Are old school fighters boring?

Benoist · April 01, 2014, 01:06:12 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095Saying, "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.

You mean the mechanics that are forty years old, that a fuckton of people still play with, and *THE HUMANITY!* keep having fun using? Holy shit. Those are "so-so" mechanics of suck, I agree!

Not.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095It's a testament to what the player brings to the game, not the class.

It's a testament to the game that lets players breathe life into it with their imagination. Having players with an imagination sure brings a lot to the table, that said. Even mentally handicapped people have an imagination and can have fun playing a fighter, so that's great!

Vegetables need not apply.

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 01:06:51 PM

Quote from: Bill;740097I am biased heavily toward gm's encouraging and supporting creative play.
Not that anyone will agree about what that really is.

Back in the day we awarded XP for creative play. Now, as my gaming group is older, we all just play creatively anyway out of habit, and don't track XP nearly as anally as we used to as teens.

Exploderwizard · April 01, 2014, 01:07:43 PM

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.

If this was someone's only experience with TSR D&D no wonder that they think it's the system that sucks. If game=rules then older editions aren't worth looking at (and neither is any game where rp actally matters).

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 01:10:55 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095Saying, "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.

Actually, it sort of is. "Modern" fighters, will all their "modern" rules, powers, and clearly defined abilities, has had an effect of implying to the player that their PC fighter was limited to said abilities. Whereas those "old school" rules simply stated, "You wear armor and use weapons and fight. Go to town."

Go watch some kids play RPGs for the first time and you'll see what I mean. The adage, "what is not expressely forbidden is permitted" rings true with them. Then put a game like 3e or 4e in front of them. You'll see the ad-libbing stop almost immediately as they check to see if there is a skill check or power that covers what they want to do. If not, they shelve the idea.

Sad, really.

Necrozius · April 01, 2014, 01:18:14 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740101Actually, it sort of is. "Modern" fighters, will all their "modern" rules, powers, and clearly defined abilities, has had an effect of implying to the player that their PC fighter was limited to said abilities.

Yep, that's what I've noticed. I judge the Fighter class within the context of the game it's in. Take older D&D vs newer (especially 3rd ed) and I see a huge difference. The relative simplicity that I see in older editions "seems" to promote more open ended limitations on what characters could do. With huge skill lists and Feats and all that, suddenly it looks like a Fighter really IS just about whacking shit with a stick and not much else.

So I'm in the camp that feels that older edition Fighters seem LESS boring than newer ones.

Bill · April 01, 2014, 01:23:58 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740099Back in the day we awarded XP for creative play. Now, as my gaming group is older, we all just play creatively anyway out of habit, and don't track XP nearly as anally as we used to as teens.

I hate xp awards, but what I meant by encourage and support was essentially not stifling creativity.

Like when a player says "I try to push a table in the way to block a door to slow the guards" and the gm sort of says "No..too heavy! stop doing anything but stabbing the enemy!"

Bill · April 01, 2014, 01:25:58 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740100If this was someone's only experience with TSR D&D no wonder that they think it's the system that sucks. If game=rules then older editions aren't worth looking at (and neither is any game where rp actally matters).

"Chess, the Rpg." I play the bishop, and the gm is a dick and makes me only move diagonally!

Exploderwizard · April 01, 2014, 01:26:48 PM

Quote from: Necrozius;740103Yep, that's what I've noticed. I judge the Fighter class within the context of the game it's in. Take older D&D vs newer (especially 3rd ed) and I see a huge difference. The relative simplicity that I see in older editions "seems" to promote more open ended limitations on what characters could do. With huge skill lists and Feats and all that, suddenly it looks like a Fighter really IS just about whacking shit with a stick and not much else.

So I'm in the camp that feels that older edition Fighters seem LESS boring than newer ones.

It is possible for both older and newer edition fighters to be boring or interesting. In either case if the DM can only see RAW mechanical operations then the player is in for a boring game no matter how many or few doodads the class has mechanically.

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 01:26:51 PM

Quote from: Bill;740105I hate xp awards, but what I meant by encourage and support was essentially not stifling creativity.

Like when a player says "I try to push a table in the way to block a door to slow the guards" and the gm sort of says "No..too heavy! stop doing anything but stabbing the enemy!"

Oh no, I get what you mean, and I totally agree. I'm just saying that back in the day, not only did we not disuade that sort of creative thinking, we rewarded it with XP points.

Gronan of Simmerya · April 01, 2014, 01:30:44 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095Saying, "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.

The stupid, it burns us.

Also, in the words of Master Yoda, "My pee hole, you may tongue."

Gronan of Simmerya · April 01, 2014, 01:34:06 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740101Actually, it sort of is. "Modern" fighters, will all their "modern" rules, powers, and clearly defined abilities, has had an effect of implying to the player that their PC fighter was limited to said abilities. Whereas those "old school" rules simply stated, "You wear armor and use weapons and fight. Go to town."

Go watch some kids play RPGs for the first time and you'll see what I mean. The adage, "what is not expressely forbidden is permitted" rings true with them. Then put a game like 3e or 4e in front of them. You'll see the ad-libbing stop almost immediately as they check to see if there is a skill check or power that covers what they want to do. If not, they shelve the idea.

Sad, really.

Just this weekend at GaryCon Tim Kask said almost exactly the same thing. "They sit there staring at their character sheet waiting for something that triggers one of their skill rolls."

Gabriel2 · April 01, 2014, 01:36:37 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740100If this was someone's only experience with TSR D&D no wonder that they think it's the system that sucks. If game=rules then older editions aren't worth looking at (and neither is any game where rp actally matters).

Well, my opinion is that the "game" is the interaction of GM and player with each other to create the experience. The rules are spices. They're not the meat of the experience, but still important to what experience gets produced.

Exploderwizard · April 01, 2014, 01:37:30 PM

Quote from: Old Geezer;740113Just this weekend at GaryCon Tim Kask said almost exactly the same thing. "They sit there staring at their character sheet waiting for something that triggers one of their skill rolls."

What a sad state of affairs.

Gronan of Simmerya · April 01, 2014, 01:52:19 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740115What a sad state of affairs.

The interesting thing is that I had noted that independently, and so had many other of the referees there.

It was AMAZING when I was running OD&D and somebody else was running SWd20 alternately, WITH THE SAME PLAYERS.

In OD&D, when a situation arose, everybody started talking to each other.
In SWd20, when a situation arose, everybody looked at their character sheets for 90 seconds.

Gabriel2 · April 01, 2014, 01:55:37 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740101The adage, "what is not expressely forbidden is permitted" rings true with them.

I find with less experienced players that the reverse is more often true. "What is not expressly permitted is forbidden." Regardless of edition or ruleset.

Couldn't a player used to such improvisation and resourcefullness just as easily use those same traits in a modern game with a similarly resourceful GM, regardless of the mechanics on the sheet?