Why do people overwhelming seem to pick fighters/knights in RPGs? It's something I've noticed, but many seem to go for the most vanilla class imaginable. Same thing with their sci-fi equivalent, as in Mass Effect it was shown that over 60% of players went with Soldier. So what is exactly the reason for this?
I dont trust RPG devs to not frick up the experience for other classes. Its just a simple way to play a game.
This. Besides, knights tend to be the most basic yet versatile classes (generally can subclass to paladin or battlemage with ease) so they are just my method of testing the waters. I don't use shields unless there's no other offhand option though
I'm a mage man myself. Although sometimes I am thief man. Warrior/knight is my least picked.
Because everything mainstream is balanced around it - it's an easy class to grasp and is hard to frick up.
I always start off wanting to LARP as a knight but end up going with a glass cannon sniper/dps build of some sort simply because dodging is almost always more reliable than blocking, parrying and tanking hits based on a deep understanding of the game's mechanics which I do not possess.
My long term ambition is to one day beat an RPG, any RPG, with a vanilla fighter build.
T. Bethesdrone
Yes, my first """rpg""" was skyrim
I'm disgusted but respect you for your honesty.
its the classic fantasy and is usually easy to play as well
they're fricking cool
I go one step further and always prefer to do blunt weapons wherever possible
theres just something cool about being a guy with so little training and education not even in swords yet still just picking up something heavy and trying to fix the world
why do you think fighters are "vanilla"? sounds like bias.
>Mass Effect it was shown that over 60% of players went with Soldier
>So what is exactly the reason for this?
how should I know, the data doesn't say it
>sounds like bias
according to my calculations the data should say that only 100% of players went with Soldier
we can safely conclude that we need more Soldiers
Fighters and knights are the quintessential action hero that young boys dream of becoming. They exert their will upon the world through the use of action, bravado and chivalry, rather than trickery or indirect magic. Even in adulthood that impression remains,and perhaps even gains appeal for its evocative simplicity in contrast with a complex and often disappointing reality.
Wizards are also popular due to the their ability to shape the world around them, but archetypally speaking they're usually depicted as wise or studious old dudes so the appeal isn't quite as widespread.
I like the cunning trickster types, personally.
Wizards are the nerd power fantasy.
>what if I could gain actual power by studying for 30 years
t. PhD student, mage player
warriors are the nerd power fantasy.
>what if i could be buff and get chicks with no effort
I would say it's also the creative type's power fantasy because of all the cool shit you can do with magic. Golems, summoned mansions with unseen servants, raising the dead, cloning, mage towers or hidden lairs, magical artifact creation...
I said I like cunning tricksters generally but Mage/Rogue is where it's at.
Nah.
Im already having to study metallorganics and hartree fock equations in real life.
my power fantasy is hitting things till they explode rather than studying MORE.
When is the mage build not the OP build in a WRPG?
I'm genuinely asking, I'm sure you can maybe name a handful of games where melee might edge out as superior but mage classes always make the games a joke half the time. It's why I always play a knight. Want a good idea of what the experience is like before I just break it with my woolooolooo shit
magic is ass in grimrock
in divinity:os melee is OP if you want to actually deal damage to things
it's usually the more simple class to pick up and suits the party leader role, thieves and mages feel more like support
Helllll no i pick rogue 85% of the time, mage is another 10, warrior 5
My brethren.
You wouldn't get it.
Wanna fight me
>Why do people overwhelming seem to pick fighters/knights in RPGs?
Unga bunga. They're also the most beginner friendly class to pick everytime
Pretty much the reason I choose them. Having magic or other tricks is nice, but I prefer the simpler base gameplay of just being someone that does decent damage in almost all circumstances and can take at least a couple of hits. You can add complexity with equipment choice and/or skills anyway if you really want to.
I'm guessing pop culture had something to do with it. Knights and soldiers are typically romanticised in western media, though the depictions of the knights and soldiers typically have artistic license, to make them look "cooler."
Join the RangerRace
A fighter, especially one built around heavy weapons and armor, is often a very awesome power fantasy. Being able to trade blows with creatures considered >> humans evenly is how I live my Guts pipedreams.
Yeah, fighters aren't as boring and vanilla as their reputation suggests. There's the thrill of the challenge, of gearing up and pitting yourself against dangerous foes. Fighting with something is the most direct path of action, and being able to solve your problems (and other people's) by circumventing the bullshit and pummeling them into dust is a powerful, almost primal fantasy. A lack of complexity doesn't have to be boring or dumb, it can be liberating.
it's not even that lacking in depth. fighters are the class that has to most engage with the itemization of an rpg, while many other classes ignore or circumvent that aspect.
The reason is that most RPGs have one Fighter class and a godzillion mage classes.
I dont want "vanilla" gameplay, i want to play a guy who fights things.
Be that a Knight, a Conan esque figure, a Paladin, an Antipaladin or whatever im interrested.
I just dont wanna play a guy in a dress or some poncy robber type.
Not my fault most RPGs dont have lots of options for fighty types.
bunch of slack-jawed homosexuals around here
>Why do people overwhelming seem to pick fighters/knights in RPGs?
they are NPCs
I play only co-op or multiplayer RPGs and always play some sort of Knight or Warrior and wife always picks mages or healers. Its our jam.
game in OP screenshot?
if we're talking mostly medieval/fantasy I always start with a warrior build because I think its the most balanced way to first experience a game. it's also satisfying. if theres magic i'll mess around with it or make a battlemage build. but I find most games don't do magic as well as I want them to.
