This came up in another thread - and I'd want to address it without the baggage of the other topic. ForgottenF suggested that he felt like AD&D magic users stretched plausibility that other adventurers would take them into a dungeon.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 26, 2024, 08:18:47 PM
Every occupation has a certain basic requirements where if you don't fill them, then no matter what your other merits are, you can't do that job. A fantasy adventurer needs to be able to run, climb, swim, sneak, fight and probably ride a horse. They don't need to be the best at any of those things, but if they can't do them at all, they're not qualified to be an adventurer. If they can't do those things physically, they need to be able to reliably produce an equivalent result magically.

You might say "Wait a minute! Lots of D&D characters can't do all those things". Yeah, I think it stretches plausibility that anyone would take a 1st level wizard with 6 strength, 3 HP, no armor and one spell per day with them into a dungeon. The chances are just too high of him either forcing the expedition to stall because he can't traverse the dungeon, or getting his companions killed trying to defend him. The only reason that happens is game convention.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 27, 2024, 03:17:11 PM
I'm apparently alone in this, but I don't buy that a person who can't withstand physical hardship or defend themselves would succeed long-term as a career adventurer. It's not often an issue in D&D because of a bunch of meta reasons which are external to the fictional world of the game: everything from the way turn-based combat works, to dungeon design, the experience system and which factors are and are not simulated in the rules. That's what I mean by "game convention". Mostly I can let willing suspension of disbelief fill in the gaps, but it does bother me a bit that most fantasy RPGs reward specialization over generalism, just because I personally find playing generalists more fun.

I think it's a matter of taste, but I think there are some differences in viewpoints.

It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

I also question your comment about can't withstand physical hardship. In my experience, most magic users have low Strength but do have high Constitution, and I think of them as being quite tough and able to endure hardship. They're just not very skilled at fighting.

There are exceptions, I'm sure. I never read any Dragonlance fiction, but I understand that Raistlin was portrayed as sickly - and that may have become a stereotype of D&D, but I'm not sure it was part of the original vision. Gandalf was the earlier stereotype for the wizard, and he was technically an extremely tough demigod who wielded a sword on his horse in battle. AD&D magic users weren't Gandalf, for sure, but they weren't necessarily delicate flowers who couldn't endure hardship.

Raistlin is portrayed as sickly in the novelization, but if you look at the modules, he has an average score in both strength and constitution.

It's possible the person you're quoting is imagining a SEAL team, but I doubt it. In fact, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from, "I don't think any adventuring party even considers a member with 6 strength, 3 hit points, and only one spell per day," to, "You're picturing a SEAL team." One might even call it disingenuous.

Let's dispense with the strength problem and assume the wizard has average strength. No armor and 1-4 hit points is a big enough problem that the rest of the group has to babysit you, constantly.

Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Paradox wizard; at once a 1d4 one hit wonder while also being the wise Pharoh of classes looking down on the fighters from the safety of a rope trick spell. Their abilities from our perspective are implausible to begin with and it almost feels like a patch attempt by software developers to portray them as physically weak to offset the cheat codes they accumulate.

I never took Gandalf in the lotr movies as physically weak since he fought with a sword and staff despite being old and looking like homeless magneto, and I seem to recall way back when I read the hobbit in like 5th grade that he used a sword on goblins in goblin town.

Non-wizards require magic items (which are largely dependent upon the willingness of wizards to create) to approach the power of puny wizards who gain skill in their craft, and you'd think that once you were wizard enough do such things that you'd use magic to not be puny anymore, or ugly for that matter.

Many contradictions with wizards arise upon examination of these things unless we assume a sort of sliding scale of magical availability across these stories which is then not really reflected properly by game mechanics. For example the game pretty much gives the wizard free reload of magic daily or with some rest period, whereas in the assorted literature there may be much less renewable magical powers or powers which face limitations such as not being able to cast the same spell more than once within a certain amount of time. Literature also features often enough it seems dial-a-yield magic use that was largely not featured mechanically until the end of 2e, start of 3e, with such things as meta-magic feats.

I mean, kind of. There is no reason they would wear robes instead of traveling clothes, either. If you look at fictional wizards, most of them are good in a fight, most of them have good general adventuring skills, and over half of them use swords. The d4 hit die guy that can't use a shield and spear to save his life is a bit of a comedy character.

Start out with only 1 spell per day; and you don't get to choose that spell from the spell list yourself, either.

