Encouraging players to role-play multiclassing?

[Desdichado]

In that regard, for Base Classes at least, I don't so much consider it "class training" as it is training for the things you can't do yet but are now elidgable to learn. Example: A 5th Level Rogue takes a level of Fighter. Now, here's what the PC gets that I'd likely just make automatic (i.e., no training of any sort required because the character is actually just making these better): BAB, Saves, and Skill Points. What I would have a problem with, unless previous in-game events indicate otherwise, is his new found ability to wear any form of armor, use any type of shield, and use any non-exotic weapon. In addition, past events may or may not support the Feat chosen at that level (two, infact, as one is gained for Character Level 6).

Now, am I going to be an absolute jerk and deny these things? No. Despite popular believe, I'm not a complete tightass. But I would require some degree of practice time (yes, off stage, but the time allocated just so it's known what the PC is doing, when he's doing it, and for how long it's part of his "daily routine"). He may not necessarily need a teacher, and the teacher need not be better or higher level (i.e., why can't a 6th Level character learn Improved Sunder from a 3rd Level character?), although having one would effectively reduce the time I would require.

I also use "familiarity" rules; For instance, the above Rogue would be considered to have the proficiencies Fighter gives him, but is still "unfamiliar" with it's use. Using an unfamiliar weapon in actual combat (or unfamiliar armor) carries the usual penalties for being non-proficient, but the penalties down-grade significantly over a (short) period of time, until finally vanishing entirely. Training takes a little longer, but obviously the non-lethal conditions of training has its own benefits.

How is this different from a character that gains a new class ability completely unrelated to anything else he's done before, within his own class? For example, a Ranger, Paladin or Bard who can suddenly cast spells at 4^th level?

I think if you're going to go the training route, you've either got to go all or nothing -- every time a character levels, or not at all.

 

[Desdichado]

EXPLAINING TEH JOEK!!!1 PLONK!!!!!!!

That was a joke? If so, it's only half a joke -- from a certain exaggerated standpoint it's true.

 

[Desdichado]

Shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? I have a distinct impression that I played Champions before even Man to Man came out.

I haven't the foggiest idea. I've never had much interest in either HERO or GURPS.

 

[Barak]

Geez, I'd really like to see where I said I hate DMs who don't say yes to everything. What I hate is DMs who believe that the game is somehow more "fun" if the players are kept in the dark about everything. Maybe if your players tend to metagame a lot, and powerbuild whenever they can, it becomes a problem. But with players who care more about their character concept then having the ultimate character, it doesn't become such a huge deal to actually let them know what's what.

While role-play is obviously a huge part of the game, confrontation and combat should also play a part. And continuously taking sub-par feats/classes/skills is no more "good for the role-play" then continuously taking the "best numerical possible option". Somehow though, a lot of people are under the misconception that having low stats, crappy feats and whatnot makes them better roleplayer. Just like having the best of everything doesn't make you a better roleplayer, having the worse of everything doesn't do it either.

And I'm not sure why players who try and plan the path their characters will take makes you so mad. You'd make a good guidance counselor, getting mad at the students who plan their career paths. As long as the players keep an open-mind, and can adapt to what happens in the game, a loose plan of the character along their levels makes more sense then going willy-nilly.

 

[Desdichado]

While role-play is obviously a huge part of the game, confrontation and combat should also play a part. And continuously taking sub-par feats/classes/skills is no more "good for the role-play" then continuously taking the "best numerical possible option". Somehow though, a lot of people are under the misconception that having low stats, crappy feats and whatnot makes them better roleplayer. Just like having the best of everything doesn't make you a better roleplayer, having the worse of everything doesn't do it either.

Non sequitur.

And I'm not sure why players who try and plan the path their characters will take makes you so mad. You'd make a good guidance counselor, getting mad at the students who plan their career paths. As long as the players keep an open-mind, and can adapt to what happens in the game, a loose plan of the character along their levels makes more sense then going willy-nilly.

And somewhat irrelevant. Wow, you're really on a roll today!

I do agree with this last point, though. I'm not such a slave to roleplaying that I won't let players plan where they intend to go with their characters.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

How is this different from a character that gains a new class ability completely unrelated to anything else he's done before, within his own class? For example, a Ranger, Paladin or Bard who can suddenly cast spells at 4th level?

Technically, yes, gaining new abilities within the same class also requires some degree of training (assuming its not a naturally evolution of an ability already possessed, like Uncanny Dodge). Even new spell levels gets thrown into the mix, although training in that regard is fairly quick and simple (meditate, study, etc.).

I think if you're going to go the training route, you've either got to go all or nothing -- every time a character levels, or not at all.

