Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Maxperson]

What fascinates me is why, whenever we get to this point, you insist on trying to make it very clear and explicit that ELFCRUSHER IS NOT PLAYING BY THE RULES!!!!! (An assertion I disagree with, by the way.)

Why can't you just say, "Oh, that's interesting. You and I do this differently."? Why is it so important to you that your version is "by the rules" and my version is not?

Mostly because you usually come off as arrogant and dismissive of my style of play when you disagree with me. It's irritating, and I tend to respond to people how they act towards to me. There are other posters here who I have great conversations with, because even if we disagree, it's just a discussion. I much prefer that sort of thing.

Here you imply that I'm a douche if I don't agree with that sort of concept.

If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun. It's only when somebody at the table is determined to prove that another player is having badwrongfun that things gets difficult.

Here you imply that I emotionally scar players.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here are simply emotionally scarred from playing with selfish, uncooperative rules lawyers, and are now afraid of anything that might give those players an opening to be disruptive

Here you dismiss the way I play as "utter nonsense"

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.

If you want people to treat you differently and just have enjoyable conversations, try not posting in the manner you do with them. In the past you and I have clashed like this, but occasionally you don't act that way and we've had decent conversations. It's really up to you.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Good post.

Mostly because you usually come off as arrogant and dismissive of my style of play when you disagree with me. It's irritating, and I tend to respond to people how they act towards to me. There are other posters here who I have great conversations with, because even if we disagree, it's just a discussion. I much prefer that sort of thing.

Here you imply that I'm a douche if I don't agree with that sort of concept.

Hmm. I was trying to suggest it's douchey to actively try to undermine it at the table, not necessarily to disagree with it in principle. E.g., a DM who said, "Ok, so now I've set up a situation, and decided what my NPC 'would' do, so that you're going to get mind controlled and have to pick up a weight that just happens to be exactly what is needed to make it hard to maintain the fiction you've invented..." is definitely being a douche.

Here you imply that I emotionally scar players.

That comment was in response to what was effectively "I'm glad I get all these players who flee from tables like Elfcrusher's"

Here you dismiss the way I play as "utter nonsense"

Ok, probably not my most gracious phrasing. However I'm not referring to the way you play (that would be "horrendously dull and uninteresting*") but to the assertion that there's one course of action that is what any person, fictional or otherwise, "would" do in a given situation.

*and that was meant to be funny...

If you want people to treat you differently and just have enjoyable conversations, try not posting in the manner you do with them. In the past you and I have clashed like this, but occasionally you don't act that way and we've had decent conversations. It's really up to you.

Yeah, that's completely fair and valid. I will say that in general I try to avoid attacking people for their opinions about the game. But if somebody wants to attack me, even (especially?) indirectly, I'm not going to turn the other cheek. If somebody were to ask me to recount what happens in threads like these, I'd probably say, "I'm trying to have this discussion, that I think is really interesting, about roleplaying and immersion, and these other posters either a) act like only their version is real roleplaying or b) claim they're playing by the rules and I'm not. And, as my pappy says, those who beat their swords into plowshares end up ploughing for those who do not, so..."

If, in some cases, I am in fact instigating, it's probably because I'm remembering other threads, and maybe treating it as one big conversation with interludes.

And, yeah, in some cases maybe I'm already in a bad mood and I'm the one who draws first. My bad.

So, anyway, I think we each think we're responding to the other person being nasty first. Or maybe Saelorn pissed me off and I hit back and you took collateral damage. Not sure.

 

[pemerton]

From the Basic PDF, p 3:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . .

2. The players describe what they want to do. . . .

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.​

So the first thing I notice about this is that it is incomplete: what happens if the result of the adjudication doesn't lead to a decision point? Does that mean the game is over?

