Why would you -want- to play a Fighter type?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Because some people like to play the game on hard mode.     

[Nanshork]

I really dislike Vancian casting and the amount of bookkeeping it requires.  I don't want to look at my list of 100 spells known and figure out which handful I want to cast today.

[Raineh Daze]

I hate Vancian casting as much as I love giant robots. So, you know, a lot.

[Bard]

I really dislike Vancian casting and the amount of bookkeeping it requires.  I don't want to look at my list of 100 spells known and figure out which handful I want to cast today.

That's actually one of the things I enjoy the most of it, especially when playing a wizard or an archivist: it sorta.. FEELS RIGHT
It's good that it's present in D&D, since I'm sure there's other people that enjoy it (maybe two or even THREE) but there's way too many classes that use it and not enough alternatives for the people who don't like it... (using variants helps a bit with the mana point casting, but that's just one more and there is no class purposefully created for that)

[Demelain]

I really dislike Vancian casting and the amount of bookkeeping it requires.  I don't want to look at my list of 100 spells known and figure out which handful I want to cast today.

That's actually one of the things I enjoy the most of it, especially when playing a wizard or an archivist: it sorta.. FEELS RIGHT
It's good that it's present in D&D, since I'm sure there's other people that enjoy it (maybe two or even THREE) but there's way too many classes that use it and not enough alternatives for the people who don't like it... (using variants helps a bit with the mana point casting, but that's just one more and there is no class purposefully created for that)

My favorite class is Artificer, which I suspect is derived from the happy-feeling I get every time I open one of the many spreadsheets I have constructed for it.

Some people like bookkeeping, some don't. No one's fun is in any way inferior to any others fun. Fun is fun, however it's derived.

[veekie]

... no, I think the general answer is more 'an I win button is boring and makes for terrible stories', not because of emotions overriding reason and therefore not playing a wizard. I've also seen 'it's less work' and 'wizardry is boring'.

It is not because people want to play an idealised version of themselves and therefore can't play a wizard.

You still seem to be coming at this from the angle that a wizard is the only thing anyone should be playing, and anything else needs a special reason.

Exactly. Personally, for a compelling story, rogue-type characters do the best. They don't have the ideal magical solutions to everything, but with a broader spread of capabilities to improvise something else.

Even for spellcasters, spontaneous ones are greatly preferred. At least their solution set is finite.

[Havik_Stormcrow]

For the spell caster..... Spells are fun but what if you are in an area of wild magic or null magic. What skills and abilities would you possess then if a creature came after you. FIREBA......oh crap the spell isn't working. Crap I have to fight....crap I have low HP and Crap I am dead...why did I have to abuse that fighter and say I was a god......Crap!

[Indoran]

Pure fighter? = lack of imagination

Something optimized that fights with weapons and not spells = it can be fun... I had a player make a build that basically punished me for doing all kinds of stuff with my NPC's and even I was laughing a lot to see his creativity (it was not a typical lockdown build, but something more devious and with lots of mobility)

I really like cleric and wizard and sometimes I remember the game is about fun and not for everybody Fun = power. For me it's not so much about being almighty but about feeling useful to the party and I can feel that with lots of different builds (but I hate the skillmonkey role)...

[dna1]

Some people just like simplicity.
Keep in mind that in the older versions of D&D, fighters were needed. Like.. actually needed.

Not like now days where you can emulate a fighter with a caster, and be better than said fighter. So what I'm getting at is that a lot of the older players I've known tend to revert back to things that remind them of the original version they played. I think its more of a nostalgia thing really...
Just like I will always love FF6 / secret of mana / chrono trigger  > any other RPG ever.

[veekie]

Personally, I started in 3.5, with a wizard, then switched over to rogues as I got into the game, mostly after stomping my first few games into the dirt with unintentional effectiveness. Nostalgia might be an argument, but it's not a particularly powerful one. Most people who want to play Fighters aren't under any particular misconception, they just want to play a fighter.

