I always picked (and still do) my characters based on what sparked my interest and imagination, not because of how effective they were in combat.  Magic Users are cool.  They wear robes, have beards, carry staves, say wise shit and hang back in combat and make light come out of their hands.  How the fuck could you not want to play that?

Quote from: Seanchai;253058Basic 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.

Sounds like you played some shitty-ass D&D back in the day. Encounters shouldn't be static - you have to make your Grease spell useful by scouting, tricking, and luring. In old-school D&D, skilled dungeon-crawling is about manipulating the conditions under which encounters take place (or in avoiding combat altogether). That's where Thieves and low-level MUs come into play - not in the actual combat itself.

The old-school approach doesn't work when the encounter itself has to be carefully tailored and presented with delve-format maps and prescribed monster actions. Different approaches catering to different style for different sorts of players.

I can't see how basic D&D, with its bare bones stats, could be about anything but playing a character.  Without a bunch of mechanical doo-dads to differentiate your guy from another of the same class, you created a distinct persona.  It's how I started playing with my brothers in the early '80s and how people who gamed with Gygax, Arneson and Barker describe the earliest RPG sessions.

Note that the overwhelming response to the question is that, as written, low level Magic Users were NOT worth playing.  So each group houseruled additional abilities onto them to make them useful.  Or else they focused on non-mechanical role playing elements which every character type could do just as effectively.

Three reasons why I choose to play 1st level magic-users:

• In a traditionally-structured campaign, the only way you'll ever get to play a high level magic-user (generally acknowledged as the most powerful character in the game) is to start out playing a 1st level magic-user and survive. If the game isn't set up that way (either because the campaign won't last until high levels or because new characters are allowed to start at higher levels later in the campaign -- you can play a fighter or cleric up to 7th level, have him retire or harakiri and replace him with a 6th level magic-user) there's obviously less appeal to playing a 1st level magic-user.
• I like the challenge -- playing a low-level magic-user (or thief) you don't have much straight combat utility, so you have to come up with other ways to survive and make yourself useful (and make the game interesting). Earlier posts have done a good job enumerating lots of those techniques so I won't repeat all that, and will just add that some players (e.g. me) don't consider that kind of outside-the-box play a burden or less fun, we like the added challenge/difficulty and increased sense of accomplishment that comes from not only surviving, but doing so against long odds.
• I just like the magic-user archetype better than the other, "better," classes, and would rather play that type of character even if it means being less effective on paper. I'd rather play Harry Potter than Legolas, even if per the rules Legolas can do everything Harry can plus a bunch of other stuff.

If power is what a player really craves.  A 1st level MU is really the only way to go.  A higher level magic user is the most powerful type of character in the game.  It says so right in book (at least in OD&D).  So unless your DM lets you be a high level MU without starting off as a low level MU, then MU is the class of choice for munckins- 1 spell/day and all.  

Quote from: Gabriel2;253130Note that the overwhelming response to the question is that, as written, low level Magic Users were NOT worth playing.  So each group houseruled additional abilities onto them to make them useful.  Or else they focused on non-mechanical role playing elements which every character type could do just as effectively.

We must be reading different threads.

Quote from: Gabriel2;253130Note that the overwhelming response to the question is that, as written, low level Magic Users were NOT worth playing.  So each group houseruled additional abilities onto them to make them useful.  Or else they focused on non-mechanical role playing elements which every character type could do just as effectively.

I think you are reading the wrong thread.  I am not seeing where people are saying a low level Magic User isn't worth playing or that they houseruled in stacks of additional abilities.

And what is wrong with focussing on non-mechanical elements when you are playing the character with the least mechanical impact?  Fighters and clerics interact with the combat system quite a bit, thieves interact with combat somewhat, but their own subsystem most frequently.  What systems does a low level magic user interact with?  Occasionally the combat system with a sleep or light spell, but otherwise, pitching a couple of daggers around hardly stresses their mechanical interaction.

It's what was originally considered balance.  Not that current monstrosity that masquerades as balance; that only encourages blandness.  All characters must have the same average damage output?  No thank you.  Same number of gimmicks or special effects?  Not at my table.  Precisely fitting Lego-abilities to encourage teamwork?  Hardly.

The point that is often overlooked by fans of more contemporary games is that some people like to face challenges and adversity to get a sense of accomplishment.  Popping minions like they were balloons in a midway dart game isn't an accomplishment.  IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZAR every round or every encounter defeats the purpose of calling it 'magic'.

Because that really is the point.  If you don't want the hassle of low hit points, but still want to cast spells, you can play an Elf in BECMI or multi-class in AD&D.  You can play a cleric, who has a fair range of offensive spells once you get a few levels under your belt.

But if you are going to ignore the thread and post your own conclusion, well...  I don't think any list of people explaining why they enjoy playing low level magic users is going to make sense for you.

Quote from: Gabriel2;253130Note that the overwhelming response to the question is that, as written, low level Magic Users were NOT worth playing. So each group houseruled additional abilities onto them to make them useful.

That's not what I've seen. I was about to do an audit of this thread, but since you're making the claim maybe you should do it.

QuoteOr else they focused on non-mechanical role playing elements which every character type could do just as effectively.

And that's a problem how?

I remember when I first saw a class splat-book for 2E at my FLGS. It was the Viking handbook. I flipped through it, puzzled. When I told my players about the book, one of them drew a horned helmet on his character portrait and said "there, my fighter is a Viking now. I just saved us $12."

Unsurprisingly, the owners of the D&D license haven't based their strategic marketing plans around groups like mine.

Quote from: Haffrung;253092Killing 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.

So as we're clear, you've stopped talking about Magic Users in Basic D&D and are now on one of your little rants about 4e, right?