The second thing I notice is another element of incompleteness: taken literally, it implies that players are only ever allowed to declare actions for their PCs in relation to the environment the GM describes, but I've never played a RPG that operates under that constraint and can't imagine doing so. For instance, in every RPG I've ever played, Player A is fully entitled to ask Player B "Are you (ie your PC) wearing a hat? If you are, can I (ie my PC) borrow it?" And Player B is fully entitled to answer "Yes, I am, and yes, you can - I pass my cap to A!"

This triggers step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

Another type of action which is part of many RPGs is the player declaring something that does not engage the immediate environment but something more spiritual or ethereal: "I remember all the dead we left behind us, and pray for their souls." Or "I try to see if I can remember the secret number that the sage told us when we met her months ago!" These appear to trigger step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

Another thing that I notice is that, read literally, the players never establish anything about the game. Read literally, all the players ever do is make suggestions about what might happen in the shared fiction - "I want to walk across the room and open the door" - but what actually happens in the fiction is always the GM's decision, with the GM perhaps using dice to manage this.

If that's true, then the other 100 pages of rules are all just suggestions to the GM as to how s/he might exercise his/her power to make those decisions. But I can't imagine anyone actually playing 5e that way. To do so would make a complete farce of most of the rules for PC-building (especially all the equipment and spell descriptions), and would contradict all the rules in the sections on ability checks and combat.

So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which all results of declared actions are narrated only by the GM. Here's just one example:

GM: You see an owlbear.
Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile.
GM: OK, roll for damage.​

I reckon stuff like that happens all the time at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice".
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claim that it is "houseruling" and "non-traditional" for a player to narrate results is without foundation.

 

[5ekyu]

From the Basic PDF, p 3:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . .

2. The players describe what they want to do. . . .

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.​

So the first thing I notice about this is that it is incomplete: what happens if the result of the adjudication doesn't lead to a decision point? Does that mean the game is over?

The second thing I notice is another element of incompleteness: taken literally, it implies that players are only ever allowed to declare actions for their PCs in relation to the environment the GM describes, but I've never played a RPG that operates under that constraint and can't imagine doing so. For instance, in every RPG I've ever played, Player A is fully entitled to ask Player B "Are you (ie your PC) wearing a hat? If you are, can I (ie my PC) borrow it?" And Player B is fully entitled to answer "Yes, I am, and yes, you can - I pass my cap to A!"

This triggers step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

Another type of action which is part of many RPGs is the player declaring something that does not engage the immediate environment but something more spiritual or ethereal: "I remember all the dead we left behind us, and pray for their souls." Or "I try to see if I can remember the secret number that the sage told us when we met her months ago!" These appear to trigger step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

Another thing that I notice is that, read literally, the players never establish anything about the game. Read literally, all the players ever do is make suggestions about what might happen in the shared fiction - "I want to walk across the room and open the door" - but what actually happens in the fiction is always the GM's decision, with the GM perhaps using dice to manage this.

If that's true, then the other 100 pages of rules are all just suggestions to the GM as to how s/he might exercise his/her power to make those decisions. But I can't imagine anyone actually playing 5e that way. To do so would make a complete farce of most of the rules for PC-building (especially all the equipment and spell descriptions), and would contradict all the rules in the sections on ability checks and combat.

So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which all results of declared actions are narrated only by the GM. Here's just one example:

GM: You see an owlbear.
Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile.
GM: OK, roll for damage.​

I reckon stuff like that happens all the time at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice".

@Maxperson's claim that it is "houseruling" and "non-traditional" for a player to narrate results is without foundation.

The reason it is not comprehensive and complete is because it is a small quick summary in the intro of "basic pattern" of how things tend to play out. its not meant to be a hard coded straightjacket ultimate MUST DO shackle for all DnD play.

Some tend to see it as some form of clear denial of anything that violates this summary.

i see it as the quick outline for new players and to set the feel, little more than that - all illuminated and expanded upon by the hundreds of pages that follow.

But thats me.

 

[Maxperson]

From the Basic PDF, p 3:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . .

2. The players describe what they want to do. . . .

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.​

So the first thing I notice about this is that it is incomplete: what happens if the result of the adjudication doesn't lead to a decision point? Does that mean the game is over?