I would say they probably are very weak to the point playing a multi-class Mage is an upgrade (like Mage/Thief). I would agree that they probably should be able to wield swords, much like Gandalf.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 05:19:37 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

As I recall, isn't the average for 3D6 like, 10? The average for 4D6 (drop lowest) is...12, I think? Depending on what scores the Players have in what, yeah, I try and hope they never get anything below a -1 modifier. Or at least, not having more than two (-1) attributes. Having two or more (-1) or (-2) attributes, well, yeah, you are getting very close to failure state there, you know? Again, depending on the attributes and the class, some things can slide better than others, more so in the mental, social areas than the physical, for example. Being socially clumsy, or mentally a bit on the slow side can be fine--but if you cannot run, climb, jump, swim, carry shit, dig, and fight to a basic standard, that seems like a huge no to me, right from the beginning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 07:48:39 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 05:19:37 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the response.  It is always good to know your take on things. 


I myself am kind of a softy when it comes to stats.  I would like a character to have two good stats and to be able to place them so they can pick a class that they want to play.  In the AD&D Player's Handbook Gary Gygax recommends that a player character have at least a 15 in two stats since they represent heroic adventurers.  Since I use the  B/X rules and the plusses start at 13, I would be okay with two stats of at least 13 or better.  My reasoning is that I can always bump up the challenge if the players are really "heroic" and cutting their way through hordes of enemies Conan style. 

Regarding Magic-Users, I have no problem with a mage swinging a sword in a fight.  They are still going to have crappy to-hit rolls in most systems.  Not sure how I feel about them wearing heavy armor, or any armor for that matter.  The whole "magic doesn't work 'cause metal armor" falls apart when the mage dons a suit of dragon scale armor or magical leather.  I am forced to say "no" for the sake of game balance.  I would rule if the mage wants to wear armor and fight well then they should branch off into fighter.

For me, this is yet another case of the excluded middle.

I typically set up rules (or house rules) somewhat in line with B/X 3d6 down the line at start, without much more capability, but then tip the scales ever so slightly in favor of the players with our rules.  Exactly how varies by system.  There is something that is "special" about a PC, even if only slightly tougher than your average first level scrub.  Then I throw them in a meat grinder world--expect them to scout, explore, and think--and rule impartially from that basis.  In other words, I put my thumb on the scale when your character was built. After that, the thumb comes off.  In my own system, not every creature has a class like PC's do, starting PC's get at least a +2 in one ability if they don't have one from the roll, and that's about it. 

The net result is that characters probably aren't all that capable (in Shark's terms) at start. They are just capable enough that if they can survive a couple of short adventures or one longer one, by using their brains, they'll then be capable.  Sometimes capable adventurers are having to nurse maid an incapable NPC or replacement PC for a while.  Since it's mostly a sandbox, and the players are mostly deciding what they think they can handle, it works.  You could look at it as players choosing a "boot camp" style adventure from time to time, when they need to get someone to that capable state, or at least find out if they can.

Of course, if I'm going to run a one-shot or a short campaign with a theme of highly capable adventurers taking on the world, then that's a different thing.  I've done old D&D modules that were very much "bring a character of N experience points", a completely different dynamic than zero to maybe hero in a sandbox.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 08:33:08 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 07:48:39 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 28, 2024, 05:19:37 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 28, 2024, 05:03:18 PM
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the "3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you'll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it" camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the response.  It is always good to know your take on things. 


I myself am kind of a softy when it comes to stats.  I would like a character to have two good stats and to be able to place them so they can pick a class that they want to play.  In the AD&D Player's Handbook Gary Gygax recommends that a player character have at least a 15 in two stats since they represent heroic adventurers.  Since I use the  B/X rules and the plusses start at 13, I would be okay with two stats of at least 13 or better.  My reasoning is that I can always bump up the challenge if the players are really "heroic" and cutting their way through hordes of enemies Conan style. 

Regarding Magic-Users, I have no problem with a mage swinging a sword in a fight.  They are still going to have crappy to-hit rolls in most systems.  Not sure how I feel about them wearing heavy armor, or any armor for that matter.  The whole "magic doesn't work 'cause metal armor" falls apart when the mage dons a suit of dragon scale armor or magical leather.  I am forced to say "no" for the sake of game balance.  I would rule if the mage wants to wear armor and fight well then they should branch off into fighter.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Svenhelgrim, I am much the same way. After all, allowing Players to actually play the Class that they want, and be fairly decent at it, I tend to think is a good thing, you know? Having said that, yes, there is also great fun--and hilarity--in letting Players roll up totally random characters, letting the dice fall where they may, and see what you get. Personally, I LOVE that. It provides lots of hidden dynamics that are good for the game as a whole, if you see what I'm saying.

