How to deal with a "true roleplayer".

[Rabulias]

The result was one splattered Dwarf, and the rest of the party decided not to engage the Giant. Afterwards, my friend had nothing but scorn for us for not following his "foolproof" plan, and complained that the DM was a "killer DM" for using a Hill Giant as an encounter. When the DM said that's not what was intended, the response was, "I'm a Dwarf! We hate Giants! If I see a Giant, I'm going to try and kill it! So yes, that's an encounter!"

"Oh, I thought your character would not be anything so pedestrian and stereotypical - a dwarf that hates giants? Been there, done that. I thought you wanted to play something outside the norm."

 

[Faolyn]

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.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure he said the same thing about elves.

So, fantasy racism, but not entirely limited to the "ugly" race.

I think he said it was a game balance issue, which suggests that he also thought people would get raised quite frequently.

 

[billd91]

I think he said it was a game balance issue, which suggests that he also thought people would get raised quite frequently.

If he did call it game balance issue, there's no way it isn't some extremely marginal issue.

 

[Faolyn]

If he did call it game balance issue, there's no way it isn't some extremely marginal issue.

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.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Agreed. And its legacy is one of those things that's still being felt and fixed to this day.

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

I could be wrong, but I don't think that came from Tolkien. Gygax's first conception of Appendix N appeared in a 1976 Dragon magazine, which would've been a year before The Silmarillion was published (and is not cited in Appendix N). And that's where we get the most about orcs' and elves' creation and afterlife....

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?

…which does not include anything about elves having spirits instead of souls. That perhaps comes from Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword. I had completely forgotten that Gygax's raise dead restrictions it extended to elves as well!

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.

In my recollection of my early gaming days, yes, after you could afford it, you absolutely would fork out the gold to raise or resurrect a favorite character rather than let them die.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure he said the same thing about elves.

So, fantasy racism, but not entirely limited to the "ugly" race.

I think he said it was a game balance issue, which suggests that he also thought people would get raised quite frequently.

 

[The Shadow]

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?

My recollection of those days is that the vast majority of players didn't play humans unless necessary as a class prerequisite. Multiclassing was just too good, and most campaigns didn't last long enough for level limits to matter.

If you wanted something human-ish, you played a half-elf.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not totally against a player playing some kind of incompetent comedy sidekick PC, but honestly given his OOC statements he seems utterly toxic to me. He either needs serious discipline from the group, or to leave the group.

 

[uzirath]

He is convinced that "making a good character" consists of the following steps:

*Give the character a detailed backstory.
*Give the character unoptimized ability scores, justifying them with said backstory.
*Have the character make decisions based on the personality he gave them.

I don't have a problem with any of that. My favorite game for the past few decades has been GURPS which is all about embracing your character's disadvantages.

But, all players need to understand that they are playing a cooperative game. If I decide to play Jerkwad the Useless in a game that's not intended to be about losers losing, then how am I contributing to the fun of the group? Ideally, this gets discussed during character creation or session 0. Does the group want to play a highly focused special ops type of team or a loose collection of misfits? Both can be awesome, but they're different.

In the dwarf vs. hill giant example, there are so many things that went wrong. One way I've seen scenes like that work well is for someone else in the group to rein in the hothead's suicidal tendencies. So when the giant taunts the dwarf and it looks like he's going to attack, another character leaps out of the bushes, tackles the dwarf, and apologizes to "Sir Giant..." Lots of characterization. The threat level of the giant is honored. The dwarf gets to play his stereotypes. And the adventure continues. The fact that he was left on his own to be "splattered" suggests that some meta-conversations are needed to ascertain why these characters are working together in the first place if they're not actually looking out for each other.

 

[Haplo781]

I don't have a problem with any of that. My favorite game for the past few decades has been GURPS which is all about embracing your character's disadvantages.

But, all players need to understand that they are playing a cooperative game. If I decide to play Jerkwad the Useless in a game that's not intended to be about losers losing, then how am I contributing to the fun of the group? Ideally, this gets discussed during character creation or session 0. Does the group want to play a highly focused special ops type of team or a loose collection of misfits? Both can be awesome, but they're different.

In the dwarf vs. hill giant example, there are so many things that went wrong. One way I've seen scenes like that work well is for someone else in the group to rein in the hothead's suicidal tendencies. So when the giant taunts the dwarf and it looks like he's going to attack, another character leaps out of the bushes, tackles the dwarf, and apologizes to "Sir Giant..." Lots of characterization. The threat level of the giant is honored. The dwarf gets to play his stereotypes. And the adventure continues. The fact that he was left on his own to be "splattered" suggests that some meta-conversations are needed to ascertain why these characters are working together in the first place if they're not actually looking out for each other.

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

 

[The Shadow]

I don't have a problem with any of that. My favorite game for the past few decades has been GURPS which is all about embracing your character's disadvantages.

GURPS and Hero are actually the systems that helped convince me that giving build points back for disadvantages is a design flaw. The thing is, disadvantages don't actually have symmetry with advantages.

A good disadvantage drives play! It puts the spotlight on your character! You almost ought to pay to have them! Whereas a disadvantage that isn't driving play isn't worth having. Giving points for them encourages people to hunt for the disads that will come up the least for the most points.

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!

In the dwarf vs. hill giant example, there are so many things that went wrong. One way I've seen scenes like that work well is for someone else in the group to rein in the hothead's suicidal tendencies. So when the giant taunts the dwarf and it looks like he's going to attack, another character leaps out of the bushes, tackles the dwarf, and apologizes to "Sir Giant..." Lots of characterization. The threat level of the giant is honored. The dwarf gets to play his stereotypes. And the adventure continues. The fact that he was left on his own to be "splattered" suggests that some meta-conversations are needed to ascertain why these characters are working together in the first place if they're not actually looking out for each other.

This is a really good point. Treating it as a roleplaying opportunity would potentially be fun for everybody and keep the group alive.