In my nearly twenty years of gaming, and with my vast collection of game books, I have encountered regularly an interesting phenomenon in Gaming.

In D&D it's 'fighter marginalization', where the 'boring' ordinary fighter is viewed as incompetent at roleplaying, shunted to the bar in town while the arguably more dangerous in a fight mage is treated as a more mature gamer.  

In shadowrun the Street Samurai/Physical Adept is treated as a barely stable psychopath, and stuck in a corner drooling over the Cannon Companion...

In Exalted the Warrior Caste (the Dawn) caste is actually the weakest overall (mind you, this IS Exalted, so no one is really weak....), even for combat, as their powers are incredibly redundant and every other caste can be more selective and just as capable in combat.

In other games you have 'Natural Aptitudes' which can be applied to any skill in the game... unless it is useful in combat.

At some tables if you present a guy with any combat skill at all, no matter how justified or realistic (he's an ex-cop, he served a tour in the military before going to college, he boxes as a hobby...) you might be thrown out of the group for violating their gritty realistic urban drama. :rolleyes:


All in all, I'd say that 'fighter types' tend to be viewed, at best, as generic utility players.  Most games 'force' groups to grudgingly accept two or three of these 'dangerous psychopaths' into their midst, while other groups/games seem to regard them as kryponite of gaming.


Do my expirences ring false?  Am I smoking crack? Is there in fact some perfectly valid reason to view the guy who has chosen soldiery and combat as his lifelong vocation is somehow less interesting than a bearded nutter puttering around in a slightly explosive laboratory?

The thing of it is this: RPG's seem to be very much at odds with traditional myth, literature and pop culture, where the Hero is very often the most successful of the violent breed.  Achillies, Beowolf, Hector, Musashi, Enkidu and Gilgamesh, Hercules, Rambo...

In Conan the barbarian, Mako the wizard was the freaking Sidekick!!!!

So why in gaming is the fighter Lowly, rather than another potential Hero?

It´s you Spike:

Warblade, 3.5
Marines, Traveller
Knights, Harnmaster

They all kick serious ass, and most of the time are the group leaders.

Quote from: SpikeSo why in gaming is the fighter Lowly, rather than another potential Hero?

This just hasn't been my experience.  Fighters seem to do just fine in many tabletop games.  I've seen them do poorly in some MMOs but that's a whole different thing and not really even the case now.

I don't play Shadowrun or Exalted, so I can't speak to your specific examples.  But where I'm from you best be able to handle a sword or a shotgun when the initiative dice hit the table.  Even the spellcasters generally try to trick out their fight abilities as best they can.

But that's just how my crew rolls.  We hack.  We slash.  I can't speak to others.

Quote from: StreamweaverThis just hasn't been my experience.  Fighters seem to do just fine in many tabletop games.  I've seen them do poorly in some MMOs but that's a whole different thing and not really even the case now.

Don't get me started on WoW Warriors. Freaking Theives are better fighters in that one....:confused:


Settembrini: I wonder if there is a difference in gaming cultures in this regards.  While I've seen some sword weilders as party leaders in D&D, they are typically not the 'grunt' fighter class but more 'RP' freindly Paladins and Rangers... and that only occasionally.  D&D is NOT fighter freindly. In the 10th level game I'm in our wizard single handedly cleared out a room before the fighters could get in there to 'grunt it out'. Typically the wizard and cleric are the primary damage dealers in our game...yes the healer is a bigger damage dealer than the two front line fighters.


WHFRP is an interesting one,as the dedicated fighter is dangerous, but many players seem to insist the game is not about combat, thus you see a trend towards 'non-fighters' and 'no-fighting-allowed' games of 'intrigue'.

Or, as the Pundit says: Swine version...

In any of my games:

A good fighter is as good as anything else, but like any other type, if you over specialize, you run the risk of being bored when there's no combat. Hell, even Mr. T had Driving and Welding. I have had players ask to create less specialized fighters because they couldn't do anything between fights. Also, if I ask for 16 year old High School students, a grizzled ex-Navy SEAL is not welcome.

-clash

Quote from: SpikeSettembrini: I wonder if there is a difference in gaming cultures in this regards.  While I've seen some sword weilders as party leaders in D&D, they are typically not the 'grunt' fighter class but more 'RP' freindly Paladins and Rangers... and that only occasionally.  D&D is NOT fighter freindly. In the 10th level game I'm in our wizard single handedly cleared out a room before the fighters could get in there to 'grunt it out'. Typically the wizard and cleric are the primary damage dealers in our game...yes the healer is a bigger damage dealer than the two front line fighters.

Is this thread an effectiveness discussion or a playstyle discussion?  If I had to choose between a plain old warrior and a cleric I might play the cleric for munchkin oomph, but I'd lean towards the warrior because I want to be the guy who walks up to the dragon and stabs it in the eye.

Mice:  your highschools are boring!

Jrients: Its not effectiveness, no. Most of the time, your dedicated fighter is pretty good at his job, even if he does get overshadowed from time to time (and in system to system) by the flashy magic crowd...

Sure, I'd like fighters in D&D to have more access to social skills, but then I think class skills as is are pretty fooken borked.


No, its an element of gamer culture that occasionally crosses over into rules. It's the phenomenon when the guy shows up at the table with his newly minted Hero, and gets 'all back of the bus' from teh rest of the group... and from time to time when he attempts to Roleplay during town gets sidelined for more colorful character types.  