But, it does have its limitations and lessened appeal when you have a Player that is really jazzed and excited about playing "X" class. Telling them, "Well, better luck next time!" does not appeal to me very much, and certainly not likely for many Players. So, yeah, as the GM, I think being flexible, and somewhat generous at character creation is probably best, and the most fun.

I know some people like being harsh and uber-dicks say for example, to strangers you just met at a Con or at the game store, and may be more generous to a group of friends. Myself, though, yeah. You know. *Laughing* I'm nicer, and cool, and like everyone to have a good time. I wear the DM's Viking Hat, that is certain, but I'm not trying to compete with somehow showing how mean of a bastard DM I can be. I usually play with friends, so these people know me. Even at the game store, having a couple young girls, an older vet come up, maybe a young guy in high school or college, eager to get into an awesome campaign of D&D, yeah, I want them to have a good time, too.

That is just how I roll, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
I think it's a matter of taste, but I think there are some differences in viewpoints.

It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

The problem I have with the Lewis and Clark analogy is that D&D adventures in general, and dungeons in particular, are phenomenally dangerous. Much more dangerous than even the American frontier was, and more dangerous than most historical wars. A D&D party goes into a dungeon fully expecting to face deadly traps and be in multiple life-or-death conflicts with supernatural creatures before they return, not to mention the likelihood they'll have to scale sheer surfaces or swim underwater for significant distances. I can't imagine anyone willingly taking a pregnant woman into that.

I don't know about the Navy Seal comparison. Frankly, I don't know that much about Navy Seals, but my understanding is that their job is to be elite combatants first, and everything else is in service to that. Maybe SHARK's "every Marine a rifleman" is a better analogy. I don't think every adventurer needs to be an elite fighter or necessarily an elite anything. As I said in the other thread, it strikes me as a profession which would reward generalism more than specialization. I accept class roles in D&D, because it's D&D and that's just how the game works, but I do think skill-based systems can sometimes produce more plausible, well-rounded adventurers out of character creation.

If we're open to literary examples, I'd point to adventure-fiction characters of the Indiana Jones/Alan Quartermain/Nathan Drake type. They're not usually the absolute best at anything, but they have a broad skill and knowledge base, and above-average competence in the things most important to what they do. Indiana Jones gets his ass whipped all the time, but he can still scrap. In the fantasy realm, characters like Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are elite fighters, but they're also generalists who have plenty of skills beyond fighting.

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
I also question your comment about can't withstand physical hardship. In my experience, most magic users have low Strength but do have high Constitution, and I think of them as being quite tough and able to endure hardship. They're just not very skilled at fighting.

That has not been my experience, but obviously it depends on the luck of the die for attribute scores. I think it's fair to say that every other measure of physical resilience D&D tracks, wizards traditionally score very poorly. They always have the lowest hit die and usually have the worst poison or constitution saves. They usually don't have athletics as a class skill, and they don't get any class features related to travel or survival.

They're always bad at fighting, but the relevant question is how bad? Because they shouldn't be as good as a fighter or thief. What gets my goat is when people say that wizards (and thieves) aren't supposed to be able to fight, and shouldn't be fighting. Anyone who walks into an RPG dungeon should expect to be in a fight. If they're likely to be slaughtered as soon as a 1 hit-die goblin gets into melee with them, they have no business being there. 

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
There are exceptions, I'm sure. I never read any Dragonlance fiction, but I understand that Raistlin was portrayed as sickly - and that may have become a stereotype of D&D, but I'm not sure it was part of the original vision. Gandalf was the earlier stereotype for the wizard, and he was technically an extremely tough demigod who wielded a sword on his horse in battle. AD&D magic users weren't Gandalf, for sure, but they weren't necessarily delicate flowers who couldn't endure hardship.

I don't know if Raistlin is to blame or just the general stereotype that wizards are all egghead nerds. Gandalf is better, but it's a bit unfair because he's a superhuman. There aren't many great literary models for a wizard adventurer, because in most classic fantasy, wizards aren't adventurers. They're villains or advisor-types. Turjan from Dying Earth is probably the most apt example, but Turjan can handle a sword. In fact,  he and Cugel are both good examples of why a magic-user in a Vancian system better be able to defend themselves without magic.

Quote from: jhkim on March 28, 2024, 02:22:51 PM
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"

The magic users hire the other adventurers to protect them, of course. As for why they're going into a dungeon in the first place, well, that's never really explained. Because dungeons in fantasy land are full of wealth for no reason, presumably.