PDA

View Full Version : A few reasons why I'm not entirely with the OSR crowd.



Agrippa
2014-02-11, 10:48 PM
As a preface I have a copy of the free artless version of Goblinoid Games Mutant Future, along with PDFs of BFRPG (Basic Fantasy Roleplaying Game) and Dark Dungeons. The latter two are OSR clones/semi-clones of BECMI with MF being a lawyer friendly mod of Gamma World. I'm okay with things like THAC0, descending armor class and class based experience progression. I've even developed a fondness for for morale, henchmen and yes, percentile thief skills. Imagine a PC starting out with an 80% base chance of climbing 100 ft. of sheer surface with few or no easily visible handholds or climbing gear.

With all that out of the way there are also things from newer D&D additions and some non-D&D I'd like to add. First something along the lines of jump rules. Okay, I mean Tome jump (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Tome_of_Prowess_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Jump) rules, but jump rules none the less. Add in 3.5 psionics as magic, vestige/spirit binding and Tome of Battle plus homebrew sublime discplines. Then top it off with using Next's Advantage/Disadvantage system with an Exalted inspired stunt system.

On these issues altogether I'm at odds with the overall OSR community, as far as I know. Part of this is the idea that warrior classes are strictly the casual or noob, used by players who "just wants to roll some dice, drink beer, and have fun with his friends isn't going to play a complicated class like magic-user." (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=56371&p=1468447#p1468447) That and they somehow seem to think Wuxia is newer than R.E. Howard's Conan, Krull and Soloman Kane, the Chutulu Mythos, Jack Vance's Dying Earth and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser! I'm not content with warriors, whether they're called fighters or any other name simply being the non-thinking casual play class. That's my main difference with the OSR.

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 10:52 PM
So... why don't you make that game? :smallconfused:

That's the OSR way.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-11, 11:02 PM
I understand you completely, Agrippa. I also hate this anti-fighter, pro-wizard bias many people have.

I suspect it's ulterior; RPG players are nerds, wizards are nerds. Therefore, by playing a game where the nerds rule and the jocks suck, they're engaging in a wish-fulfillment/revenge fantasy where they're finally the top dog! I think it's stupid and juvenile.

This tends to come with a (un)healthy dose of looking down on players who play fighters as intellectually inferior. Also bonus ignorance points for not realizing the amazing superhuman feats fighter-types often performed in European myths, and bonus racism points for brushing aside the same thing they did in non-European ones as weeaboo fightan' magic.

Agrippa
2014-02-11, 11:13 PM
So... why don't you make that game? :smallconfused:

That's the OSR way.

I said I'm not entirely with the OSR. Nor am I entirely with any other RPG movement. There maybe some people in the OSR movement/loose association who agree with me, I don't know. By the way I am working on kit bashing some of my favorite D&D elements together. I just can't do a decent layout for it yet.

TuggyNE
2014-02-12, 12:56 AM
I said I'm not entirely with the OSR. Nor am I entirely with any other RPG movement.

Shades of Treebeard. :smallamused:

As long as you don't end up letting RPG Saruman wander off to cause trouble in the RPG Shire I think you'll be fine, though.

Libertad
2014-02-12, 02:57 PM
I understand you completely, Agrippa. I also hate this anti-fighter, pro-wizard bias many people have.

I suspect it's ulterior; RPG players are nerds, wizards are nerds. Therefore, by playing a game where the nerds rule and the jocks suck, they're engaging in a wish-fulfillment/revenge fantasy where they're finally the top dog! I think it's stupid and juvenile.

This tends to come with a (un)healthy dose of looking down on players who play fighters as intellectually inferior. Also bonus ignorance points for not realizing the amazing superhuman feats fighter-types often performed in European myths, and bonus racism points for brushing aside the same thing they did in non-European ones as weeaboo fightan' magic.

This isn't entirely confined to the OSR. It springs up in the Pathfinder fanbase, too.


Now, I think that there's two major camps: the ones who are up front that non-magic classes should be less powerful and that this is the kind of game they want.

The second one insists that the classes are "equal" due to the limits of Vancian casting, and view martial power-ups as overpowered while wizard nerfs are terrible. A good example is the 4th Edition backlash of "neutering the wizard."

This is not a problem if that's what you want in a game and are honest about it. But it becomes a problem when you denigrate people of different play-styles or you act intellectually dishonest: using anecdotal evidence as fact, ignore the math behind the game, victim-blaming players and DMs when the game mechanics don't perform the way the game says they do ("your 3rd Edition Fighter PC just has no imagination when the Wizard and Druid outclass him all the time!").


Now, some OSR games break the mold:

Lamentations of the Flame Princess (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/115059/LotFP-Rules-%26-Magic-Free-Version?filters=0_0_0_0&manufacturers_id=2795) gave the Fighter and Specialist (Thief) classes some unique abilities while making magic riskier and removing a lot of traditional spells.

