Quote from: Arminius;849137I'd say in order for a description of Free Kriegspiel to convey the workings of a ref in the RPG context though, you need to include the fact that referees were supposed to make impartial judgments, at least by default.

Also, FK wasn't accepted without controversy IIRC.

I suppose, but to my mind "referee" implies impartial in the very word.

And nothing has EVER been accepted without controversy.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;849102I can understand the Fighter getting the short end of the stick, too.

I've heard this online, but not in actual play.

Fighter's get to mosh with the monsters. You can use any weapon and any armor so you're almost always first up to get magical items. You often get healing first in the party, rarely allowed to drop below half because you are the front line. And your sword does not run out of charges. Trying to guess when to cast your spell? Nope, your sword is good to go every round.

And Fighters have the HP to make mistakes, so you can be bolder and maybe even less cautious than other classes. Makes them so great a class for newbs or casual gamers.

Also, in NPC interactions, you don't have the deity baggage of the cleric or the sleepy time issues of the mage.

Fighters can fuck all day and party all night!

Quote from: Spinachcat;849156I've heard this online, but not in actual play.

I've had it happen in actual play.  Now bear in mind, that I spent the last 30 years or so, pretty much being a DM/GM, so I'm not speaking as if I was the one 'marginalized' or some other kitschy phrasing.  It was my observation of others playing, and in some cases outright avoiding the Fighter in D&D for 'being boring'.

And there was a lot of assumptions that no-name schmucks that you find guarding a castle were variously leveled Fighters, perpetuating the incorrect assumption that Fighters were chumps that anyone with a vague inkling on how to hold a sword was automatically one.

Let me also point out that it was never intended as an insult, but the Fighter has long been considered to be the 'Easy Class' to give to a beginner.  Little choice, just roll to hit and your good.  And I have a hard time believing that no one here has seen that one in person.  Does that not raise an eyebrow?  If a Fighter is as 'complex' as any other class, why would it be considered the first thing most players should get to introduce them to D&D?

Gronan, you have a special and unique view of the class, because you've been at a table where it was explained that you can do whatever you want as whatever class.  But most of us have not, and we're limited to, as I already stated to Chirine, our perceptions and reading of the books we bought.

Doesn't mean no one has ever had fun with the Fighter, it's just that there's a lot of baggage that's been unfairly loaded onto the class' mighty and broad shoulders.  But like the Trouper and Trooper that it is, it's taken that load and carried on over the years, soldiering on and still proving to be a contender and a fan favourite.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171Let me also point out that it was never intended as an insult, but the Fighter has long been considered to be the 'Easy Class' to give to a beginner.  Little choice, just roll to hit and your good.  And I have a hard time believing that no one here has seen that one in person.  Does that not raise an eyebrow?  If a Fighter is as 'complex' as any other class, why would it be considered the first thing most players should get to introduce them to D&D?

A fighter is a complex class -- just not complex in mechanics (no spells or weapons limits to worry about). The cleric is a complex class, but intermediate in mechanical complexity (some weapon limitations and some spells to learn about). The wizard is a complex class and is also complex in mechanics (lots of limitations on combat abilities and lots of spells to learn about).  Any of the three original classes can be played in a complex manner, but the complexity of the mechanics one needs to learn varies. Of course, if one only sees and/or only thinks of the mechanics then one will likely miss this.

Old school, however, is isn't about the mechanics. The rules mechanics in old school rules are more for the GM than the players. If you just tell the GM what you are trying to do (and have a GM who understands there are no hard rules just incomplete guidelines for the GM that cover only the most general cases) the Fighter is both complex in what he can do and simple to actually play (mechanically).

QuoteGronan, you have a special and unique view of the class, because you've been at a table where it was explained that you can do whatever you want as whatever class.  But most of us have not, and we're limited to, as I already stated to Chirine, our perceptions and reading of the books we bought.

I mainly play with new and causal players who do not have much interest in reading (let alone studying) rules. I tell all new players to simply pretend like they are their character and they in the situation in the game and to tell me what they want to do. I tell them I will tell them the results, what to roll, or warn them if it is something their character do to world/class knowledge would know was an obviously bad idea so they can decide if they want to try something else. They love fighters -- they have always been the most popular classes in my games. Clerics are next (like a fighter but with a few spells and can turn undead -- no one sees them as "healbots"). This has been true since I started playing D&D in 1975.

