Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Maxperson]

I would never play in a game run this way, and would never GM a game like this.

I know, but you play an untraditional game, where D&D is geared towards traditional games. You can run it in an untraditional manner, and it even gives a few blurbs on how to do that, but the game as a whole is not built in that direction.

(1) A player says "I draw my sword" or "I extend my hand in greeting." Those events take place in the fiction, in virtue of the player narrating them. I could never play in, or GM, a game in which these are simply suggestions to the GM, or requests, that the GM narrate a certain thing.

I wouldn't even bother to narrate anything in those circumstances. They would simply just happen automatically. Narration comes from me when there is something outside the character that is happening, such as pouring oil on someone or something.

What I meant in the context(here's that context thing again) of "roll then narrate", is that players cannot narrate the roll. Context is important to understanding things. Yet you never seem to understand it in your replies to me. When trying to determine the context of a post, you need to look at the quote that the person is responding to.

 

[Maxperson]

Threads like this remind me of the hours that I wasted playing terrible games with terrible DM's. *shudder*

Does make me thankful for the group I have though.

Good! You should be happy with the group you play with.

 

[Hussar]

Good! You should be happy with the group you play with.

Does make me feel bad though for the RPG refugees I keep having to give shelter to after they have such incredibly poor experiences at some tables. And it's such a PITA having to treat their gamer PTSD and get them to realize that D&D is a shared game where everyone at the table is equal.

 

[Maxperson]

Does make me feel bad though for the RPG refugees I keep having to give shelter to after they have such incredibly poor experiences at some tables. And it's such a PITA having to treat their gamer PTSD and get them to realize that D&D is a shared game where everyone at the table is equal.

Yep! Makes me grateful that my players don't try to pull ridiculous shenanigans like a 5 int genius or a 5 strength strongest man in the world. The trauma that sort of thing causes has given me many players over the years.

 

[smbakeresq]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is when they dictate to the DM “this is how it should be played because it’s not strictly forbidden by the RAW.” Then get pissy for the rest of the session.

There is this idea floating around these boards and others and games that players have an inalienable right equal to or greater then the DM to run the game, especially when it comes to rules decisions about their PCs. While the DM and the PC have to have a back and forth, it is always a DMocracy.

That’s why I have and always will have a PC building session as session 1. You will roll your abilities right there in front of everyone, and you will go back and forth with the DM and group with your PC concept and backstory (brief) and what your ideas are.

Today of course with email this gets done through that, one of the great benefits of easier
communication.

This makes everything easier down the road, especially when 5 players realize “hey, wait, we are all the same class and/or race. We need to branch into different classes to get all the bases covered.” It’s made even easier when I tell them what general type of enemies you will face.

Everyone can get their PCs started and get an adventure in to clear level 1 or maybe even level 2 after the pizza delivery. After that players can flesh out their backstory and make any adjustments needed.

As a DM myself, and as an argument FOR MC, I will allow just about anything if your backstory and RP is good enough. I don’t care about the MC requirements either, if you have a good story and plan it’s ok by me as long as it isn’t a blatant min/max power grab. Even those are fine with the right sort of player and backstory and concept, but most who propose something along those lines and are adamant about it are poison for the table long term.

Really good backstories and concepts are great and if they require a MC with or without a DM rule bend they should be encouraged. I once had a player play a dwarf fighter/sorcerer (with a 7 wisdom) with a split personality, sometimes he woke up as a dwarf male fighter, sometimes as a dwarf female sorcerer. He would flip personalities in the middle of an adventure or combat in response to something, sometimes the player rolled randomly each round to determine what personality would be in front.

I put in magical traps that would force alignment and/sex changes to PCs, which of course would have no affect on that PC. Any attempt to mind control the PC would result in a confusion type affect, as you can’t control both personalities at once. Everyone had a great time.

 

[pemerton]

What I meant in the context(here's that context thing again) of "roll then narrate", is that players cannot narrate the roll. Context is important to understanding things. Yet you never seem to understand it in your replies to me. When trying to determine the context of a post, you need to look at the quote that the person is responding to.

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 [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]. If players want to narrate their PC's successes, that's fine by me.

There is this idea floating around these boards and others and games that players have an inalienable right equal to or greater then the DM to run the game, especially when it comes to rules decisions about their PCs. While the DM and the PC have to have a back and forth, it is always a DMocracy.

<snip>

As a DM myself, and as an argument FOR MC, I will allow just about anything if your backstory and RP is good enough. I don’t care about the MC requirements either, if you have a good story and plan it’s ok by me as long as it isn’t a blatant min/max power grab. Even those are fine with the right sort of player and backstory and concept, but most who propose something along those lines and are adamant about it are poison for the table long term.

Really good backstories and concepts are great and if they require a MC with or without a DM rule bend they should be encouraged.

This is another example of an approach that is pretty much antithetical to what I'm looking for as GM or player.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm distinguishing between asking the question "What would this character do?", which I think is totally fine, and stating, "Action X is what the character would do," as if it's the one action among all the possibilities which is the most likely. It's the latter that I think is nonsense. People do unexpected, improbable, irrational things all the time.

When I imagine myself in the place of a character, and ask my brain what they would do in that situation, I care about the answer my brain gives back. It's not because this is the one true answer which would actually align with reality if that reality was real, though; it's because this is the one best answer that my brain gives, and the whole point of this exercise is for my brain to generate answers. Choosing some other answer, just because it's plausible and I have no way to know better, is going against the premise.

Maybe they would really do something else, given unknown factors that I'm not accounting for, but that's immaterial. This is a role-playing game, and the point of a role-playing game is to see where we get through role-playing.

 

[smbakeresq]

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?

 

[Guest 6801328]

The player doesn't get to narrate, and the DM narrates the entire effect. At no time without a house rule, is character concept allowed to have a mechanical effect.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

When I imagine myself in the place of a character, and ask my brain what they would do in that situation, I care about the answer my brain gives back. It's not because this is the one true answer which would actually align with reality if that reality was real, though; it's because this is the one best answer that my brain gives, and the whole point of this exercise is for my brain to generate answers. Choosing some other answer, just because it's plausible and I have no way to know better, is going against the premise.

Maybe they would really do something else, given unknown factors that I'm not accounting for, but that's immaterial. This is a role-playing game, and the point of a role-playing game is to see where we get through role-playing.

Ok, but will you admit that there are many...countless...possible answers, all of which are equally valid?

It would have been perfectly valid for Bilbo to refuse to go on the Erebor Quest, because after all he's a Hobbit and that's "what a Hobbit would do".

It's also perfectly valid for Bilbo to go on the quest, because he's also part Took, and that is (sometimes) what Tooks do.

So there are two diametrically opposed outcomes, both can be equally defended as cases of "would do". (Or, if anything, the "stay home" answer probably has better arguments in its favor, because if the Tookish side was dominant he wouldn't have made it this far in life without having done SOMETHING less respectable.)

So what does one do in that case? Personally, I go with a choice that I think will make for a better story.

In game terms, when that situation comes up, if I think going on the quest will make a better story, I want the option to say, "Well, yeah, most Hobbits would say no. But my mother was Belladonna Took, and the Tooks are famous for doing very un-Hobbitlike things."

I hope the DM doesn't reply, "Let me see your backstory. Was that already in there? Because you can't just narrate new stuff into your backstory whenever you want." If he does, then clearly we have dramatically different ideas of what makes RPGs fun, and I'm going to find a different table.