Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6746870" data-attributes="member: 6790260">While I can't say I approve of Celtavian's tone, I generally agree with his gist.You, Evenglare, say things like "primary" reason--but as I've tried to assert, I do not have a primary reason. I have several values--in the philosophical sense--that drive my choices with regard to playing, and creating, a character. As stated above, I care about:* A mathematical evaluation of the character, or more succinctly, "how it works." Reaching for this value requires thinking about the numerical/statistical elements of a character.* The procedure involved in playing the character, or more succinctly "how it plays." Reaching for this value requires thinking about the actions I as a player will be allowed (rules) or obliged (good practice) to perform.* The narrative or "roleplay" of the character, before and after, or more succinctly "what it means." Reaching for this value requires thinking about the kinds of stories that interest me, and the challenges I hope to face.These three values are largely distinct from each other. Numerical, or "charop," considerations are valuable because I want to "win," I want to do well at whatever it is I choose to do. Procedural considerations are valuable because they exhibit "Goldilocks zone" behavior; if I don't have enough things to occupy my mind, I get bored, while if I have too many, I get lost, so it is valuable to find a "golden mean" between the two. Narrative considerations are valuable because I find it difficult to play characters I'm not already well-invested in, and treat my characters as a form of self-expression (whether showing my own self, or exploring another).These values cannot be placed in a clear hierarchy. I cannot simply say "a small increase in success is better than a small increase in narrative value," nor can I say the reverse. There may be multiple points of acceptability or even multiple "awesome" points, with different focuses on each. I have, in the past, been willing to give up a little bit of the narrative I had in mind for a character--perhaps to deal with a serious flaw elsewhere, such as overcomplicated mechanics or dangerous numerical weaknesses. But I have also been willing to do exactly the opposite thing when it seemed reasonable and appropriate for my character to do so. For example, when creating a 4e character (as a personal exercise--I had no prospects of a game on the horizon, so I thought it might help tide me over to consider possible character ideas), I asked on a different forum whether it was a serious issue to start the game with a 16 in my character's primary stats (Str and Cha) rather than an 18, as recommended by most charop guides. The general consensus was: you can totally do that. You'll be giving up some effectiveness, and you might want to consider options X/Y/Z to counter that, but you won't suffer too much for it. My main reason for asking was that I really hate the "paladunce" concept, and wanted to play a character who had generally decent stats across the board (except Dex, because some kind of sacrifice had to be made).Yet at other times, I have given up narrative elements of a character in order to pursue enough effectiveness for it to actually work. For example, I wanted to make a character that reflected a particular way of looking at Merlin--that is, both a "Wizard" and a "Druid"--and again sought out the advice of fellow players for how to go about that. I don't remember the exact details now, but more than once I retooled the narrative parts of the concept because I wasn't happy with how effective the character would be. Similarly, if/when I play 13th Age for the first time, I'm strongly considering the Monk class--not because it has particularly good story (it's par for the course as far as Monks go), nor because it's especially powerful (I honestly don't know if it is or not), but because of the nature of its mechanics. It's a beautifully fluid-yet-fixed system: you know a set of moves whose official terms I forget, but which are basically "openings," "main attacks," and "finishers." You can always use an opening, even if you used one last turn; main attacks can only happen after you've used an opening; finishers can only happen after you've used a main attack. Each "discipline" you learn includes one of each type--but you don't have to use them in that sequence! Having actually checked the book now, you could have both the Claws of the Panther form (what I called "discipline" above) and the Dance of the Mantis form, and use the opening, "flow" (not "main"), and finishing attack from either one at any stage of the fight. You can mix and match openings, flows, and finishers for each form you know--which, even if you only know 3-4 forms, results in a staggering array of possible actions while keeping round-by-round choice fairly simple. It's a brilliant design and I think it would be both very natural and very engaging to play.Each time I attempt to create or play a character--even one I've already been playing for a while--the scales of these values may shift and change. What motivates my choice in one context may be exactly why I don't make a particular choice in another context. That's why I cannot vote. Because there is no way, even statistically, for me to say that I initially multiclass because of X, or typically, or primarily, or any other term: all three reasons are relevant, and their relevance may shift and change even in a single sitting, let alone over the course of an entire campaign or character's life or from one campaign to the next!Perhaps I'm reading into Arial Black's words, but I believe the more pertinent (if somewhat implicit) question was, "Why do your preferences as a player become relevant for restricting options available to your players when you are a DM?" (That is, "and therefore not facing the choice to multiclass or not, since you don't have a PC with which to do so.")</blockquote>

Verification