The imagination argument meanwhile, is pretty offensive. Mundane characters require a greater degree of imagination to do interesting things with, exactly because of their limitations, and there is a great deal more variety in description available for martial stunts, whereas spellcasters have their description essentially prepackaged. You don't need much imagination to solve problems when you have somewhere in your spells, a perfect solution. Recalcitrant official? Charm Person. Race against time? Teleport. Witness died? Speak with Dead.
It offloads the imagination work to the designer, which incidentally, is also the same factor holding martial types back, as the designers did much to limit access to quite simple maneuvers.

[RobbyPants]

The three biggest reasons I've seen for people wanting to play "fighters":

1)They're used to old editions.
In AD&D, it wasn't as punitive to play a fighter as in other editions. If the game got to a high enough level (and it took a long time to get that much XP), the fighter would feel weak, but by and large, stabbing things in the face with a sword was a pretty viable career choice for probably 80 - 95% of actual time spent at the game table.

1a) There are quite a few players who really think that not having any powers on your sheet makes for a better game. I think this argument is stupid, but there are plenty of people who believe it and will choose a fightar because of it.

2)They don't know any better.
Unless you know the system well and/or have some experience under your belt, you might not realize how inferior fighter-types are. Also, when learning a new system, playing something like a fighter is less intimidating. You have a less complicated move space and you are more survivable.

3) The game is only going to be low level.
Honestly, fighters in low level D&D (even 3E) kick quite a bit of ass. They're effectively running around with an at-will, melee-range SoD that is effective 70+% of the time. That, and they have a pretty good AC and the best HP available. Also, the game hasn't thrown crap tons of puzzles at them that need to be solved with magic. Fighters are perfectly viable in a level 3- game, pretty much without exception.

[FlaminCows]

The two biggest reasons I've seen for people choosing to play magic-free characters are that they want a simpler game and that they're doing it for the challenge. For example: people play single-classed Fighters specifically because they don't have much frills or because the class is weak and building with that restriction allows them to flex their optimization muscles without utterly ruining the game.

I've seen people play Commoners in normal campaigns. When you've mastered the game, playing a Wizard in D&D can be really boring because everything is so damn easy.

[DonQuixote]

While typing the original post, I figured (and the posters here in general agree) that the most resounding answer is, "I want to."

Funnily enough, I'm fairly certain that this is the same answer to the question "Why would you -want- to play a Wizard type?"

You've really failed at defining this question properly. As has been said, there are a number of issues that have been lumped together. Are you asking why people find the character concepts interesting? Because that has nothing to do with your explanation of why you like casters:

One reason magic appealed to me so is the brutality of the system and my expected apathy of the GM.  I truly expected I would live and die by my wits and rolls, meaning I wanted every advantage.  That, to me, meant Wizardry.  Besides Wizards (and magic) being cool, 'survival of the fittest via magic' also heavily influenced the way I handled the system.

You're talking about your interaction with the system, and the idea of the character sheet as a motivation in the decision-making process. However, not all people think that way. Some think of the character first, then figure out how to model them mechanically. It isn't a question of how their character sheet interacts with the game system, but how their character interacts with the world.

For this reason, I find the "imagination" point that has been raised to be almost hilariously misplaced. If I'm playing a mundane character, it's because I've come up with the concept of the person and fleshed him out with my imagination. I've chosen the collection of levels, feats, skills, and so on that I believe accurately reflect what I have imagined. While it may be possible to model similar outcomes with a Byzantine structure of magic items, spells, and assorted arcana, that would be dishonest to the character that I have imagined.

This question really comes down to the fact that "RPG" stands for both "role-playing" and "game." Saying that it takes no imagination to play a mundane character because you don't have to plan out every turn of combat is like saying that it takes no imagination to play a wizard because you're just an old guy in a dress with magic.

[CaptRory]

For whatever reason I imagined Linkara speaking (ranting?) while reading DonQuixote's reply.

[chaos_redefined]

Endarire actually called out a few examples, so I'll try modifying the question to cover them...

When you go to play a fighter, why not go for a gish/duskblade/paladin/ranger/etc...?  These are generally more versatile, due to the options presented by spellcasting, and generally don't give up much power for it.

When you go to play a rogue, why not go for a factotum/arcane trickster/unseen seer/etc...?  These are generally more versatile, due to the options presented by spellcasting, and generally don't give up much power for it.