I sometimes wonder if most of the people who don't like fighters because they are not "complex" enough see characters not a "me in the game world, what would I do?" but as bundles of mechanical rules options that one uses by selecting the "right" mechanical rules option. There's nothing wrong with that, but I see no reason to ruin fighters for others by limiting them to a list of mechanical options -- especially not in a game intended for old school play.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;848837There seems to be a very distinct dichotomy between OSR people in forums and in blogs, and how they look at and approach the modern style of gaming. What I found strange was the 'mythology' that has grown up around how Gary, Dave, and Phil are supposed to have played, and how they ran their game sessions. There almost seems to be a sort of 'revealed wisdom of the prophets' about how they did things, and I didn't get a very positive reaction when I mentioned what I had seen in my time with them. I felt like the little boy who said "but the Emperor has no clothes!", which is why I started to back off the Internet to a great degree; I have no wish to be the one contradicting what almost seems like a question of faith.

We need to recognize that the OSR arose, in large part, as a fiercely reactionary movement against the dominance of modern play modes. People who enjoyed an old-school approach to RPGs felt alienated from the popular model, and resented it deeply. So it's unsurprising that they wanted to rally around some singular, codified vision and carry it into the struggle like a banner. "Just make some shit up" isn't an inspiring rallying cry to people who feel they're in a desperate ideological struggle.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;849110It does! Thanks again. Awesome story BTW.

You're very welcome, and thank you for the kind words!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849128Honestly, I never bought the whole "not special" thing for any class.  What makes ANY character special is what you do with it.

Robilar, a fighter, was the first character to reach the bottom of Greyhawk Castle.  I think that makes him pretty damn special.

Special is as special does.  Ask Chirine about the Red Cataphracts.

You remembered! I'm touched!

The Red Cataphracts were the first 25mm metal figures for games I ever painted up. They were culled from the scrap box of broken and discarded figures at the Little Tin Soldier Shoppe here in Minneapolis, the summer of 1976. There were eight of them, plus an officer and a standard-bearer, and they were the 'Reds' because that's what I painted their tunics and cloaks. They had some comrades, a second identical unit, called the 'Blues' 'cause that's what they got painted in. Both had banners from the ancient FGU set of stick-on flags from the "Royal Armies of the Hyborian Age" rules.

We played a lot of "Chainmail", back in those days, and had everything from modest table-top games to some huge floor games in hotel meeting rooms. The Reds soon got one hell of a reputation, as they just never seemed to quit; they never failed morale checks, they never failed in charges and melees, and they soon became my justly-feared-by-opponents elite unit of battle-winning champions. Back in those days, we followed the suggestion by Tony bath of keeping records of what our units did on the table, and the 'regimental history' of the Reds soon overflowed their original 3 x 5 index card. They 'leveled up' pretty frequently, and soon became 'elite' soldiers by popular acclimation. Their simply appearing on a battlefield was considered cause for a morale check by their opponents, and people started building their armies with an eye to being able to fend them off if they rode to the attack. The Blues were always their juniors, as units, but the two became known as my Byzantine 'Old Guard', able to defend the Empire no matter what the odds.

I still have them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;849141I suppose, but to my mind "referee" implies impartial in the very word.

And nothing has EVER been accepted without controversy.

I don't mind a little spirited discussion, but when I read the words about referees/ GMs needing to be stated as impartial, something in me just died.

I can't imagine a style of game play where this isn't the case. Phil and Dave at their deadliest were always impartial, and we were the same way all those hot summer nights at Coffman. I'm geniunely having trouble getting my head around the idea that this needs to be said explictly; no disrespect intended to the poster, of course!!! I'm just astounded and flabbergasted.

Maybe I'm just too old for this, anymore. May be it's time to get the Great Western OO stuff back out of the garage...

Quote from: Haffrung;849192We need to recognize that the OSR arose, in large part, as a fiercely reactionary movement against the dominance of modern play modes. People who enjoyed an old-school approach to RPGs felt alienated from the popular model, and resented it deeply. So it's unsurprising that they wanted to rally around some singular, codified vision and carry it into the struggle like a banner. "Just make some shit up" isn't an inspiring rallying cry to people who feel they're in a desperate ideological struggle.

