Encouraging players to role-play multiclassing?

[johnsemlak]

I'm starting a game and I want to have a rule that characters who multiclass must have a rationale for how their character starts advancing in another class.

Unsurprisingly, a player or two are putting up some resistance.

I'm doing it becasue I dislike some people's tendancy to use the classes as character build tools, just taking a level or two in a class for the good saving throw and/or an extra feat.

I don't want to have any restrictions per se, just a requirement that multiclassing have a rationale. E.g. a character mutliclasses into a sorceror by finding out that he actually has sorcerous blood in their veins.

The main problem seems ot be some prestige classes virtually require multiclassing (something which I dislike IMO).

Any tips on dealing with this?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Any tips on dealing with this?

I find it better and easier to reward role-play than to penalize lack of roleplay.

Offer a small ammount of exp or a minor item to those who roleplay their class change. The ones who don't want to bother still get what they want and the ones who do roleplay it get a little something special.

Example:

Someone who switches to figher roleplays a scene where they join the city guard. He does so well that the guard captian takes him out for a night on the town and rewards him with his "lucky stien" a mug that grants +1 luck save against any poison that is poured into it.

Someone who switches to sorceror discovers the taint of the dragon in his blood. His grandmother sees that he has expressed the family power and gives him a cloak-pin in the shape of a gold dragon that gives people from that family a +1 circumtance bonus against fire saves.

... something like that. Small. Minor. Nothing that will unbalance the game. But you reward the roleplay and the guy who doesn't feel like taking the 15 minutes to come up with a justification and roleplay it still gets to multiclass.

 

[Chacal]

Not really an answer to your question, but part of the problem might come from the fact that some PC's concepts seem to require at least two classes.
Having them take only one class at level 1 then having to explain a "change" at level 2 is forcing them to "break" their character concept artificially, then asking for a roleplay reason.

This kind of problem is easily solved by either using apprentice classes (I'm not sure of the name) or having PCs starting at level 2.

Asking for explanation for raising other classes than the starting ones might become more natural. At least in my experience it worked with my players.


Chacal

 

[Harlock]

I prefer for characters to roleplay class chnages myself. It can be very simple to do so in my case, however. if a character writes a decent background that suggests it would be feasible for instance, I'll let it slide. I also like for characters to roleplay any choice into a PrC. I'd like for them to meet different groups for instance, or study some tome that has a key to that PrC. I do like BiggusGeekus' idea of rewarding good roleplay with a minor trinket and already reward roleplay for characters with experience when they do a good job.

 

[rowport]

Not really an answer to your question, but part of the problem might come from the fact that some PC's concepts seem to require at least two classes.
Having them take only one class at level 1 then having to explain a "change" at level 2 is forcing them to "break" their character concept artificially, then asking for a roleplay reason.

This kind of problem is easily solved by either using apprentice classes (I'm not sure of the name) or having PCs starting at level 2.

Asking for explanation for raising other classes than the starting ones might become more natural. At least in my experience it worked with my players.


Chacal

I agree with Chacal on this. One of the downsides of class/level-based game systems (like D&D) is that options are by definition limited to those class levels. For folks who prefer more granular character-building, that essentially necessitates multi-classing. Admittedly, it also allows for powergaming, as folks may cherry-pick the class/level to get the best combination of abilities, but it seems unreasonable to me to assume that is always the case. It could also be the case that folks are choosing logical ability combinations rather than just the most powerful. For example, I currently play a Druid/Ranger/Barbarian. Now, from a strict "power" perspective he would likely be more effective maximizing spellcasting by not multiclassing, but it made more sense to me to have elements of all those classes, since he is a shaman-like tracker from a barbarian tribe. I would hate to be penalized somehow for choosing to multi-class to satisfy my backstory. OTOH, if you are only asking for some reasonable connection between the classes, that may be OK; I guess it depends how restrictive you intend to be about allowing the multi-classing.

 

[maddman75]

Right - I'd prefer some sort of concept. I mean if you have a swashbuckler character, that practically screams "fighter/rogue". So he has to start out as a rogue, then become a fighter at level 2. If this has been his concept from the beginning, is he going to have to roleplay that? Why? Someone whose character is 'sneaky street theif' doesn't have to RP taking another level of rogue.

