How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[Hex08]

I remember the incident well. "The Wizard never explained to me what his spell did, so I had no reason to know the Web would burn".

And really, while you could say "well, common sense", the fact is, it could have produced non-burning webs, the same way magical Grease may or may not burn (depending on which edition of D&D you're playing in, or what the DM rules).

We had a similar situation come up with Hypnotic Pattern, where he attacked a charmed character because "I had no way of knowing why he was just standing around not attacking anyone!".

And while that's true, the only thing stopping him from asking was "my character has a low Wisdom, he's impatient". To which I replied, yeah, but you were the person who decided that!

His approach here also stretches credulity. The party probably spends a fair amount of time together and your players are likely not roleplaying every single moment of that time. It is not unreasonable to assume that a group of people, whose lives depend on each other, are having conversations about their abilities and tactics that never get roleplayed. Unless the assumption is that the party becomes mindless zombies staring into space when they are not actively role playing then your player isn't thinking things through.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Uh...while you're right in stating there were pre-req's, that particular example is out to lunch.

The minimum Strength for a Fighter was, I think, 9. The core four classes (F-C-MU-T) had very low pre-req's; the more specialized classes had considerably steeper requirements.

 

[James Gasik]

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

Is that how it was in regular D&D? I remember it being 9 in AD&D.

 

[Irlo]

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

That was the requirement for an XP bonus in AD&D, but it wasn't the presequisite for chosing the class.

But yes, AD&D had minium ability scores for each class.

 

[James Gasik]

Depends on the class, most classes gave you a 10% xp shift for a 16 in 2e, for example, but not all (The Druid doesn't get this benefit). Some classes were really fun about this; Rangers need 13 Strength, 13 Dexterity, 14 Constitution, and 14 Wisdom, and to get an xp bonus need a 16 in Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom!

It should be pointed out though that many characters won't have high ability scores, and they often need to be super high to do anything of substance. The Fighter with Strength 10 hits just as hard as the one with Strength 15 (though I imagine the Str 15 guy can have better armor).

Actually I once played a Str 9 Fighter; I specialized in a crossbow, since it wouldn't have let me add Strength to the damage anyways. Was it the best character? Far from it, but it was functional.

In modern D&D, you're supposed to have a 16 or better in your main ability score, in AD&D, not so much. And for some classes, a 16 gives you a fairly minor benefit, like +1 damage, or a bonus 2nd level spell slot which won't do anything for you at level 1. If you only have one really good ability score, some classes dictate that you put it someplace you wouldn't want to otherwise, like specialty wizards or Paladins.

So to a point, yeah, if you want to be a Fighter with a 17 Wisdom instead of Strength, sure you do you, you're not missing out on a lot. But the game hasn't been that way for 23 years now; you kind of really do want that 17 Strength, and the 17 Wisdom isn't going to do as much for you.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

In modern D&D, you're supposed to have a 16 or better in your main ability score, in AD&D, not so much.

In (can't recall if it's the PH or the DMG) Gygax states that a character should have at least one 15 somewhere in order to be viable. Maybe that's what @Haplo781 was remembering?

XP bonuses nearly always kicked in at prime stat = 16+, if the class got one at all (some didn't).

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.

And to this I add my vote. Other than THAC0 and the NWPs, I'm all in for every one of these! Roll-under is a great mechanic for 5e where ability scores are capped at 20; the long list of weapons promotes one of many ways of customizing a character (even if not mechanically); different subsystems for different tasks are a big improvement over trying to shoehorn everything into one mechanic, and so on.

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.

Sad. That said, if you've been presenting it to them in a negative light it's no surprise they're not interested.

 

[James Gasik]

In (can't recall if it's the PH or the DMG) Gygax states that a character should have at least one 15 somewhere in order to be viable. Maybe that's what @Haplo781 was remembering?

XP bonuses nearly always kicked in at prime stat = 16+, if the class got one at all (some didn't).

And to this I add my vote. Other than THAC0 and the NWPs, I'm all in for every one of these! Roll-under is a great mechanic for 5e where ability scores are capped at 20; the long list of weapons promotes one of many ways of customizing a character (even if not mechanically); different subsystems for different tasks are a big improvement over trying to shoehorn everything into one mechanic, and so on.

Sad. That said, if you've been presenting it to them in a negative light it's no surprise they're not interested.

Not at all, when we attempted to run a 2e game for the group, it was sadly the rules themselves that did it in for us. Between extra levels of complication due to sometimes wanting to roll high, and other times wanting to roll low, and subsystems popping up like candy, the low amount of proficiencies, and some characters simply not being able to do much of anything at low levels, plus the high xp requirements to level, it was pretty clear that the newer players were not having much fun.

Consider for example our thief, who couldn't use their backstab ability due to it's difficult requirements, and only had like a 40% chance to open a door. The player actually stopped to ask what it was they were supposed to do, since they couldn't sneak, couldn't scout, couldn't reliably find or disable traps, couldn't get anywhere near melee combat, and couldn't even use their shortbow since there was a random chance they could hit an ally engaged in melee.

Let alone the Wizard who got one spell (they didn't want to specialize when they were told they'd have to give up certain schools of magic) and then was even worse off than the Thief.

We explained that it's a different play experience, which rewards caution and picking and choosing your battles, knowing that the odds are very much stacked against you. One of the other players summed it up as "it's like playing Dark Souls in hardcore mode; you don't get to save, so if you get unlucky, you have to make a new character and hope you get farther this time...except it's worse than that, since you can't learn enemy patterns or where useful items are, and you have to hope for lucky die rolls".

 

[BrassDragon]

This sounds similar to some of my experiences playing with neurodivergent people who could not fully engage with unspoken assumptions, unexpected developments/setbacks and switching between the meta ('what do we, the players, expect from this social activity') and the fiction ('what's happening to our player characters').