Yes, and no. Past events of a character can easily be used to explain certain gains (either as life experience or "pre-training" in order for a Feat slot or Skill Point to "slide in" to where it belongs). The idea is simply to add a bit of detail/verisimilitude to leveling, via role-play, not to institutionalize a number-driven mechanic akin to a pit stop or software upgrade. For instance, if a party has just crossed a few hundred miles of open wilderness and, at Level gain, the party's straight-class fighter announces that he want to take Skill Focus: Survival, I'm likely to just "give the nod". If he wants to take a level of Ranger, than most everything is available except Track, which may be available automatically if recent/past events involved Tracking but still would be easy to gain once a means of doing so (including another Ranger or other PC in the party with Track).

Although I must admit that, when it comes to becoming a spellcaster, I'm a bit more stiff about it. But, over all, primarily for the same reason: Incorporating past events into a character's evolution and representing that evolution through role-play. It's a bit free-form, not heavy handed unless campaign conditions dictate otherwise (Ex: If psionics are "illegal" in a particular nation, finding a teacher in that land is more problematic than finding someone to teach you the Dodge Feat), but requires some degree of interaction with the game world, that, over time, really has the benefit of providing additional contacts, allies, sources of information and supplies, and so forth. In that respect, it could actually be a tool for those players that are smart enough to put this stuff to work for them rather than seeing it as a hurtle they need to get over to "officially" level up after gaining the experience for it.

Which hits on another side-benefit to this: Familiarity of the world to the PCs abilities. Taking my earlier example of the Duelist, to most people the PC is just one kick butt swordsman, one who's style is unique. Later, however, the PCs run afoul of a local government. During it all, though, the Chamberlain sees the Duelist in action. He recognizes the fighting style, and thinks to himself, "my brother never would have taught that to a villainous criminal." Now the PCs, while in trouble, are lined-up to gain an ally within the very government they are in trouble with, providing them the opportunity to clear themselves and resolve/expose/eliminate what ever scheme got them in trouble to begin with.

And this is why I think I get irritated when it's implied that incorporating RP into leveling, training, or other such matters is simply an attempt to screw the players. Sure, some GMs out there are pathetically hostile; I've sat at a few tables with such and always left (hell, it's how/why I started running games myself!). But bringing RP into these aspects of the game doesn't automatically mean the GM is such a jerk; He could very well be trying to build bridges into other aspects of the game, adding more depth to the story and the world, and trying the give benefits to the PCs that aren't necessarily associated to game mechanics (which, sad to say, some players never consider and thus never actually reap the benefits of even though the opportunities are put in front of them again and again).

 

[Will]

Hmm - I think I'm on both sides of your divide - I encourage players to 'write' undeveloped bits of the world, OTOH it's already highly detailed with tightly-knit relationships. If a player expresses interest in a PrC I'll bear that in mind when developing the world - but if the PrC doesn't fit, it doesn't fit and isn't used. The final rule is that I as DM am in charge of what goes on in my world, but I welcome lots of input from the players. They certainly have a lot of influence on how it develops - influence, but not control.

I suspect most people are somewhere in the middle. It's only a divide because Barak and Bendris happen to be a bit divided on the subject.

What you're talking about is a little more on the player control side of things, where the nature of the world is a bit more open and players can write notes about where their characters are going.

Other people prefer the DM to have more control over the experience, for a variety of reasons. For example, the surprise can be cool when players discover or do things.

Me, when it comes down to it, I don't have the time or patience to exert great control, so players get a lot of freedom to define their characters.

But I don't view it as inherently better. I admire a tightly run game, though I suspect a lot of people are slaves to it because _they_ think it's better, then wear themselves ragged trying to keep up with their vision. (I have a number of friends in this category)

I encourage them to take a more sedate approach to running a game mainly because it's less exhausting and, thus, more fun.

Sort of rambling...

 

[Stalker0]

What I would do is simply have the players tell you what class they plan to take next. That way you set up scenarios that move the characters into those multiclasses. It gives the players the benefit of getting personal roleplaying stories done, it gives you the justification you wanted and more story to work with.

 

[Barak]

Heck I really don't see myself at such odds with everyone. Let me make a few "bulletpoints" of my opinion on the subject to make it clear.

-It is the absolute DM's right to disallow any PrC in his campaign, for any reason, or even no reason at all.

-During character creation, should a player express an interest in a certain PrC, the DM should tell the player if the PrC in question doesn't exist at all. Obviously, it might be that the player would have to work hard to find a mentor, the organization, or what have you. But if the PrC simply is banned, the DM should tell the player.

-Obviously, if any "core" class doesn't exist, the players should know.

