Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Arial Black]

Re the idea that you *are* equating GM vetoing or influencing PC backstory and Gm taking control of character choices in game.

The reason i was not wanting to expressly put those two toghether as your position was that it wasn't completely tied together *and* those are so very radically different things to me (and to my experience others) that it seemed out of line to put on you that extreme a viewpoint until you made it expressly clear.

i have never once met a player who would view " no, bob, i do not allow you to take the soldier on the run for a murder you didn't commit" backstory for this character into this game at all in anyway like "no, bob, Charlie your PC cannot choose to leave the room. Your character wouldn't do that." (assumes no compulsion or other form of "lose control" character trait involved.)

those are extremely different levels of Gm authority - to me and perhaps to many others - i think to literally every player i have encountered and have any significantly informed experience with.

RE the cute obtusy bit about player agency and me controlling every PC decision blah blah at the end - again you highlight a difference in our approaches. I dont need to portray those who disagree negatively in this case. I dont see jerk, irrational and the leap to "control all the PC choices" etc etc etc.

We both know that the game is cooperative by its nature. It cannot be that EITHER DM OR player controls everything; if the DM controls everything then there is no point to the player even showing up to Magic Story Time, and if the player controlled everything then why would a DM turn up just to watch a player play his own 'choose your adventure' book?

Given that neither can control everything, then it must be that the DM controls some things and the player controls other things.

Also, since we know cooperation exists and is better than non-cooperation, but we also know that disagreements will always crop up, then the above statement can be modified to this: it must be that the DM has the last word on some things, and the player has the last word on other things, when disagreement rears its ugly head.

For the entire history of the hobby, the consensus about who has the final word on what, the line of demarcation, is that the player has the final word on their own PC and the DM has the final word on everything else.

But the DM can always say 'no', right? True, but there has to be an explanation as to why the DM is treading on the player's toes. There are plenty of valid reasons to say 'no', but also plenty of invalid ones. Last night I asked my DM if my idea of training in the Feywild for 40 years while only 20 years passed on the Prime Material would be okay. He said 'no'. Why? Because although the rate time elapses in each plane is variable, it always goes faster in the Feywild. If you spend 40 years in the Feywild, you don't know exactly how many years would elapse on the Prime Material, but it cannot be less than 40 years, and it would be likely hundreds or even thousands of years. Given that, my idea would not work. What the DM said makes sense, the rate time passes in the world(s) is in his purview, and I don't think he's impinged on my agency one iota.

But what if he had a different objection to my PC? What if he didn't have a valid explanation? What if, for example, his objection was that my PC is female? What could his reason be? Are elves a single gender race? No, not even on his world. He doesn't like playing PC of the opposite gender? Well, first of all he can choose whatever he wants for his own characters, but my character, my choice. Second, he is playing every NPC in the world; are none of them female? Does he acknowledge that females exist but he makes sure that none of them turn up in the entire campaign just so he doesn't have to play one? Of course not! So it's not true that he doesn't play female characters.

He doesn't like it when other people play characters of the opposite gender? He doesn't think that a man can possibly realistically play a girl, so he disallows it? What, are the role-playing police going to kick down the door and arrest me for not playing my own PC with enough realism? We would all be in jail! Meanwhile, you're totally okay with players playing elf/dwarf/dragonborn? No, that's not a valid reason and I'll choose my own PC's gender, thank-you-very-much!

Not that my DM would ever have that attitude, I'm just making an extreme example to illustrate the point.

So that's why your objection to my fluff is not valid. It would be valid if my fluff choice changed the way lycanthropy worked in his game world for any other creature, but my circumstance is unique. Even if the same set of circumstances occurred with another human mating as they turned for the first time, it doesn't force it to happen again, there are too many variables. Plus, the fiend that's secretly directing all this behind the scenes is not forced to do the same for every similarly tragic couple! You're trying to pretend the DM is somehow hampered by my fluff, just so you have something to complain about.

you choose to, well, likely another "The forum made me do it" Flip Wilson moment i suppose.

Maybe I could post a coherent response to that line if I knew who Flip Wilson was.

But, yeah, we are arguing extremes here. The vast majority of the time player and DM will work together, adjusting to take account of each others' ideas and concerns. But, when it comes right down to it, the player has the final word on his own creation, and the DM has the final word on everything else.

Of course, all this is in the light of the player creating a PC within the pre-set parameters given by the game itself and the DM for this campaign. So no Star Trek characters in your Tolkien, and no cyber-ninjas in your fantasy. After all, if we were playing d20 Modern I would have to ask the DM's permission to import the idea of lycanthopy into such a campaign, because the campaign is the DM's purview.

