How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[ThorinTeague]

When you're at my table, good, evil, min max, heavy RP, doesn't matter, you're on a team. Period. If what your character would do isn't agreeable and fun for everybody, then you need a new character.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I'm having a devil of a time finding which Dragon it was in, but I definitely recall (for whatever that's worth) Gygax saying that not letting elves and orcs get raised was at least in part to offset their other powers, because if they could be raised then why would anyone play a human?

Yes, that rings a bell, but I too don't know the source.

I could, of course, be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure I'm not here. And hey, maybe Gygax ran meatgrinder games where raise dead was common.

I suspect that was the case. I mean hell, this is the guy who wrote Tomb of Horrors!

 

[The Shadow]

HS/MS? What's that?

Hide in Shadows and Move Silently.

 

[Lanefan]

Hide in Shadows and Move Silently.

Ah, gotcha. The context was melee backstriking, so I wondered if the H and M stood for Hit and Miss and the S was something unknown.

 

[James Gasik]

Ah, gotcha. The context was melee backstriking, so I wondered if the H and M stood for Hit and Miss and the S was something unknown.

Yeah sorry, I'm not sure when I started using those abbreviations to write down my abilities on my character sheet, so I sometimes forget that not everyone might know my shorthand.

Whether or not a Thief actually needs to roll those to successfully sneak attack is murky, but since the DMG does say anyone aware of you can foil the attempt, it always seemed best to prevent an enemy from using their normal means of detecting something moving up from behind. If, as in your example, the Thief manages to get to a place where they can't be seen, and they would be out of their direct line of sight to move up behind them, and they are engaged in a melee so they might not hear you, that should probably work, but that's still not something you can always rely on.

At least until you can get invisibility somehow and things get a lot easier.

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, sneak attack has become pretty common. Then again, for some reason the designers decided to make Rogues into big-time damage-dealers, which isn't exactly where their roots lie.

I always thought of the Gray Mouser and James Bond and later on ninjas as the archetypes for D&D thieves and so lightly armored effective dirty fighting skirmishers from 3e on worked for me as a mechanical role.

I was never really fond of the noncombatant ordinary guy Bilbo Burglar model for thieves.

 

[uzirath]

Characters in GURPS get compensated for disadvantages so it's just part of min/maxing.

Sure, I suppose you can powergame it like there's no tomorrow. What drew me to it, though, and what made me think of it in the context of the OP's post, was the idea of building 3-dimensional characters who are as much about their flaws as their capabilities.

M&M 2e, and later Fate, showed me what can be done in this design space: When a disadvantage actually hinders you in a meaningful way, you get a narrative resource. When it's not actually being a disadvantage, it does nothing for you. So now people are encouraged to lean into their flaws, especially when they're low on narrative influence, and story beats just kind of happen!

Never played M&M, but have played quite a bit of FATE (and FUDGE before it... I was an reader of rec.games.design when the system was first hashed out in the early '90s). Love the system, though GURPS ultimately had more staying power for my groups. Regardless, I agree that the whole point of a disadvantage is to lean into it. I don't see that as much of an issue with adult players, but I have to guide younger players sometimes on this front.

Now some of you might say that this could all be avoided in Session 0 when everyone makes characters together. But I'm going to be honest; I have never witnessed a Session Zero where that happens. Somewhere beyond "who is going to be melee? Who can heal?" talks always break down and people create the exact character they want to play, without asking for much input.

Interesting. I'm not always a fan of formal session zeros because time is precious and I'd rather dive into the game. With that said, though, I often play with people who want to hash out a lot of the inter-party dynamics and backstory. "Oooh, if you're a thieving hedonist, maybe I'll be a holier-than-thou teetotaler. What might have brought us together?" With the GM providing hooks and guidance to make sure the character concepts fit with genre expectations and campaign vision. Often we do this informally over social media or at lunch or something rather than gathering around the gaming table. Once the basics are hashed out, we'll draft characters on our own and run them past each other before kicking off the campaign.

 

[Lanefan]

I always thought of the Gray Mouser and James Bond and later on ninjas as the archetypes for D&D thieves

Ninjas for me are the archetype for Monks more than Thieves.

James Bond might be an archetypal Assassin. Locke Lamora is a more recent, and very fine, archetype for a Thief.

I was never really fond of the noncombatant ordinary guy Bilbo Burglar model for thieves.

