Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Only 1 in 10 player does it, but when a PC builds in a weakness or a MC that doesn’t really fit, the rest of the players notice it. The DM really notices it, at least I do, and that hooks the PC to the DM.

Hussar said:

Yeah, things like this make me very glad for my group.

"Yeah, you can have what you want, but, I'm going to beat you about the head and ears with the DM beatstick until you either give up in frustration or your character dies. Hey, what? I didn't kill your character. Got nothing to do with me. Nosiree."

If it works for you folks, hey, more power to you. Me, I'll most often rewrite the campaign setting at the drop of a hat for a player that's actually invested in the character he's creating. Setting is disposable AFAIC. It's probably the least important thing at the table. Certainly far, far behind what the player's want.

Click to expand...

I agree with you at the altitude you're operating at.

I think it's important to think about where a campaign is, what storylines are in flight and what other players want in contrast to what one player wants. Personally, when doing backstories two things from my past come to mind when my group was doing our standard pre-campaign world building exercise and character stuff.

For context: We do a round table mad lib with players spending "fate threads" in the form of poker chips to cover things that they want in game. The DM has his own amount of currency so he can modify certain things that get brought up. Players as a whole have more currency than the DM but the DM has more currency than any individual player. The way it works is the player will put down some of his currency and leave an open-ended statement that becomes as "real" as the amount of currency put down. Going once around the table, any player can add to the open ended statement with the DM closing the thread or adding his own take to it then closing the thread. Each player has 30 seconds to get their idea out symbolized by a sand timer.

Each person needs to add an amount of their currency to their modification equal to the amount of the original spend.. so if anyone screws with anyone else, it reduces the amount they have to spend on themselves. It balances nicely and depending on how careful a player is with how he or she states his or her desires it can end up with some really good, and really whacked outcomes. Nice ice breaker.

Back to point. These two things come to mind

Player: There's something about my character that he can't put his finger on, but he believes he's destined for greatness. - 4 chips out of his 10.
DM: Times up, lets go around the table.
Player 2: It's his spleen... 5 chips. (this player is the table's humor guy. He's well-liked by everyone including the player he just borked.)
Table: laughter, horrified look on player 1's face.

DM considers intervention but this is player 2 telling everyone that he wants a lighter game than "player one saving the world and grit". It flies but by the time it matters the point has been significantly abstracted. (read: it may very well be that the player has a mystical spleen/physiology, but I don't have the evil guys constantly mentioning his spleen. It's a table joke.)

Next example.

Player: I have tons of friends in high places, I know many of the nobility and their my close friends. (3 chips out of 10)
DM: Ok, lets go around the table (gives me time to think.) None of the players add or subtract, because I think they're trying to see if I'm going to break the game or break the collaborative environment by saying no.

DM: (adding to player's point): They're all imaginary friends.
Table: Dies laughing and we break for a few minutes to get food. Player's face drops.

By the time this matters I had enough time to think through it and the imaginary friends were spectral ancestors of the existing nobility. It would have given the player a lot of backstory on the nobility and enough information to manipulate things on occasion, but not enough to screw the game over.

Granted, sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't because you never know how long a game is going to last or if the players are going to be at the table to see it through. I do think though that if you put a bunch of creative minds together you can make anything work.

KB

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

So, given the thread drift, I thought I'd add my two cents regarding fluff and backstory and character creation.

In my opinion, and for my campaigns, NO ONE CARES. I really want to emphasize this. I feel like, woah, stop trying to make fetch happen.

You can't make your character cool or awesome or interesting because you define him as so. You can have all the written backstory of your character being the secret child of werewolves, or the King, or leprechauns, or whatever. Doesn't matter. Because characters are defined through play, not by all the things you can imagine happened before the game began.

Yes, it is great to have everyone invested. A background can help with the following:

1. Starting personality (hopefully, like in reality, the PC's personality changes over time and with events).

2. Why are they adventuring? What is their goal?

3. Maybe a hook or two for the DM.

That's it. We have a simple belief in our campaigns, going way back- time spent agonizing over character creation is time that is not spent playing. Creating a character should take no more than 20 minutes. The character reveals himself/herself to you in play, not through design. IMO.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

If it doesn't happen at the table it doesn't exist.

I like the inspiration system a lot for this. Each character has 4-5 lines detailing what they are like and what they care about. When they come up in play they have an impact on the story, making them exist.

Tangent to this, I think people often forget that they're creating a character who is part of an ensemble, not the protagonist. Simple, distinct characterizations that can help the other people shine. That's all.

lowkey13 said:

So, given the thread drift, I thought I'd add my two cents regarding fluff and backstory and character creation.

In my opinion, and for my campaigns, NO ONE CARES. I really want to emphasize this. I feel like, woah, stop trying to make fetch happen.