Also, there is no One True Fluff for the 12 base classes in D&D 5e. Not every barbarian has to be born outdoors to 'earn' that d12 hit die! I didn't have to come up with ANY explanation of why my barbarian has never worn a loincloth in his life, knows how to use a knife AND fork, and eats with his mouth closed. Is the barbarian class available in this campaign? Great, I'm a 1st level barbarian. Is the soldier background available? Great, I'm a soldier. The effort I put into my backstory, to explain why I am a perfect human (three 18s in the physical stats, 6 Int), why I have a preternatural sense for danger (Alert feat), why I can get supernaturally stroppy (Rage), why am I so hard to hurt when I am going postal (werewolves are immune to normal weapons; I have a diluted version which explains the damage resistance from Rage, and better Unarmoured AC), why I get Danger Sense at level 2, why I Recklessly Attack, why at level 3 I get the Zealot subclass instead of the more obvious wolf totem, and why I do extra necrotic damage instead of the more optimal radiant (the fiend), why I get warlock powers at all (the fiend was also the patron of the original werewolf who bit my paw Daddy, which no-one knew about at the time, and my PC is only starting to realise during play), why my original spells known included charm person and my original invocations were Devil's Sight and Beast Speech (because of the animal magnetism and werewolf senses), why I swapped charm person for darkness and Beast Speech for MOMF (because the influence of the fiend was starting to become more powerful and swamping my animal magnetism)....and my fluff will continue to influence my crunch as time goes by, whether it is 'optimal' or not.

And yet, I didn't have to provide ANY explanation. I have the right and responsibility to choose my class and background (and, yes, fluff) from those the DM has already said are available. I'm entirely happy to work with the DM, and do! If the DM wants me to adjust something, he explains why and we make it work. But if the DM were to insist on something I wasn't happy about, I'm not compelled to play his idea of what my PC should be! If my DM were to insist, for example, that my barbarian MUST be from a culture of iron-age savages, then as far as I'm concerned he's banned my perfectly RAW 1st level barbarian by insisting that his fluff overrules my fluff for my PC. I don't play that PC, because 'civilsed' barbarians are banned, and that was my character concept. My DM would also be showing that he treats the game mechanic of class as if it were a real thing in his game world, rather than a set of rules and tools to make your PC, a philosophical difference which may or may not be overcome.

 

[Arial Black]

When I create a new setting, one of the very first questions that I answer involves the fundamental nature of magic. And one of my typical rules for magic is that it can only be meaningfully directed by an intelligent force. If lycanthropy is a thing in such a world (which is a decision that comes up much later in the process), then it's the result of a directed curse with a very specific intent.

Then you would be entirely happy with The Fiend be the directing intelligent force. You don't have to re-evaluate the fundamental nature of magic in your world after all.

As the DM, I have created an entire world for you to play in. There are literally an infinite number of characters that you could make, who would fit into that world. Why would you then insist on playing something outside of that? Why, when I tell you that the setting is pseudo-Medieval Europe, would you insist on playing a displaced cyber-ninja?

I wouldn't; that would be inappropriate.

Luckily for me, we are playing in a world in which barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes and fiends all already exist without me having to import them from another genre.

 

[Arial Black]

That's not a Barbarian. That's a unique character quirk, which just happens to have the same mechanical features as the barbarian class.

Likewise, a cyber-ninja wouldn't fit the setting, even if it used the same mechanics as the Bard. The objection was never about the mechanics; it was always about the fluff, and too extreme of liberties being taken with assigning fluff to the mechanics.

Then we fundamentally disagree on the definition of 'acceptable fluff'.

For me, 'acceptable fluff' is whatever coherently explains how your PC can do the things that your PC's game mechanics already allow you to do, while staying within the paradigms of the genre and game world. Since barbarian is a class which exists, and civilisation, lycanthropy, and fiends are already concepts that exist in this game, genre, and game world, then my fluff is acceptable. If my fluff was along the lines of cyberware enhancement to explain my stats and abilities, then that would not be acceptable fluff because those things are not part of the game, genre, or game world.

For you, it seems that 'acceptable fluff' is that the metagame classes in the PHB are real things in the game world, and each has a limited range of fluff that must include the example ideas for each class in the fluff section at the start of each class' description. That if a player wants to play a barbarian who is not from an iron-age culture then he has broken some RAW game rule.

 

[Arial Black]

I’d allow the “refluffed” Barbarian if that is going to be fun for the player. As long as it follows the mechanics outlined in the official books and the story makes some semblance of sense in a fantasy setting, why not? If they think it will get them some Lycanthrope abilities later, however, they might be somewhat disappointed.

Precisely.

I am just explaining the stuff that the rules already allow me to do, not angling for some kind of unearned mechanical advantage.

For example, I'm not trying to persuade my DM to let me be immune to weapon damage just because werewolves are! However, if I somehow gained that ability within the rules, then my fluff provides a ready explanation for it, in game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then you would be entirely happy with The Fiend be the directing intelligent force. You don't have to re-evaluate the fundamental nature of magic in your world after all.

If The Fiend had directly cast a curse on you, then that's one thing. I would be more than happy to work with you to create a unique class of character, which is the result of being cursed in such a manner. That wasn't what you described, though.

I wouldn't; that would be inappropriate.

Luckily for me, we are playing in a world in which barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes and fiends all already exist without me having to import them from another genre.

The world we are playing in contains barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes, and fiends which all work in extremely specific ways that are not the thing you had described. Genetic-anomaly lycanthrope-offspring is not a part of the game world, any more than cyber-ninjas are a part of the setting.

