Warpiglet
Adventurer
So, at the risk of being somewhat controversial, I will answer the question of, "Why would we not help a player have more fun" with an extended digression.
Let's talk about team sports! See, in team sports, it is entirely possible for one person to maximize their own fun to the detriment of other people's fun (we might call this person, for example, a Ball Hog, or a late-career Kobe Bryant). Conversely, it is also possible that by sublimating your own fun every now and then, you maximize the group's fun, and when the group's fun is maximized, your own fun becomes greater than if you were simply pursuing your own fun.
*whew* Now, D&D isn't teams sports (HA!). But the principle remains. I'll give you an easy example- let's say someone really, really, really enjoyed killing other PCs. Now, let's say that the rest of the table really didn't like that. By sublimating his own fun (not killing other PCs), the overall group fun would be maximized, and, maybe, that individual would end up have a better session (because other people wouldn't be angry at him for killing them, and so on).
Which is why people on these boards talk about communication. It's not just about "helping a[n individual] player have more fun." It's about maximizing the table's fun- that player's fun, the rest of the players' fun, and the DM's fun. And everyone should be on the same page.
If a player is ever in the situation where he is demanding to the other players (and the DM) that something should happen because it is HIS FUN, then something has gone horribly wrong, just as wrong as if the DM is saying, "NO, BECAUSE I SAY SO."
I guess I skip past this consideration since I don't play with ass-hats. But this is true.
We played with one player who enjoyed PC vs. PC conflict. We don't anymore.
Everything I am arguing comes with the assumption we play well together are concerned about eachother's fun and simply want to do something off book in terms of fluff. I am arguing against reactive conservative assumptions about fluff in the book and NOT at the expense of shared fun, cooperation and so forth.
When anyone, even in the Gygaxian AD&D 1e days proposed a fun idea, DM and players alike rolled with it because its about shared fun. When playing villains in 1e a friend took an evil centaur-hating wood elf who belonged to an anti-centaur cult. He did not have an assigned deity but prayed to the darker forces of nature.
Fluff was broken but game was not. Level-limited evil half orc cleric made use of a giant hammer. DM made the stats for it (believe it was 2d6?) after we watched Conan the Barbarian. The DMs world was not negatively impacted at all.
But yes, DM was involved. If it was too gonzo, he would have rightly said something. That I think is the point I try to make however. Things should not be so restrictive that any deviation is seen as gonzo. Live a little. Make some sh*t up. Collaborate. Don't let coal in your anus become a diamond. Or, consistent with my OP, don't let diamond butt-ism forbid most multiclassing unless you simply don't use the optional rule to begin with.
Last edited: