I would assume one is a 1st level MU because they want to someday to be a 5th level MU. You have to start somewhere. ;p

Quote from: Gabriel2;253130Or else they focused on non-mechanical role playing elements which every character type could do just as effectively.

A couple different responses to this: 1) although theoretically they can, in practice every character type can't necessarily do all of those "non-mechanical" elements as well as the magic-user: the mage is likely to have a higher Int score, meaning he knows more languages, meaning there's more types of creatures he can talk to. Also, because the fighters and clerics have to spend most of their starting money on armor and weapons they won't likely have as much left over to spend hiring retainers and buying all that fun miscellaneous equipment that clever players love to make outside-the-box uses of (chalk, bas of marbles, pots of grease, etc.). 2) it's a matter of role-playing, not as in play-acting (talking in a funny voice and deciding your guy was raised by a single mother and is scared of spiders) but as in playing the role you have chosen, making your actions match the archetype. Fighters and clerics aren't generally as crafty as the mages, and tend more towards direct solutions, both because they're better able to do that (better armor, better weapons, more hp), but also because it doesn't fit their role. Fighters and clerics are men of action; magic-users (and thieves) are men of wits -- Hercules vs. Ulysses.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;253262You left out the for some people at the end of the last sentence I quoted.

That is true, I did leave that off.  Re-reading, I can see how the 'some people' from the previous sentence doesn't carry over as I thought it would, making my sentence more absolute than I intended.

In some ways, however, it is a bit absolute, as I was describing what I see as the thoughts expressed not only in this thread, but in the general readings of blogs and such as I understand them.  

It is unwieldy to add 'for people who enjoy playing low level magic users/characters' and not as well implied as I thought.  But I will concede that a qualifier should have been added to the end of my paragraph.

Quote from: StormBringer;253267That is true, I did leave that off.  Re-reading, I can see how the 'some people' from the previous sentence doesn't carry over as I thought it would, making my sentence more absolute than I intended.

In some ways, however, it is a bit absolute, as I was describing what I see as the thoughts expressed not only in this thread, but in the general readings of blogs and such as I understand them.  

It is unwieldy to add 'for people who enjoy playing low level magic users/characters' and not as well implied as I thought.  But I will concede that a qualifier should have been added to the end of my paragraph.

I guess the reason I was being overly pedantic is because, in the end, all of this discussion about accomplishments or the relative lack thereof in a game seems...well, silly, to me. I've played RPGs for almost 30 years now (jeez), and I gotta say that I'm not seeing a huge lack of fun in today's games, or a lack of opportunity for accomplishment (such as it is in a game), as compared to the games I was playing circa 1979-80. I honestly have never felt the same sense of...outrage? disgust?...that a lot of my contemporaries (and even some who started playing years after I did) seem to feel for games like 4e (or 3e, when it was released). For that matter, I don't understand what prompts such strong feelings. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of gamers I had contact with (and yes, I know this anecdotal, but it was as good as I could do in the dark times before the internet) were desirous of more durable characters. We stuck it out for a long while with the rules as written, but it truly surprises me that some gamers found that aspect of the game not a chore, but a main component of the fun they had. Those first few levels were, for us, just an obstacle to be overcome so that we could really have fun.

I guess it really shows how differently we all played.

Quote from: Seanchai;253058True. But what you're describing is a character that's versatile in a modern RPG. Basic D&D wasn't about playing a character - it was about moving from encounter to encounter in a dungeon.

It was about that -- and much more. The three LBB have rules for wilderness exploration, naval combat, and much more than just dungeons. Also even in dungeons moving from encounter to encounter was not seldom moving from combat to combat. Fighting everything encountered was normally a good way to get characters killed.

Look, it's very simple.

People managed--and manage--just fine with the Magic User as originally written up.

The Magic User as written up doesn't work very well with a straight-ahead, combat-heavy dungeoncrawl. Not at low levels, leastwise, and I don't believe that the people who favor that style of play have the patience to wait for things to balance out over the long run.

Ergo, the people who managed just fine with the MU as written didn't play the way that Seanchai claims it was intended "from inception", i.e., as a "role-playing GAME".

They did...something. Such as emphasizing elements of D&D that didn't involve combat. When there was combat, they protected the magic user. If the magic user died, they didn't cry a river.

QED

Elliot you really should get down to writing up that post about people coming into the hobby with different expectations from those of the so-called old school.

Regards,
David R

I must respectfully disagree that the level 1 MU was not suited to the hack-n-slash dungeon crawl.  He was an excellent back-row oil and dagger thrower, really not much worse than a thief.  A properly high number in Dex or Con helps him tremendously.    My experience is mostly with AD&D MU's so in AD&D that 1D4 for a dagger or 1D6 for oil (IIRC) was not so bad compared to the 1D8 of a longsword or 1D6 of a bow.  In addition, someone needed to hold the lantern.