Ah! Thank you for the explanation! Now I know I'm too old for this...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;849098Which is what actually makes the Fighter feel 'not special'.  Because back in the day, the only class (out of two) that had defined special features, it was assumed (very much incorrectly) that anyone could be a Fighter.  The average peasant fending you off with a stick was one such creature for a lot of players.

While Wizards were a special group, they were supposedly rare and old and long bearded because of the intense training needed to be a wizard.

Remember a lot of us did not have Mr. Gygax, Mr. Arnenson or Wesely to guide us as to what they meant, we only had the books and our pathetic and meagre imaginations and readings of the rules in front of us.  And frankly, a lot of players to this very day has very little knowledge about medieval weapons work and just how much training is necessary to be barely decent with a whole slew of personal weaponry.  As much as a wizard would need to study.  Even the Cleric would get a lot of training, but instead of studying for spells, part of their day would be weapons training, followed by readings of the Prayers needed to petition their God(s) of choice to grant them a sliver of Their Power.

And then the Thief came out, the true 'everyman' (as frankly, learning how to sneak, or climbing the rest is less trained skill, more practice and experience, outside of thieves' tools) and they had a whole slew of special abilities.  The Ranger popped up, the Paladin, Cavalier, Bard, Druid, for the longest time, the Fighter seemed to be getting the shortest end of the stick.

Gronan and Chirine, you have unique experiences, more so than any one of us here, because you got to play with the originators of the game, they could tell you what they meant!  The rest of us poor schlubs didn't and had to make do with our own or the interpretations of our friends.

(This is my recounting of my personal experience over the two Canadian provinces and the some fifty to one hundred other games I've talked and gamed with since the mid 80's.  I've known, peripherally what D&D was since about 82-83, and I experienced snippets of the game until the point I really got into it at about 1989.  Not to be treated as anything more than anecdotal.)

The game materials were enough for me. I started playing in 1980, and I never had the pleasure of meeting Gary, Dave, Phil or any other original old school players. I have never been to Gen Con either. So what?

The Moldvay basic rulebook was what I had to work with, and with that, some graph paper, dice, imagination, and some friends I was running and playing D&D. By the rules, all characters were generated 3d6 in order with a bit of swapping for your prime requisite.

The fun of the game was that, at first level, no one was really that special. N00b adventurers were a dime a dozen and only a few ever returned from the dangerous places they explored. Thus, your goal as a player was to help your character become special by surviving the trials of adventure. The mechanics representing the character were only of marginal interest. What is the point of getting excited over rolling an 18 STR if your character dies in a pit trap 20 minutes into the first session?

My fighters felt special because they had a better chance to survive than magic users & thieves. They were not all the same. Some were barbarians like Conan or Fafhrd, others were stylish gentlemen such as Athos or D'Artagnan. Mechanically, there was little if any difference in how they interacted with the game world, but the way they were played made all the difference.

I didn't even get a look at AD&D until 83 when my dad took me to K&K toys for my birthday and told me to grab whatever I wanted. I got the 3 core books, the FF, Deities & Demigods, and a fat stack of modules.

I guess the main point here is that, I wasn't taught the game by someone who presented the mechanics as some kind of holy grail and the only thing that matters about the game.

Quote from: Haffrung;849192We need to recognize that the OSR arose, in large part, as a fiercely reactionary movement against the dominance of modern play modes. People who enjoyed an old-school approach to RPGs felt alienated from the popular model, and resented it deeply. So it's unsurprising that they wanted to rally around some singular, codified vision and carry it into the struggle like a banner. "Just make some shit up" isn't an inspiring rallying cry to people who feel they're in a desperate ideological struggle.

I would argue that it was a perceived dominance, which in a lot of cases was likely in their minds.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171It was my observation of others playing, and in some cases outright avoiding the Fighter in D&D for 'being boring'.

I believe you.

Perhaps its because my 35+ years as DM has been Classic D&D and 4e with very little involvement with 2e/3e. Also, like RandallS, most of my players don't crack the books so just sitting down and playing is very enticing when it comes to the Fighter.

