combat.

Quote from: Gabriel2;7387581) Yes.  Where the B/X, AD&D1, and AD&D2 versions are concerned, they basically don't even require a player once combat starts.  They just need an automatic die roller and someone to announce that they whiffed.  Doing anything interesting with a fighter in older D&D requires a lot of "mother may I?" style play because they mechanically have no options.

It really sucks when you and the Dm are not on the same wave length.  Real easy to spot, mother may I becomes 'you're a fucking idiot'.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740079I think the big disconnect here is the lack of acknowledgement of the middle ground, which is the position I'm arguing for.  The fact that there are exceptions doesn't contradict my point, but in fact supports it.  Likewise, those exceptions don't override the rule.

While you are not forced to role-play any particular class a certain way, it is true that as a general rule, the class type does impact how you role-play that character outside of the mechanical class features.

I.e., if the typical person is playing a fighter, they will not role-play that character to avoid getting into a combat at all costs.  That's why they are a fighter.  Just like for the typical person playing a magic user, they will not role-play that PC with an attidue and personality where they want to leap directly into the fray of every battle.  Just because there might be someone who does here and there, in no way disproves the general rule.

As I mentioned in my comment that was in response to yours, I clearly illustrated how even though the mechanical parts were the same, I played the PCs all differntly.  However, I also played them similarly in that because they were fighters, they were not adverse to getting in a fight and using their size/martial ability to impact their behaviors and how I role-played them.

You stated yourself that one of those fighters only resorted to fighting as a last resort. Extrapolate from there.
We have all been playing for long enough that we have played hundreds of characters.
My last D&D character, Sgt Crowe, hated combat and would avoid it at all costs. He got to 5th level by being alive at the end of each fight and putting himself at the minimal risk. And yes he was a fighter.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740043In the strictest sense, I will allow that. However I would contend that class-based systems that have options within those classes - such as the 3.5 ranger, with the option between melee and ranged - allow for greater variability between classes.

What you refer to as variability I call enforced incompetence.[cue commercial]

 When the divide between specialty and general skill grows wide you get a competency gap. When you get a competency gap, everyone specializes. When everyone specializes you get trivialized challenges. when you get trivialized challenges you get challenge creep. When you get challenge creep only the highly specialized can do anything. When only the highly specialized can do anything , the rest of the party sees imaginary butterflies and wanders into something highly illegal.

Don't see imaginary butterflies and wander into something highly illegal, just say no to enforced incompetence.

So, speaking mechanically, variability leads to the kind of shit that causes flying monsters to only be able to hop in combat else the melee focused characters cry because they feel useless. The world doesn't become romper room because you feel the need to be special mechanically.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740043In addition, mechanical systems outside of classes, such as skills and feats, can lend greater customization and further differentiate members of the same class.

See above.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740043And obviously the progress of the game itself will differentiate between characters of the same class. Bob the fighter is not Joe the fighter, in terms of personality, history, etc. However, that does not mean jack to differentiation within the system, which is the only meaningful approach to this topic - otherwise, why have any classes or races at all, if differentiation made through gameplay trumps mechanical differentiation, then mechanical differences can be done away with. Yes, obviously hyperbolic, but that should illustrate my point that mechanical differentiation is still important.

Why hyperbolic? I play OD&D. The difference between Bob and Joe the fighter is the name plus whatever the player wants to come up with. Everything else is just an intrusion of different types of mechanics trying to shoehorn themselves into an abstract game.  

If mechanical difference is that important then I will play GURPS and custom build all of my abilities from the ground up. That's the advantage of a classless system.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740087It really sucks when you and the Dm are not on the same wave length.  Real easy to spot, mother may I becomes 'you're a fucking idiot'.

And knowing that, if you don't make any effort to come to an understanding, dig your heels in and keep on doing the same thing "because fuck it, that's why", and then come to a forum to bitch about how your DM is a meanie who sucks all the fun at the game table for you, you ARE a fucking idiot.

Quote from: Benoist;740082If you're playing a fighter in a pre-WotC version of the game and all you can do is charge every time and let the dice and pure statistics decide the outcome of every combat situation, I'm very sorry for you. It means you suck both at tactics and role-playing. I'd suggest you stick to tic-tac-toe. Less of a risk of a potential seizure that way.

It does help a lot if the gm is creative. What bores me is when a gm forces you to fight everything you meet, and does not allow any real strategy, tactics, or morale to matter.

Quote from: Bill;740093It does help a lot if the gm is creative. What bores me is when a gm forces you to fight everything you meet, and does not allow any real strategy, tactics, or morale to matter.

That would suck, I agree.

Quote from: Old Geezer;740081It's the old fallacy, "The rules suck because I don't like them."

No, the rules were brilliant.  Your imagination sucked.

OK.  If that's your position.  Then your imagination sucks and Gary Gygax's writings are the only things which lend you merit.  

But that's not what I said.  

What I said is that it's stupid how RPGers will create so much stuff for themselves, and then ascribe it to the greatness of the original rules as written, when those had little to do with the final result or actually stood as an obstacle to the final result.

Saying, "but Fighters can be roleplayed great!" is not an endorsement of the old school Fighter class which is nothing more than a collection of so-so mechanics.  It's a testament to what the player brings to the game, not the class.  Everything can conceivably be fun to role play.  A fucking useless 1d4 HP commoner could be fun to role play.  It doesn't bespeak to the quality and potential of the 0-level commoner class.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740088You stated yourself that one of those fighters only resorted to fighting as a last resort. Extrapolate from there. .

Reading comprehension issues?

I said he resorted to melee combat as a last resort, not that he resorted to fighting as a last resort.  Make no mistake, he was one of the first to draw weapons and fight.

Preferably at range.

Quote from: Benoist;740094That would suck, I agree.

I am biased heavily toward gm's encouraging and supporting creative play.
Not that anyone will agree about what that really is.