Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[pemerton]

Playing an RPG is utimately a form of conversation, establishing a shared fiction, although in many cases that conversation may be heavily mediated by rules (and props that support those rules, like dice and maps) for what and how ideas become part of the shared fiction.

Conversation has multiple "orders" of reasoning happening at the same time - there is first order assertion and response, but also second order considerations like whether or not some utterance is being phrased properly, or might be expressed better; and second order considerations of a different sort, too, like whether or not some question or some response is socially appropriate given the context. All this is done in real time, as the conversation takes place.

Just as a conversation is not, for most people, a "run time" implementation of a pre-prepared script or program, so there's no reason to think that RPGing should be like that either. Nor that it would be good if it were - part of the pleasure of conversation (as opposed to, say, a job interview, or taking a class) is the spontaneity and exploration of the moment, and RPGing exhibits similar features.

If I'm playing a FRPG, and the GM tells me "You see an orc not far away and coming towards you - what do you do?", then in thinking about what answer I give I will factor in a range of considerations: how does my PC feel about orcs? what sorts of things is my PC good at? what do other people at the table, whose PCs are also in this situation, want to do? how many hit points do we have left? etc.

Some of those are obviously metagaming - eg wondering what the other players want to do. Some may be metagaming at some tables (eg wondering about hp remaining; knowing what my PC is good at, if some of that capability takes the form of "fate points" or similar) but not at others (some people treat hp as "meat", or as in-fiction knowable "life force remaining"; some tables treat all resources recorded on the PC sheet as known, in-fiction properties of the PC).

None of them is antithetical to playing a RPG.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Okay, this is the first time I've ever heard anything like that before. It goes against every definition of the term I've ever seen. Where are you getting it from, and why should anyone adopt that definition, rather than continuing to use the definition which is overwhelmingly prevalent both within the hobby and without?

Why should I believe that you are actually debating in good faith, when you make such a bold and unfounded assertion?

 

[pemerton]

Alright, you must either not be from the US or are intentionally playing dumb if you do not get my real world reference about getting rewarded just for participating.

As it happens, I'm not from the US. As I understand "gold stars" or "elephant stamps" from teachers (normally to primary school students), they're minor awards for good work. This is the logic that is then applied to their use in the Prince Valiant RPG.

But in any event, I'm not sure in what way you think 5e states a goal of "everyone gets a gold star just for participating", unless by "gold star" you mean "has a good time", in which case I think that would be a pretty basic goal for any leisure activity.

(I don't know what you think the win condition for 5e D&D is - I'm guessing you think that it is gaining levels. In 5e, unlike 4e, PCs don't gain levels just for participating - they gain levels by getting XP, which, by default, are earned by killing/defeating foes in combat encounters. Personally I prefer the 4e system of gaining levels for particpating, which stops them being a reward, which turns the focus of play and "win conditions" onto other stuff.)

Anyway, I'm also curious about the answer to the question "how does your table decide which of the players does and which doesn't get to play a special PC'?"

Pemerton,

Which part is antithetical? Do you believe players should run over the DM, or that I am to liberal with MC if the players puts in a good effort?

Both. The equation of players are equal contributors to the shared fiction with "players should run over the DM" is antithetical to what I'm looking for as a GM or player. And so is the idea that the GM will judge whether or not a player is putting in a "good effort" or is making a "blatant min/max power grab" and on that basis open up or close down mechanical options within the game.

It's antithetical to my preferred techniques as GM and as player. And it also strongly suggests a broken system which isn't fit for purpose.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

He's not even really listening to the counterpoints, because he can't even conceive of a universe where his opinion is not the objective truth. If anyone else gets tired of him, the easiest way to get him to ignore you is to suggest that the Belgariad might not be particularly good.

 

[Grognerd]

He's not even really listening to the counterpoints, because he can't even conceive of a universe where his opinion is not the objective truth. If anyone else gets tired of him, the easiest way to get him to ignore you is to suggest that the Belgariad might not be particularly good.