Also, Fighter = Dwarf for much of the time, and there's usually a player or two who wants to play Gimli, Conan Gimli, Scottish Gimli or Thorin. In 0e-2e, Dwarf = Fighter 90% of the time. Which is odd because Dwarf Thieves were really great in AD&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171Let me also point out that it was never intended as an insult, but the Fighter has long been considered to be the 'Easy Class' to give to a beginner.

I agree. That's a feature, not a bug.

It's even codified in 13th Age where classes are presented least complex to most complex so players can pick classes in their comfort zone.

Until 4e, I always handed the Dwarf or the Fighter to any kids joining the game for exactly the reasons you stated.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171Little choice, just roll to hit and your good.

That is one way of playing the Fighter. I have certainly seen many players do this, but I have seen many really get into the stunts / tactics / bravado / war dance of free form abstract D&D combat.
 
BTW, especially the kids.  

Quote from: Christopher Brady;849171And I have a hard time believing that no one here has seen that one in person.

I have not, but I can't speak for anyone other than myself. I know its a popular online conversation which FOR ME has been surprising.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;849216I don't mind a little spirited discussion, but when I read the words about referees/ GMs needing to be stated as impartial, something in me just died.

Have you ever been to a pee wee little league or youth soccer where the parents go batshit on the referee when their precious Timmy gets ruled against?  Even if little Timmy was acting like a cocksmock?

I am unsure if any mainstream RPG product ever came out and said "GMs are supposed to provide the fun to the players by catering to them", but that is certainly a strong belief by many players. Sadly, the RPGA Living Campaign and Pathfinder Organized Play is built upon "RPG as teacup ride" where the PCs and players are rarely, if ever, really challenged.

What's weird is how the "RPG as teacup ride" lost many RPG fans who went to Magic or Warhammer where every game is Win, Lose or Draw. Fortunately, there are still RPGers who want to play RPGs for a challenge and those players do appreciate impartial GMs and consider that impartiality a major part of the fun.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;849265I would argue that it was a perceived dominance, which in a lot of cases was likely in their minds.

   I think it was more a market dominance--I think the role of 3E, and the reaction against both its flaws and its overall philosophy, is often underestimated in consideration of the OSR. And 3E/d20 was a dominant force for a while there.

 Also, I think Ryan "Evil Master of d20 Propaganda" Dancey got everyone concerned about 'market share' and 'network externalities' even when they didn't need to be.

Quote from: Spinachcat;849270I agree. That's a feature, not a bug.

  I believe that it's both. The feature is that "low mechanical engagement" classes (as I've come to call them) exist; the bug is that they're overly associated with certain archetypes, so you often don't have a 'simple spellcaster' or a 'complex warrior' available to players who want them.

  4E made a big mistake by not providing LME options out of the gate; that was one of several unnecessary barriers it erected to casual players. But one of its strengths, IMO, is that it dissociated the level of mechanical engagement required from the character concept in many cases. 13th Age strikes a good balance in this regard, although there are still some holes that could be filled in.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;849024I'll try to answer this - you may want to have a look at my YouTube videos of a game session we ran. It was a true three-dimensional game, and I ran it like I run everything. Please have a look; it might explain what I do better then I can...

I can't for the life of me think why, after seeing your signature multiple times, I didn't click on the youtube link until you brought it up here.

QuoteArneson - Keep play fast and furious. If players are busy playing, they'll have more fun and you'll all have a better time.

After some suggestions from another forum I ended up moving all the mechanics off stage/behind the screen so everything that goes between the players and the referee is in natural language and I noticed the pace of the game accelerated rapidly.  I really had to keep things fast and furious.  In a given four hour session they ended up doing more than usually happens in 8 hours in a game where the players are thinking about the rules.

Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed response.  I printed out a good portion of that post and stuck in the front of my game prep binder.

Quote from: Spinachcat;849270Have you ever been to a pee wee little league or youth soccer where the parents go batshit on the referee when their precious Timmy gets ruled against?  Even if little Timmy was acting like a cocksmock?

Yes, both as a child and as a parent. It's why my kids only participated in these kinds of events if they were having fun; if this kind of thing happened, and it stopped being fun, they would leave and I would pull my financial support.