Certainly the AV is low with no armor, but in the beginning your lucky if you have better than chain for the fighters.  The hit point spread is also not so awful, sure 1D4, but the best, 1D10 for a fighter, in practice means you can survive two maybe three blows instead of one.  Just stay in the back, don't get surrounded or flanked and you'll do fine.

Personally, I played a 1st level MU to get to be a 5th level MU.

Look, when a baby cow wants to go MU, it can't afford a ninth-level MU. It's just a baby. That's where you come in. You're a first-level MU. Even a baby cow can afford those rates. It's the way life works, bud. You want to work your way up to MU'ing for the big cows, ya gotta MU for the little ones, first.

Sure, you're weak and kinda sickly, but at first level, what ya gonna do? That's why ya gotta be clever - Add stuff to your MU. Little tricks and skills of the trade, like sounding pathetic, or woebogone, or even scarier than you really are. Get whatever protection you can, because a first-level MU rarely lasts long enough to leave an echo behind, much less tell a story.

Good luck, kid. You'll need it.

Quote from: timrichter9;252366So...for those of you who had the Basic box set and played a MU....  What made you do it?  

Because it was fun, in a challenging way.

Quote from: StormBringer;253261Part of that argument was that any class could do that sort of thing, which is not in contention.  Due to a lack of codified skills, anyone could pretty much try anything.  It's just that most people stuck with the genre emulation and let the magic user do the thinky stuff and the fighters do the fighty stuff.

If anyone can try anything, the Magic User still isn't ahead of the game. What we're talking about are still house rules and they don't necessarily make the Magic User any more palatable.

Quote from: StormBringer;253261As above, the mechanical bits that did exist - namely, combat rules - didn't interact with the magic user very often until higher levels when they had more combat oriented spells.

Not quite. Plenty of mechanical bits interacted with the Magic User - he could still get hit, take damage, make Saves, etc. And therein lies the rub.

Quote from: StormBringer;253261Fighters had the combat stuff, clerics had the combat and some spell stuff, thieves had their abilities and some combat stuff.  Magic users really just had spells, so there was a wide range of other things possible that the mechanics didn't cover.

Let me put it this way: It's not mechanics that didn't cover them, it's the game. I haven't looked through Moldvay in a couple of months, but I don't recall there being anything in there covering the situations being discussed.

Quote from: StormBringer;253261As mentioned in another thread, if your only contribution to the party is "I already cast Magic Missile today", your adventures will tend to be nasty, brutish and short.

You're missing the point. The OP asked why anyone would play with Moldvay given the rules. Absolutely, people did things outside the rules as written. You had to. But that's not what's being asked.

Quote from: StormBringer;253261Of course they are, but I am sure you can see that starting out a 4-6 hit points maximum is quite different than starting out with 20-30 hit points, and six free heals.

It's only different if you're looking at just one side of the equation.

Seanchai

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;253277Besides, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of gamers I had contact with (and yes, I know this anecdotal, but it was as good as I could do in the dark times before the internet) were desirous of more durable characters. We stuck it out for a long while with the rules as written, but it truly surprises me that some gamers found that aspect of the game not a chore, but a main component of the fun they had. Those first few levels were, for us, just an obstacle to be overcome so that we could really have fun.

Personally, I think it's the experiences we had with Moldvay, among others, that gave rise to modern attitudes about gaming and modern mechanics. It doesn't seem to me that we really have any fresh blood in the hobby and thus movement away this type of Magic User is being made by folks who have been playing for decades...

Seanchai

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;253310Ergo, the people who managed just fine with the MU as written didn't play the way that Seanchai claims it was intended "from inception", i.e., as a "role-playing GAME".

You're misattributing stuff again. You need to go back and look at the big clusterfuck a couple months back. I'm just parroting what I was told in that thread...

...because I knew the folks saying it where full of shit back then and would eventually do a 180 when they needed to...

Seanchai

Quote from: RandallS;253282It was about that -- and much more. The three LBB have rules for wilderness exploration, naval combat, and much more than just dungeons.

What page are those on?

Quote from: RandallS;253282Fighting everything encountered was normally a good way to get characters killed.

Which is where all the rules, guidelines, and suggestions about tricking opponents, social combat, negotiation, etc., come in...

Seanchai

Well, Seanchai, you will have to point me to the clusterfuck you're referring to. I think I've been consistent on this topic, and I can't really be held responsible for what others might have said.