Fair enough, though IMO at very low levels most if not all characters should still be close to "ordinary guy" status. That status falls off later as they gain in levels, powers, etc.

 

[Voadam]

Ninjas for me are the archetype for Monks more than Thieves.

80s ninja media had a lot of martial arts but also a lot of stealth and climbing and deception and infiltration.

AD&D monks had martial arts but no stealth aspects at all. Bruce Lee much more than Michaelangelo and Rafael for me.

 

[James Gasik]

80s ninja media had a lot of martial arts but also a lot of stealth and climbing and deception and infiltration.

AD&D monks had martial arts but no stealth aspects at all. Bruce Lee much more than Michaelangelo and Rafael for me.

Eh? AD&D Monks had the following Thief abilities: Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Hear Noise, and Climb Walls, all as a Thief of their Monk level.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Embrace them because they are so very rare.

Most people just play themselves

 

[Voadam]

Eh? AD&D Monks had the following Thief abilities: Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Hear Noise, and Climb Walls, all as a Thief of their Monk level.

Looking it up in the 1e PH and 1e OA, you are correct! My memory did not include that at all.

2e fighting monks from the Complete Priest and Monks from the 2e FR books do not get such thief abilities though.

 

[James Gasik]

Looking it up in the 1e PH and 1e OA, you are correct! My memory did not include that at all.

2e fighting monks from the Complete Priest and Monks from the 2e FR books do not get such thief abilities though.

Oh yeah, because the 2e Monk was a Priest kit (and a terrible one), as I recall.

 

[Voadam]

Oh yeah, because the 2e Monk was a Priest kit (and a terrible one), as I recall.

The 2e Fighting-Monk was a Priest kit from Complete Priest's Handbook which was basically a base priest (cleric, druid, specialty priest) with martial arts/wrestling/punching fighter specialization but no armor and fewer spheres to pick spells from.

The 2e Monk was a full on priest base class in supplements like Faiths & Avatars.

The 2e ninja class was a full on rogue base class from Complete Ninja's Handbook.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Well, I'm having a devil of a time finding which Dragon it was in, but I definitely recall (for whatever that's worth) Gygax saying that not letting elves and orcs get raised was at least in part to offset their other powers, because if they could be raised then why would anyone play a human?

I could, of course, be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure I'm not here. And hey, maybe Gygax ran meatgrinder games where raise dead was common.

There were a bunch of BS limitations put on nonhumans because GG couldn't fathom anyone might have other reasons than game mechanics for game and character choices. Which I'm sure probably came from his generation of [war]gamers and the specific circle he rolled with. (Communities were not so globally connected back then.)

 

[James Gasik]

There were a bunch of BS limitations put on nonhumans because GG couldn't fathom anyone might have other reasons than game mechanics for game and character choices. Which I'm sure probably came from his generation of [war]gamers and the specific circle he rolled with. (Communities were not so globally connected back then.)

Which is really odd that he never thought to give Humans advantages on par with the so-called "Demihumans". I don't really count unlimited level advancement, since so few characters ever reached such lofty heights of power.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Which is really odd that he never thought to give Humans advantages on par with the so-called "Demihumans". I don't really count unlimited level advancement, since so few characters ever reached such lofty heights of power.

Beats me. The +1 to each stat works pretty well, although it may have imbalanced 1e. (Which some would say wasn’t balanced to begin with.)

 

[James Gasik]

Beats me. The +1 to each stat works pretty well, although it may have imbalanced 1e. (Which some would say wasn’t balanced to begin with.)

Well, our ancestors were persistence predators, so even if most humans today are cream puffs, we still have the potential for better stamina than a large chunk of the animal kingdom. And according to scientists, the reason we succeeded over our closest relatives was due to our superior ability to communicate and coordinate with one another.

So a bonus to Constitution or Charisma isn't wildly unbelievable.

 

[S'mon]

Well, our ancestors were persistence predators, so even if most humans today are cream puffs, we still have the potential for better stamina than a large chunk of the animal kingdom. And according to scientists, the reason we succeeded over our closest relatives was due to our superior ability to communicate and coordinate with one another.

So a bonus to Constitution or Charisma isn't wildly unbelievable.

Running 1e I give only humans the Mature Adult age bonuses of +1 STR +1 CON. Humans are bigger than the demi-humans, making them relatively strong and tough.

 

[MichaelSomething]

You could just kill his characters whenever he does something really dumb and go "It's what my world would do" if he complains...