How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[Voadam]

Even old-school D&D had prime requisites. Roll under a 15 strength? You can't be a fighter, period.

Close.

As others pointed out 1e AD&D said a character generally should have at least two 15s to be survivable but did not specify where and specifically set the minimum bar at a 9 for a fighter. Worth noting Gygax's phrasing is not that you need two 15s to play the character.

"Each and every character has six principal characteristics, the character’s abilities. These abilities are strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, constitution, and charisma. (See also APPENDIX I, Psionic Ability.) The range of these abilities is between 3 and 18. The premise of the game is that each player character is above average — at least in some respects — and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character’s survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

STRENGTH TABLE I.
Ability Score General Information
3
4
5 Here or lower the character can only be a magic-user
6 Minimum strength for a gnome, half-orc or halfling character
7
8 Minimum strength for a dwarf character
9 Minimum strength for a fighter character
10
11
12 Minimum strength for an assassin or paladin character
13 Minimum strength for a ranger character
14 Maximum strength possible for a female halfling character
15 Maximum strength possible for a female gnome character, minimum strength for a monk character
16 Maximum strength possible for a female elf character
17 Maximum strength possible for a female dwarf or female half-elf or male halfling character
18 Maximum strength possible for all non-fighter characters
18/01-50 Maximum strength possible for a female human or male gnome character
18/51-75 Maximum strength possible for a male elf or female half-orc character
18/76-90 Maximum strength possible for a male haIf-elf character
18/91-99 Maximum strength possible for a male dwarf or male half-orc character
18/00 Maximum human strength

2e had no such recommended minimums and in fact under stat generation method I it says explicitly to expect mostly 9-12 scores.

"Method I: Roll three six-sided dice (3d6); the total shown on the dice is your character’s Strength ability score. Repeat this for Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, in that order. This method gives a range of scores from 3 to 18, with most results in the 9 to 12 range. Only a few characters have high scores (15 and above), so you should treasure these characters."

In B/X you generate stats like in 2e method 1, 3d6 in order but you can lower some stats to raise your class prime requisite giving up two stat point increments to raise up one point increment within certain boundaries.

 

[Autumnal]

I’ve long told players that they need to make competent characters prepared to cooperate with the other PCs and whose best things are what they identify as the character’s core qualities. In D&D, that nearly always mean best stats in class requirements. Their character needs to be set up to do things that help the whole group succeed and have a good time doing so. If the character they want to bring in can’t or wouldn’t, well, they can and another. Character concepts aren’t rationed.

 

[AnotherGuy]

18/01-50 Maximum strength possible for a female human or male gnome character
18/51-75 Maximum strength possible for a male elf or female half-orc character
18/91-99 Maximum strength possible for a male dwarf or male half-orc character
18/00 Maximum human strength

I find it odd that the male-half orc capped below a human male - for 3 reasons:

1. You'd naturally think orcs are stronger in general than humans, therefore it is reasonable to assume a male half-orc should have a higher capstone than the male human.
2. There is a minimum strength for half-orcs, none exists for humans.
3. The maximum strength for the female half-orc exceeds the maximum strength for the female human.

 

[James Gasik]

I find it odd that the male-half orc capped below a human male - for 3 reasons:

1. You'd naturally think orcs are stronger in general than humans, therefore it is reasonable to assume a male half-orc should have a higher capstone than the male human.
2. There is a minimum strength for half-orcs, none exists for humans.
3. The maximum strength for the female half-orc exceeds the maximum strength for the female human.

As an aside, I also always thought it strange that 1e Half-Orcs had a +1 bonus to Strength, but couldn't exceed 18 (though they could have 19 Constitution), and yet only Humans could have 18 (00) Strength!

Just another example of the game's human-centric bias, I suppose.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Running games online certainly makes it easier to boot a player. It's easy enough to send a message, kick/ban a user, and if you think it's going to be acrimonious, block them from messaging you back.

Some players seem to feel that getting to play at a table is right and can get quite put-out when they get told that they need to modify their behavior at the table or be removed. A person's fun stops at the line where it starts infringing on someone else's. Considering the above and how easy it can be to get new players, I know I certainly have grown less tolerant of bad behavior at the table over the years.

I do give players a chance to course-correct, unless their behavior is so egregious that they get insta-banned.

I finally learned that I am either ok or not ok with "x" behavior in the games I run (i only GM). If I am not ok with the behavior I take some time to determine HOW un ok I am with the behavior. Can I do something different so the behavior doesn't bother me as much? If I can't. I am not having a discussion about it with the person. I'll let them know as tactfully* as possible that the behavior is not ok at my table. I take "notes" about the interaction. Then I do the same thing I said above, "am I ok with their behavior during this interaction?". And I'd check in with myself. Then I'd go about playing. If they did something that didn't work I'd let them go, or I'd end the campaign if I was running a group that knew each other.

