Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

I'm almost the opposite of this. I strongly insist to my players that, if there's anything particularly noteworthy to your character concept that you really want to matter, then you should make sure that it's already happened in their past. If you want to play a paladin who falls and then seeks redemption, then you should start as having already fallen and seeking redemption, because there's no way to know how the future will play out.

As far as the characters (and thus players, while role-playing) are concerned, there's no difference between the things you can imagine happened before the game began, and the things we collectively imagine happening after the game begins. It's all equally (not) real.

 

[TwoSix]

For me, narratives and settings are ultimately fungible. I'm happy to generate a plot if the party is the classic "we met in a tavern" group, with limited backstory. Players that come to me with strong concepts and plot desires will be the ones I bend the game world for, though. If your backstory if "My father is a Duke of Hell, and one day I'm going to take his throne", then the game is absolutely going to involve devils and infernal plots.

I do some light worldbuilding for fun, because it's rare for a player to come up with a concept that I can't take on, but ultimately the setting always takes its rightful place as a stage for my player's character's actions.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

It absolutely changes the tone and theme of the game/world. A side benefit of not using multiclassing, it seems, is that we don't need to deal with disruptive characters like that.

For me, narratives and settings are ultimately fungible. I'm happy to generate a plot if the party is the classic "we met in a tavern" group, with limited backstory. Players that come to me with strong concepts and plot desires will be the ones I bend the game world for, though. If your backstory if "My father is a Duke of Hell, and one day I'm going to take his throne", then the game is absolutely going to involve devils and infernal plots.

I do some light worldbuilding for fun, because it's rare for a player to come up with a concept that I can't take on, but ultimately the setting always takes its rightful place as a stage for my player's character's actions.

We do the exact opposite. We want characters at the table who are there to be part of an ensemble and further the themes and tropes of the game.

Not hijack it.

If the player writes their character to be the protagonist then they're being a jerk. Being the squeaky wheel doesn't get you the grease at our table, it gets you replaced.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

That's a whole lot of objection to the raise dead thing, especially when the question is asked about the diamonds, the answer is that Daddy is the local squire and already has the diamonds himself. Simples!

As I've said before, it is simply impossible for a player to create a detailed backstory that doesn't involve parts of the DM's world, whether it be people, locations or events. Therefore it is absurd to ban any backstory purely on the grounds that the player has mentioned NPCs, locations and/or events in the DMs world and 'trodden on his toes'.

It's also absurd to view the player having total control of the DM's world for backstory purposes.

Either extreme is absurd. It's a spectrum between 'total DM control' and 'total player control'. But where on that spectrum should the balance be when a player creates a character for a DM's campaign? Well, YMMV.

But in my opinion and experience, what happens is that the player creates a background consistent (or not inconsistent) with the information they have on the game world. They, at some point during this process, talk to the DM about the backstory. At this point the DM contributes. They may accept it whole cloth with no changes. They may not care much (do what you like, you start in the same tavern as everyone else!), they may think your idea is so cool that they get great story ideas of their own leading on from what you told them (like my DM did with my part werewolf PC re: the Fiendish patron). And they may say "No way in the Nine Hecks it that going to fly!" But if it's the latter, there should be a coherent reason for the objection, and some conversation should be had to fix what's wrong. It should not simply be "the world is MY domain and you don't have permission to make anything up about it at all!", because as I've mentioned it is simply not possible to write a backstory that does not add some element of people/places/events!

As a further illustrative example of where I think the balance point lies on the spectrum of 'total DM purview' to 'total player purview' re: backstories, my newest PC:-

The DM tells us that although the Dragon Drop campaign intends to take us from 1st to 20th level (we have just reached 9th, I'm Bar 3/War 6 now), so far they have only published adventures up to level 12. They will stop there, take time to write and publish the world in which the Dragon Drop takes place, and then resume writing and publishing adventures from 13th to 20th level after that.

Which means after we play the 12th level adventure there might not be an adventure to play for a while. The solution? "Make a 5th level PC each, set in the same world, and I'll take you to 8th level. By that time the new Dragon Drop adventure should be out".

Great! Another chance to try one of my many ideas! I don't know about you guys, but I usually have many more character ideas than I have campaigns in which to play them!