Flying Swordsman RPG (http://lordgwydion.blogspot.com/p/flying-swordsmen-rpg.html) is a wuxia-flavored game where all classes get cinematic fighting abilities.

The Oni
2014-02-12, 03:05 PM
Both of those camps are incorrect, of course; both Wizards and Fighters are underpowered compared to Truenamers.

Libertad
2014-02-12, 03:11 PM
Both of those camps are incorrect, of course; both Wizards and Fighters are underpowered compared to Truenamers.

An important thing to consider is often these discussions get confused when players of different Editions start talking.

3rd Edition really widened the caster/noncaster gap to unprecedented levels, so a lot of old-school gamers can see such complaints as exaggerated, in part because a lot of pre-3.X magicians were saddled with more limitations. In pre-3.X games, spellcasters could do a lot less: every spell in Basic was effectively a full-round action, attacking the spellcaster at all in some Editions negated the spell automatically, and there were a lot less splatbooks out full of even more spells to add to one's repertoire.

Naturally, there's a lot of old-school gamers who do realize that 3rd Edition magic is balls-to-the-wall crazy once they became aware that many of these limits do not exist in said edition.


Food for thought: Some of the longest and most frequent "Fighter vs. Wizard" threads on D&D forums revolved around 3rd Edition. There's far less discussion of this kind in other Editions, but it does happen.

obryn
2014-02-12, 04:22 PM
Something I read on another forum, paraphrased...

D&D is, historically, extremely prone to put "anything that an average person can't do with some training" into the "magic" camp. This, unfortunately, includes some stuff that actual real highly-talented and highly-trained people can do.

(Horrifyingly, they often use themselves as the models for what is or isn't possible. Like tying a mouse cord around their wrist to see if a wrist strap helps ready a weapon faster.)

It also breaks classes down into two broad categories of "can do magic" and "can't do magic," with the second camp almost defined by its inability to do magic. So if you're in the latter camp, then you're subject to all the restrictions above - basically, whatever some game designer of questionable physical fitness can imagine him- or herself doing, maybe after fiddling around for 20 minutes.

And that's why Fighters can't win. They need to be almost breathlessly mundane in everything they do, otherwise it's magic and they're not a Fighter anymore.

Libertad
2014-02-12, 04:26 PM
Something I read on another forum, paraphrased...

D&D is, historically, extremely prone to put "anything that an average person can't do with some training" into the "magic" camp. This, unfortunately, includes some stuff that actual real highly-talented and highly-trained people can do.

(Horrifyingly, they often use themselves as the models for what is or isn't possible. Like tying a mouse cord around their wrist to see if a wrist strap helps ready a weapon faster.)

It also breaks classes down into two broad categories of "can do magic" and "can't do magic," with the second camp almost defined by its inability to do magic. So if you're in the latter camp, then you're subject to all the restrictions above - basically, whatever some game designer of questionable physical fitness can imagine him- or herself doing, maybe after fiddling around for 20 minutes.

And that's why Fighters can't win. They need to be almost breathlessly mundane in everything they do, otherwise it's magic and they're not a Fighter anymore.

The mouse cord thing was later revealed to be a joke by Jason Buhlman, but the fact that so many people assumed otherwise underlined this issue. The Pathfinder game designers are very quick to nerf overpowered martial options (or options that are merely overpowered under a situational set of circumstances) but do comparatively little to nerf some of the more egregious spellcasting options.

I do like a lot of things about Pathfinder, but Paizo often misses the forest for the trees at times.

obryn
2014-02-12, 04:33 PM
The mouse cord thing was later revealed to be a joke by Jason Buhlman, but the fact that so many people assumed otherwise underlined this issue. The Pathfinder game designers are very quick to nerf overpowered martial options (or options that are merely overpowered under a situational set of circumstances) but do comparatively little to nerf some of the more egregious spellcasting options.
Good to know! But it fits right in with Sean "let's nerf the monk a little more" K. Reynolds, so I guess the joke was just a bit too believable. :smallsmile:

Tengu_temp
2014-02-12, 04:48 PM
D&D is, historically, extremely prone to put "anything that an average person can't do with some training" into the "magic" camp. This, unfortunately, includes some stuff that actual real highly-talented and highly-trained people can do.

Yeah. And even if we go beyond that and look at various myths, legends and stories, we can see that acts of superhuman ability are hardly the domain of spellcasters. Look at what the various Celtic or Hindu heroes achieve, and few of them wield any kind of magic; most are simply that good.

But nope. DND thinks that if it's not something a normal human can do, then it's magic. This is why I like Tome of Battle - because it completely shatters this preconception.

Libertad
2014-02-12, 05:10 PM
Look at what the various Celtic or Hindu heroes achieve, and few of them wield any kind of magic; most are simply that good.

