Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[TwoSix]

Absolutely. If there is an actual conflict.

In general, lack of conflict has proven pretty easy to handle.

 

[Grognerd]

In general, lack of conflict has proven pretty easy to handle.

Ah, but that is why I included the qualifier "actual". Because in the example of our barbarian, would argue that there is no actual conflict. Much of the supposed conflict seems to be manufactured, to my mind. His fluff did not impact anything outside of his character. Claims that he is overstepping as a player or claiming entitlement very much seem illegitimate to me. Hence the qualifier.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

By 'can you see the difference?' I mean the difference between what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch) and the DM's purview (necessary adjustments to better fit into the DM's campaign, messing with the DM's actual adventure/plots/game world politics), as illustrated by the fact that the only thing I feel I need the DM's permission for is the 'Feywild time dilation' aspect because the adventure will be set in the Feywild?

 

[Warpiglet]

I have a longstanding group of friends who I play with. There has NEVER been tension about collaboration and we all take turns as DM over the decades.

Our process is simple. PC backgrounds are written and described something meds modifying fluff. DM looks it over and thinks about how the character fits in the world. Someone makes a cleric that prays to an ideal in a weird cult? Fine. The other clerics in the world usually serve a temple. The character is an exception.

The warlock has a strange patron not included in PHB? Select one of the patron abilities but reflavor. Warlock has little contact with patron? DM shrugs. Again his world does not crumble. He still runs it as he wishes.

We roll with and have fun. I don't know why some DMs are so particular as if their world is that fragile.

 

[Satyrn]

I don't know why some DMs are so particular as if their world is that fragile.

Maybe their world is precariously balanced on the back of a turtle.

 

[abirdcall]

We roll with and have fun. I don't know why some DMs are so particular as if their world is that fragile.

Well that's insulting. Is this your insult for everyone who doesn't use multiclassing?

Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want.

If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short.

 

[Warpiglet]

Well that's insulting. Is this your insult for everyone who doesn't use multiclassing?

Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want.

If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short.

It is more of a statement about allowing players to create fluff and less about the quality of a person (DM) who chooses to have total control. If I cared and I really don't, I would say labeling a person a disruptive player is more insulting than pointing out someone's creation won't be destroyed so easily (campaign world specifically) by collaboration.

Whether you want to multiclassing or not is immaterial in that regard. Those are just optional rules. I just prefer a freer hand in creating my PC fluff.

 

[Sadras]

@Arial Black, what you described in your post was perfectly cool and reflected upon a collaboration of DM and player which is how we play at our table. The setting may have some hard core limitations (no specific classes or races or specific rules about magic etc) but the background fluff can be worked through. All good.

Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want.

If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short.

We have a similar house rule. If a player is forced to create a new character due to death or otherwise, any other player may veto the new character created if they believe it clashes with their own.

 

[Satyrn]

We have a similar house rule. If a player is forced to create a new character due to death or otherwise, any other player may veto the new character created if they believe it clashes with their own.

Interesting. Has this veto been used at your table?

 

[5ekyu]

By 'can you see the difference?' I mean the difference between what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch) and the DM's purview (necessary adjustments to better fit into the DM's campaign, messing with the DM's actual adventure/plots/game world politics), as illustrated by the fact that the only thing I feel I need the DM's permission for is the 'Feywild time dilation' aspect because the adventure will be set in the Feywild?

The answer i have to give is "no" not because i do not understand the difference you are wanting to portray as so very distinct and clear but because you yourself have muddied the waters more than a bit.

You have already stated that part of your "character side" would be fluff that establishes a tie between the wolf-sex-thingy and the barbarian rage feature (i do not mean you tie that toe every barbarian, but you establish for this game a link between those two elements as a possibility) and to the extent that it triggers your jerk/irrational and intrusion position.

To me, that tie is a world setting and while as a Gm i would almost always be fine with it... i do NOT agree at all that adding that is clearly and distinctly a player-side GM has no say purview.

Additionally, when i ready your statement above i see what seem to be "traps" for the broader statement that i would NEVER EVER AGREE TO in a mutal agreement for a collaboration or negotiation.

Look at the player rights section -
what I see as the player's purview (idea, choice of race/class/background already allowed by the DM, fluff to explain the crunch)

Thats pretty broad for the player side - only things outside the limit are classes/races/background already forbidden expressly.

Look at the GM right section...

the DM's purview (necessary adjustments to better fit into the DM's campaign, messing with the DM's actual adventure/plots/game world politics), as illustrated by the fact that the only thing I feel I need the DM's permission for is the 'Feywild time dilation' aspect because the adventure will be set in the Feywild?

See the bolded limits all thru the Gms rights? Any GM side purview must be necessary (not just preferred, but necessary), must be better (not just as good or equally good but better) and (i assume you meant" NOT messing up already planned politics world adventures etc.

You are defining a set of conditions which - very consistently to your previous positions I might add - seem to view the Gm as being the party which needs to be limited, restricted etc and the player to have a wide latitude when it comes to this "fluff".

What **seems clear** is that you still want pretty high degree of carte blanche for the player and very limited ability for the GM and a lot of tools to push back with (Justify how its really necessary? justify how its better better? justify how it messes with?) and that is a far cry from a collaboration especially when it comes to the ties between your character and the world.

Thats not a collaboration or chargen campaign process i would sign myself up for as Gm and frankly, as player because it really seems to set an adversarial tone towards the Gm. it really screams "we do not trust you as our GM" to me. First rule of my games is "this game will run very well if we trust each other. and play together."

I know some Gms are of the "its my game and you can play in it" variety. I know i am more of an "its our game lets play together" variety but this seems to be moving very heavily towards "its the players game and if you are nice we will let you Gm it - with restrictions and a probationary period."

not my thing.

YFMV