Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[pemerton]

Similarly, Ars magica had its "minions" (frogs? I forget) basically muggles and each player had one mage and one or more minions and any given arc might only have one or two playing mages and the rest muggles and it rotates around as arcs end and new ones start ( oversimplified).

But I doubt that's what the poster actually meant by the sound byte.

"Grogs" in Ars Magica.

I'm not sure which version of Ars Magica I'm thinking of, but in my recollection the grogs are more like common property. But players might alternate between playing mages or "companions".

But I agree that I don't think the poster had that sort of "troupe" play in mind.

 

[5ekyu]

"Grogs" in Ars Magica.

I'm not sure which version of Ars Magica I'm thinking of, but in my recollection the grogs are more like common property. But players might alternate between playing mages or "companions".

But I agree that I don't think the poster had that sort of "troupe" play in mind.

It's been too many years to be sure and I am certain the grogs by rule could go either way, tied to player or covenant resources.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense. NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into. So what you are really doing is what you want them to do. Maybe you think you're choosing the most probable course of action, but it is your brain, influenced by all sorts of factors, many of which you are not even aware, making that decision.

Of course they aren't real, but the premise of a role-playing game is that you pretend they are real. It is literally the entire point of the hobby. What would they do if they were​ real? You imagine that you're really in their situation, and try to figure out what they would do, because it's fun to pretend to be someone else for a while.

 

[Maxperson]

This make me recall those power gaming days where in HERO one built susceptable to being controlled or otherwise mind controlled - 3d6 stun per phase.

You got like 20 pts for bigger powers for the disad and when the inevitable "charmed/compelled to do bad, you knocked yourself out in under a minute thwarting the controller trying to use your ability"

"My character would like to run from your fear spell, but he thinks he can only run 5 feet."

I honestly don't know what any of that had to do with what I said.

 

[Guest 6801328]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]: I'm distinguishing between asking the question "What would this character do?", which I think is totally fine, and stating, "Action X is what the character would do," as if it's the one action among all the possibilities which is the most likely. It's the latter that I think is nonsense. People do unexpected, improbable, irrational things all the time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you want to create a house rule where players can negate portions of spells because they feel it violates their concept, go for it. There is no such step in RAW.

Here I think you are completely failing to understand the "roll then narrate" concept.

The Strongman failed his Strength test, and so made up the bit involving his backstory in order to explain the roll.

 

[5ekyu]

I honestly don't know what any of that had to do with what I said.

Character concept trumping spells.

Once the rule gets into play, you get concepts that get chosen for their spell proofing.

Why chose halfling and brave for advantage on fright checks if my concept include trumping fear effdcts.

 

[Maxperson]

Here I think you are completely failing to understand the "roll then narrate" concept.

The player doesn't get to narrate, and the DM narrates the entire effect. At no time without a house rule, is character concept allowed to have a mechanical effect.

The Strongman failed his Strength test, and so made up the bit involving his backstory in order to explain the roll.

There is no roll. It's an automatic success for anyone above a strength of 5.

 

[pemerton]

The player doesn't get to narrate, and the DM narrates the entire effect. At no time without a house rule, is character concept allowed to have a mechanical effect.

I would never play in a game run this way, and would never GM a game like this.

Here are some simple examples to explain what I mean:

(1) A player says "I draw my sword" or "I extend my hand in greeting." Those events take place in the fiction, in virtue of the player narrating them. I could never play in, or GM, a game in which these are simply suggestions to the GM, or requests, that the GM narrate a certain thing.

(2) A player's concept is "dwarven leader". The PC build, plus the way play has unfolded, gives effect to this. At a certain point, the player declares that his/her PC gives a rousing address to the local dwarven community. The effect of the address is determined by way of a CHA check. That check should receive an advantage (eg in 4e that would be a +2 bonus; in 5e it might be advantage in the technical sense) to reflect the established fiction. I don't want to GM, nor play in, a game in which this sort of fiction is irrelevant to how resolution unfolds.

 

[Hussar]

Threads like this remind me of the hours that I wasted playing terrible games with terrible DM's. *shudder*

Does make me thankful for the group I have though.