|
Also, you seem like the kind of person there is no way in hell I'd play with. No smiley face.Is this supposed to be hurtful? Insulting? Precautionary? Useful information, for when you ask to be in my game, without being aware of who I am? I don't get it.
There are a certain few here who seem to think we would be honored and blessed to have them at our tables.
Makes me appreciate my group more to be honest.
Jeff, yes, there have been comments about "working with the player," but this specific issue of "making sense" is still (just a few posts ago) being referred to as "forcing it down the GM's throat". So as long as people keep insisting that a player HAS TO DO what the GM wants, or else they are being "a jerk" or "a dick" two common terms used in this thread, then I'm going to keep asking: "why is that?"
Because I still haven't gotten an answer.
Why is it "forcing anything down the GM's throat" for a player to say "I really don't have a story reason for taking a level of sorcerer."
How is that ruining the story? How is that destroying the narrative? How is that being a jerk?
Is it completely inconceivable that a sentient being might just do something utterly on a lark, with no rationale whatsoever?
Why is it "forcing anything down the GM's throat" for a player to say "I really don't have a story reason for taking a level of sorcerer."
How is that ruining the story? How is that destroying the narrative? How is that being a jerk?
This is the crux of my question, as well. If your world has Gunslingers and Summoners and Ninjas and Clerics, at what point does a Gunslinger/Summoner/Ninja/Cleric become disruptive?
It doesn't have to be that complex, either. A, B, C, and D. What combination of those is bad? AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, ABC, ABD, ACD, etc...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you seem like the kind of person there is no way in hell I'd play with. No smiley face.Is this supposed to be hurtful? Insulting? Precautionary? Useful information, for when you ask to be in my game, without being aware of who I am? I don't get it.There are a certain few here who seem to think we would be honored and blessed to have them at our tables.
Makes me appreciate my group more to be honest.
Ah shallowsoul, you know that people act totally differently on the internet than in person. My guess is that 98% of the people on this forum would game together beautifully and talk for years about how great that particular campaign was.
|
So as long as people keep insisting that a player HAS TO DO what the GM wants, or else they are being "a jerk" or "a dick" two common terms used in this thread, then I'm going to keep asking: "why is that?"
I haven't seen this. Can you point me to a specific post where this was said? (Actually said, not a paraphrasing. For some reason, I'm a little leery of paraphrasing just recently.)
(Just for comparison: in my case, I believe the GM can force a player into a specific character action or mechanical advance ... but that in very nearly 100 percent of cases, the GM is the one being a dick. It's the difference between "the existence of control" and "should that control be exercised." To tie into another discussion we had, this is an example the "bad GM control-freak.")
Why is it "forcing anything down the GM's throat" for a player to say "I really don't have a story reason for taking a level of sorcerer."
Well, I don't think that a player can force something down a GM's throat, but putting that aside, I elsewhere presented a situation in which a player would not be permitted to take a level of sorcerer (without a very good reason): "Remember, last session the BBEG unraveled the Weave. Until that's fixed, magic doesn't exist. You can't take a level of sorcerer."
From what I've seen, there are a remarkable number of people here who would (try to) argue that because "the player owns the character," the player can do that anyway. I suspect that's what people mean by "forcing it down the GM's throat," but I don't know for sure.
How is that ruining the story? How is that destroying the narrative? How is that being a jerk?
You don't think so?
Jeff, if you can't find the multitude of examples in this and the other thread where it is specifically called "being a dick" for a player to not provide a "makes sense" explanation for their multi-classing choice, you're just not trying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the better point of this is that we are playing a cooperative storytelling game.I am right there with you so far Seppuku.