-If a player wants to multi-class into a "core" class, while it might be that he has to work for it somewhat (such as a fighter going wizard), the DM should at least enable it to be possible.

That's about it. Let's face it, some PrCs -need- to be planned for. Many have pre-reqs that do not neceserly make sense, or that could be traded. If the DM allows those pre-reqs to be ignored, fine. But if he doesn't (and I don't think he should), then a player needs some advance warning. Some PrCs have pre-reqs that are really sub-par for balance reason, and letting a player take those pre-reqs when the PrC simply doesn't exist doesn't enhance roleplay in anyway, while putting the character at a disadvantage. And roleplay plays no part in that.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Geez, I'd really like to see where I said I hate DMs who don't say yes to everything. What I hate is DMs who believe that the game is somehow more "fun" if the players are kept in the dark about everything. Maybe if your players tend to metagame a lot, and powerbuild whenever they can, it becomes a problem. But with players who care more about their character concept then having the ultimate character, it doesn't become such a huge deal to actually let them know what's what.

See, let's take a look at the issues you seem to have.

1. You seem to have forgotten your blatant and arrogant assertion that you like non-hostile GMs. This indicates that you view GMs that require additional requirements (i.e., RP) in leveling, gaining classes, and so forth, as being hostile and un-fun.

2. I am also a player. I am playing in Oathbound. I have never read an Oathbound book. I am learning about the setting and its mysteries entirely through role-play. And guess what? I'm having loads of fun! I know, you find it hard to believe, but it is true. And the character is likely the most bas a$$ I've ever had the pleasure of running ("Have army, will travel.").

3. You automatically assume that my players must metagame/powerbuild a lot, completely twisting what I've indicated: That I present the world in flavor and allow the PCs to role-play towards learning more (eventually ending with the actual mechanics). I must say, players that metagame or powerbuild most often run from my game screaming incoherently, ripping off their clothes as they vanish into the woods never to be seen again.

4. No, it isn't a big deal. However, it isn't wrong not to do so. I have no problem if you are playing in a game that doesn't have any such limitations. Guess why? It's your friggin' game. Doesn't effect me. I don't give a rat's behind. You, on the other hand, seem quite ready to indicate that anyone that doesn't run their game that way is really screwing over the players, and that, dear sir, shows that it is you, not I (or others), that have a problem with other people's games, especially since you don't know jack dooky about those games other than one post made on one message board.

While role-play is obviously a huge part of the game, confrontation and combat should also play a part. And continuously taking sub-par feats/classes/skills is no more "good for the role-play" then continuously taking the "best numerical possible option". Somehow though, a lot of people are under the misconception that having low stats, crappy feats and whatnot makes them better roleplayer. Just like having the best of everything doesn't make you a better roleplayer, having the worse of everything doesn't do it either.

Ah, here we go...

Tell me... When was it suggested that "sub-par" was the standard in these games? Or is this just a hollow argument you are pulling out to lend your argument some false sense of value?

And I'm not sure why players who try and plan the path their characters will take makes you so mad.

Who said it made me mad? Did I say it made me mad? Nope, not at all.

What I indicate is that, for story consistancy, viewing past experiences is just as important as pursueing a specific goal. Want an example? Look at your own life and the life of everyone else you know. You'll likely find a goal, or series of goals, that you pursue, yet over time, the goals are adjusted and other, non-planned events provide other, non-planned gains.

An example of myself: I am a draftsman. Went to school for it, got my degree, and went to work. My goal was to become an architect. However, upon entering the field, I find that I was also good at MSOffice. Then I get really good at Access. Then I get really good at intergrating Access and AutoCAD, which then leads me into using the SPAN Facility Management database. Where'd this lead me? A year ago I handled a contract doing GIS/GPS surveying for the US Military all along the east coast.

Am I an architect? No. Am I sub-par? Far from it.

You'd make a good guidance counselor, getting mad at the students who plan their career paths.

Yawn...

Another worthless strawman. Mind not bringing that one out again? At least, get the dust of that ol' thing. And look, it's spilling straw all over the place. That's what happens when these things are kept around for as long as that one has.

As long as the players keep an open-mind, and can adapt to what happens in the game, a loose plan of the character along their levels makes more sense then going willy-nilly.

Gee... When did I speak against this? Hell, I said something quite similar too it, in fact.

Characters should have goals, yes. It's the blanket-belief that any such goal should be accomplished regardless of any other considerations that I discourage because it is often a hamper to the verisimilitude of the characters themselves. The DMG is rather specific that all things in a dungeon should have a sensible reason for being part of the dungeon to increase its believability. Funny that the Player's Handbook doesn't say the same thing about characters, ain't it?