My new PC is a Noble background Sun elf Rog (swashbuckler) 3/ Wiz (bladesinger) 2. The genesis of this idea is the Bladesong ability, a fighting style...used by wizards? So, my idea is to have a dedicated fencer/duellist who has Bladesong to be a better duellist, not to be a better wizard!

To that end her spellbook will be full of rituals and a few spells that will help her be more effective in melee. No blasting, no fireballs, no mind control. Just mage armour/shield/feather fall/absorb elements/grease/protection from evil and good, plus rituals for utility. If I hit Wiz 3 I'll take blur. Cantrips are booming blade/green-flame blade/mending/prestidigitation.

As to the noble background I'm imagining the youngest daughter of a powerful eleven noble. Her family is wealthy and powerful, but she is not! While at home she has servants and Daddy's credit card (or the fantasy equivalent), but when she runs away from home to be an adventurer she does so with nothing but....the starting equipment as per the PHB/DMG for a 5th level PC.

Yes, I'll work with the DM about the noble family. I have a name for them, what they do (magic and combat, hence the family Bladesong tradition), a name for the Bladesong style, and so on and so forth (I told you it takes me two weeks minimum!).

Now, the DM can object to any of the details I've set forth if he wanted to. I'll be entirely happy to work with him to adapt this background as needed to better fit his world, but to be honest I expect him to let it through on the nod; there just isn't an established world to mess up! He cannot legitimately object to my class/race/background/spells etc. because he's already said that we can choose our own. He would have to go back on his word to do so, and why would he?

But, to illustrate the balance point, there is a background idea that I really do need the DM's permission for, and if he says no then I'll be totally okay about it:-

My idea is that her first character level was Rog 1. She met this human swashbuckler/duellist when they were both young (he was 17, she was maybe 60 or 80). She was fascinated with the whole sub-culture, and wanted to be like them. She picked up the skills that would lead her to be a 1st level rogue. But then she was packed off to wizard/Bladesong school for...decades! The decades elves think their children need to learn their skills before they become adults sometime after they hit the century mark.

When she gets back, she will be 117 years old, an adult, and be a Rog 1/Wiz 2 (Bladesinger). Meanwhile, the human friend (boyfriend? Don't tell her Dad!) is now middle-aged and high level; a great mentor (he gets her to Rog 3 Swashbuckler) but not a suitable boyfriend or party member.

All that's in my purview. The DM could object in theory, but I'd be astonished if there was anything there to ban in the fluff. The part that I feel I need his permission for is my idea that her decades of training took place in the Feywild, and that the time differences mean that although the human thought she was gone for 20 years or so, she was actually in the Feywild for 40 to 50 years!

I need permission firstly because the rate of time passing in each plane might not be that ratio, or it might be the other way round so that 1 year in the Feywild takes 10 years on the Prime Material, so that idea won't work. Secondly, the DM mentioned that the adventure he has in mind is set in the Feywild!

Now, the Feywild is a big place! If the DM thinks it would be a good idea for one of the party to know something about the Feywild, or even know some of the principle NPCs, this would help him. If that's not what he wants then the Feywild is a big enough place that I could have spent decades in part of it without coming into contact with any part of the people/places/events of the adventure. But he might very well not want any PC to have any previous Feywild experience at all. If so, I will totally respect that. That is in the DM's purview, because it might mess with his adventure, while the other parts of my backstory just don't. If he objects, I'll just have her train for decades elsewhere on the Prime Material and not bother with the time dilation angle.

Can you see the difference?

 

[FriendBesto]

Just one point of view among hundreds, but:

The underlying point is just a matter of opinion, and there may be a consensus among the community, but perhaps the biggest part of D&D is the flexibility of the ruleset. Skyrim versus WoW versus Final Fantasy matters far more because you get the one ruleset and for the most part it only works one way. D&D on the other hand operates in the theater of the mind and is able to accommodate the full spectrum of preferences. Attempting to standardize game theory discourages creative flexibility and is similar to deciding an objective "best" flavor when the best part about flavors is, there are many to choose from. What's really important is knowing what you like and why so you can find others to enjoy the game with, but as a community we should relish the fact that our one core game system supports such a variety of play.