You can't make your character cool or awesome or interesting because you define him as so. You can have all the written backstory of your character being the secret child of werewolves, or the King, or leprechauns, or whatever. Doesn't matter. Because characters are defined through play, not by all the things you can imagine happened before the game began.

Yes, it is great to have everyone invested. A background can help with the following:

1. Starting personality (hopefully, like in reality, the PC's personality changes over time and with events).

2. Why are they adventuring? What is their goal?

3. Maybe a hook or two for the DM.

That's it. We have a simple belief in our campaigns, going way back- time spent agonizing over character creation is time that is not spent playing. Creating a character should take no more than 20 minutes. The character reveals himself/herself to you in play, not through design. IMO.

Click to expand...

I often refer to "foregrounded" characters when folks talk about how characters without a lot of backstory are bad or deficient.

A lot of heroic characters stories start when they begin adventuring and develop forward.

It's just a different preference and I welcome many types.

5ekyu said:

any number of my posts on that subject in this thread but thats pointless. i have repeatedly said that i do and i encourage the Gm to work with the player and the two of them create together and collaborate together on how things interact between fluff and world etc etc etc. I have said more than once i encourage my players to create new things outside of their characters to add to the world "we" use. i repeatedly refer to this in most cases as "our world."

Click to expand...

pming/5ekyu - I read your words here, but your own it seems willful mis-reading's of Aerial's explanation for why a non-nomadic tribal person has rage abilities doesn't jive with your words. He's not trying to create a "half" anything per his backstory. It's a story that gives rationale to his particular character having the ability to rage when he's not empowered by the spirits of a tribe or however you flavor rage in your game.

He's saying my dad turned into a werewolf when I was conceived, so I have rage and the attendant other barbarian abilities. And I spent my starting feat to gain "animalistic" senses aka Alertness.

That is a pretty unique set of circumstances that doesn't in anyway affect how normal barbarians work in your world. It could provide you as the DM a set of plot hooks to work with. Maybe his story gets out. Maybe there is an evil lycanthropic cult who hears about it and kidnaps the PC for experiments/torture. Maybe they try to re-create it and make a bunch of children they can raise in their beliefs that aren't tainted by the curse of lycanthropy but who have some bestial traits (rage/alertness). I only see that as making my job as DM easier. Unless you already have a railroad story you want to send the characters down that doesn't fit that. Then ignore any plot hooks this backstory generates. It only effects your game as much as you let it as the DM effect how things in your game work. Maybe it's not ANY different. Rage is an extension of the supernatural in your world, and animal totems are very tied to barbarian classes. Maybe it's the spirit of animals that grant in some small way the rage abilities, and in this case this PC is accessing those spirit animals (wolf) differently, but it's the same spirit and same rage. That is up to you as a DM. But I don't see your reading of Arial's backstory as "trying to work with a player" to integrate their PC/story into the game or world.

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - that is a cool backstory and a great way to think up a "civilized" barbarian. I like that you took Alertness with your variant human feat for the flavor of it. I would absolutely allow that for my games. I would still reserve the right to revoke Divine (read Cleric/Druid/Paladin) abilities if a PC went against their God/Oaths/Nature. Of course I would discuss with player first or drop serious hints, and it wouldn't be for random or light things. But for heavy, continued, willful violation, absolutely.

Salthorae said:

5ekyu - I read your words here, but your own it seems willful mis-reading's of Aerial's explanation for why a non-nomadic tribal person has rage abilities doesn't jive with your words. He's not trying to create a "half" anything per his backstory. It's a story that gives rationale to his particular character having the ability to rage when he's not empowered by the spirits of a tribe or however you flavor rage in your game.

He's saying my dad turned into a werewolf when I was conceived, so I have rage and the attendant other barbarian abilities. And I spent my starting feat to gain "animalistic" senses aka Alertness.

That is a pretty unique set of circumstances that doesn't in anyway affect how normal barbarians work in your world. It could provide you as the DM a set of plot hooks to work with. Maybe his story gets out. Maybe there is an evil lycanthropic cult who hears about it and kidnaps the PC for experiments/torture. Maybe they try to re-create it and make a bunch of children they can raise in their beliefs that aren't tainted by the curse of lycanthropy but who have some bestial traits (rage/alertness). I only see that as making my job as DM easier. Unless you already have a railroad story you want to send the characters down that doesn't fit that. Then ignore any plot hooks this backstory generates. It only effects your game as much as you let it as the DM effect how things in your game work. Maybe it's not ANY different. Rage is an extension of the supernatural in your world, and animal totems are very tied to barbarian classes. Maybe it's the spirit of animals that grant in some small way the rage abilities, and in this case this PC is accessing those spirit animals (wolf) differently, but it's the same spirit and same rage. That is up to you as a DM. But I don't see your reading of Arial's backstory as "trying to work with a player" to integrate their PC/story into the game or world.
[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - that is a cool backstory and a great way to think up a "civilized" barbarian. I like that you took Alertness with your variant human feat for the flavor of it. I would absolutely allow that for my games. I would still reserve the right to revoke Divine (read Cleric/Druid/Paladin) abilities if a PC went against

Click to expand...

