Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

Not sure if this is intentional or just confused.

"The Flash got his speed powers when a bolt of lightning hit him and some chemicals. Now, this fluff in no way changes how lightning works in the world! The player making his superhero PC is not taking away the DM's control about how lightning works in his world! Wesley Snipes is not changing the way proper vampires work in the DM's world! And I'm not changing how werewolves work in my DM's world!"

Both of those DC/Marvel cases obviously created **reproducable** events. They changed their world in terms of certain interactions.

Just as the WW tied to Barbarisn rage does.

Nothing "unique" about the process (tho I confess - not totally certain of all the blade lore.

 

[Grognerd]

Aerial, a couple of things:

1) Great explanation!

2) Awesome & original origin story!

3) I agree that you didn’t “violate” anything that is outside of player agency with this, and that a DM getting worked up over this would be a jerk move.

But mostly, I just wanted to say...

When I rolled an 18 and two 17s I realised that if I choose vHuman then I could have three 18s. At last! After 40 years of rolling stats I can finally make a 'physically perfect' human with three 18s in the physical stats!

4) Serious congrats!

 

[Grognerd]

Not sure if this is intentional or just confused.

"The Flash got his speed powers when a bolt of lightning hit him and some chemicals. Now, this fluff in no way changes how lightning works in the world! The player making his superhero PC is not taking away the DM's control about how lightning works in his world! Wesley Snipes is not changing the way proper vampires work in the DM's world! And I'm not changing how werewolves work in my DM's world!"

Both of those DC/Marvel cases obviously created **reproducable** events. They changed their world in terms of certain interactions.

Just as the WW tied to Barbarisn rage does.

Nothing "unique" about the process (tho I confess - not totally certain of all the blade lore.

Actually, I would disagree with this statement. In the current continuity is revealed that the lightning that changed Barry Allen was actually manifested by Barry Allen himself. Further, that lightning was not actually normal lightning, but instead was a manifestation of the Speed Force. So to draw this analogy closer, I would suggest that the lightning in the Flash’s origin did not change the world or the manifestation of lightning in that world - lightning is still lethal in DC comics. Instead, it appears far more like a player created a character with the lightning, and then later created a second character and used the same origin story. So not a singularly unique event, but two unique events that work together within the bounds of the world. Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world.

 

[5ekyu]

Actually, I would disagree with this statement. In the current continuity is revealed that the lightning that changed Barry Allen was actually manifested by Barry Allen himself. Further, that lightning was not actually normal lightning, but instead was a manifestation of the Speed Force. So to draw this analogy closer, I would suggest that the lightning in the Flash’s origin did not change the world or the manifestation of lightning in that world - lightning is still lethal in DC comics. Instead, it appears far more like a player created a character with the lightning, and then later created a second character and used the same origin story. So not a singularly unique event, but two unique events that work together within the bounds of the world. Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world.

Once you use the words "in the current continuity" you are leaping into "as set in this GMs world" territory.

As i recall in Flashpoint Paradox, for instance Robert Wayne and Barry Allen (i think Robert is right) reproduced the sequence to restore - actually bestow- to Barry Allen his flash powers drawing lightning strikes to Barry.

That established a different "setting" or "continuity" where lightning can produce these effects - reproducably.

For that Flashpoint continuity a player handing in a character background redefining the flash origin as you suggest would be problematic to some degree.

Obviously between now and then, the DC GMs have started a new campaign with a similar but different setting.

Similarly as i recall the basics of the blade origin - not an expert - its not necessarily a unique one as presented on face value. (They may have added lore to make it unique in some various continuities/campaigns)

Just like on face value this daddy-wolf-sex thing doesnt seem to be a case unbelievable to have ever happened before or after to someone else.

Each case establishs a process that leads to a result that is not limited to the subject and adds that process to the world.

Maybe that fits with the "setting" or "continuity" or maybe it doesnt. Maybe it makes great story or maybe it doesnt.

But the "or be a jerk" attitude backing up as an *or else* to "accept my definition of your continuity" just doesnt fit with me as a player role stance/belief/tenet i think adds to the play.

 

[5ekyu]

Actually, I would disagree with this statement. In the current continuity is revealed that the lightning that changed Barry Allen was actually manifested by Barry Allen himself. Further, that lightning was not actually normal lightning, but instead was a manifestation of the Speed Force. So to draw this analogy closer, I would suggest that the lightning in the Flash’s origin did not change the world or the manifestation of lightning in that world - lightning is still lethal in DC comics. Instead, it appears far more like a player created a character with the lightning, and then later created a second character and used the same origin story. So not a singularly unique event, but two unique events that work together within the bounds of the world. Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world.

"Again, I have to agree that this particular origin story is not violating anything on the greater scale, and there is no valid reason for it to be rejected if the DM is not also rejecting origins for half-orcs and half-elves since those origins necessitate “dictating” the world."

I see a **massive difference** on the order of the mass of Saturn to the mass of my prostate between these two viewpoints as to player character fluff and the player's viewpoint - expressed or not to the GM:

"My character is a half-elf, a race you allowed and uses the half-elf stats from the book as you indicated"

"My character is a sort of half-werewolf and that gives him barbarian rage even though you have not established these half-wolf thing into your game... You'll be a jerk if you say no."