 

[5ekyu]

That's a whole lot of objection to the raise dead thing, especially when the question is asked about the diamonds, the answer is that Daddy is the local squire and already has the diamonds himself. Simples!

As I've said before, it is simply impossible for a player to create a detailed backstory that doesn't involve parts of the DM's world, whether it be people, locations or events. Therefore it is absurd to ban any backstory purely on the grounds that the player has mentioned NPCs, locations and/or events in the DMs world and 'trodden on his toes'.

It's also absurd to view the player having total control of the DM's world for backstory purposes.

Either extreme is absurd. It's a spectrum between 'total DM control' and 'total player control'. But where on that spectrum should the balance be when a player creates a character for a DM's campaign? Well, YMMV.

But in my opinion and experience, what happens is that the player creates a background consistent (or not inconsistent) with the information they have on the game world. They, at some point during this process, talk to the DM about the backstory. At this point the DM contributes. They may accept it whole cloth with no changes. They may not care much (do what you like, you start in the same tavern as everyone else!), they may think your idea is so cool that they get great story ideas of their own leading on from what you told them (like my DM did with my part werewolf PC re: the Fiendish patron). And they may say "No way in the Nine Hecks it that going to fly!" But if it's the latter, there should be a coherent reason for the objection, and some conversation should be had to fix what's wrong. It should not simply be "the world is MY domain and you don't have permission to make anything up about it at all!", because as I've mentioned it is simply not possible to write a backstory that does not add some element of people/places/events!

As a further illustrative example of where I think the balance point lies on the spectrum of 'total DM purview' to 'total player purview' re: backstories, my newest PC:-

The DM tells us that although the Dragon Drop campaign intends to take us from 1st to 20th level (we have just reached 9th, I'm Bar 3/War 6 now), so far they have only published adventures up to level 12. They will stop there, take time to write and publish the world in which the Dragon Drop takes place, and then resume writing and publishing adventures from 13th to 20th level after that.

Which means after we play the 12th level adventure there might not be an adventure to play for a while. The solution? "Make a 5th level PC each, set in the same world, and I'll take you to 8th level. By that time the new Dragon Drop adventure should be out".

Great! Another chance to try one of my many ideas! I don't know about you guys, but I usually have many more character ideas than I have campaigns in which to play them!

My new PC is a Noble background Sun elf Rog (swashbuckler) 3/ Wiz (bladesinger) 2. The genesis of this idea is the Bladesong ability, a fighting style...used by wizards? So, my idea is to have a dedicated fencer/duellist who has Bladesong to be a better duellist, not to be a better wizard!

To that end her spellbook will be full of rituals and a few spells that will help her be more effective in melee. No blasting, no fireballs, no mind control. Just mage armour/shield/feather fall/absorb elements/grease/protection from evil and good, plus rituals for utility. If I hit Wiz 3 I'll take blur. Cantrips are booming blade/green-flame blade/mending/prestidigitation.

As to the noble background I'm imagining the youngest daughter of a powerful eleven noble. Her family is wealthy and powerful, but she is not! While at home she has servants and Daddy's credit card (or the fantasy equivalent), but when she runs away from home to be an adventurer she does so with nothing but....the starting equipment as per the PHB/DMG for a 5th level PC.

Yes, I'll work with the DM about the noble family. I have a name for them, what they do (magic and combat, hence the family Bladesong tradition), a name for the Bladesong style, and so on and so forth (I told you it takes me two weeks minimum!).

Now, the DM can object to any of the details I've set forth if he wanted to. I'll be entirely happy to work with him to adapt this background as needed to better fit his world, but to be honest I expect him to let it through on the nod; there just isn't an established world to mess up! He cannot legitimately object to my class/race/background/spells etc. because he's already said that we can choose our own. He would have to go back on his word to do so, and why would he?

But, to illustrate the balance point, there is a background idea that I really do need the DM's permission for, and if he says no then I'll be totally okay about it:-

My idea is that her first character level was Rog 1. She met this human swashbuckler/duellist when they were both young (he was 17, she was maybe 60 or 80). She was fascinated with the whole sub-culture, and wanted to be like them. She picked up the skills that would lead her to be a 1st level rogue. But then she was packed off to wizard/Bladesong school for...decades! The decades elves think their children need to learn their skills before they become adults sometime after they hit the century mark.