If you wanted to you could have noticed the following...

The post i made about half wolf was where i excerpted and quoted for enphasis the portion of a poster who linked the wolf rage thing to a gm allowing half-orcs and hlaf-elf characters.

I was pointing out the difference in his examples between the percieved similarity ot justification of the were rage to half-races that the poster was presenting.

If you choose to transorm that into me putting that out as a false representation of the AB "wolf rage jerk position" then go right ahead.

But others may see my using it with that soecific reference setout first and take it another way - as a specific rebut/counter to someone wlse trying to tie it to half-races.

Salthorae said:

5ekyu - I read your words here, but your own it seems willful mis-reading's of Aerial's explanation for why a non-nomadic tribal person has rage abilities doesn't jive with your words. He's not trying to create a "half" anything per his backstory. It's a story that gives rationale to his particular character having the ability to rage when he's not empowered by the spirits of a tribe or however you flavor rage in your game.

He's saying my dad turned into a werewolf when I was conceived, so I have rage and the attendant other barbarian abilities. And I spent my starting feat to gain "animalistic" senses aka Alertness.

That is a pretty unique set of circumstances that doesn't in anyway affect how normal barbarians work in your world. It could provide you as the DM a set of plot hooks to work with. Maybe his story gets out. Maybe there is an evil lycanthropic cult who hears about it and kidnaps the PC for experiments/torture. Maybe they try to re-create it and make a bunch of children they can raise in their beliefs that aren't tainted by the curse of lycanthropy but who have some bestial traits (rage/alertness). I only see that as making my job as DM easier. Unless you already have a railroad story you want to send the characters down that doesn't fit that. Then ignore any plot hooks this backstory generates. It only effects your game as much as you let it as the DM effect how things in your game work. Maybe it's not ANY different. Rage is an extension of the supernatural in your world, and animal totems are very tied to barbarian classes. Maybe it's the spirit of animals that grant in some small way the rage abilities, and in this case this PC is accessing those spirit animals (wolf) differently, but it's the same spirit and same rage. That is up to you as a DM. But I don't see your reading of Arial's backstory as "trying to work with a player" to integrate their PC/story into the game or world.

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - that is a cool backstory and a great way to think up a "civilized" barbarian. I like that you took Alertness with your variant human feat for the flavor of it. I would absolutely allow that for my games. I would still reserve the right to revoke Divine (read Cleric/Druid/Paladin) abilities if a PC went against their God/Oaths/Nature. Of course I would discuss with player first or drop serious hints, and it wouldn't be for random or light things. But for heavy, continued, willful violation, absolutely.

Click to expand...

"That is a pretty unique set of circumstances that doesn't in anyway affect how normal barbarians work in your world. "

I have not once said that backstory affects "regular barbarians" nor that i have any problems with civilizrd barbarians at all.

I have said it creates a process "turning during intercourse" that creates certain effects that is far from unique. That applies changes to the greater world.

Maybe to you this is the first time you have imagined "baby born out of supernatural coupling has abilities" but its an old trope repackaged time after time. Its not unique. Practically and WoD game used that trope more than once.

So, my position stands... This is not "my fluff or jerk" case and should be instead a GM and player discussion and attempt to reach mutual understanding as opposed to the claims made.

Player who think "or jerk" and "or irrational" if their fluff doesnt get auto-approval even if politely can see the door about an exit while i speak with the players who built an entire world.

Fair point. There is a world of difference between a half-elf and a half-were creature, I agree. I conflated your post with those words and a post from pming to which most of my subsequent points were aimed. Consider the majority of my post redirected [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] !

That said, I do think that if someone comes with a were-creature conceived barbarian there is no issue with that. It doesn't try to make a half-werewolf or substantively change anything about the game or the backstory of the world. See my post above.

Salthorae said:

Fair point. There is a world of difference between a half-elf and a half-were creature, I agree. I conflated your post with those words and a post from pming to which most of my subsequent points were aimed. Consider the majority of my post redirected [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] !

That said, I do think that if someone comes with a were-creature conceived barbarian there is no issue with that. It doesn't try to make a half-werewolf or substantively change anything about the game or the backstory of the world. See my post above.

Click to expand...

You can of course edit that post.

But as i said, its not a bacjstory i would have a direct problem with in most any game i had where supernatural beasts were involved. Its a rather tired trope. Its bern done. Whats one more time?

But it would be a discussion not a dictate.