Eh. He's far from the worst offender in this thread. Give him a break. He's nowhere near max level.

 

[Maxperson]

I understood. You're objecting to a player narrating how it is that his/her PC made a saving throw, or failed to perform a commanded feat. Whereas on this issue I have the same view as @Elfcrusher. If players want to narrate their PC's successes, that's fine by me.

Your examples were not the kind that indicated that you understood. Anyway, the player narrating the results of a roll is contrary to the rules of 5e. I understand that you run an unconventional game, and it appears that he does as well. It's a house rule to allow it, though. The rule is that the players state the actions of the PCs and the DM narrates the results.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, ok, so you're also with Saelorn in the "The players never get to narrate" camp. I guess I didn't fully understand that.

Per the 5e rules, the players do not get to narrate the results of a roll. Especially when it comes to altering mechanics the way your example does. A failed save is absolute. It has an effect and you are altering that effect to make it a partially failed save. When a save is failed there is no partial success that allows a bit of resistance to what the caster intends. Not without a house rule anyway.

Personally I have no interest in playing D&D that way, but it's certainly a technically valid, if limiting, way to play. And, yes, that would make it tough for people to create character concepts that require ongoing narration to avoid breaking the mechanical rules.

Which is fine. There's no need for you to play the traditional way.

It's funny how high-level rules/philosophy disputes often turn out to be manifestations of the same recurring low-level differences in how the game is played.

When you run a game that goes contrary to the rules, you are going to run into these sorts of disputes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Per the 5e rules, the players do not get to narrate the results of a roll. Especially when it comes to altering mechanics the way your example does. A failed save is absolute. It has an effect and you are altering that effect to make it a partially failed save. When a save is failed there is no partial success that allows a bit of resistance to what the caster intends. Not without a house rule anyway.

Which is fine. There's no need for you to play the traditional way.

When you run a game that goes contrary to the rules, you are going to run into these sorts of disputes.

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?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Okay, this is the first time I've ever heard anything like that before. It goes against every definition of the term I've ever seen. Where are you getting it from, and why should anyone adopt that definition, rather than continuing to use the definition which is overwhelmingly prevalent both within the hobby and without?

Why should I believe that you are actually debating in good faith, when you make such a bold and unfounded assertion?

1) I don't really give a rat's fart what you believe, or if you think I'm debating in good faith. You make up your own mind on that one.

2) I don't agree that your definition is "overwhelmingly prevalent". I hear it from you and a very few others on places like Enworld.

3) All that aside, I've argued quite extensively on this forum and elsewhere that I believe what distinguishes RPGs from, say, board games is that you experience emotions similar to what your character would be feeling. That's the more meaningful "immersion" in my opinion; not rigid adherence to acting. That's the 'high' I'm looking for in RPGs.

The most obvious example is fear: when your DM drops The Demogorgon figure on the table, you should feel terror. But also the mysteriously alluring yet vulnerable NPC should draw your attention and affection, and then when he/she betrays you to the BBEG you should feel shock and anger.

Trying to make the decisions my character would, while harmless in itself, does nothing to contribute to this.

One hypothetical example I've suggested in the past, just to illustrate this form of immersion, is what to do if a character gets amnesia. I think it would be amazing to get all the other players in on a prank: everybody change the details of their characters in small ways, and likewise change details about the setting. Then play as normal, and everybody look at the one player like he's crazy when he says, "Wait...I thought your character's name was Leon not Leo." After a couple of hours that player would be truly immersed.

Maybe he's also no longer your friend, let alone in your gaming group, but it would be worth it. You'd be telling the story at Cons for decades.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

It's supposed to be common courtesy, but if you want to contribute to a discussion about a game, you should first acknowledge which rules you are changing before you try and impress your opinion on anyone. Nobody cares about the bizarre rulings you apply to your bizarre homebrew game, when they only follow from a nonsensical premise that nobody else has bought into.