Now all of these problems can be solved and I've had amazing sessions with these players but it does require some flexibility and adapation by the neurotypical players. If it goes unadressed, it just leads to frustration and recriminations on all sides.

I can't tell from the descriptions if that's at play here but I just wanted to offer an alternative angle to come at the problem, something that the 'true roleplayer' label might obscure.

 

[Lanefan]

Not at all, when we attempted to run a 2e game for the group, it was sadly the rules themselves that did it in for us. Between extra levels of complication due to sometimes wanting to roll high, and other times wanting to roll low, and subsystems popping up like candy, the low amount of proficiencies, and some characters simply not being able to do much of anything at low levels, plus the high xp requirements to level, it was pretty clear that the newer players were not having much fun.

Consider for example our thief, who couldn't use their backstab ability due to it's difficult requirements, and only had like a 40% chance to open a door. The player actually stopped to ask what it was they were supposed to do, since they couldn't sneak, couldn't scout, couldn't reliably find or disable traps, couldn't get anywhere near melee combat, and couldn't even use their shortbow since there was a random chance they could hit an ally engaged in melee.

Yeah, low-level single-class Thieves in 1e-2e can be a challenge to play, no doubt about that. But all is not lost.

Backstrike is a little bit DM-dependent; I'm probably more lenient on it than RAW would like me to be but so what, at best a Thief can still only do it every other round. A Thief can always sneak and scout - I mean, hell, even on a blown 'move silently' roll the Thief is still probably going to be quieter than anyone else in the crew. In low-level melee a Thief in leather, a buckler, and with some Dex probably has good enough AC to get by, but won't be much of a damage-dealer; and shooting into melee is a bad idea for anyone - better to pick targets that are not yet engaged.

All of that said, there's a reason why Thieves are the fastest-advancing class: they're simply not expected to earn as many xp as are the others.

That said, one expectation you'd need to clearly set up front is that many abilities in 1e-2e are generally less reliable than in 5e, even more so at low levels.

Let alone the Wizard who got one spell (they didn't want to specialize when they were told they'd have to give up certain schools of magic) and then was even worse off than the Thief.

Thing is, at the sort of level where the Mage only gets one spell a day (i.e. 1st), everyone is more or less expected to be a melee fighter most of the time. The combat matrix* somewhat reflects this: there's not much difference in 'fight levels' between the classes at 1st; it's only as they advance that the differences become more stark. A Mage with a staff (which has reach) can be quite effective in melee if swinging from behind a front-liner (or, more commonly IME, over the head of a Dwarf or Hobbit). Said Mage just doesn't want to get caught in melee by itself, however, as their ACs are usually pathetic.

* - I should note, though, that one of the first major bits of kitbashing I ever did was to retool the 1e combat matrix into something smoother and more useful.

We explained that it's a different play experience, which rewards caution and picking and choosing your battles, knowing that the odds are very much stacked against you. One of the other players summed it up as "it's like playing Dark Souls in hardcore mode; you don't get to save, so if you get unlucky, you have to make a new character and hope you get farther this time...except it's worse than that, since you can't learn enemy patterns or where useful items are, and you have to hope for lucky die rolls".

Yes, luck has a lot to do with it; and IMO that's part of the charm.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, low-level single-class Thieves in 1e-2e can be a challenge to play, no doubt about that. But all is not lost.

Backstrike is a little bit DM-dependent; I'm probably more lenient on it than RAW would like me to be but so what, at best a Thief can still only do it every other round. A Thief can always sneak and scout - I mean, hell, even on a blown 'move silently' roll the Thief is still probably going to be quieter than anyone else in the crew. In low-level melee a Thief in leather, a buckler, and with some Dex probably has good enough AC to get by, but won't be much of a damage-dealer; and shooting into melee is a bad idea for anyone - better to pick targets that are not yet engaged.

All of that said, there's a reason why Thieves are the fastest-advancing class: they're simply not expected to earn as many xp as are the others.

That said, one expectation you'd need to clearly set up front is that many abilities in 1e-2e are generally less reliable than in 5e, even more so at low levels.

Thing is, at the sort of level where the Mage only gets one spell a day (i.e. 1st), everyone is more or less expected to be a melee fighter most of the time. The combat matrix* somewhat reflects this: there's not much difference in 'fight levels' between the classes at 1st; it's only as they advance that the differences become more stark. A Mage with a staff (which has reach) can be quite effective in melee if swinging from behind a front-liner (or, more commonly IME, over the head of a Dwarf or Hobbit). Said Mage just doesn't want to get caught in melee by itself, however, as their ACs are usually pathetic.

* - I should note, though, that one of the first major bits of kitbashing I ever did was to retool the 1e combat matrix into something smoother and more useful.

Yes, luck has a lot to do with it; and IMO that's part of the charm.

Some people like the emphasis on luck and caution, others want to feel "heroic". I don't think there's a wrong way to play, as long as everyone is having fun, but one man's grail is another man's tchotchke.

And yeah, playing backstab by the book is rough. Your opponent has to be unaware of you, you must strike from behind, it must be a melee weapon attack (no sniping for you!), you have to be able to reach a vital area (rough if you're a Halfling), and even a fully min/maxxed first level Thief has a 50% HS/MS to begin with. Oh and you have to be a good distance away from the party, and with all that, backstab only multiplies base weapon damage (likely around 9-10 damage), so if you do manage to fail to kill, you might have just set up a solo encounter for yourself!

The last time I played a Thief when it was run "by the book", I just didn't bother writing backstab on my character sheet, since I honestly couldn't see the point of trying to use it, lol.

Compared to modern Rogues, who are expected to pretty much always sneak attack turn after turn, it's basically like night and day.

 

[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.