Quote from: Narf the Mouse;252819The thing none of this none-spellcasting stuff addresses is that none of that is playing a Magic-User. If I play a class called a 'Magic-User', then I expect that my character will get by in the game by using magic. Not by, say, throwing darts.

True, and you do--its just your role is limited at low levels. Medium and high levels (where threats begin getting significant magic oomph themselves) you come into your own. It isn't  a perfect setup. But it worked well for the time. You also would be the one who could do rather significant things relating to magic in BD&D. You were the one who could during a break detect magic. Don't forget that power of Hold Door!

Everyone forgets these spells are effective, because of their limited usefulness in combat, and long recovery time--but that doesn't make them useless, it just means you do need to play and plan carefully.

I recall many games of dungeoncrawling where we'd curl up in a room, rest with guards until the MU had hold door, cast it. Then rest again (to heal and recover) to cast detect magic--then repeat to prepare for combat. Yes I realize how long that is, but that's how it tended to work out.

Back when we were kids with B/X, the amazing thing about Magic Users was that they could use scrolls.   For us, that meant the M-U could write scrolls and read them in battle.   We set a 100 GP per spell level on the price of the scroll.   Since our characters were collecting all this gold every adventure, the party would chip in for the M-U so he was a scroll reading madman in every adventure.

That's how we played.  One round to get the scroll out and one round to cast it and down the dungeon we went.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;252819If I play a class called a 'Magic-User', then I expect that my character will get by in the game by using magic. Not by, say, throwing darts.

Sure. And if I play a fighter, I expect them to fight, not to ever have to sneak past a guard or climb a hill or... hmmm.

Variety is the spice of life and roleplaying.

Touche.

And if I play a class called 'Theif', I expect them to steal, rob, burgler and pick-pocket, not wander through dungeons.

Back when I played Moldvay Basic, the players who chose the Magic User did so because they wanted to play "The Smart Guy."

I played Moldvay from '86 to '91, and I don't recall anyone making choices based on what was optimal or most effective.  It was based entirely on the type of character they wanted to play.  Fighter appealed to people who wanted to play Captain Kirk, Magic User appealed to people who wanted to play Spock.

It was really about the fantasy you were projecting into the game.  If you wanted to be brave and dashing, you played a Fighter.  If you wanted to be noble and wise, you played a Cleric.  If you wanted to be sneaky, devious and underhanded you played the Thief.  If you wanted to be the somewhat mysterious and smart, but also wanted to let other people handle the danger, you played the Magic User.

Quote from: Spinachcat;252863Back when we were kids with B/X, the amazing thing about Magic Users was that they could use scrolls.   For us, that meant the M-U could write scrolls and read them in battle.   We set a 100 GP per spell level on the price of the scroll.

That's an actual rule in Holmes Basic D&D.

I use something similar in my OD&D game.

My concern was that the class was balanced against others over its life.

At low levels, MUs sucked compared to other classes.  

At mid to high levels, MUs could kick the other classes' asses.

So, over the course of a campaign it was balanced against the other classes. Only problem was, at any given point in time it probably wasn't.

But if you think about it in rp terms, the mage starts as some plucky young apprentice that the warriors basically look after, and ends as this eldritch mage who could should he wish blast the warriors into fried frogs.  That's actually not a bad way of reflecting the source material.

Quote from: Jackalope;252892It was really about the fantasy you were projecting into the game.  If you wanted to be brave and dashing, you played a Fighter.  If you wanted to be noble and wise, you played a Cleric.  If you wanted to be sneaky, devious and underhanded you played the Thief.  If you wanted to be the somewhat mysterious and smart, but also wanted to let other people handle the danger, you played the Magic User.

I've always chosen what character I play in a game (D&D or otherwise) by criteria like those you list here instead of by criteria like how game-effective it will be or how much crunch there is in the rules for it.

Quote from: Jackalope;252892I played Moldvay from '86 to '91, and I don't recall anyone making choices based on what was optimal or most effective.  It was based entirely on the type of character they wanted to play.  Fighter appealed to people who wanted to play Captain Kirk, Magic User appealed to people who wanted to play Spock.

It was really about the fantasy you were projecting into the game.  If you wanted to be brave and dashing, you played a Fighter.  If you wanted to be noble and wise, you played a Cleric.  If you wanted to be sneaky, devious and underhanded you played the Thief.  If you wanted to be the somewhat mysterious and smart, but also wanted to let other people handle the danger, you played the Magic User.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone weighing the damage/round potential of various classes, or plotting out the the power curves as they progress in levels.

Quote from: Haffrung;252959Exactly. I don't remember anyone weighing the damage/round potential of various classes, or plotting out the the power curves as they progress in levels.

I am utterly baffled by people who do.  It went from a role playing game to a role playingGAME.  Somewhere along the line, people forgot why they got into the hobby, then passed that toxin to new players.

Quote from: Gabriel2;252376Even in AD&D there was seldom a reason for a single classed magic user.   Although AD&D gave the "Dart Trick" where a mage could carry lots of darts and offer some missile utility to the party.

In all versions of D&D, a Magic-User has been able to wield daggers, which are both a melee and missile weapon.  So I see no need for darts or AD&D in order for a MU to be handy during ranged encounters.  My 1st level OD&D Magic User wears a bandoleer full of silvered daggers.

Quote from: StormBringer;252973I am utterly baffled by people who do.  It went from a role playing game to a role playingGAME.  Somewhere along the line, people forgot why they got into the hobby, then passed that toxin to new players.

It was a role playingGAME since it's inception. It's always been about killing stuff and exploring dungeons.

Seanchai

Quote from: KrakaJak;252758Unless your players feel useless if they aren't combat monsters, than MU's are the most versatile class in BD&D.

True. 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. If you're Grease spell won't help you in those encounters, well, you're out of luck.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;253053It was a role playingGAME since it's inception. It's always been about killing stuff and exploring dungeons.

Seanchai

But they were about equal in value.  I think the game elements started taking over, not when the skill (NWP) system was introduced, but when it was emphasized.

Quote from: Seanchai;253053It's always been about killing stuff and exploring dungeons.

Killing stuff and exploring dungeons is not necessarily the same as a series of detailed tactical combat encounters where all PCs must have equal power output.

You've seen lots of posters here explain why they enjoyed PCs that weren't especially good at combat (and we haven't even talked about Thieves). There's only one person in this thread who's claiming a whole bunch of other people are lying about their play experiences and preferences.