The DM is setting a framework and everyone else gets to play in the playground the DM creates.Oops... now we are starting to diverge, at least as I am understanding what you are saying. I am with you up through "the DM is setting a framework..." but when you get to "everyone else gets to play in the playground" I start looking for where you started to diverge from my view of things. Just the term "gets to play" already implies some sort of GM benevolence that the player should be grateful for. And I don't see that at all. It's a group of people playing together as I see it. The GM "gets to play" just as much as anyone else in the room. And then you get to "the DM creates." But just above that you said it was a "cooperative story" but now it's one the "GM creates?" Nope I don't see it that way. The endeavor is one which the GM and players create together. Without a GM, the players can't play, but without players the GM can't GM. There is this constant expression on these boards that somehow the GM is more important than the players, and I simply don't agree with that. The GM is in a different role. It is a role that has more effort behind it, and by design more authority, but as Spiderman is fond of saying, "with great power comes great responsibility." I seem to see a lot of comments about the power of the GM, but not so much about their responsibility.
There is some structure and some vision that the DM is trying to create for everyone.Again, the GM and players create it together. If the GM is running to some secret script that is revealed as the GM decrees to the players, that's a problem. The players should be plugged into what the GM is trying to do, at least at a level where the players can decide if that's the sort of game they actually want to play. This is why...
I'm not going to be as creative in layout as you were. Deal...
If you don't get it then I think that is intentional, but I'm not sure based on what you wrote. That's fine. If I'm designing a game world and it's a gritty space marine game, don't expect the me (or any GM) to bend over backwards to allow My Little Pony characters. If you want to play My Little Pony, perhaps my game isn't for you this time. If you want to run your own My Little Pony game, I'm not going to want to do that. You can run it by the group to see if anyone else wants to try it. I'll pass, but others might not. If I'm running a world where teleporting does not work, whining to me about wanting to play a teleporting character is not going to make the game experience better. Some DMs like to play a sandbox game (or at least claim to) where the players can do whatever they want. I'm not that guy. I have a campaign in mind with some story arcs I intend to run. Sabotaging the game and refusing to play this non-open ended campaign is going to end the game, not get this DM to change the world to be My Little Ponies. We, as a group, will choose to do something else.
I expect the players to participate and be into the spirit of the game they are playing, not trying to morph it into something else. This applies to classes on characters. If it belongs in the world and a PC can play it, work with the DM to make it work for your character. If you aren't creative enough to think of why your character would do something or pick a class level, be open to having that created into the story for you. If it doesn't fit the story or the type of campaign the GM is running, don't whine about it in hopes that everyone else will cave in to shut you up.
Jeff, also, if your campaign literally destroyed magic and the campaign's goal was to restore that, then it would "make sense" for a player to be told "well, you can't take a level of sorcerer right now because sorcerers are spontaneous casters and without magic, nothing would trigger that."
I think the number of campaigns where there is no magic available when a character levels up would be very, very rare though.
Just curious, if the player said "well, I'll hold off on leveling up then until magic is working again", would you be OK with that?
|
|
Ah shallowsoul, you know that people act totally differently on the internet than in person. My guess is that 98% of the people on this forum would game together beautifully and talk for years about how great that particular campaign was.Also, you seem like the kind of person there is no way in hell I'd play with. No smiley face.Is this supposed to be hurtful? Insulting? Precautionary? Useful information, for when you ask to be in my game, without being aware of who I am? I don't get it.There are a certain few here who seem to think we would be honored and blessed to have them at our tables.
Makes me appreciate my group more to be honest.
Probably would.
Is it completely inconceivable that a sentient being might just do something utterly on a lark, with no rationale whatsoever?
Yes, it is inconceivable, and I wrote my undergraduate thesis on it.
That said, it's a game. Tell the player to try harder. Have them get into the story and contribute to it's telling.
If you don't get it then I think that is intentional, but I'm not sure based on what you wrote. That's fine. If I'm designing a game world and it's a gritty space marine game, don't expect the me (or any GM) to bend over backwards to allow My Little Pony characters. If you want to play My Little Pony, perhaps my game isn't for you this time.
And here we go again.... Sigh...
I ask "how is it 'forcing anything down the GM's throat' to say 'I don't have an explanation for taking a level of sorcerer'?" and your response is "if you want to play a 'my little pony character' perhaps my game isn't for you."
And you suggest that I am the one not getting it?
I mean this is the sort of response I get every time.
So since that's the case, I'm forced to conclude that the answer to "how is it forcing anything down the GM's throat?" is clearly....
It isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i got into a lot of fights in middle school. i studied tae-kwan do on the side for the fitness and stress relief.
most of my best adaptive skills, were not the stuff i learned from my sensei.
but the stuff i improvised on the spot when i turned the brain off and allowed the body and instinct to take over.
none of my opponents carried guns or anything, most of them had billy clubs, nunchaku and knives.
the kids with the knives, when i disarmed them of their knives, a few swift kicks to the balls and punches to the adbomen took them down. the kids with the knives were usually weaklings who fought dirty and depended on their shank.
the kids with the nunchaku, i learned to, through positioning, make them bean themselves with their own weapon. they were highly nonproficient, and i used the length of their improvised arc against them.
the kids with the billy clubs, they often tried to dual wield the things because they thought it was cool. pretending to be some samurai or something. i grappled them, took them to the ground, and pulled their arms backward until they surrendered.
other martial artists? we had a taekwando school across the street from my middle school i went to. most of them mimicked their orthodox techniques, mostly apprentice level kicks and some unrefined mimicked advanced kicks. i grappled their legs as they kicked, pulled them to the ground, and kept them prone as i headbutted them.
none of this, i learned from my middle school taekwando class. but being familiar with the technique, i knew how to counter orthodox taekwando students of blue belt and lower. unless they were of drastically higher physical fitness.
i was also 5'10" at the age of 12 and stopped growing. so i had a reach advantage, even if i wasn't the most athletically gifted student there (actually, i was the weakest athlete in the whole school).
as a child, long before i discovered soda as an abusable treat, my favorite beverage was milk. and i drank quite a lot of it. i used to go through 3 gallons in a week, on my own efforts alone.
most kids drink their soda, which while i occasional drink a diet soda nowadays in public. i used to drink quite a lot of milk. i had to have 1% or 2% fats. but i drank quite a lot of it. milk was my recreational beverage.
|
|
Jeff, if you can't find the multitude of examples in this and the other thread where it is specifically called "being a dick" for a player to not provide a "makes sense" explanation for their multi-classing choice, you're just not trying.
Searching the forums is pretty useless (or I don't understand it well enough), and Firefox "Find" can only find the phrase in your posts in the pages I've searched. If you can't point me to a specific instance of that, I understand -- I honestly do; unless I had it handy, I wouldn't bother either -- but I hope you'll likewise understand that I'm not inclined to go post-by-post to prove or disprove your assertion.
OK Jeff so how about the post just above here where I ask "how is it 'forcing anything down the GM's throat' to say 'I don't have an explanation for taking a level of sorcerer'?" and the response was "if you want to play a 'my little pony' character in my gritty marine campaign maybe it's not for you."
Is that close enough for you?
Is it completely inconceivable that a sentient being might just do something utterly on a lark, with no rationale whatsoever?Yes, it is inconceivable, and I wrote my undergraduate thesis on it.
That said, it's a game. Tell the player to try harder. Have them get into the story and contribute to it's telling.
And if they just don't want to? That's "being a dick?" That's "forcing it down the GM's throat?"
|
|
Just curious, if the player said "well, I'll hold off on leveling up then until magic is working again", would you be OK with that?
Of course. IMO, working with the player is part of the responsibility of the GM. (See what I did there?)
But the question isn't what I would do, it's what the player insists on doing, with or without my input or approval. It, further, was originally about whether the GM was being unreasonable and playing the game wrong by saying, "For this reason, you can't take this class." Lots of people were saying he was.
Right?
You're doing the thing where because I (or in this case, originally ciretose) was arguing X, you're assuming that I (ciretose) am actually arguing Z. I'm not arguing Z. We agree on Z. Anybody with half a brain agrees on Z. I'm arguing X.
So the gm has an obligation to just pass on by the players concept wether it works for him or not, but I'll wager you think the player has no similar obligation to make his character fit into the gms world?
|
|
OK Jeff so how about the post just above here where I ask "how is it 'forcing anything down the GM's throat' to say 'I don't have an explanation for taking a level of sorcerer'?" and the response was "if you want to play a 'my little pony' character in my gritty marine campaign maybe it's not for you."