Essentially, there are magical versions of most classes, and these classes give similar amounts of power, while increasing versatility.

The answer usually given is the fact that magic is stupid-powerful, but that's only if we are talking about wizards and friends.  Duskblades and factotums are perfectly fine.  So, if you enjoy fighters, imagine the question as "Why don't you like duskblade or a gish?", not "Why don't you enjoy being a wizard?".  Similarly, for rogues, imagine the question as "Why don't you enjoy being a factotum or an unseen seer?"

[wotmaniac]

Conan wasn't a caster of any type.  But people want to play Conan, because Conan is badass.  (though, in all reality, Hyboria is really an e6 world, so people have unrealistic expectations ...).
The Heroic Badass Fighter probably has more space dedicated, across all media, than any other archetype ever.  It is also the most visceral, tapping in to our most basic instincts; making it the most relatable of protagonist types.

If someone wants to be a BDF, then a group oughta be able to accommodate that.

Also, some people can get intimidated at the idea of playing a caster -- you can really fuck up a spell list; but an attack roll is an attack roll.

[Nezkrul]

I don't always play straight fighter, but when I do, I play LOCKDOWN

(click to show/hide)

Human Fighter 20

Str- highest
Dex- 2nd highest
Con- 3rd highest
Wis- 4th highest
Int- 5th highest
Cha- dump

Feats- Aberration Blood, Combat Reflexes, ExWeapProf (spiked chain), Deft Opportunist, Standstill, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Martial Study (crusader's strike), Melee Weapon Mastery, Inhuman Reach, Martial Stance (thicket of blades), Robilar's Gambit, Close Quarters Fighting, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, ACF Overpowering Attack (phb2), Mage Slayer, Hold the Line, Weapon Supremacy

Good magic item choices and this guy can easily have a +40 to +45 to hit with AoO's, with 20 ft. reach, keeping everything within reach standing still and not moving around so his friends, be they also melees or ranged-types can defeat said enemies with impunity

[midnight_v]

Midnight_v's Response

Part 1.
"Those who slay monsters"

 I'm not sure what the question is here anymore. The first thing Endarire mentioned was defining the archetype and then slid into why the hell would anyone wanna play "X".
Then a smattering about mechanics here and there buuut... this.

Conan wasn't a caster of any type.  But people want to play Conan, because Conan is badass.  (though, in all reality, Hyboria is really an e6 world, so people have unrealistic expectations ...).

The whole "why would you want" thing evolves from at least in part from the stories that have historically been popular in fiction and because a maxim for many people playing D&D for a number of years has been something like "What would Drizzt do" I borrowed that statement but I wanted to say its kinda true. There's probably several million Drizzt clones in trash heaps somewhere littering the world. Then there's people who were inspired to make similar characters who are NOT clones. Nonetheless people want to play characters who are embodiments of the things they read.

So they want to do things like "Solo a balor" and "Kill a 1000 orcs" etc because its sounds awesome and that's what people want to be. Awesome.

 Most of the time in our history the stories are about fighting against supernatural threats and the most popular stories (or at least the most numerous) end with a swording and not a "Pew pew" wizard power.
  There was a quote and I'm butchering it here to be sure but it something like this "Fairytales don't exist to warn children that there are dragons. They exist to teach them that dragons can be slain." I mention this because when someone says "Slay a dragon" the average person envisions a guy with a sword somehow stabbing down into giant reptile head.
Its in essence is a story about "Overcoming" and its a lesson that humans feel we need to learn because of the state of the world we exist on.
  Though, people who've played D&D long enough in the age of the internet especially, think about
ways of "killing it from orbit" so to speak.

 Which is good, from the perspective a gamer squeaking out ever advantage but kinda sucks from the perspective of telling a tell of heroic adventure.

This is the truth of why people find BATMAN more interesting than superman, (and ironically why lex luthor hates him in someways).
 Superman isn't really that brave. He cannot be, because rarely is he in any personal risk.

So "Why" because we love the stories likened unto the heroes of old.

...stay tuned for.... PART 2: "Mechanics!"

[midnight_v]

Or... maybe I just killled the thread completely.. 

[Jackinthegreen]

Continue, and don't worry about whether people reply or not.  It might take a bit to sink in.