Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[TwoSix]

But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.

Stranger things have happened, of course, but I'd be surprised if Mearls, Crawford, et al, consider "post hoc rationalization of a choice motivated by drama" to be the bad sort of metagaming.

 

[jamesstreissand]

I actually did a pretty lengthy video on the "well it has to make sense for the CHARACTER" nonsense that falls flat for virtually anything but fiend warlock/divine caster mix.

TLDW: Your character in the vast majority of games is someone whose life depends on their efficiency in combat. Anything done towards improving (as the character sees it) their competence in combat, or other high-stakes situations is ALL YOU NEED to justify their multiclass.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The only one who really knows whether you're role-playing, or just rationalizing, is yourself. Personally, I'm not going to take a shortcut, because that would defeat the reason for why I'm playing the game in the first place. If other people at the table are secretly rationalizing their own actions, then I'll never know, so I try to not worry about it. I'm not going to second guess their motivations, for much the same reason that I'm not going to watch their dice.

But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.

To be clear, the DMG says:
"Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: "What do your characters think?" You can curb metagame thinking by setting up situations that will be difficult for the characters and that might require negotiation or retreat to survive."

If your character can justify something like, taking a plot hook, so be it. Game on!

Stranger things have happened, of course, but I'd be surprised if Mearls, Crawford, et al, consider "post hoc rationalization of a choice motivated by drama" to be the bad sort of metagaming.

Agreed. All metagaming is not equal if one is going to paint the definition with a broad brush.

Some seem to claim that it is bad metagaming for a PC to take a DMs plot hook unless, and only unless, the PCs backstory was crafted perfectly for that particular plot hook. If a DM's job was to cry "Bad Metagaming!" when a PC takes a plot hook with weak reasoning, there'd be a lot of empty tables methinks. Needing to craft the perfect plot hooks (for me as the DM) and needing to construct the perfect PC motivations each and every session based on chargen (for the players at our table) is tiresome at best and perhaps even, by same definition, metagaming in and of itself!

If you are so inclined, Angry has something to say here...
[FONT=&quot]"The issue is that it is IMPOSSIBLE not to metagame. I don’t mean that it’s hard. I mean that it is literally an impossible thing for a human being to do. "[/FONT]

 

[Guest 6801328]

The only one who really knows whether you're role-playing, or just rationalizing, is yourself. Personally, I'm not going to take a shortcut, because that would defeat the reason for why I'm playing the game in the first place. If other people at the table are secretly rationalizing their own actions, then I'll never know, so I try to not worry about it. I'm not going to second guess their motivations, for much the same reason that I'm not going to watch their dice.

The part that astonishes me about this is that after all the times we have been around the circle on this, whenever you end up talking about roleplaying you still make assertions as if your particular variant/definition of "roleplaying" is still the only one, or the only valid one.

But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.

I will bet you $1,000 right now, in public, that when WotC talks about metagaming they don't mean "taking the plot hook because you know that's what it is." Accept my bet and we'll start Tweeting to JC.

 

[Sadras]

I actually did a pretty lengthy video on the "well it has to make sense for the CHARACTER" nonsense that falls flat for virtually anything but fiend warlock/divine caster mix.

XP - great audio voice.
Content was interesting too

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The part that astonishes me about this is that after all the times we have been around the circle on this, whenever you end up talking about roleplaying you make assertions as if your particular variant/definition of "roleplaying" is still the only one, or the only valid one.

I will never concede that meta-gaming is a good thing, and I'm still waiting for anyone out there to offer any definition of role-playing that is substantially different from "making decisions from the perspective of the character".

I will bet you $1,000 right now, in public, that when WotC talks about metagaming they don't mean "taking the plot hook because you know that's what it is." Accept my bet and we'll starting Tweeting to JC.

Even I have stated that players should create characters who are willing to go along with whatever issue the campaign is going to be about, and I don't trust Twitter as a medium to sufficiently convey the distinction.

WotC is not some monolithic entity which is capable of independent thought, but if you are curious as to the opinion of any particular designer, feel free to ask whether it technically counts as meta-gaming if you only follow a plot-hook because you know it's a plot-hook. I would be interested to see how anyone can rationalize that against the examples of meta-gaming which are actually given in the book.

 

[jamesstreissand]

XP - great audio voice.
Content was interesting too

Much appreciated <3

 

[Hussar]

I'm trying to remember just how long [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]elorn has had me on ignore because of the spanking received for pushing the ludicrous notion that all meta gaming is bad and cheating. Fun to see the points being repeated in quotes being spanked just as hard.

It's just so toxic to the hobby.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I will never concede that meta-gaming is a good thing, and I'm still waiting for anyone out there to offer any definition of role-playing that is substantially different from "making decisions from the perspective of the character".

"Experiencing the same/similar emotions as your character."

feel free to ask whether it technically counts as meta-gaming if you only follow a plot-hook because you know it's a plot-hook.

No, not whether it technically can be considered metagaming, but whether that's the sort they had it mind when they warned against metagaming.

 

[pemerton]

Roleplaying, in the context of a RPG, means making moves in the game by way of descriptions of fictional events that are initiated by, or otherwise concern, a distinct character/persona under the control of the player.

The actual words are mine, but the general thrust is not something I came up with (obviously!).

There are corner cases. Is generating a PC roleplaying? In D&D, generally not - it's a precursor to roleplaying. In Classic Traveller, though, generating a PC via the lifepath mechanics does involve making moves that are initiated by (eg enlistment) or otherwise concern (eg survival) a distinct character, and this therefore probably does count as roleplaying (a lot of people certainly enjoy generating Traveller PCs - some even think it's the most fun part of the system!).

Likewise equipping PCs - in my D&D games that is generally prep; but others approach it as roleplaying, involving events in the fiction initiated by a distinct persona (ie a character buying stuff from NPCs).

The reason for initiated by or concerning is because quite a bit of roleplaying doesn't involve literal actions of the PC. (Eg in [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example, deciding "I'd do this crazy thing because I have a wacky great-aunt whom I take after" is partyl an action of the PC - making a decision - but is also partly about events in the fiction that concern the PC but weren't initiated by him/her, such as ancestry.)

Arbitrary stipulations that RPGing must be more narrow than this - eg that the initiated by or constrained by elements must be more tightly circumscribed - are made in ignorance of the actualy history and diversity of the hobby, from the earliest days (eg a paladin calling for a warhorse, in AD&D, establishes fiction that goes beyond event initiated by the PC) through every decade of its development up to the present day.