NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6679153" data-attributes="member: 40177">Allow me to reply, even though others have said similar things.  I like to reply to direct quotes.  Well, it's the GM's job to control the table.  Ultimately, the GM is the one who is running the game.  I'd never run a game of Shadowrun at my table - I have no buy-in with the system.  Likewise, I'd never run RIFTS, and I'll probably never run 4e or Pathfinder again.  On the flip side, my players need to buy in to the game as well.  So anything I want to run, they have to want to play in.  This is honestly usually a bit broader than my own preferences, because they're "just" players (and,let's face it, probably spend less time working on the game outside of the table).  But this means that my players will never play a 1e game (but would love me to run Pathfinder again).  They don't really like Savage Worlds, or the d6 System, Cortex, or any of those games.  So, since the GM controls the system, (s)he should also control the alternate rules in the game.  This can be done for game flavour, or for the fact that the GM perceives a power imbalance.  Sure.  But what if you were the GM, and you were running a game of Imperial Rome?  There's always an exception.  So long as the players sit at the table, they are agreeing to whatever the GM has "banned".  I've "banned" monks in the past.  My players never complain - even though a lot liked monks.  (My reasoning was it was a Dark Sun game, which is based around scrounging crappy items.  I figured allowing a combat class that didn't need weapons or armour would harm that theme of the game, and so nixed it.  My players understood where I was coming from, and agreed).  Because of a power imbalance?  And, in my case, because things like multi-classing in 5th are not exactly "balanced".  So, I have two "power-gamers" and three "Role-players".  If I allow multi-classing (and feats), I'm allowing more building blocks for the builders, who tend to get tunnel vision on the builds.  This often leads to the other players getting sucked into a game they don't really like, because the power builders are offering "tips" on how to "improve" characters.  It also leads to game-long "shopping" sessions, and all sorts of add-ons that I dislike.  Remove the rules, and that aspect of building stops!  And those players?  Having a blast.  (One player just spent a good half hour today trying to lay claim to suede rhinestone boots - non-magical, ugly boots... purely for RP reasons.  This didn't happen much in earlier editions with him).  Sure.  Have you GMed it yet?  Because that's where a lot of people are coming from who make this call.  They don't like feats because Sharpshooter changes how the party handles combats, or Great Weapon Master makes the front line too powerful and everyone is focused around buffing the tank.  They ban multi-classing to get rid of some rules element they dislike.  Sure.  It's a cool character concept, arguably made possible by multi-classing.  Personally, I think you'd do just fine with the same character being a straight Warlock with Lawful Good alignment.  You don't need multi-classing to put that story-arc in play.  All you're doing is attaching mechanics to your story.  They don't need to be there.  Sure!  And that's great.  But what do you do when the guy next to you makes a cleric1/wizard1/sorcerer1/bard1 and sucks?  And the guy next to him makes a sneaky power-build that dominates the table?  Adding more tools means that power imbalances are more frequent.  This bugs some GMs (like me) a LOT.  I remember 4e days, having two rogues in the party, and one was CONSTANTLY being outclassed by the other... When both PCs are following the rules, how do you fix that?  Well, I think you could have made it work.  But that's fine, we can disagree.  And personally?  it has a huge benefit at my table.  If it was enough for you to not join, well, we'd see if I'd be willing to make adjustments.  But generally, my players agree with my calls, and dropping multi-classing was almost universally agreed upon, and was universally endorsed.</blockquote>

Verification