Again, i might not have any problem with the particular addition for any given campaign i run. I actually like it. But it needs to be a start of a discussion and negotiation and work towards common aggreement in our games (me and my,players) not a one sided mandated with "or be a jerk" and "its my fluff" hammer being added to the mix.

Your games may vary.

 

[Sadras]

Meanwhile, the local cleric had been informed about the day's events re: werewolf and bitten squire. Knowing what the consequences would be, the cleric and the villagers rushed to the Big House (I'm imagining pitchforks and torches here) and get there just as the squire has horribly killed his wife. The cleric and villagers slay the squire/werewolf (proper MM werewolf BTW) because the locals have had a lycanthrope problem for ages and know all about silver weapons.

The cleric looks at the tragic mess and does something about it. He uses remove curse and raise dead on them both, making them both not werewolf and not dead.

So this local cleric of a village is powerful enough to use remove curse and raise dead and had two diamonds each worth 500 gold to consume...how often does he decide to use raise dead? are some people's lives more important than others so some do not qualify for resurrection? who provides him with a steady supply of diamonds?...etc

Are you still insisting this is all just character fluff?

 

[Grognerd]

Once you use the words "in the current continuity" you are leaping into "as set in this GMs world" territory. ...
That established a different "setting" or "continuity" where lightning can produce these effects - reproducably.

I'm about to head to a work meeting, so I'll reply quickly and follow up later if I need to... See, you and I are reading this completely differently. You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world! Is the badz!" I see this as an example of a DM saying, "you know what player, ok. But I therefore have the right to pick up that ball and run with it." (For example: I personally would then let the player find out that the Resistance that normal barbarians gain from Rage doesn't work against silver weapons, just because it seems cool.) You see player overreach. I see DM accommodation of a reasonable fluff.

"My character is a sort of half-werewolf and that gives him barbarian rage even though you have not established these half-wolf thing into your game... You'll be a jerk if you say no."

First, glad to hear of your healthy prostate! Second: none of what you are saying was actually implied. He was simply giving an explanation about why his anger is empowering vs. "normal" people's anger not being so. He broke no systems, and changed nothing significant about any part of the world. I'd say you are grabbing for straws with this argument, but maybe I'm just missing it too.

So this local cleric of a village is powerful enough to use remove curse and raise dead and had two diamonds each worth 500 gold to consume...how often does he decide to use raise dead? are some people's lives more important than others so some do not qualify for resurrection? who provides him with a steady supply of diamonds?...etc

Are you still insisting this is all just character fluff?

Since it impacts the rest of the DM's campaign or world in no appreciable way, yes, that's just fluff.

 

[Sadras]

Since it impacts the rest of the DM's campaign or world in no appreciable way, yes, that's just fluff

I suppose that is a fair way to look at it - sure I could come up with a good reason, perhaps a mysterious passer by or noble heard of the incident and donated the materials, perhaps even provided the skilled cleric to perform the ritual, perhaps there is a story to be told there/uncovered about the generous donor....

On the other hand, I prefer the player to work with me on their background and not just assume things about the setting. For some of us consistency is pretty important. If I do not imagine local travelling priests carrying bag full of diamonds for my setting then please provide a character backstory that accommodates my setting or at least be willing work with me to come up with a backstory that satisfies both the DM and player, fluff or otherwise.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm about to head to a work meeting, so I'll reply quickly and follow up later if I need to... See, you and I are reading this completely differently. You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world! Is the badz!" I see this as an example of a DM saying, "you know what player, ok. But I therefore have the right to pick up that ball and run with it." (For example: I personally would then let the player find out that the Resistance that normal barbarians gain from Rage doesn't work against silver weapons, just because it seems cool.) You see player overreach. I see DM accommodation of a reasonable fluff.



First, glad to hear of your healthy prostate! Second: none of what you are saying was actually implied. He was simply giving an explanation about why his anger is empowering vs. "normal" people's anger not being so. He broke no systems, and changed nothing significant about any part of the world. I'd say you are grabbing for straws with this argument, but maybe I'm just missing it too.



Since it impacts the rest of the DM's campaign or world in no appreciable way, yes, that's just fluff.

RE the bold statement NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

i would suggest you read 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."

So, as far as i can tell your "You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world! Is the badz!" is so terrbibly unfounded as to be nonsensical.

You then go on to describe as an alternative or different take a negotiation between Gm and player - just like i have suggested many times as my position. That however runs very much into conflict with the position i objected to - that of "its my fluff" and a Gm who disagrees with it would "be a jerk" etc etc etc.

When that expands to cases of how NPCs bargain with or deal with the PC (again part of the position i objected to) - this moves very very far from the negotiation/discussion i have suggested and use.

But, since what you chose to see or spin of my position is "You see it as "player is meddling with DM's world! Is the badz!" there is zero point in continuing this with you.

 

[smbakeresq]

I have said this many times and still believe it’s the best way to go:

Session 0 is where the DM and the players sit down and role PC and design them right there to smooth out problems ahead of time and fit everything together. To me this is essential to alleviate many of the problems in this thread.

You can get all the fluff and stuff integrated right there. The “it’s my fluff so I control it” never happens, in addition to the DM the other players will say it’s over the top. Backgrounds and skills and tools can be coordinated right there with the DM, and class and MC choices can be put together with the group needs in mind.

At least when 4 of the 5 players show up with hexblade dips ready to go you save time asking for justification and backgrounds for each one individually.