Is that close enough for you?
Close enough for what? Again, the argument the two of you are having -- and in this case I'm not making any judgment on who's getting it wrong -- isn't the original argument.
FWIW, I both agree with the "My Little Pony" comment (and I suspect so do you), but not its presentation of relevance; I think it's completely beside the original point ciretose was making (and hopefully so do you).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jeff, I don't think this thread has been proposing that a player can do anything they want. All of my posts have been specifically on the subject of a player simply not having an explanation for a particular multiclass.
You say I'm assuming Z and you're arguing X. I think I'm one of the few people on this thread that has consistently and stubbornly stuck EXPLICITLY to X, restating the argument so many times I'm sure people are sick of it.
What is the 'X' you think you are arguing?
Let me restate it again. How is it "forcing anything down the GM's throat" or "being a dick" or "being a jerk" to fail to provide an explanation for taking a particular multiclass option?
That's "X". That's BEEN "X" all along. That's been "X" for two full threads now.
What do you think "Z" is?
So the gm has an obligation to just pass on by the players concept wether it works for him or not, but I'll wager you think the player has no similar obligation to make his character fit into the gms world?
How does it "not work for the GM" for a player to say "I don't have any explanation for why my character multi-classed into sorcerer?" What does that break?
Jeff, I don't think this thread has been proposing that a player can do anything they want. All of my posts have been specifically on the subject of a player simply not having an explanation for a particular multiclass.
You say I'm assuming Z and you're arguing X. I think I'm one of the few people on this thread that has consistently and stubbornly stuck EXPLICITLY to X, restating the argument so many times I'm sure people are sick of it.
What is the 'X' you think you are arguing?
Let me restate it again. How is it "forcing anything down the GM's throat" or "being a dick" or "being a jerk" to fail to provide an explanation for taking a particular multiclass option?
That's "X". That's BEEN "X" all along. That's been "X" for two full threads now.
What do you think "Z" is?
Any time a DM sees a combination as unfitting, it is usually because they don't wish to devote the time to make it make sense. and some DMs like Weekly William hate reskinning. which i see as lazy and closed minded.
even if a given combination doesn't make sense, characters evolve, characters grow. characters get exposed to all sorts of things.
this makes some concepts impossible. i have to struggle to get away with calling my longsword or scimitar a Jian to fit a more chinese themed character.
and i have a struggle to get away with calling my undine fighter/sorcerer/dragon disciple a priestess of the great azure dragon known as "Seiryu" and giving her an exotic natural scale pattern that resembles a corset or sukumizu beneath her clothes.
or something especially simple as calling my halfling cavalier, a halfling outrider, or calling my chelexian 'ninja' a "Hellstalker" instead of calling her a ninja.
it is an issue with Weekly William and his closed minded ways.
why should we bother to justify why the character is developing arcane cantrips and maybe a handful of 1st level spells?
to use those, he requires a positive charisma, and to further improve them, requires more sorcerer levels. you could add something to the character's backstory, or tie in recent events.
maybe after the monk was cured of petrification, the residue of the curse, allows him to harden the carbon in his body and make himself grow by expanding the carbon distribution (monk who takes a level a sorcerer and chooses mage armor and enlarge person).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, after over a thousand posts and a long and, I thought, very illuminating exchange with ciretose, it is clear that nobody is going to answer the question I've been asking since about post #7 on the original thread. That question, just to recap, was "How is it 'being a dick' or 'being a jerk' or 'forcing something down the GM's throat' to say 'I don't have an explanation for why my character is multi-classing into sorcerer'?"
So I will try to abstract this out a little to the larger context I believe this whole thing is really about (So Jeff, here is your "Z", I suppose).
The goal is to have the player demonstrate that they are "into the game" by having the player "contribute to the story".
The reason I keep challenging the notion is that I don't believe it can be automatically assumed that a player is not "into the game" or "contributing to the story" based on whether they are willing or able to come up with an acceptable in-game explanation for their multi-classing.
I think the question of whether the player is "into the game" or "contributing to the story" is a more holistic question and the answer is difficult to ascertain from any single game activity.
