Encouraging players to role-play multiclassing?

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Actually, I'm not all that "divided", so to speak. My only problem with Barak is his "hostile GM" and "fun vs unfun" comments from earlier. I'd gladly drop the debate if he simply admitted that additional requirements to leveling/gaining classes does not automatically make a GM hostile or his game un-fun. Sure, he might have had a bad experience, or is simply parroting the complaints of another gamer he admires, but that doesn't translate into some form of universal truth, which is what he implies.

 

[Barak]

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.

I didn't say hostile, I said confrontational. And it indicates no such things. It indicates that I view GMs that won't even tell players that the PrC they'd like to work for doesn't exist as confrontational 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.").

Well good for you! Playing any RPGs for the first time is always the most fun you can have, I find. Of course, it helps if the GM/DM/ST let's you know how best to implement a character concept you might have.

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.

Well I normally don't twist people words, but you had just assumed that I found any DM who dare say no as morons, so I felt free to do a few twistings of my own.

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.

I'll admit I might have done that. I apologize. I think it was the comment about sending players who want to know what PrCs exist in your World (or something similar) screaming from your table that got to me. Obviously, play as you or your players enjoy the game. That goes without saying.

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?

Well taking pre-reqs for PrCs that do not exist can easily be sub-par.

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.

(refering to my comment about planning a character's path)

Hmph. I went and re-read the thread, and you are correct. My apologies. I must have gotten that from another thread or something.

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.

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.

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?

Well that mostly deal with my mistake about what you had said, and actually didn't say. So once again, my apologies.

 

[Barak]

To tell the truth, I'd probably enjoy playing in your games. Very few of my characters have taken PrCs or mutli-classed anyway, and those who did had RP reasons for doing so. The point upon which we "argued" was a relatively minor one to me. I just dislike keeping information that is very mechanical secret from players, instead of simply campaign information. PrCs that aren't accepted is just an example of that. Feats would be another.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

See, I don't see this as the GM's fault at all. If the message is, "Prestige Classes are learned about through game-play" and the player's action is "aim for a Prestige Class even though I don't know about it", this is the player, not the GM, making a specific choice to do so. If the player was at all sensible, he would aim for a goal that can be accomplished with the "base" rules, allowing the GM to come up with something that will take that concept further when it's been taken as far as possible without it.

Consider it this way: I don't use too many published Prestige Classes (I think a grand total currently of 4 or 5). I am more likely to look at the character and create an entirely new Prestige Class, one that's a perfect fit for the PC in question.

Now, yes, I am just now revealing this. But guess what? Would you have lasted this long in my game? Would you have stayed with the game long enough to get this custom package made specifically for you? Not if you think waiting it out is hostile and un-fun; You would have left long before reaching that point by convincing yourself that I'm some kind of jerk.

And that's the problem I have with your assertion: Folks read it, some believe it, and then another GM down the road, likely an excellent GM, get's his hands tied by players that have been convinced not to trust things like "role-playing" requirements.

Here's another example for you: Go to Monte Cook's website and check out Part 2 of the Prestige Class Workshop. In one of the same Prestige Classes, it's indicated that some requirements were removed because while suitable for campaign play it had no place in a discussion about game balance (paraphrased but friggin' close). At any rate, take one guess what that requirement, the one suitable for campaign play, was based on?

(Actually, that artical also includes a min-rant by Monte about players using Prestige Classes as character building tools that you might want to read as well. I certainly found it enlightening.)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Alright, I think we're both cooling off here... Nifty.

The point upon which we "argued" was a relatively minor one to me. I just dislike keeping information that is very mechanical secret from players, instead of simply campaign information. PrCs that aren't accepted is just an example of that. Feats would be another.

Ah, now Feats I handle differently. In fact, any player can bring me any spell, feat, skill use, weapon, etc., from any book for me to review for inclusion. They just can't bring me Prestige Classes.

Table Talk: If you mention a "cool" Prestige Class, I'd likely look it up later... Even if the Prestige Class itself is rejected, I do consider the theme/role/concept of it, likely coming up with something that is more suitable for both the character and the campaign setting. Obviously, not everything's going to make/create a new niche or fill an empty one, but the game does grow in that regard. What's aimed for is a bit of mystique; Not everything is laid out for people in the real world and I see little reason for it to be so in a fantasy one (although "off stage" events allow fantasy goals to be accomplished much faster than real life goals).

The thing is that I tend to do this "in secret". That is to say, rather than say, "I have a Prestige Class I'm working on for your mounted Fighter," I'd instead have him meet (perhaps save) a member of a knightly order, which would have a Prestige Class suited for the PC.