No, of course it doesn't mean the game is over. It just mean that you are back at step 2. If they are in an environment and step three doesn't lead to a new environment, you are still in step two after the DM narrates. That's why step 3 only states that it OFTEN leads back to step 1. Example.

DM describes a room with a desk.

Player: I tap my foot.
DM: Okay, you tap your foot. Now what?
(still in step 2)
Player: I go over and open the top drawer of the desk.
DM: Okay. (describes the new environment of the contents of the top drawer)
(back to step 1)

The second thing I notice is another element of incompleteness: taken literally, it implies that players are only ever allowed to declare actions for their PCs in relation to the environment the GM describes, but I've never played a RPG that operates under that constraint and can't imagine doing so. For instance, in every RPG I've ever played, Player A is fully entitled to ask Player B "Are you (ie your PC) wearing a hat? If you are, can I (ie my PC) borrow it?" And Player B is fully entitled to answer "Yes, I am, and yes, you can - I pass my cap to A!"

This triggers step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

This isn't true. Without step 1, the PCs are in limbo and exist nowhere to pass the hat. The DM first has to describe some sort of environment at the very beginning of the first session. At that point the PCs can begin to interact with each other by declaring actions in step 2, like passing a hat.

Nothing in part 2 requires that actions be about the environment described, but there must be an environment for the PCs to do something. Once the initial environment is described, there will always be a step 1 that has happened, allowing step 2 actions like passing the hat or examining the desk drawer.

Another type of action which is part of many RPGs is the player declaring something that does not engage the immediate environment but something more spiritual or ethereal: "I remember all the dead we left behind us, and pray for their souls." Or "I try to see if I can remember the secret number that the sage told us when we met her months ago!" These appear to trigger step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.

Again, no. Step 1 has already happened or the PCs would be in limbo prior to game play in the 1st session. Unless you alter how the game is played and give the players the ability to do step 1, the DM must describe the initial step 1 before anything in step 2 can happen. Once that happens, there is always an environment that has preceded step 2 for the players to declare things like that.

Another thing that I notice is that, read literally, the players never establish anything about the game. Read literally, all the players ever do is make suggestions about what might happen in the shared fiction - "I want to walk across the room and open the door" - but what actually happens in the fiction is always the GM's decision, with the GM perhaps using dice to manage this.

This is not true. If the player says that his character walks over to the bar, the DM is not within his rights to just say "No you don't", that's just a suggestion and I'm not allowing it. Barring an in game reason like the PC's feet are stuck to the floor, the DM must narrate the results of that action. He has no choice that isn't an abuse of DM authority. The result of that kind of abuse is that his players would leave the game. Under the steps above, the players can establish all kinds of things about the game. They just can't create secret doors by looking for one, unless you have changed the rules to allow for that sort of game play.

So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which all results of declared actions are narrated only by the GM. Here's just one example:

As I demonstrated above, your arguments here do not show that step 2 taken literally is false.

GM: You see an owlbear.
Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile.
GM: OK, roll for damage.

I reckon stuff like that happens all the time at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice".

You're going to have to provide a much better example. That's nothing but a player declaring an action and the DM narrating the result. The player did not narrate the owelbear having been blasted. He only declared that he was casting magic missile at the owlbear. For all the player knows, the owlbear was wearing a magic item that prevents magic missiles from working. The DM by narrating "OK, roll for damage." is the one who described the owlbear as having been blasted. Prior to that narration, the magic missiles had not actually hit.

 

[Arial Black]

I can agree there as well. If I as a player that doesn’t like multiclassibg do the same thing but instead in favor of not multiclassing then do you find any fault with that?

Yes. In the case of a player persuading the DM to allow MCing, the player is trying to play the PC they want.

But in the case of a player persuading the DM to change from allowing MCing to banning it, then that player is not trying to get permission to play what PC they want to play (because they are already playing a single class PC themselves), they are trying to get the DM to ban another player's PC. That is not okay!