Strangely, however, it is actually seeing this 'playstyle' reinforced in various rulesystems which caused me to post this musing for discussion.  I've got at least two games that allow specialization and natural talent in every feild except combat, I've noticed that in Shadowrun fourth edition that every skill/specialist is capped except for social adepts, and I've mentioned my beef with D&D's single minded conception of the Fighter as the brain dead thug with steel skin.


To be perfectly honest, I've been reasonably content recently. My 'sidelining' in roleplaying has nothing to do with class and everything to do with being an absolute newcomer into a group with a couple of years of history.  As I've been GMing more recently, I've seen less of this, though I've noticed an aversion in a great number of players towards 'combat monkey's.  If you notice from my RQ AP thread, I don't have anyone who could be considered a 'front line fighter' at all. I've got an alchemist, a sorcerer and a hunter (and now a spy as well...).  Obviously, I won't be throwing heavy combat encounters at them.

Quote from: SpikeMice:  your highschools are boring!

Not when it's a Horror game!

Actually, it's never an ultra-competent pro warrior that's a problem with me. It's the "brain dead steel-skinned thug" that has problems. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Or maybe I should say when the only tool you have is a bolt of electricity, everything looks like a lightning rod.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceActually, it's never an ultra-competent pro warrior that's a problem with me. It's the "brain dead steel-skinned thug" that has problems. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


-clash

So: Fighters in D&D should have a better range of skills an more skill points?

Someone actually agrees with me? :woop:

Quote from: SpikeI've mentioned my beef with D&D's single minded conception of the Fighter as the brain dead thug with steel skin.

The skill system in modern D&D is a half-baked add-on, so part of the problem there is the legacy of a game that pre-dates the concept of a 'skill system'.  Still, the designers of 3E were clearly on crack when not even Intimidate was on the Fighter skill list.  Castles & Crusades does a better job on this end, given that you can select a Intelligence or Charisma as one of your prime attributes.  The Knight class in C&C also looks pretty cool.

But a lot of fighty classes have appeared in the Complete line and elsewhere that make being a fighter exciting again.  Set mentioned the Warblade, which I hereby declare to be absolutely rad.  The scout makes dauntless woodsmen feasible again without the ranger cruft of pokepets or unnecessary spellcasting.  The PHB II knight is also intriguing and I may play one soon just to give it a whirl.

None of this solves the basic problem you're having: some gamers harsh on the neanderthals that do the bashing, and the neanderthals that play them.  Here are my own solutions: I stopped giving a crap what other people think and play the bashy fighter anyway.  Or I play with other people.  I know lots of cool people with other gaming tastes, but honestly if they consider orc-punching a sin then it's probably for the best that we play at different tables.

Quote from: SpikeIn shadowrun the Street Samurai/Physical Adept is treated by some gamers as a barely stable psychopath, and stuck in a corner drooling over the Cannon Companion...

Fixed that for you.

QuoteSo why in gaming is the fighter Lowly, rather than another potential Hero?

Because it depends on the party? The best RP moments in a D&D campaign I ran came from two warriors, a dwarf and an elf. The human cleric was the one drooling over the sourcebooks.

J:

I'm having fun with my Tempest, but we had the 'Scout' get brought in Saturday. Struck me more as a 'Theif type', with some weird 'skirmisher' bonus that was the same as 'sneak attacks' without requiring sneaking about.

I didn't look too closely at the character, I usually don't as a player, so maybe I'm wrong on his class.  If it weren't for the awesome meatgrinder of a tempest going to town with two flails I'd have felt quite neutered by his munchkin ass... he was constantly moving 80-90', attacking once with a handfull of dice and generally being a nuisance all around (tripping traps the hard way, leading one bad guy down a corridor while the rest of us fought three at a time, etc...:rolleyes: ) But that was the player more than the class.... I think.


Like I said, I haven't had too much problem with attitude recently, and I've always been good at ignoring it until it goes away. I just get upset when people with those attitudes start making games that reflect those attitudes.

:raise:

Quote from: JongWKFixed that for you.




Because it depends on the party? The best RP moments in a D&D campaign I ran came from two warriors, a dwarf and an elf. The human cleric was the one drooling over the sourcebooks.

Sure enough. My best character ever (the one the GM wouldn't let retire... had to bring him back for every new campaign!!! Even I was tired of him by that point...) was a Shadowrun "GunBunny".  And I was called 'Yet another Gunbunny' and 'All back of the bus' when I brought him to the table the first time (Eight years ago? Damn.... where's my walker? ).  Of course, compared to the munchkin trolls and pysads that came and went, my shotgun toting, cigar smoking, cab driving former Mafioso hitman was actually quite colorful and only a little bit dangerous.    Its those other guys that give good, decent, hardworking men-at-arms a bad name.   :cool:

I noticed the phenomenon in the local vampire larp (about 10 years ago - wheres my pension!) but what was strange was the attitude came from the power tweaking minmaxers who'd optimised their characters for power and glory and then sneered at those of us who either didn't play the game their way(minmaxing like them) or were happy kicking back, not playing the primogens games.

So in hindsight the people looking down on us humble combat wombles were pretty much all gun bunnies and powerfreaks themselves.

Out of character they were pretty much all a bunch of cunts, so their disdain was hardly a problem.