To answer the question of the people who have tried to back me into a corner on the "player responsibilities" my answer is "yes, I believe the player has a responsibility to contribute to the enjoyment of the rest of the game group."
But failing to give a multi-class explanation in and of itself does not indicate whether the player is contributing to the group or not. There are a whole ton of things that go into that question, and in my humble opinion, providing a multi-class "makes sense" scenario is way, way down the list of activities that would or would not demonstrate the player's contribution to the group.
If a player is not contributing to the group, then asking that player to leave is fine. But that should be a decision made not just by the GM, but by the entire group, and should be a decision made not on a single game event, but on the totality of the player in question's activities as a part of the group.
OK, I'm done for real now.
And if they just don't want to? That's "being a dick?" That's "forcing it down the GM's throat?"Is it completely inconceivable that a sentient being might just do something utterly on a lark, with no rationale whatsoever?Yes, it is inconceivable, and I wrote my undergraduate thesis on it.
That said, it's a game. Tell the player to try harder. Have them get into the story and contribute to it's telling.
Yes, if that is how you want to put it and you are unwilling to participate in the telling of the story, you are putting the burden on everyone else. Tell your player to stop being a spoiled brat and play the game with everyone else. "Whaaaaa! I don't want to play the game or participate in the story! I just want to MAX my character! You monkeys are here to entertain me. Dance monkeys, dance!"
Yes, if that is how you want to put it and you are unwilling to participate in the telling of the story, you are putting the burden on everyone else. Tell your player to stop being a spoiled brat and play the game with everyone else. "Whaaaaa! I don't want to play the game or participate in the story! I just want to MAX my character! You monkeys are here to entertain me. Dance monkeys, dance!"And if they just don't want to? That's "being a dick?" That's "forcing it down the GM's throat?"Is it completely inconceivable that a sentient being might just do something utterly on a lark, with no rationale whatsoever?Yes, it is inconceivable, and I wrote my undergraduate thesis on it.
That said, it's a game. Tell the player to try harder. Have them get into the story and contribute to it's telling.
I really am done, but Jeff wanted an example of how someone was accusing a player who wouldn't or couldn't provide a "makes sense" multi-class explanation being "a dick" or "a jerk" or "forcing anything down the GM's throat".
So here you go Jeff. I assume this will work for you. This is actually disturbingly typical of the anti-player rants on the thread.
Since we're back to square one with the over-the-top accusations of sociopathy being at the root of this, I'm glad I'm done with it. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and multi-classed into bard already...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, if that is how you want to put it and you are unwilling to participate in the telling of the story, you are putting the burden on everyone else.
Why? What does having only four inputs rather than five do to the story? Is it somehow harder? The rest of the players have to pick up slack? What slack?
AD, here is the problem with the slant you are taking:
You are ignoring what people are saying and trying to apply others views very narrowly. Someone explaining what they are talking about which is not directed to your pinpointed focus doesn't make your simple pinpoint focus a reasonable part of the discussion. It is just one direction to go and is far from anything I'm really interested in discussing.
You want to keep it to a simple "I'm taking a level of Sorcerer". To me that is a "so what?" I personally wouldn't care because that wouldn't be a relevant issue to the game I currently run. If I design a game world where a Sorcerer doesn't make sense, then as a player, accept that this doesn't make sense and stop trying to stuff a Sorcerer down the throat of the GM who has said no Sorcerer levels. This is where I'm coming from. This also applies to my exact example that you mocked above. If I'm running a space marines game and you insist on interjecting a level of Sorcerer (or a level of My Little Pony) then you need to adjust your thoughts, not me. If the Space Marines game has rules for allowing a crossover for Sorcerers, make up a back story to make it fit and present it to me. Maybe if I can find a way that I can make that enjoyable and fit my game without ruining the atmosphere I've set, I'll bend. If you throw a snit about it being in the rules and that I must allow it.... there's the door.
Seppuku, no, that is not true.
I am sticking EXPLICITLY to the ORIGINAL question, which is still right there at the top of every page of this thread.