Now I run games exclusively online, most of the players I run games for are people I barely know, and this is easier said than done. But for me the key is to focus on MY own choices, and make them. And caring enough about myself enough to not put up with things that do not work for me.

For example: I run a game bi weekly. A new player joined up. They coudln't make the first session, they let me know that when they joined. Great. I run a different game on the off weeks. The player thought we were playing. I told him no, the game he is in bi weekly. Now. I am not ok with the fact that he didn't read the game description. Didn't know it was a bi weekly game. He then told me he'd be gone for the second session. I realized this wasn't ok with me. Again, he didn't read the game description, because I specified in the post that I was looking for players who could prioritize game time on game day. So I told him that this didn't work for me, that I look for players who can prioritize the game. He said he was fine if I wanted to find some one who wasn't so busy. So I let him go.

*neither blaming them NOR demanding they change, im just giving them info so that they know what they are doing, doesn't work for me.

There are certainly plenty of OSR games out there. But the scale of 5e's popularity makes the OSR community a drop in a bucket. Not that I'm not found as heck of, say, DCC RPG.

In the end, I'm thinking that my friend refuses to give up the old way of playing D&D. He likes Thac0, he likes rolling under your ability score for checks, he likes a huge list of Non-Weapon Proficiencies. He likes an equally huge table of bizarre weapons that most people will never use, from the khopesh to the bohemian ear spoon. He likes wonky subsystems and occasionally rolling d100 instead of d20. He likes the bonuses and penalties for each ability score being different, instead of exactly the same.

But for now, those days are gone, there's just no interest among my current group for going back in time to that bygone age. My friend complains all the time that he can't play D&D, and I'm going to have to be straight with him. If you want to play, then you have to understand that opportunities to live in the past are few and far between.

Gygax definitely had it out for half-orcs. In a Dragon magazine, if I recall correctly, he said that they cannot be raised or resurrected because they don't have souls, even.

I find it odd that the male-half orc capped below a human male - for 3 reasons:

1. You'd naturally think orcs are stronger in general than humans, therefore it is reasonable to assume a male half-orc should have a higher capstone than the male human.
2. There is a minimum strength for half-orcs, none exists for humans.
3. The maximum strength for the female half-orc exceeds the maximum strength for the female human.

 

[Haplo781]

Gygax definitely had it out for half-orcs. In a Dragon magazine, if I recall correctly, he said that they cannot be raised or resurrected because they don't have souls, even.

Gygax's fantasy racism was uncomfortably close to IRL racism for my liking.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Gygax definitely had it out for half-orcs. In a Dragon magazine, if I recall correctly, he said that they cannot be raised or resurrected because they don't have souls, even.

Cool, I didn't know that.

Gygax's fantasy racism was uncomfortably close to IRL racism for my liking.

Maybe, I dunno. I tend to think his reasoning on the orc/half-orc being souless may be drawn from Tolkien inluence perhaps? Like they are created/twisted abominations.
Even if what I say is true though, it is strange through to lump half-orcs having no souls with orcs. I mean you have to acknowledge the half-orc is part human, so surely that human side would mean the creature has a soul?

 

[Haplo781]

Cool, I didn't know that.

Maybe, I dunno. I tend to think his reasoning on the orc/half-orc being souless may be drawn from Tolkien inluence perhaps? Like they are created/twisted abominations.
Even if what I say is true though, it is strange through to lump half-orcs having no souls with orcs. I mean you have to acknowledge the half-orc is part human, so surely that human side would mean the creature has a soul?

Rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than that quote.

 

[Rabulias]

Gygax definitely had it out for half-orcs. In a Dragon magazine, if I recall correctly, he said that they cannot be raised or resurrected because they don't have souls, even.

In AD&D 1st edition, elves and half-orcs had spirits, not souls. You needed a rod of resurrection (or a wish) to resurrect a dead elf or half-orc. Gygax may have been a product of his times, but I don't know if this is an example of it. I think it was one of those fiddly bits to be different, and may be a loose Tolkien influence.

 

[billd91]

Cool, I didn't know that.

Maybe, I dunno. I tend to think his reasoning on the orc/half-orc being souless may be drawn from Tolkien inluence perhaps? Like they are created/twisted abominations.
Even if what I say is true though, it is strange through to lump half-orcs having no souls with orcs. I mean you have to acknowledge the half-orc is part human, so surely that human side would mean the creature has a soul?

Lack of soul also applied to elves. Elves, orcs, half-orcs and anything other intelligent being not affected by raise dead back in 1e had spirits rather than souls. Souls were a one and done kind of existence - if you had a soul and died, off to eternity you go. For anything with a spirit, you'd go off for a while but ultimately would be reincarnated in some way. (bold is according to the Deities and Demigods book from 1e)

The only real practical effect of this was whether or not raise dead/resurrection worked on you. If you had a spirit, neither spell did. A wish would though, as would a rod of resurrection but at a premium of burning more charges than anyone else.