Yes, I could change the setting to say that such a thing exists, but that's true either way. It's the same category of player over-reach. Whether you want to play your weird werewolf thing, or a cyber-ninja, you are adding something new to the setting which never existed before.

 

[Arial Black]

I would be more inclined to allow major class adjustments. Writing an all new class, or even just an archetype, makes a lot more sense to me than trying to change the fluff associated with the existing mechanics. (Assuming the character concept made sense for the world, I mean.)

The Barbarian class only has those mechanics because that is how you represent the fluff associated with the class, within the mechanical language of the game. If you have a different fluff, then it wouldn't make sense to use those mechanics, because those mechanics aren't derived from your alternate fluff. In order to get the same degree of authenticity, you should use the existing classes as guidelines for how the translations work, and then do your best to translate that new fluff into its mechanical representation.

It's the other way round. It's not that these mechanics only exist to realise a specific fluff, and are therefore only available for PCs with that exact fluff, it's that the mechanics definitely exist, therefore ANY fluff which both adequately explains your PC having those abilities and which only use concepts that already exist in the game, genre and world, is valid fluff.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then we fundamentally disagree on the definition of 'acceptable fluff'.

For me, 'acceptable fluff' is whatever coherently explains how your PC can do the things that your PC's game mechanics already allow you to do, while staying within the paradigms of the genre and game world. Since barbarian is a class which exists, and civilisation, lycanthropy, and fiends are already concepts that exist in this game, genre, and game world, then my fluff is acceptable. If my fluff was along the lines of cyberware enhancement to explain my stats and abilities, then that would not be acceptable fluff because those things are not part of the game, genre, or game world.

For you, it seems that 'acceptable fluff' is that the metagame classes in the PHB are real things in the game world, and each has a limited range of fluff that must include the example ideas for each class in the fluff section at the start of each class' description. That if a player wants to play a barbarian who is not from an iron-age culture then he has broken some RAW game rule.

Exactly! Although I disagree on that last point, that the descriptions in the PHB are merely examples. They are the in-game reality which the rules are trying to reflect, and not merely suggestions.

You seem to be saying that fluff is mutable, as long as the mechanics don't change. I'm saying that fluff and mechanics are equally mutable, and the important thing is that they reflect each other. If you really wanted to play your werewolf thing, and it was early enough in the process for me to fit that into the setting, then I'd be more than happy to help you create a class that better reflected such a reality. Likewise, if you really wanted to play a cyber-ninja, we could work together to figure out rules to make that happen.

 

[Arial Black]

If The Fiend had directly cast a curse on you, then that's one thing. I would be more than happy to work with you to create a unique class of character, which is the result of being cursed in such a manner. That wasn't what you described, though.

But I don't need a new class, since I am only explaining the features of the barbarian class. It would be ridiculous to require anyone explaining their class abilities to create a different class with different abilities! It would never end!

The world we are playing in contains barbarians, warlocks, lycanthropes, and fiends which all work in extremely specific ways that are not the thing you had described. Genetic-anomaly lycanthrope-offspring is not a part of the game world, any more than cyber-ninjas are a part of the setting.

Yes, I could change the setting to say that such a thing exists, but that's true either way. It's the same category of player over-reach. Whether you want to play your weird werewolf thing, or a cyber-ninja, you are adding something new to the setting which never existed before.

Since the fiend patron does indeed have a large measure of power beyond that of mere mortals, it is well within its abilities to have influenced the circumstances of my PC's conception to create what might appear to be part-werewolf.

You are pretending the fiend does not have that power, just so you can pretend that my fluff breaks your world!

 

[Arial Black]

Exactly! Although I disagree on that last point, that the descriptions in the PHB are merely examples. They are the in-game reality which the rules are trying to reflect, and not merely suggestions.

Yeah, we fundamentally disagree on that!

Do you have a rules reference for the idea that the descriptions in the PHB are the only allowed fluff and if you use your own fluff then you are breaking the game's rules?

You seem to be saying that fluff is mutable, as long as the mechanics don't change. I'm saying that fluff and mechanics are equally mutable, and the important thing is that they reflect each other. If you really wanted to play your werewolf thing, and it was early enough in the process for me to fit that into the setting, then I'd be more than happy to help you create a class that better reflected such a reality. Likewise, if you really wanted to play a cyber-ninja, we could work together to figure out rules to make that happen.

Cool.

Help me create a character class which has a d12 hit die, Rage and Unarmoured AC at first level and Danger Sense and Reckless Attack at 2nd, because those are the class features my fluff explains!

Any ideas?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Since the fiend patron does indeed have a large measure of power beyond that of mere mortals, it is well within its abilities to have influenced the circumstances of my PC's conception to create what might appear to be part-werewolf.

You are pretending the fiend does not have that power, just so you can pretend that my fluff breaks your world!

How would you claim to know how The Fiend operates in my world? All of that setting-creation detail was established before you would have ever heard about my campaign. The Fiend in my world does not necessarily follow the same rules that you imagine it does, unless you assume that the description in the book is sacrosanct and that your interpretation of that description is infallible.