It could be seen as penalizing players who go outside narrow concepts.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Generally, I go with some rational of training, although I allow in-game experiences replace it before-the-fact. For instance, a 1st Level Fighter goes into the wilderness and, while engaged in activity in the forest, eventually gains a level. At this time, I would consider both Fighter and Ranger to be logical choices based on just the general events alone. Barbarian might be acceptable with the right specific events (heavy combat and/or some form of emotional loss). Druid wouldn't be so easy (it's a priesthood, after all), but specific events might make the rp-component major or minor.

And all this on a simplified hypothetical situation. Add more details, and other options become just as reasonable and logical. If, in the end, a player makes a choice that makes no sense based on past events, then it must be actively pursued at that time. Keep it simple but keep it sensible.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Class levels in 3E, for the most part, are building blocks.

You don't need to join the Rogue's Union, and sign the contract, and get your Official Rogue Level 1 ID card.

Certain Prestige Classes require you to join an organisation. But you can be a member of the Assassin's Guild without taking any levels in the Assassin PrC. You can be a Mage of the Arcane Order even if you're a straight Wiz-15, with no MAO class levels.

Class levels are an abstract concept. I don't disagree that someone who picks up ranks in Knowledge: Local when they level should devote some 'on-camera' time to explaining the fact... but that should be true whether they're levelling from Rog-2 to Rog-3, or from Rog-2 to Rog-2/Brd-1.

If you require someone to explain how they learned Heavy Armor proficiency when going from Rgr-5 to Rgr-5/Clr-1, surely it's just as important to have the wizard explain just how going from Wiz-5 to Wiz-6 means he now has Fireball in his spellbook and knows how to Empower his Magic Missiles?

Levelling from Rgr-5 to Rgr-5/Clr-1 isn't a bigger change than someone levelling from Rgr-5 to Rgr-6. It's just a different path.

-Hyp.

 

[BSF]

Wow, I had no idea trying to explain your abilities was so difficult. Heck, I have a 17th level character, with 4 classes, a multitude of special abilities from those classes as well as feats, and 25+ skills with ranks in them. I am certainly not an optimized character, but I can explain almost every single choice and can provide short stories for many of them. For me, that is a lot of the fun of the character. I like providing backstory. I can also provide backstory for a focused fighter, after all, he is picking up feats. Maybe he has a few mentor's in the Royal Guard? Or a rogue, perhaps honing his skills at the guild, or if he isn't a guild thief, perhaps he buys a variety of damaged locks, pulls them apart and puts them back together again, learning more about locking mechanisms. (To steal a concept from Gary Gygax). It is all backstory that allows the player to create interesting little stories.

I am going to go out on a limb here. Based on John's past posts, I don't think he is looking to be too much of a hardhead on this. He is just looking for his players to put a little more thought into the character and assisting in the storytelling of the game.

As a DM, I like those little details as it helps me add hooks for characters as well as flesh out the campaign world so it seems more dynamic and alive. As a player, I try to give my DM those little hooks. It creates more dynamic storytelling and is something that I think should be encouraged.

John, I would suggest gentle persuassion. Not all of your players are going to be eager to deal with boring backstory. The key is that backstory doesn't need to be boring. Be generous with the RP benefits tied to backstory. As an example, if your fighter spends a lot of time with the local guard/militia, let him be friends with the commander. Through story leads to the character through his friend. If they get into a brawl and the militia shows up, let the character off with a friendly rebuke from his friend, that captain. Little things like that will help.

You can also use some of the more tangible benefits that BiggusGeekus mentioned. Just don't hand out anything that is useful in the standard adventuring gear type of useful. If you do that, than the players that are a bit more reluctant to extend their reolplaying will have legitimate reasons to gripe. You want to gently encourage them, don't use a big hammer.

For my latest campaign, I asked for character concepts before the game started. Part of this is to encourage strong roleplay. But, the bigger part is that I have added a bunch of house-rules and I want to be able to point out options that are not in the Core books. I didn't want to heavy-handedly make my players roleplay, I wanted to be sure they didn't limit themselves just because they weren't aware of all the options. (I would like them to be familiar with all the books I am including, and all the rules, but that isn't a realistic expectation.) My point is that it is important to explain some of the reasons why you want information from your players. If you want a little richer storytelling experience, tell them that. If you want backgrounds and class rationalizations to help give your story elements, let the players know. With a lack of information, it is easy to assume that you are just being a jerk.

Hope that helps somewhat.

 

[hong]

When the creeping HEROization of D&D is complete, threads like this will be moot.