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.