Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6462854" data-attributes="member: 6786252">The problem with the second is that, in the long term, the character drags behind the party and becomes overshadowed.&nbsp;&nbsp; Which is not a fun experience, and has more often caused a character to be abandoned than not (at least that I've seen).&nbsp;&nbsp; Its very easy to congratulate and say &quot;Awesome that you chose story over power!&quot; but it has its drawbacks as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; When taken to its logical conclusion, we have people who effectively can't meaningfully affect combat or dungeon exploration.&nbsp; &nbsp; Most people think that's not fun, and will generally not play the character then.&nbsp;&nbsp; Which suddenly makes your choice of story less awesome.As for the first?&nbsp;&nbsp; Beyond being a mindset that I don't want to encourage at the table (which is a strong reason on its own - ideals are great, but we have to deal with reality),&nbsp; there are times when GMs are simply ill equipped with dealing some of the crazy combinations people come up with, and it can be a source of frustration and headaches at the table.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are also times when a multi-class combo ends up being just as good than another player's concept, which can lead to frustration and less fun on their end - I've seen that happen before as well.&nbsp; &nbsp; It shouldn't happen, generally because I find that players tend to want separate styles of play in the party, but when it does, it leads to frustration.&nbsp;&nbsp; In Shadowrun, I know someone who made the ultimate Jack-of-all-trades character, that could do a little bit of everything.&nbsp;&nbsp; He ended up overshadowing specialists in the party.&nbsp; &nbsp; By making everyone into single classes, it reduces the chance of overlap, and ensuring everyone has a distinct role that another can't take easily.TL;DR - in short, I've not had any good experiences by allowing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 6462854, member: 6786252"] The problem with the second is that, in the long term, the character drags behind the party and becomes overshadowed. Which is not a fun experience, and has more often caused a character to be abandoned than not (at least that I've seen). Its very easy to congratulate and say "Awesome that you chose story over power!" but it has its drawbacks as well. When taken to its logical conclusion, we have people who effectively can't meaningfully affect combat or dungeon exploration. Most people think that's not fun, and will generally not play the character then. Which suddenly makes your choice of story less awesome. As for the first? Beyond being a mindset that I don't want to encourage at the table (which is a strong reason on its own - ideals are great, but we have to deal with reality), there are times when GMs are simply ill equipped with dealing some of the crazy combinations people come up with, and it can be a source of frustration and headaches at the table. There are also times when a multi-class combo ends up being just as good than another player's concept, which can lead to frustration and less fun on their end - I've seen that happen before as well. It shouldn't happen, generally because I find that players tend to want separate styles of play in the party, but when it does, it leads to frustration. In Shadowrun, I know someone who made the ultimate Jack-of-all-trades character, that could do a little bit of everything. He ended up overshadowing specialists in the party. By making everyone into single classes, it reduces the chance of overlap, and ensuring everyone has a distinct role that another can't take easily. TL;DR - in short, I've not had any good experiences by allowing it. [/QUOTE]

Verification