"Multi class: do you require it to make sense during a campaign?"
Yes, I narrowed it down to an illustrative single example for clarity's sake, but I have stuck deliberately to that question because that was the question asked.
When a poster stated that a player who did not provide a "makes sense" explanation was "being a dick" I started asking the same question I've been asking ever since.
The fact that you and others have taken this thing into the realm of sociopathy is specifically what I have been trying to stop by yanking it back to the question at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a thought, in the form of a few questions:
Does it ruin the GM's sense of verisimilitude if one of his players can't articulate a reason for a choice beyond "I thought it would be cool"?
Is the player reducing the enjoyment of everyone at the table?
Does the GM have a better answer than "my game, my rules" for not allowing the choice?
Do the other players care one way or another?
If two out of four are "yes", then I can see an argument for more depth being desired, but I still don't see any great reason for it to be required.
Yes, if that is how you want to put it and you are unwilling to participate in the telling of the story, you are putting the burden on everyone else.Why? What does having only four inputs rather than five do to the story? Is it somehow harder? The rest of the players have to pick up slack? What slack?
Why do you ask? What is the purpose of sitting at a game table and playing a role playing game to you if you are not going to role play and take a part in the character you represent? Why are you wanting to force someone who doesn't want to participate to be a part of the experience? I can understand that sometimes gamers can have a hard time getting a group together, but why force someone into it if they don't want to do it? If some prefer to play games with no role playing then that is fine. I'd normally suggest that they play Skyrim. Very good game for what it is. Maybe WoW. You don't have to explain anything you do to anyone and can do all sorts of things I would never do at a gaming table with friends.
What percentage of all of the above do you think reach the height of their profession because of training rather than in game experience, or in war and battle experience?What percentage of professional athletes, fighters and soldiers do you think would recommend not training regularly with a coach/trainer/sensei/mentor?
I would suggest an infinitesimally small amount.
Not "rather than", but "in conjunction with". You haven't read my post properly, particularly paragraph one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you ask? What is the purpose of sitting at a game table and playing a role playing game to you if you are not going to role play and take a part in the character you represent?Yes, if that is how you want to put it and you are unwilling to participate in the telling of the story, you are putting the burden on everyone else.Why? What does having only four inputs rather than five do to the story? Is it somehow harder? The rest of the players have to pick up slack? What slack?
I'm a facilitator. I like making sure other people can have a fun game. This is why I DM so often. But when I play, I do so by taking a backseat to the rest of the party. I play characters that support the party, not lead it. The goals of my character are understated and rarely come up. But I am participating. Why must I justify what I do with my characters progression?
Here's a thought, in the form of a few questions:
Does it ruin the GM's sense of verisimilitude if one of his players can't articulate a reason for a choice beyond "I thought it would be cool"?
Is the player reducing the enjoyment of everyone at the table?
Does the GM have a better answer than "my game, my rules" for not allowing the choice?
Do the other players care one way or another?
If two out of four are "yes", then I can see an argument for more depth being desired, but I still don't see any great reason for it to be required.
This is too reasonable. To ask or provide examples would be detracting from the OP. We must strike all questions for clarification or reason or conditional answers as they were not provided by the OP. We are sociopaths.
(other than that I thought these were good points)
Why do you ask? What is the purpose of sitting at a game table and playing a role playing game to you if you are not going to role play and take a part in the character you represent? Why are you wanting to force someone who doesn't want to participate to be a part of the experience? I can understand that sometimes gamers can have a hard time getting a group together, but why force someone into it if they don't want to do it? If some prefer to play games with no role playing then that is fine. I'd normally suggest that they play Skyrim. Very good game for what it is. Maybe WoW. You don't have to explain anything you do to anyone and can do all sorts of things I would never do at a gaming table with friends.
Because this "justify your new powers" stuff is the LEAST PART OF ROLEPLAYING. It's not all or nothing, someone can hate not having the process streamlined and still like roleplaying their character. They just simply don't give a f%$% about the mechanical aspect being justified.
Also, WoW is tedious and Skyrim is single player, so they're not good alternatives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So providing an immersive and explanatory background for your character is the LEAST part of roleplaying? Go figure.