You read my essay, didn't you? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265609) :smallwink:

Thrudd
2014-02-12, 05:23 PM
The thing is, not everyone wants to play D&D as a cinematic action game, or as a story about mythological heroes. For the most part, OD&D, Basic and AD&D were not this, at least not until very high levels (Immortals part of BECMI). It is more a simulation of a fantasy world rather than a vehicle for telling adventure stories. While the characters of D&D are meant to be more heroic than the common man, increasingly so as they gain levels, it is just that their combat actions are abstracted down to a single die roll rather than having game mechanics which describe every technique and weapon stance they know. When you roll that D20 and score a hit, the player or DM could describe the combat details in any way they want. The very fact that you actually have a chance of hitting and defeating these creatures makes the character an heroic individual who can do things most people can't. But describing the cool actions was not the sole focus or purpose of the game, it was exploring a fantasy world and challenging the players against that world to solve problems and see how long they can survive.
I Love a good cinematic game, too. Feng Shui is one of my favorites, I love Hong Kong action movies, and Wuxia is great fun. But my D&D is not about wuxia or action movies. So I am fine with OSR and AD&D rules where combat actions are abstracted rather than represented in detail by disassociated mechanics like action points and 4e style powers.

Different rules for different purposes.

Rhynn
2014-02-12, 05:32 PM
The thing is, not everyone wants to play D&D as a cinematic action game, or as a story about mythological heroes. For the most part, OD&D, Basic and AD&D were not this, at least not until very high levels (Immortals part of BECMI).

Yeah, OD&D has very specific literary inspirations, and the capabilities of adventurers follow them fairly closely, originally.

But then again, Supplement IV describes Cu Chulain as possessing awesome abilities, and there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from letting their PCs gain similar powers (or even start with them).

Talakeal
2014-02-12, 05:53 PM
I understand you completely, Agrippa. I also hate this anti-fighter, pro-wizard bias many people have.

I suspect it's ulterior; RPG players are nerds, wizards are nerds. Therefore, by playing a game where the nerds rule and the jocks suck, they're engaging in a wish-fulfillment/revenge fantasy where they're finally the top dog! I think it's stupid and juvenile.

This tends to come with a (un)healthy dose of looking down on players who play fighters as intellectually inferior. Also bonus ignorance points for not realizing the amazing superhuman feats fighter-types often performed in European myths, and bonus racism points for brushing aside the same thing they did in non-European ones as weeaboo fightan' magic.


So what group do I fall under? I always play fighter type characters, and cant stand ToB or 4e style powers.


Why is "badass normal" not a valid character concept?

Conan, Aragorn, King Arthur, Indiana Jones, James Bond, even Batman fall into this category. Even older heroes like Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Achilles fall into this category the majority of the time, only occasionally performing feats of superhuman strength or endurance.

Why are none of these heroes good enough to take part in a tabletop adventure?

squiggit
2014-02-12, 06:01 PM
Why is "badass normal" not a valid character concept?

Conan, Aragorn, King Arthur, Indiana Jones, James Bond, even Batman fall into this category. Even older heroes like Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Achilles fall into this category the majority of the time, only occasionally performing feats of superhuman strength or endurance.

Why are none of these heroes good enough to take part in a tabletop adventure?

I'd have to disagree completely... all of those examples fit better under the ToB/4e paradigm than the "I make an attack" 3e/PF philosophy.

Scow2
2014-02-12, 06:06 PM
Actually, those guys are on par with 4e-style abilities.

On one hand, I don't like how vicious the 4e optimization scene can be. On the other, I love how often the fighter gets plugged and held up in it. (Every weapon-based striker wants to be a Fighter. No other defender is as sticky as a Fighter, etc... and the Fighter has nothing even CLOSE to supernatural in its abilities... except maybe it's "Come and get it" attack.)

Morty
2014-02-12, 06:09 PM
So what group do I fall under? I always play fighter type characters, and cant stand ToB or 4e style powers.


Why is "badass normal" not a valid character concept?

Conan, Aragorn, King Arthur, Indiana Jones, James Bond, even Batman fall into this category. Even older heroes like Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Achilles fall into this category the majority of the time, only occasionally performing feats of superhuman strength or endurance.

Why are none of these heroes good enough to take part in a tabletop adventure?

Because fighters who can do nothing more than attack over and over again fail at portraying them.

The biggest problem with a lot of the people griping about how fighters should be "realistic" isn't so much the demand for realism (although it certainly is a problem) but the thundering ignorance of just what realism is. Look at Riddle of Steel - it's as gritty and realistic as you can get, and yet every combat-trained character there is more interesting than any AD&D fighter. When I look at AD&D fighters, I don't see "skilled men with swords". I see boring piles of hit points.

obryn
2014-02-12, 06:11 PM
Why is "badass normal" not a valid character concept?
It is, in many systems. Those tend to scale back magic, among other things.