Unless, of course, the campaign rules are such the all players are required to play MC PCs. But...who does that?

 

[Arial Black]

Only in the sense that if the DM shuts it down, your fluff, your decision is is find something acceptable or find another table.

Which is exactly the sense I mean

As for your Deathstalker explanation, your ability to come up with an explanation never trumps my prerogative as DM to deny it (and I would based upon the special organ).

Which supports what I've been saying all along: the player invents the fluff for their own PC, the DM can, if they have a valid reason, say no.

If the DM says no for an invalid reason, the player has the final say by either playing a different PC or leaving that table.

 

[TwoSix]

Which supports what I've been saying all along: the player invents the fluff for their own PC, the DM can, if they have a valid reason, say no.

I imagine different posters are going to have different takes as to what a "valid reason" is. The poster who labeled their game as a "DMocracy" is probably going to have a more expansive take on valid reasons than you or I might.

 

[Arial Black]

This is a more sensible question. I will disagree with those who say it's 100% the player, as well as with those who say it's 100% the DM. I'll even go further and suggest that anybody who thinks they need to invoke 100% for either is probably at the wrong table.

This is really simple, guys:
Player: "Hey, I have this idea..."
DM: "Hmm, that won't really work because..."
Player: "Well, how about if I..."
DM: "Could you tweak it so that..."
Player: "Yeah, that works."
DM: "Cool."
Player: "Cool."

If your conversation does NOT resemble that, you are either playing with the wrong people or in the wrong hobby entirely.

I totally agree that this conversation is how the game actually works in practice.

My point has never been that it's 100% player or DM when talking about how the game actually occurs at real tables. My point is about who comes up with the PC's fluff, player or DM. It's the player. The DM doesn't create it, the player does.

Let me put it this way: at the start of the campaign the DM says words to the effect of, "Here's my campaign/world; what do you think?" Sure, the player might have some suggestions about tweaking stuff, but it's the DM's creation. What does not happen is that the player creates the world/campaign!

What happens after the DM presents the world/campaign is that the players create a PC to play in that campaign/world. So they cannot player cyberware in a world without cyberware.

Then the player presents their PC, crunch and fluff, to the DM. The player says words to the effect of, "Here's my PC; what do you think?" Sure, the DM might have some suggestions about things like personality, events in the backstory, whatever. The DM might also say no to some things, and tell the player why they object to that thing, so that they can tweak it.

But what I've been saying all along (although perhaps I could have been clearer) is that what does not happen is that the DM creates the PC's backstory, personality, etc.

Unless the campaign is using pre-gens, but even then the expectation is that the player gets to adjust the pre-gen's fluff.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do it another way, I'm saying that the expectation of the hobby is that:-

* the DM creates the world/campaign's fluff

* the player creates their own PC's fluff, within the idea space of that world/campaign

This agency to create their own PC is just as crucial to the hobby as their agency to control their own PC.

Imagine this:_

Player: I attack the evil mage!
DM: No you don't. You attack his henchman, because that's the kind of thing your PC would do.

NO! I decide what my PC does, within the realm of the possible. Can you imagine the player saying, "No, the evil mage doesn't cast disintegrate, he attacks me with his dagger instead. Because that's what he would do."

Lines of demarcation. The player controls their own PC, The DM controls the everything else!

And this principle extends to character creation fluff.

Player: my new PC is a bit arrogant.
DM: no he isn't, he's quite sweet actually.

NO! I decide my own PC's personality, not the DM!

How about this:_

Player: my new rogue has a wide array of skills, but has never actually stolen anything in his life.
DM: no, you are not allowed to take levels in the rogue class unless you steal things.

NO! I choose what my PC does, not the DM.

Are these silly examples? Yes. But no more silly than the idea that PCs are not allowed to take levels in the barbarian class if they can read/wear any more than a leather posing pouch/were raised in a city.

 

[Arial Black]

From the Paladin class, "If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."

Thank you for posting the evidence which supports my claim.