D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have had many opportunities to sit behind the GM's screen. Not as many in the past 8 years or so. Why?

Despite my willingness to run games, most of my campaign ideas or RPG choices haven't appealed to the guys in our group. So I'm ready to run, but have no players. And I'm 100% OK with that.

 

[billd91]

I always have to laugh. People keep saying, "If you don't like what the DM is putting on the table, you should walk away", but, any time someone talks about how they did just that, they are automatically bad players and bad friends. It's so ridiculous.

But are those the same people? You keep conflating people like that but I'm not convinced they are the same.

 

[Hussar]

Good grief Bill91, what more evidence do you need than the last few posts of this thread. A player says he refuses to play with kender because he hates kender. So he walks. And he's accused of being a bad player and friend for doing so.

How is that not precisely what I'm talking about?

 

[billd91]

Good grief Bill91, what more evidence do you need than the last few posts of this thread. A player says he refuses to play with kender because he hates kender. So he walks. And he's accused of being a bad player and friend for doing so.

How is that not precisely what I'm talking about?

You are implying (fairly strongly) that the same people who say that if a player doesn't like what the DM has to offer he should walk are the same people saying that GMforpowergamers is a bad player for leaving the table because kender are in the game. That may be an observation of people being hypocrites. But if they're different people, then you've pretty much got nothing more than the observation that different people have different opinions - a true if entirely uninteresting and insignificant observation.

Of course, it may be worth noting that the players who ditched over the kender issue ditched because another player was playing the kender. And while the DM may have approved of his girlfriend playing a kender (because he likes them himself), that's crosses into players not being on the same page territory as well - not just player vs DM. She may have been OK with changing to a half-elf, but if she felt bullied into it by others playing the "no kender or I walk" card, that's not entirely OK.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I always have to laugh. People keep saying, "If you don't like what the DM is putting on the table, you should walk away", but, any time someone talks about how they did just that, they are automatically bad players and bad friends. It's so ridiculous.

If you are a DM, not one single person, no one in the world, owes you a damn thing. Nothing. They do not "owe" you, in the sense of being obligated, anything. You provide the game. Nothing more. Sitting down at the game table with the expectation that just because you are sitting behind the DM screen automatically entitles you to anything is just as wrong headed as any player thinking the same thing.

Life is too short to play games you don't like. If someone bringing in anything to the game will result in you hating that game, don't play. It should never, ever be a problem to say, "Sorry guys, this isn't for me, I'll catch you the next time around". That's true for the DM and the players. If including MC'ing (as an example) causes the DM no end of angst, then don't include it. Easy peasy. If including Kender will cause a player no end of angst, then the player should be allowed to step away without being labeled a bad player for not wanting to play. If I don't want to play a Planescape campaign (heh), then I should be able, as a player, to say, "Sorry guys, this isn't for me" without any problem.

Far, far too many DM's out there have an over inflated sense of entitlement that seems to make them think that just because they're sitting behind the screen that their poop don't stink. Get over it. If a player isn't interested, you have a choice to make - which is more important to you, and there is no right answer here - keep that thing or keep the player. Compromise is key, but, compromise means that both sides have to be willing to move. If compromise isn't possible, which does happen, then make the decision. Don't think for a moment that just because you are running a game that your players owe you anything.

/end rant

It is true that no-one "owes" the DM anything, but the DM puts in most of the work, and many view DMing as "less fun" than playing. (which is of course why most people want to play, and few want to DM, and happily also why the 5e DMG tries to make stuff easier for DMs).

As a result, imo, the DM earns some respect. Yes, folks can leave games etc, of course they can, and they should where playstyles are at war. Whenever someone runs a game for me, I always say thanks at the end - cheers for running that game man, I had fun or I appreciate the prep you put into it. That sort of thing. I dont "owe" the DM anything, but I recognise the extra effort that comes with being a DM.

I like it best when everyone in the group takes turns DMing - everybody gets both experiences, everyone mostly "plays" and it tends to keep things fresh.

 

[pemerton]

You are, in fact, way off base. Every two or three levels a rogue gains make a HUGE difference in the way the character plays. I'm finding that out in the campaign I'm DMing.

Like [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I'd also be interested in elaboration of this.

 

[Hussar]

You are implying (fairly strongly) that the same people who say that if a player doesn't like what the DM has to offer he should walk are the same people saying that GMforpowergamers is a bad player for leaving the table because kender are in the game. That may be an observation of people being hypocrites. But if they're different people, then you've pretty much got nothing more than the observation that different people have different opinions - a true if entirely uninteresting and insignificant observation.

Of course, it may be worth noting that the players who ditched over the kender issue ditched because another player was playing the kender. And while the DM may have approved of his girlfriend playing a kender (because he likes them himself), that's crosses into players not being on the same page territory as well - not just player vs DM. She may have been OK with changing to a half-elf, but if she felt bullied into it by others playing the "no kender or I walk" card, that's not entirely OK.

What about Imaro's example above then of no MC'ing for 5 levels, then the majority of the players get to decide whether the rules are included or not? Is that significantly different?

There was a pretty obvious mismatch in the group here, so, something had to give. This was a line that the players as a bunch were not willing to negotiate on. If Kender is off the table, is halfling okay? What, specifically, about kender was it that it needed to be included? Kender can be very disruptive, just like, say, evil alignments. Is someone's concept so laser beam focused on that one thing that no other options are possible? If so, then very likely those people should not be gaming together. That's probably the best solution.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Of course, it may be worth noting that the players who ditched over the kender issue ditched because another player was playing the kender. And while the DM may have approved of his girlfriend playing a kender (because he likes them himself), that's crosses into players not being on the same page territory as well - not just player vs DM. She may have been OK with changing to a half-elf, but if she felt bullied into it by others playing the "no kender or I walk" card, that's not entirely OK.

first, it is PLAYERS plural... not player singular... the first time the no kender discussion was brought up was 10 years before this campaign... it was no surprise to the DM that we didn't want them but he thought being the DM he could just say "I said OK"

as for bullying, I can't understand where this comes from. If you think someone saying "I don't like multi class rules so even though you could play one without disrupting the game I just say no" is OK, then why is "That race is VERY disruptive, and I can not play with one, and neither can most of my friends" bullying?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As a result, imo, the DM earns some respect. Yes, folks can leave games etc, of course they can, and they should where playstyles are at war.

I only think the DM earns respect over time... day one coming in with an idea I will give them the benefit of the doubt, then slowly as I enjoy more and more my trust and respect will grow more and more. If you are someone I know is full of awesome idea's and a cool PC, that might jump some respect from the get go.

Whenever someone runs a game for me, I always say thanks at the end - cheers for running that game man, I had fun or I appreciate the prep you put into it.

yup me too

I dont "owe" the DM anything, but I recognise the extra effort that comes with being a DM.

I do as well

I like it best when everyone in the group takes turns DMing - everybody gets both experiences, everyone mostly "plays" and it tends to keep things fresh.

that is how my games work... right now I play/run on Tuesdays and saterdays I run 2 weeks a month on saterdays and every other tuesday

 

[Hussar]

I only think the DM earns respect over time... day one coming in with an idea I will give them the benefit of the doubt, then slowly as I enjoy more and more my trust and respect will grow more and more. If you are someone I know is full of awesome idea's and a cool PC, that might jump some respect from the get go.



yup me too

I do as well

that is how my games work... right now I play/run on Tuesdays and saterdays I run 2 weeks a month on saterdays and every other tuesday

Just quoted to add, "me too".