Why are none of these heroes good enough to take part in a tabletop adventure?
The rules of 3.x D&D, basically. :smallwink:


Yeah, OD&D has very specific literary inspirations, and the capabilities of adventurers follow them fairly closely, originally.
Foul on the play. Gandalf. :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2014-02-12, 06:19 PM
I thought we were talking about OSR games in general, not any specific game or edition.


Yeah, 3.5 fighters really suck, although the concept isn't terrible, they just need way better saves, skills, and way more feats than t hey are given. Now, many of the spells are also broken and make non casters redundant, but that is a problem with the casters, not the fighter.

As for the 4e fighter, i don't like being pigeon holed into a defender role and only having four or so abilities to choose from. Also many of the encounter powers should be things a fighter can attempt more than once per combat and the daily abilities seemed a bit over the top.

obryn
2014-02-12, 06:28 PM
As for the 4e fighter, i don't like being pigeon holed into a defender role and only having four or so abilities to choose from. Also many of the encounter powers should be things a fighter can attempt more than once per combat and the daily abilities seemed a bit over the top.
I think there are other workable implementations, but the basic theory - Fighter Gets Cool Moves - is (IMO) just about essential to keep them anywhere near parity.

Another great example other than 4e? BECMI/RC. Yeah, I know. Oddly enough, it's the next Fighter-friendliest edition of D&D. And that's the "basic" line!

Hiro Protagonest
2014-02-12, 06:33 PM
As for the 4e fighter, i don't like being pigeon holed into a defender role and only having four or so abilities to choose from. Also many of the encounter powers should be things a fighter can attempt more than once per combat and the daily abilities seemed a bit over the top.

Fighter has like, five different variants. You can play a higher-defense Guardian Fighter, a Brawler that zips around the battlefield and sacrifices some defense for greater control, or focus more on the striker part with Great Weapon or... I can never remember what the other two-handed fighter is called.

I can understand complaints about Encounters and Dailies (you should probably be able to spend an action point or Second Wind to recharge an encounter power, or something like that). Essentials has classes with more focus on at-wills, although they tend to be a bit more boring (with the exception of the Ranger replacement, since Ranger is the most boring when played optimally).

Talakeal
2014-02-12, 06:49 PM
Fighter has like, five different variants. You can play a higher-defense Guardian Fighter, a Brawler that zips around the battlefield and sacrifices some defense for greater control, or focus more on the striker part with Great Weapon or... I can never remember what the other two-handed fighter is called.

I can understand complaints about Encounters and Dailies (you should probably be able to spend an action point or Second Wind to recharge an encounter power, or something like that). Essentials has classes with more focus on at-wills, although they tend to be a bit more boring (with the exception of the Ranger replacement, since Ranger is the most boring when played optimally).

I only played 4E twice. Once as a fighter when the game first came out and a couple of years later as a barbarian. I am sure there are a lot of options I missed, I am just stating my experience with the game as I saw it.


Anyway, I created another thread to discuss what options they feel a mundane character should have rather than derail this one:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330976

Rhynn
2014-02-13, 12:24 AM
Foul on the play. Gandalf. :smallsmile:

Gandalf the 5th-level magic-user, you mean? Lord of the Rings isn't exactly a major inspiration, though: we're talking Poul Anderson, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Lin Carter, Sprague de Camp, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, H. P. Lovecraft, Michael Moorcock, Jack Vance, and so on.

The heroes of all these stories - and, indeed, of The Lord of the Rings, and of Norse sagas, etc. - are generally relatively "mundane."


Conan, Aragorn, King Arthur, Indiana Jones, James Bond, even Batman fall into this category. Even older heroes like Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Achilles fall into this category the majority of the time, only occasionally performing feats of superhuman strength or endurance.

Why are none of these heroes good enough to take part in a tabletop adventure?

These guys, too.

Knaight
2014-02-13, 01:42 AM
I'd have to disagree completely... all of those examples fit better under the ToB/4e paradigm than the "I make an attack" 3e/PF philosophy.

They also fit really well under, say, the REIGN paradigm - which most distinctly doesn't have powers. They fit well under the Burning Wheel paradigm - which most distinctly doesn't have powers. The Riddle of Steel fits them perfectly as well, and I'm pretty sure the rest of that statement is obvious by now.

They fit better under the ToB/4e paradigm than the "I make an attack" philosophy for the simple reason that the base combat system of D&D sucks like vacuum next to a pressure leak*, and that adding powers to it at least makes it less terrible.

*As the focus of the game. If fights are supposed to be a minor, incidental thing that happens occasionally it's fine. Basically, it worked for what it was initially intended for, combat grew in focus, and it then began to lack, so patches were applied to reduce the extent it blew.

Rhynn
2014-02-13, 01:58 AM
They fit better under the ToB/4e paradigm than the "I make an attack" philosophy for the simple reason that the base combat system of D&D sucks like vacuum next to a pressure leak*, and that adding powers to it at least makes it less terrible.