I always play rogues/thiefs, but I understand people that play knights, they look cool and the fact they tank so much makes them easier to play
most rpgs dont have interesting magic systems
most rpgs dont have interesting stealth systems
most rpgs completely break down if you try to seriously engage with the previous two things
Rogue master race checking in.
Personally, I'm sick of marry sue "i wanna be a dragonborn who breaths acid that makes people laugh instead of dying and a magic staff that shoots fireballs that mortals can't dodge and i can fly!"
I like to kick their ass with human fighters. The most OP build in any game.
I can wield a sword in real life.
I can fire a bow in real life.
I can't use magic in real life.
The choice is obvious.
you can't stop me playing a human white male fighter anon. It's literally the best.
In a game where you get companions the fighter/knight companion is always the worst character/woman so there is no risk of role overlap.
it will be properly supported and thought-through
magic is about 1/3 of the time terribly anemic and 1/3 time terribly overpowered for example
Nothing psychologically deep.
Just the simple fact that in all my years I havent once encountered an unplayable melee straight forward fighter archetype. Not a single time. I can even only recall two games that had non melee/fighter builds being significantly stronger.
On the other hand mage and rogue/skill/face archetypes are often times absolute turbocancer and balance wise fricked beyond believe and only playable if metagamed extensively. And if there is anything I hate about RPG's then its having to stop midway in a blind playtrough and replay all the shit again because I didnt metagame the living frick out of my class or because the devs just decided that there shall be a dozen different interesting classes and/or skills (if classles) but 95% of that will just never be used in the game so you just end up with a pile of crap.
Neverwinter Nights or Kotor come to mind, where there are dozens of skills but in the campaigns there are simply near to no skillchecks.
With classes with magic come choices (which school of magic is the best/worth using?) and more management problems (manage health AND mana, equipment load is tied to a stat that mages arent supposed to level up).
But most important fighters/knights very ofter have the best looking armor while mages go around wearing blue pajamas.
I like the increased choices as I generally prefer to play whatever class has the most depth.
Lead from the front.
Because fighters/knights are the most basic class: They're the easiest to understand for noobs (hit thing with sword, shoot thing if sci fi) and don't require you to have any knowledge of the game's mechanics prior in order to feel secure about your own character being competent. Compare that to mages that involve a ton of complicated systems and have 18 gorrillion spells with differing effects at their disposal and which ones are useful and when are up to you to figure out, or how rogues are exceedingly tactical and have to make use of flanking and/or the environment to be effective, or how clerics heal and buff the party which requires you to understand how people operate (if co-op) or how your companions operate and which ones can make the most out of which abilities you can give them and when. In short, fighters are just the easiest to understand how to play.
Easiest class to play and likely default class when creating character
I like games with large consequences for death and if I don't know what I'm doing I want defense
it's the most basic hack & slash setup. no magic shit, just pure martial skills like in Real life
Because the vast majority of people do not want to play freakshit, they want simple aspirational hero stories and Knights are the pinnacle of that in most western culture.
Playing as a band of knights in a world with monsters, undead, demons and dragons would be pretty good. But it's practically non-existent.
Reject modernity. Embrace tradition. Make a party composed entirely of paladins.
>get kited and sniped
Paladins can use bows though.
Dishonourable. Evil should be smited up close and personal.
A tool is not dishonorable, its use is. Shooting fleeing enemy in the back=bad. Engaging in a contest of archery with the enemy=good.
I'd say for the same reason that there's a stigma against zoners in fighting games and a bias towards rushdown characters. Mages may have a bunch of spells and can rain down fire or alter reality or something, but the basic fantasy that people see is a guy sitting back, casting spells, trying to keep the enemy away from them. Is it smart? Yeah, but it comes off as kind of lame, as if you're trying to avoid engaging with the enemy. It doesn't sell the fantasy of something dramatic like a sword duel or a martial arts movie.
everyone used to pick mage, then the balance gays came in, so ease of play and looking awesome are better.
Mages are just power fantasies for bullied schoolchildren.
This.
No need for strength, skill or dexterity. Reading books all day like a fricking nerd is enough to be super powerful.
Dexterity was always part of casting magic, grabbing spell components and forming arcane hand gestures. Raistlin, the prototypical bullied volcel mage, was very dexterous.
>hy do people overwhelming seem to pick fighters/knights in RPGs?
It's pretty obvious
>can use a wide range of gear
>armor tends to look the best
>you're durable
>often decent throughout the game
Meanwhile wizards
>limited gear options
>armor looks like dogshit
>melts to anything
>tends to suck shit early on
>if the game has a resting system, makes it more tedious
Thief-mage hybrid > everything else in this homosexual fiesta of a thread.
I usually want to play an RPG more than once.
Warrior or knight is simply a good first class to experience the game.
It's an easy way to learn the systems of the game if you're unfamiliar with how the game works. This is its intended purpose, just like real D&D.
An unfortunate side effect of this is that simpletons get overly attached to the first class they try and then never branch out, creating a massive over-saturation of players who play nothing but fighters. What's worse is that these same people often always self insert as well.
Tink'n 'ard. Jus SMASH!
>Why yes I do love mashing left click with the occasional right click
Can't say I see the appeal.
my first playthrough where i dont understand the system i tend to go for the simplest class which is usually a martial class
>Mass Effect it was shown that over 60% of players went with Soldier
It's pretty simple for ME1:
>You get to use all the weapons instead of just some of them
>You have two companions to use the powers as needed
For ME2-3 I don't know, the class powers for the MC actually change the way you play
For me it's magic.