An example character: The player wants to play a mounted combatant. Now, he might consider a half-dozen Prestige Classes, picks the one he wants, and then maps into it as quickly as possible. Nothing wrong with that mechanically.

Another example character: The player wants to be a mounted combatant. He uses all the base material available (Skills, Feats, etc.) to become as good at it as possible. Throughout the character's career, he's met the Chariot Warriors of Dael, the Host of Goshen, and the Mah'Don Knights (likely others, although he might be a tad too big for a Tasloi Wasp Rider). He could easily, by returning to either of these lands and contacting friends amongst their ranks, gain access to these Prestige Classes, the requirements of which (all base options) would be easy for our well-trained-but-unstyled mounted combatant as he already has most (if no all) of the options available without the Prestige Classes. He could very easily travel to each land and gain 1-2 levels or each, gaining the basics of several styles all the while.

By not selecting options at the beginning, the player ends up with *more* options later.

Another consideration: I (and most GMs) have little knowledge of what exact Prestige Classes are available at the beginning of a campaign. A movie can inspire one. A book might. One might occur to me as I'm developing a culture or religion or some other aspect. One might occur to me just looking at a character sheet and imagining a new direction of evolving the concept. And, on rare occasions, I'll be flipping through a d20 book and actually find one that fits the campaign in both power and flavor. By selecting a Prestige Class (and even multiclasses) at the very beginning of the game, and mapping to that Prestige Class, the player is effectively eliminating opportunities that, for all intents and purposes, don't exist yet but may indeed be better for the character (conceptually and/or numerically).

All I ask of players is to relax about it, not to worry about a pre-mapped plan of advancement, and to trust me not unbalance the game or screw them over. Those that do often become permanent features of my dining room (a mixed blessing?), while those that don't generally leave for their own inability to trust a GM rather than any act of maliciousness on my part.

Hmph. I went and re-read the thread, and you are correct. My apologies. I must have gotten that from another thread or something.

Y'know, I think more than a few conversations on this (and similar) topics tend to "go south" from time to time. Sometimes comments sound malicious because they're similar to something posted by someone else at an earlier time who was being malicious. I think we can just drop some of the chest puffing as a defensive mechanism running on autopilot due to earlier instances.

Fair enough?

 

[hong]

All I ask of players is to relax about it, not to worry about a pre-mapped plan of advancement, and to trust me not unbalance the game or screw them over.

You know, Bendy, this "trust" thing usually works both ways.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You know, Bendy, this "trust" thing usually works both ways.

Well, I don't recall trusting players as being part of the topic, but I'll be the first to agree...

However, some players are quite demanding in their expectations about how the game should be played and run. When I feel like terms are being dictated to me by somebody who pretty much expects me to change my entire campaign world just because he wants to play some clone of an anime I've never heard of, and he's getting pissy about it because I won't, trust isn't really an issue. Getting the idiot out of my house is.

In addition, trusting players doesn't take much. They have one character (in a single party, at least), and can only control what their characters are doing. Sure, you get the occassional screw ball that will change a number or two, add an item or three, etc., but they are few and far between (at least, I've encountered so few personally that it would appear so to me). The GM, however, has all the NPCs, monsters, nations, armies, magic items, classes, prestige classes, and oh so much more, with optional GM's screen to hide it all. Sure, a GM has to earn a bit of trust, but the only way that's going to happen is if the players trust him at least a little to start. If the players don't trust him at all, then the opportunity to gain further trust is denied.

I guess, in short, I'm saying that just because one GM with a "great idea!" screwed everything up, it doesn't mean that the next GM with a "great idea!" is going to screw it up also (and gawds know I've screwed a few pretty bad back in the day). Having the assumption that the game's going to be bad/boring/confrontational/unfun could very well prevent you from enjoying what just might have been the next greatest setting to hit the community. Indeed, it would be better to sit through a bad session or two on the slim chance that the game could be excellent than to miss an excellent game just because it sounded too different from the norm.

 

[hong]

Well, I don't recall trusting players as being part of the topic

Notice that noone mentioned trusting the DM either, until you brought it up.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Notice that noone mentioned trusting the DM either, until you brought it up.

Actually, Barak's earlier statement about "confrontational" GMs very much implicated a lack of trust, there for it came up.

So tell me, are you seriously asking these questions, or just trying to spin me in circles? 'Cause if the later, I'd rather be kept out of your circle jerks.

 

[hong]

Actually, Barak's earlier statement about "confrontational" GMs very much implicated a lack of trust, there for it came up.

I'm not responsible for your state of latent paranoia. Only you can address that.

So tell me, are you seriously asking these questions, or just trying to spin me in circles?

I could, in fact, tell you. But then, of course, I'd have to kill you.

'Cause if the later, I'd rather be kept out of your circle jerks.

Smirk.