*As the focus of the game. If fights are supposed to be a minor, incidental thing that happens occasionally it's fine. Basically, it worked for what it was initially intended for, combat grew in focus, and it then began to lack, so patches were applied to reduce the extent it blew.

This is exactly why old-school D&D combat is great. It takes me 5-15 minutes to run a fight in ACKS. If I wanted a game with a focus on interesting combat, I sure as heck wouldn't use D&D...

Knaight
2014-02-13, 03:01 AM
This is exactly why old-school D&D combat is great. It takes me 5-15 minutes to run a fight in ACKS. If I wanted a game with a focus on interesting combat, I sure as heck wouldn't use D&D...

Hence the footnote, yes. That said, there are other games I vastly prefer for the job over old school D&D that are every bit as fast if not faster. Mostly Fudge.

Morty
2014-02-13, 08:19 AM
The Riddle of Steel fits them perfectly as well, and I'm pretty sure the rest of that statement is obvious by now.


TRoS doesn't have powers, but it certainly makes it feel like a combat-trained character is actually capable of controlling the flow of combat. No edition of D&D other than the fourth has made fighters feel like more than a pile of hitpoints and basic attacks, in my experience. I'm fine with them being down-to-earth, and in fact I find it vastly preferable... but I can't stand them being boring.

Beleriphon
2014-02-13, 10:30 AM
Conan, Aragorn, King Arthur, Indiana Jones, James Bond, even Batman fall into this category. Even older heroes like Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Achilles fall into this category the majority of the time, only occasionally performing feats of superhuman strength or endurance.

Why are none of these heroes good enough to take part in a tabletop adventure?

Conan, King Arthur, Indy, James Bond and Batman don't tend to operate in a world where people change reality on a whim. Well except Batman... stupid Bat-Mite. These are character that live in a mundane world that shares a lot more in common with our daily world than the typical D&D styled character.

As for ancient characters you do realize that Gilgamesh did things like punch mountains in half. He single handedly redirected the course of the Tigris so it stopped flooding Uruk. He's basically the Mesopotamian version of Herakles. Beowulf was so awesome he fought Grendel naked because it wasn't fair if he wore armor, and then he tore Grendel's arms off! Also Achilles is 100% immune to damage, he has DR/100000000 except on his heel. These are typical and usual abilities for these characters and they aren't really capture by D&D style fighters in any edition. The fighter type class is the closest class to model them because D&D only because they don't exhibit abilities that other classes have.

Scots Dragon
2014-02-13, 10:46 AM
Would the abilities of Gilgamesh and Heracles and Achilles not fall under templates or racial abilities rather than class abilities, though?

Beleriphon
2014-02-13, 10:59 AM
Would the abilities of Gilgamesh and Heracles and Achilles not fall under templates or racial abilities rather than class abilities, though?

I suppose so, but then so should everything a wizard does because Gandalf isn't a human wizard he's an angelic being using the guise of an old man. Merlin is half-something and not human either. Most other magic users are evil and the bad guys, especially in pulp adventures. My point is still there are plenty of characters that if you're going to use as a fighter example, I'm looking strongly at Beowulf, need to be able to do more than attack with something one or twice a round. They need options that do other stuff within the rules, and the game needs to make it clear that the fighter type class is the BEST candidate to use the additional options.

If you get right down to it most stories that OSR likes to emulate, stuff like Conan and Ffard and the Grey Mouser, wizards are the bad guys and the protagonists don't work with wizards since they are all sneaky magic types fooling with things beyond the ken of mortal men. The classes needs to have more than an attack bonus higher than magic users and a pile of hit points. They don't necessarily have to punch mountains in half, but the rules should accommodate being Beowulf if not Gilgamesh (until high levels, being Gilgamesh is too awesome not to include). I suppose my point is why can't D&D fighters emulate figures of myth and do totally awesome stuff rather than be a dude with a sword?

obryn
2014-02-13, 11:07 AM
Would the abilities of Gilgamesh and Heracles and Achilles not fall under templates or racial abilities rather than class abilities, though?
No, they're mythological figures and weren't D&D characters.

Scots Dragon
2014-02-13, 11:28 AM
If you get right down to it most stories that OSR likes to emulate, stuff like Conan and Ffard and the Grey Mouser, wizards are the bad guys and the protagonists don't work with wizards since they are all sneaky magic types fooling with things beyond the ken of mortal men. The classes needs to have more than an attack bonus higher than magic users and a pile of hit points. They don't necessarily have to punch mountains in half, but the rules should accommodate being Beowulf if not Gilgamesh (until high levels, being Gilgamesh is too awesome not to include).

Counterpoints;
I suppose the first and obvious point is that the Grey Mouser himself, though hardly the most competent of mages, is actually former a wizard's apprentice and can use a bit of magic.

On top of that, there are several protagonist magic users in the type of pulp fantasy sword and sorcery fiction that inspires the OSR.

