Are old school fighters boring?

Bill · April 01, 2014, 02:09:46 PM

Quote from: Old Geezer;740119The 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.

Same players. Wow. I would love to observe those two games in action in hopes of making my head unexplode.

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 02:16:49 PM

Quote from: Bill;740128Same players. Wow. I would love to observe those two games in action in hopes of making my head unexplode.

That aligns with my experiences as well. It's less, "we're experienced players, so we know better in spite of the rules" and more of "these are the rules, so the game is expected to play that way." You can put the players right back into b/x and the creativity would come right back. The thing is, when you have a predefined expected outcome "as a reaction, you can do X power if the enemy moves within Y squares....", that's what people will look for.

Pretty basic human behavior.

LibraryLass · April 01, 2014, 02:29:22 PM

I mean, I kind of see what they're saying. Looked at purely as a game piece within the codified rules, the fighter has the least to do. Roleplaying and improvising are an emergent property of the game, kind of the same way that bluffing is in poker (and without which poker would not be nearly so much fun.) But also like poker, that emergent property is what makes the game what it is and can't be ignored when talking about the gameplay. So yeah, fighters are lots more fun than they look.

Exploderwizard · April 01, 2014, 03:08:04 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740123Couldn'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?

Yeah, so long as the DM handles actions as they are stated and doesn't constantly refer the player to the pre-defined effect list every time he/she wants to do something.

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 03:29:37 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740140Yeah, so long as the DM handles actions as they are stated and doesn't constantly refer the player to the pre-defined effect list every time he/she wants to do something.

It goes back to the 3e discussion of, "Can a PC without the bluff skill bluff?"

The answer you'll get is, "technically yes, but it won't ever happen as long as there is a player there who does have the skill, or at least has a higher CHA modifier."

Compare that to TSR era D&D, where if a player wanted to bluff the guard, they simply said, "I'm gonna try to bluff my way in" and you role-played the scenario or came up with some other way to resolve it right there. Or the player didn't even say they were going to bluff, they just did as part of the natural role-playing interaction between them and the DM. You didn't have the players look at their character sheets to see who had the highest skill modifier in mid conversation.

Gabriel2 · April 01, 2014, 04:08:51 PM

Quote from: Bill;740128Same players. Wow. I would love to observe those two games in action in hopes of making my head unexplode.

Well, people don't play the same at conventions as they play at home. They also don't play the same with a freshly received pre-gen as they do with characters they made themselves and played for months. There's the matter of the unfamiliarity of the setting, the character, and the GM.

Personally, I see it as an example of what I'm talking about. In the SWd20 game the players obviously felt the mechanics were useful and went to them as a valid option. In OD&D the players didn't find the mechanics as valuable and/or felt they had no mechanical leg to stand on, so resorted to conspiring to see what the GM would let them do. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want all of one or the other. I'd like a healthy mix of both.

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 04:13:10 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740153In OD&D the players didn't find the mechanics as valuable and/or felt they had no mechanical leg to stand on, so resorted to conspiring to see what the GM would let them do. .

That's a pretty odd assumption to make.

Benoist · April 01, 2014, 04:31:07 PM

LOL I love it. The players "conspiring" to "see what the DM would allow". :cheerleader:

Bill · April 01, 2014, 04:34:01 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740153Well, people don't play the same at conventions as they play at home. They also don't play the same with a freshly received pre-gen as they do with characters they made themselves and played for months. There's the matter of the unfamiliarity of the setting, the character, and the GM.

Personally, I see it as an example of what I'm talking about. In the SWd20 game the players obviously felt the mechanics were useful and went to them as a valid option. In OD&D the players didn't find the mechanics as valuable and/or felt they had no mechanical leg to stand on, so resorted to conspiring to see what the GM would let them do. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want all of one or the other. I'd like a healthy mix of both.

"Mechanical leg to stand on" and "Conspiring to see what the gm would let them do"

?? It must be me, but how many players actually think that way?
when I play I just do whatever the hell it feels like my character would do.

Gabriel2 · April 01, 2014, 05:07:14 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740155That's a pretty odd assumption to make.

Why do you say that?

If I was GMing a game for you right now, and you were playing a AD&D1e pre-UA fighter, how would you know what I'd allow you to do outside of swinging your sword (or whatever) against THAC0? Wouldn't you necessarily feel the need to appeal to me as a GM to allow you to do things outside the limited mechanics? Why is that a strength of the Fighter class? Why isn't that a strength of a particular GM? What can the fighter do in this method that technically every other AD&D1e character can't also do? Or for that matter what every other character in every other game ever can't also do?

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 05:17:15 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740171Why do you say that?

Because assuming that players of OD&D don't think the rules have a leg to stand on and they will conspire to see what the can get away with is an odd assumption to put it politely.

Gabriel2 · April 01, 2014, 05:23:20 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740173Because assuming that players of OD&D don't think the rules have a leg to stand on and they will conspire to see what the can get away with is an odd assumption to put it politely.

OK. Well, I thought there was still discussion to be had. It's clear you don't agree. Oh well, it burned a slow day at work.

Sacrosanct · April 01, 2014, 05:29:42 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740177OK. Well, I thought there was still discussion to be had. It's clear you don't agree. Oh well, it burned a slow day at work.

Dude, you said players of OD&D must think the rules are broken/worthless and conspire against the DM to see what they can get away with. That's not discussion. That's either horribly obvious trolling, or something that a broken individual says.

Black Vulmea · April 01, 2014, 05:42:17 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740123Couldn'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?

Yes.

gamerGoyf · April 01, 2014, 06:01:57 PM

Quote from: Gabriel2;740177OK. Well, I thought there was still discussion to be had. It's clear you don't agree. Oh well, it burned a slow day at work.

Yeah, this is the sort of discussion you should never try to have on theRPGsite. Any suggestion here that MTP isn't the pinnacle of game design is just going to result in a certain subset of the regular posters doing an acrobatic pirouette off the handle and the thread degenerating into stupid.