Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6463973" data-attributes="member: 92511">What is it you're looking for people to say?Everyone wants to have a fun character. I, as DM, want you to have a fun character.What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?Since the debate was the use or not of MCing, I still want to know why you need multiclassing in the game to &quot;have a fun character&quot;? Why is a single classed character not possible for a fun not too powerful/too weak PC?This, originally very large fonted, statement does not answer that. Why do you need me, as the DM, to have MCing in the game? Your [and others] answer, essentially: Because I want it to build this character this particular way (whether that's for the additional abilities, the story reasons, whatever, we will hopefully not have to revisit. Whatever the reason is!).When I ask again. The answer, worded differently/with more words, is still &quot;Because I want it.&quot; This time &quot;it&quot; being &quot;a fun character that the game supports, etc... etc...&quot;It is not, as I said several times yesterday, a sufficient answer for me to say yes. Continuing to answer &quot;Why?&quot; with &quot;Because I want it&quot; does not get us anywhere. There is virtually no limit to &quot;fun character that the game supports...won't break the game being too powerful or too weak and is well within the fluff...&quot; that you can make without including the optional subsystem needing DM approval of Multiclassing. Coming up with corner case after individual story of why a specific character needs a particular concession [using MC] does not change or disprove this. We can all come up with stories that can use it...Why is it impossible or so awful a prospect to imagine coming up with a character that doesn't need it?...and have that character still be considered &quot;fun&quot; and no more restricted in-game/story wise [other than by their array of class abilities] than one that does [multiclass]?To, possibly, sway the conversation into a different direction [as to &quot;productive&quot;, one can only hope], I pose this:What is so wrong/unfun/threatening/inconceivable with that style of play? No new classes at every level up. Non-existent or, as [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] posted last night, severe or arbitrarily limited MCing parameters. How is that such a terrible burden for people's characters and/or on the players, themselves?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6463973, member: 92511"] What is it you're looking for people to say? Everyone wants to have a fun character. I, as DM, want you to have a fun character. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Since the debate was the use or not of MCing, I still want to know why you need multiclassing in the game to "have a fun character"? Why is a single classed character not possible for a fun not too powerful/too weak PC? This, originally very large fonted, statement does not answer that. Why do you need me, as the DM, to have MCing in the game? Your [and others] answer, essentially: Because I want it to build this character this particular way (whether that's for the additional abilities, the story reasons, whatever, we will hopefully not have to revisit. [I]Whatever[/I] the reason is!). When I ask again. The answer, worded differently/with more words, is still "Because I want it." This time "it" being "a fun character that the game supports, etc... etc..." It is not, as I said several times yesterday, a sufficient answer for me to say yes. Continuing to answer "Why?" with "Because I want it" does not get us anywhere. There is virtually no limit to "fun character that the game supports...won't break the game being too powerful or too weak and is well within the fluff..." that you can make [I]without[/I] including the[I] optional subsystem needing DM approval [/I]of Multiclassing. Coming up with corner case after individual story of why a specific character needs a particular concession [using MC] does not change or disprove this. We can all come up with stories that [I]can[/I] use it...Why is it impossible or so awful a prospect to imagine coming up with a character that[I] doesn't [/I]need it?...and have that character still be considered "fun" and no more restricted in-game/story wise [other than by their array of class abilities] than one that does [multiclass]? To, possibly, sway the conversation into a different direction [as to "productive", one can only hope], I pose this: What is so wrong/unfun/threatening/inconceivable with [I]that [/I]style of play? No new classes at every level up. Non-existent or, as [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] posted last night, severe or arbitrarily limited MCing parameters. How is that such a terrible burden for people's characters and/or on the players, themselves? [/QUOTE]

Verification