Dying Earth's characters include several semi-heroic mages, certainly at least one who's far more heroic than the setting's major rogues and fighters in the shape of Turjan. And indeed, the Dying Earth is a pretty strong rallying cry for most OSR types, myself included. Hell, it's the origin of the bloody magic system most games tend to wind up using, and it's also the origin of the sort of lurid and eloquent prose that a lot of old adventures tend to favour.

Other settings with pretty influential magic-using main characters, and which also appear in Appendix N, include;

The Face in the Frost, another work of pre-D&D fiction to feature so-called 'Vancian' magic, and whose protagonist was a wizard called Prospero (and not the one you're thinking of).
The 'Harold Shea' series by L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt features a heroic 'enchanter', albeit one whose magic doesn't always work as fully intended.
The Scarlet Citadel, one of the earliest Conan stories, features a semi benevolent magic user called Pelias who uses his powers to help Conan overcome the forces of the villainous Tsotha-lanti.
The World's End novels feature a couple of heroic magic users.
The Stormbringer series features Elric, an anti-heroic fighter/mage from a society which was probably one of the models for the drow.

Note that these are the novels listed that have people casting magical spells that they've probably learned rather than explicitly inherited.

jedipotter
2014-02-13, 11:49 AM
The thing is, not everyone wants to play D&D as a cinematic action game, or as a story about mythological heroes.

Basic D&D, all the clones, and both 1E and 2E were not ''cinematic action games''. They were made for another time.

Time One: You start out with nothing, at 1st level. You adventure and win encounters through the players skill, luck, and abilities. The player is most of the character. And when you have a spoon, a rusty sword hilt and a torch, the player needs to figure out a way to defeat the lich with just that(and what ever else can be found). Fights are quick, for the most part everyone just does damage. No complicated sub game rules or crazy stuff just thrown in from a random book. Eventually if your character survives, you will have a powerful character with some stuff.....and the retire them and start over.

Time Two:You start out with a lot, even if you start at 1st level...though often you start at least at 5th or so to get more stuff. You have tons of abilities and actions and items. The 'stuff' is most of the character. When encountering a lich the player will look over the characters massive lists of abilities, spells, and items and decide what to use. Fights are long. Everyone is doing all sorts of actions. Complicated sub game rules are piled on and everyone has an 'official' book with some crazy stuff in it. You character starts out a a near god level, and becomes a god in just a couple levels.

Scots Dragon
2014-02-13, 12:30 PM
I suppose therefore that D&D 3.0e and 3.5e were Time One-Point-Five in that system, but people kept kind of nudging it towards Time Two?

Beleriphon
2014-02-13, 12:44 PM
..WIZARDS..

Note that these are the novels listed that have people casting magical spells that they've probably learned rather than explicitly inherited.

Fair enough, and I do know what the system itself is derived from as a whole for the magic users. I'd also forgotten that the Grey Mouser was a wizard's apprentice. But my point still stands about fightery types, especially given the rich history of fiction and folklore regarding mighty thewed barbarians and warriors. All of the great warriors could do things beyond the abilities of mortal men in one way or another, and OSR doesn't tend to recognize that very often.

I think really the problem is less with what fighters can't do and rather the implicit assumption that doing anything other than what fighters in D&D can do is magic, and the purview of magic users only.

Gemini476
2014-02-13, 01:08 PM
One thing that strikes me, with the OP: Isn't Dark Dungeons the Rules Cyclopedia clone? 'Cause Weapon Masteries (which are the base assumption in DD, rather than optional like in the RC) make Fighters into terrifying blenders of death.

They don't really stand up to high-level Magic-Users, but by the time that Magic-Users get powerful (and they're still weaker than 3E, remember) the Fighter is expected to be leading an entire army and/or kingdom. Also he gets spells, if he's a Paladin or Avenger (and why wouldn't you be an Avenger?)

BECMI/RC/DD is Fighter Edition, after all. (Good luck playing a Thief, though.)

Knaight
2014-02-13, 02:04 PM
Dying Earth's characters include several semi-heroic mages, certainly at least one who's far more heroic than the setting's major rogues and fighters in the shape of Turjan. And indeed, the Dying Earth is a pretty strong rallying cry for most OSR types, myself included. Hell, it's the origin of the bloody magic system most games tend to wind up using, and it's also the origin of the sort of lurid and eloquent prose that a lot of old adventures tend to favour.

Being more heroic than the likes of Cugel isn't exactly difficult. He's a fun character to read, but he's also a terrible person in a lot of ways.

obryn
2014-02-13, 02:33 PM
You character starts out a a near god level, and becomes a god in just a couple levels.
:smallannoyed:

Hyperbole aside, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to start out with effective and somewhat built characters. I like to switch between styles, depending on the need, but I don't think any game does "zero to hero" better than WFRP2e.


I suppose therefore that D&D 3.0e and 3.5e were Time One-Point-Five in that system, but people kept kind of nudging it towards Time Two?
Nope, kind of wishful thinking there. :smallsmile: Time involved to create a 1st level character in 3e and 4e are pretty darn close, on average.