When she gets back, she will be 117 years old, an adult, and be a Rog 1/Wiz 2 (Bladesinger). Meanwhile, the human friend (boyfriend? Don't tell her Dad!) is now middle-aged and high level; a great mentor (he gets her to Rog 3 Swashbuckler) but not a suitable boyfriend or party member.

All that's in my purview. The DM could object in theory, but I'd be astonished if there was anything there to ban in the fluff. The part that I feel I need his permission for is my idea that her decades of training took place in the Feywild, and that the time differences mean that although the human thought she was gone for 20 years or so, she was actually in the Feywild for 40 to 50 years!

I need permission firstly because the rate of time passing in each plane might not be that ratio, or it might be the other way round so that 1 year in the Feywild takes 10 years on the Prime Material, so that idea won't work. Secondly, the DM mentioned that the adventure he has in mind is set in the Feywild!

Now, the Feywild is a big place! If the DM thinks it would be a good idea for one of the party to know something about the Feywild, or even know some of the principle NPCs, this would help him. If that's not what he wants then the Feywild is a big enough place that I could have spent decades in part of it without coming into contact with any part of the people/places/events of the adventure. But he might very well not want any PC to have any previous Feywild experience at all. If so, I will totally respect that. That is in the DM's purview, because it might mess with his adventure, while the other parts of my backstory just don't. If he objects, I'll just have her train for decades elsewhere on the Prime Material and not bother with the time dilation angle.

Can you see the difference?

The difference is you describe a process where two people gm and player discuss and come to an agreement that does not include one side coming to that with the foundation that if tha other disagrees and says no they are being a jerk or are being irrational or that its theirs alone to decide.

Sounds like a lot games actually and what a lot of folks here have been describing.

As for the bit about the GM going back on his word, as far as that relates to the MC ban combo or not type discussions, I think most of the time it's been put forth as "I ban warlock pally" etc it has been as "table rule" not as a going back on word case. Not a particular thing I object to, pally-lock, but I have not seen too much here about the sort of untrustworthy gm you want to add to the mix now alongside your jerk gm and irrational gm.

 

[TwoSix]

We do the exact opposite. We want characters at the table who are there to be part of an ensemble and further the themes and tropes of the game.

Not hijack it.

If the player writes their character to be the protagonist then they're being a jerk. Being the squeaky wheel doesn't get you the grease at our table, it gets you replaced.

Different strokes for different folks. As I've said before, one of the major divergences between different roleplaying games is whether the game is an exploration of the setting or an exploration of the player characters.

 

[Grognerd]

Different strokes for different folks. As I've said before, one of the major divergences between different roleplaying games is whether the game is an exploration of the setting or an exploration of the player characters.

I would also point out that these are not mutually exclusive. Unless the PCs are all supposed to be from the same town or something along those lines, by and large most of the individual personalizations of a characters background do not impact the ensemble in any negative way. They remain a way to tell the story about that character, but in no way impede the overall ensemble. Personally, I don’t think people should be punished for individual creativity even if they’re in an ensemble game. Particularly when that individual creativity is not impacting anyone else’s character or the world at large in any appreciable way.

 

[TwoSix]

I would also point out that these are not mutually exclusive. Unless the PCs are all supposed to be from the same town or something along those lines, by and large most of the individual personalizations of a characters background do not impact the ensemble in any negative way. They remain a way to tell the story about that character, but in no way impede the overall ensemble. Personally, I don’t think people should be punished for individual creativity even if they’re in an ensemble game. Particularly when that individual creativity is not impacting anyone else’s character or the world at large in any appreciable way.

I agree that there's a spectrum there, and the rule system you use can you push you strongly in one direction or the other. But in general, if there's a conflict between a player's vision of their character and your vision (as a DM) of how the setting works, you need to decide which one takes precedence.

 

[Grognerd]

I agree that there's a spectrum there, and the rule system you use can you push you strongly in one direction or the other. But in general, if there's a conflict between a player's vision of their character and your vision (as a DM) of how the setting works, you need to decide which one takes precedence.

Absolutely. If there is an actual conflict.