Quote from: Haffrung;253092You'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).

How many is "lots"? Three? Four?

Quote from: Haffrung;253092There's only one person in this thread who's claiming a whole bunch of other people are lying about their play experiences and preferences.

Boy, the truth of what I said all those months ago must have really struck quite a nerve for you to still be trying to prop up your strawmen and ill-conceived notions with it.

Quote from: Haffrung;253101Sounds like you played some shitty-ass D&D back in the day.

I'm not describing my games - I'm describing yours. In past threads, you've gone on and on about what D&D was like back in the day. Moreover, that's the D&D that's in the books...

Quote from: Haffrung;253101The old-school approach doesn't work when the encounter itself has to be carefully tailored and presented with delve-format maps and prescribed monster actions. Different approaches catering to different style for different sorts of players.

Wait, you're changing the subject to 4e again, right? Jesus, you just can't help yourself, can you?

Seanchai

Quote from: KenHR;253105I can't see how basic D&D, with its bare bones stats, could be about anything but playing a character.  Without a bunch of mechanical doo-dads to differentiate your guy from another of the same class, you created a distinct persona.  It's how I started playing with my brothers in the early '80s and how people who gamed with Gygax, Arneson and Barker describe the earliest RPG sessions.

True, but what you're talking about isn't a function of the game, however. Moreover, how much roleplaying do you actually need in a dungeon crawl? Talking about spiking a door in a fake British accent?

Oh, and doesn't that view make 4e just a kick ass roleplaying game, not a tactical skimish one?

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;253155I think you are reading the wrong thread.  I am not seeing where people are saying a low level Magic User isn't worth playing or that they houseruled in stacks of additional abilities.

Except when they add abilities, focuses, etc., such as "Now wizards are better at deciphering lore," then, yeah, they are saying that they houseruled in stacks of additional abilities.

Quote from: StormBringer;253155And what is wrong with focussing on non-mechanical elements when you are playing the character with the least mechanical impact?  

Absolutely nothing. But those elements don't exist in Basic D&D. Well, no, there's Alignment.  

Quote from: StormBringer;253155All characters must have the same average damage output?  No thank you.

It's not about damage output - it's about casting your one spell during the second encounter because things are going poorly for the party and then sitting around for hours, your character cowering behind the others, waiting until your mechanically oompf comes back.

Quote from: StormBringer;253155The point that is often overlooked by fans of more contemporary games is that some people like to face challenges and adversity to get a sense of accomplishment.

Fans of more contemporary games like challenges as well. In fact, games are built around them.

Quote from: StormBringer;253155Popping minions like they were balloons in a midway dart game isn't an accomplishment.

You're right - and when you get that it's not meant to be, that it isn't the point, then you'll be somewhere...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;253243True, but what you're talking about isn't a function of the game, however. Moreover, how much roleplaying do you actually need in a dungeon crawl? Talking about spiking a door in a fake British accent?

Oh, and doesn't that view make 4e just a kick ass roleplaying game, not a tactical skimish one?

Seanchai

We role-played lots in dungeons; that's why the game had languages as a feature, so you could talk to your adversaries.  So did the originators of the game.  And we didn't just adventure in dungeons.  Neither did the originators of the game.

I've never advanced a view of 4e either way.

Quote from: Seanchai;253250Except when they add abilities, focuses, etc., such as "Now wizards are better at deciphering lore," then, yeah, they are saying that they houseruled in stacks of additional abilities.

Part 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.

QuoteAbsolutely nothing. But those elements don't exist in Basic D&D. Well, no, there's Alignment.

As 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.

Fighters 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.

QuoteIt's not about damage output - it's about casting your one spell during the second encounter because things are going poorly for the party and then sitting around for hours, your character cowering behind the others, waiting until your mechanically oompf comes back.

That is an accurate description of a magic user, but I don't think anyone finished up character creation thinking four hit points was a lot.

As 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.

QuoteFans of more contemporary games like challenges as well. In fact, games are built around them.

Of 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.

QuoteYou're right - and when you get that it's not meant to be, that it isn't the point, then you'll be somewhere...

Seanchai

We can take this up in another thread, if you like; I have strayed too close to an edition war by making the comparisons I have, and that is probably not a direction that would be helpful for this thread.  Mea Culpa.

Quote from: StormBringer;253155The point that is often overlooked by fans of more contemporary games is that some people like to face challenges and adversity to get a sense of accomplishment.  Popping minions like they were balloons in a midway dart game isn't an accomplishment.

You left out the for some people at the end of the last sentence I quoted. I've GMed games with rules for "minion"-like opponents, most notable Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG. I can tell you that judicious use of them can really add a lot of fun to the game. My players - all of them D&D veterans from their late 40s down to mid 20s - really got into encounters I ran that consisted of orc minions. There was a palpable air of excitement as they waded into the fray, and they were jazzed after it was over, despite (or maybe because) some of them had received wounds.

I didn't see much difference between what were the equivalent of 1 hit point critters (in D&D terms) and d4 or d6-1 hit point AD&D mainstays like kobolds and goblins, the kind of stuff I was, as DM, throwing at my players for over a decade of playing AD&D. One hit almost always took any of them out. Those types of encounters could really help lighten the mood of a group who may have been slogging through some tough encounters, and yeah, they felt a sense of accomplishment. Hell, they didn't know - and 4e players confronting minions shouldn't know - that such critters are that easy to kill. They just knew that they'd been able to be badasses for a while, and had a lot of fun doing it. And in the end, that's what we were all there for, fun, not adhering to the RPG equivalent of a flagellant code, wearing the gaming equivalent of hair shirts.