Re: Dying Earth talk.

Preparing spells in advance is just about where the similarity ends between Vance's wizards and D&D wizards.

Vance's Wizards: Competent outside of magic, generally use magic as a last resort.
D&D Wizards: Incompetent outside of magic, can't use weapons.

Vance's Wizards: Only prepare a bare handful of exceptionally potent spells, need to go to great lengths to learn more.
D&D Wizards: Prepare up to dozens of spells of exponentially increasing potency. Get free spells all over the place, or just laying around in treasure piles.

Don't get me wrong, I know the inspiration for D&D wizards (and thieves' ability to use scrolls) came from Vance, but D&D Wizards have never been very good Vancian wizards. (Fortunately, there's a Dying Earth RPG for that... :smallbiggrin:)

Talakeal
2014-02-13, 04:26 PM
Conan, King Arthur, Indy, James Bond and Batman don't tend to operate in a world where people change reality on a whim. Well except Batman... stupid Bat-Mite. These are character that live in a mundane world that shares a lot more in common with our daily world than the typical D&D styled character.

As for ancient characters you do realize that Gilgamesh did things like punch mountains in half. He single handedly redirected the course of the Tigris so it stopped flooding Uruk. He's basically the Mesopotamian version of Herakles. Beowulf was so awesome he fought Grendel naked because it wasn't fair if he wore armor, and then he tore Grendel's arms off! Also Achilles is 100% immune to damage, he has DR/100000000 except on his heel. These are typical and usual abilities for these characters and they aren't really capture by D&D style fighters in any edition. The fighter type class is the closest class to model them because D&D only because they don't exhibit abilities that other classes have.

Its been a while since i read it so i don't remember Gilgamesh that well, so it might be more common than i remember, but i seem to recall such things being the exception rather than the rule.

Fighting a monster naked isn't impossible. People have allegedly fought and killed bears, bulls, and lions unarmed and unarmored in real life. In most rpgs i am aware of a warrior trained in unarmed combat can kill a monster without magic, and even an untrained one has a good chance if they out levle the monster.

Most versions of the Achilles tory don't mention his invulnerability at all. In fact the most famous, the Iliad, makes a big deal about his armor, which would be weird if he was naturally invulnerable. The 2002 movie even lampshades this fact.


But my point was that these are characters who can do an occasional impossible thing. But for their daily adventures they don't show any abilities beyond what a highly gifted mundane warrior could do.

Knaight
2014-02-13, 05:24 PM
In most rpgs i am aware of a warrior trained in unarmed combat can kill a monster without magic, and even an untrained one has a good chance if they out levle the monster.

Given that levels are an quirk of design largely but not entirely constrained to D&D and d20, it seems that you aren't familiar with most RPGs. As such, I'll just note that there are a lot of systems where character power differences between some sort of master of combat and somebody with baseline training are way smaller, and as such eclipsed by things like the benefits granted from being huge. Fudge is a good example of this - trying to punch out a horse works about as well as trying to punch out someone in full armor, they're big enough that they can basically ignore you. Trying to punch out an elephant is just not going to work in general.

Talakeal
2014-02-13, 05:36 PM
Given that levels are an quirk of design largely but not entirely constrained to D&D and d20, it seems that you aren't familiar with most RPGs. As such, I'll just note that there are a lot of systems where character power differences between some sort of master of combat and somebody with baseline training are way smaller, and as such eclipsed by things like the benefits granted from being huge. Fudge is a good example of this - trying to punch out a horse works about as well as trying to punch out someone in full armor, they're big enough that they can basically ignore you. Trying to punch out an elephant is just not going to work in general.

Its funny, I originally wrote outclassed for exactly that reason, but I figured it was somewhat of a circular argument so I changed it to out level.

Actually D&D is the only game I have ever played that uses levels of the top of my head and D&D is by no means my go to game, I was just using terminology that I thought would be most familiar to the GiTTP crowd.

jedipotter
2014-02-13, 06:26 PM
Hyperbole aside, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to start out with effective and somewhat built characters. I like to switch between styles, depending on the need, but I don't think any game does "zero to hero" better than WFRP2e.

The reason does not matter, it is just diffrent stlyes and tastes. A 3X/Path/4E character has dozens and dozens of powers compared to a Basic, 1E or 2E character. Some people like that, some people don't. People fall into the mantra of ''more options is good'', but just as you have 15 attack powers that do mostly the same things does not always equal more effective.


Intrestingly, less powers makes for a much more balanced game. In, for example, a 1E game, a wizard might cast one fireball to soften up a group of orcs...and then the rest of the group has to hack them apart in melee. As opposed to the 3X/P wizard that uses a Daisy Chain Blistering Fire Blast to destroy a a whole camp of orcs.

Morty
2014-02-13, 06:35 PM
You know, looking back at the linked post... I understand why people dislike Tome of Battle. It is rather over-the-top, and has a very distinct mystic feel to it, which may be hard to swallow, especially if you're not enamoured with the mechanics either. Different strokes for different folks and all that. But when I see someone talk about the Pathfinder Fighter getting "new toys every level", all I can do is blink in disbelief.

obryn
2014-02-13, 06:39 PM
Intrestingly, less powers makes for a much more balanced game. In, for example, a 1E game, a wizard might cast one fireball to soften up a group of orcs...and then the rest of the group has to hack them apart in melee. As opposed to the 3X/P wizard that uses a Daisy Chain Blistering Fire Blast to destroy a a whole camp of orcs.
I completely agree 1e (and RC D&D) are a lot more balanced than 3.x, but disagree it's a lot more balanced than 4e.

It's not just the relative number of powers/abilities/etc. though; it's the system as a whole. In this case, saving throws make just as substantial a difference.

Beleriphon
2014-02-14, 05:49 PM
Its been a while since i read it so i don't remember Gilgamesh that well, so it might be more common than i remember, but i seem to recall such things being the exception rather than the rule.

Well a mountain, a whole forest with Enkidu, basically punching his way into the underworld.... its not like he punches mountains in half in every part of his story, but the essence of being immensely strong is there.


Fighting a monster naked isn't impossible. People have allegedly fought and killed bears, bulls, and lions unarmed and unarmored in real life. In most rpgs i am aware of a warrior trained in unarmed combat can kill a monster without magic, and even an untrained one has a good chance if they out levle the monster.

True, but I'm not sure that a fighter should have to be dramatically higher level to fight an orc in just his birthday suit. If you think about it a naked.



Most versions of the Achilles tory don't mention his invulnerability at all. In fact the most famous, the Iliad, makes a big deal about his armor, which would be weird if he was naturally invulnerable. The 2002 movie even lampshades this fact.

I does, but the point still stands Achilles was completely invulnerable to harm, and the best damn warrior the Greek had to fight the Trojans. He was also a douche bag and a good portion of the Illiad is him pouting in his tent.


But my point was that these are characters who can do an occasional impossible thing. But for their daily adventures they don't show any abilities beyond what a highly gifted mundane warrior could do.

Well, except that characters in myth the entire story functionally encompasses their daily adventures. They don't do anything else other than exactly what the myth/legend/poem/story says they do. Herakles is massively strong, he has to be he holds up the entire sky for Atlas, he strangles Nemean Lion, and reroutes a RIVER in an afternoon. If Herakles were a character in a game he wouldn't have "daily adventures" those would be the adventures the character was going on.

And there in lies my problem. Fighter type characters shouldn't have no abilities, they should be able to do incredible things. Maybe redirecting rivers for kicks in an epic level event, but the idea that anything other than swing a pointy bit of metal around is magic, and thus only for magic users, seems ludicrous to me.

1337 b4k4
2014-02-15, 09:30 AM
Herakles is massively strong, he has to be he holds up the entire sky for Atlas, he strangles Nemean Lion, and reroutes a RIVER in an afternoon. If Herakles were a character in a game he wouldn't have "daily adventures" those would be the adventures the character was going on.

To be completely fair, he's also half a god. I mean, if he were a character in a game, he wouldn't be a base level fighter. I know, I know, throughout D&D's history people have wrote up stats for mythological heroes as D&D characters. They're also wrong in a lot of cases. I mean, if we go by BECMI, he's at least on his way to the immortal tier if not there already. And I've said before, one of the disconnects between the "fighters shouldn't be able to shout mountains in half" and the "hercules rerouted a river in a day" crowds is the disconnect over whether hercules is magical or not.

Jay R
2014-02-15, 09:54 AM
Fighting a monster naked isn't impossible. People have allegedly fought and killed bears, bulls, and lions unarmed and unarmored in real life. In most rpgs i am aware of a warrior trained in unarmed combat can kill a monster without magic, and even an untrained one has a good chance if they out levle the monster.

You're missing the point. It's not merely that he could beat the troll naked. It's that he was so powerful that using a weapon and armor would be unfair to the troll.


True, but I'm not sure that a fighter should have to be dramatically higher level to fight an orc in just his birthday suit. If you think about it a naked.

Grendel isn't an orc. He had terrorized King Hrothgar and all his warriors for some time - alone. While his exact form is still debated, here is a description of the arm Beowulf ripped off him:

Every nail, claw-scale and spur, every spike
and welt on the hand of that heathen brute
was like barbed steel. Everybody said
there was no honed iron hard enough
to pierce him through, no time proofed blade
that could cut his brutal blood caked claw

And Beowulf still considered himself so powerful that using a weapon against this monster would be unfair.

Morty
2014-02-15, 10:16 AM
To be fair, larger-than-life boasting should not necessarily be taken as fact. The fact remains, of course, that Beowulf did kill a hideous monster while naked and unarmed.