There is a huge difference between "I am banning this class", whether for world logic or game balance or any other reasons and "This class is allowed and you could have taken it at first level in this game and this setting without any complaints, but I'm not going to allow you to multiclass into it." The second is what this thread has been about. Or at least how much if any roleplaying rationale is needed.
If your world doesn't have sorcerers, then obviously you can't multiclass into a sorcerer. If it's a space marines game, you can only have classes that make sense in a space marines game, but the question is, will you allow the player to multiclass?
The reason sorcerer was chosen as the example was because it's one of the easiest to justify: My bloodline powers have begun to awaken. If there are no sorcerers in your game, pick another class to use as the example.
Agreed. On many points, and I did cover both scenarios in that post. I also added one more scenario involving a banned class and how it might become un-banned.
As for the awakening bloodline... There you go. It wasn't that hard. Your example just took you off of the OP's "dick" list because you gave it a thought and we are now developing story. If you simply said "I refuse", then you are still on the "dick" list and probably should not be playing.
Yes, it really is.
Here's an exercise for you. Make a character with some extensive backstory, give him some strong personality traits, and RP that for a while.
Now make a character with no solid backstory. He could be an amnesiac who conveniently "remembers" things when you'd like to add more. Give him strong personality traits, and RP that for a while.
What's the difference? One is a character with strong personality traits who is probably fun to RP whose backstory is already written. The other is a character who you're making s#%$ up on the fly for with strong personality traits who's probably fun to RP.
The important part of roleplay is in the living, changing character, not whatever happened to him 8 years ago.
A strong backstory might augment an already good character, but it doesn't make that character likeable or deep all on its own.
Now think how infinitesimally small a part of role playing "I trained a while I guess" is.
What happened in a persons past and present is an indelible part of a person, unless you want to live in a world with amnesiacs running around behind every tree.
I find this discussion to be kind of strange. On the one hand AD has been repeatedly asking the same question (I can quite easily skim past his posts because they almost all contain the same points and quotes) and on the other hand people he's been asking it to have made all sorts of examples of play in which the question was answered but only because there were extraneous circumstances that legitimised their answers.
AD: He wants to take <Class> (currently Sorcerer, was Fighter and Wizard for a bit when people mentioned levelling up mid-adventure)
Others: Clearly his lack of interest is a detriment to the other participants.
AD: <subjective experience refuting that>, the example is only that the player isn't interested in providing a reason for taking <Class>. Not that they're generally maligned or have a negative effect on the group.
And from then it gets a little murky as each poster's personal interpretation of the hypothetical examples takes hold.
I also had a DM that dictated that she write the background story for all the PCs. You don't get to pick your character's background, it was given to you.
I don't have to make up my own backstory?! Wait, I need more information before I decide if this is appalling or amazing. Did she dictate the characters personality, growth, classes, preferences, etc? Or was it just the backstory?
But the argument that, as GM, I don't have that control -- i.e., "this character belongs to me, the player" -- is just flatly wrong. As a GM, even after you've decided you've had enough of me, and exercised the power you actually have (to leave the game), I still control your character ... you don't think he's just going to BAMF out of in-game existence, do you?
That's why statements like "as a player, I own my character and you have no control over the advancement choices I can make" make me laugh out loud.
I think what he meant is that your character and everything wouldn't just wink out of existence and the whole universe would reform to pretend your contributions were never made. That your character would keep adventuring because IC he's not got a reason to disappear, at least not immediately.
What happened in a persons past and present is an indelible part of a person, unless you want to live in a world with amnesiacs running around behind every tree.
The irony to this is that we have again done exactly what the OP said the player would not do. We made up a back story. He has amnesia and is rediscovering himself. Again, this isn't hard.
Rynjin, I'm sorry to tell you.... You are not a "dick".
The amnesiac thing is just an example, an excuse. You could have a character that doesn't even have that excuse and be okay. More realistic that way anyway.
Think about it, when was the last time you met a person IRL and they said "Hi, I'm Mary and this is my backstory..."? No, you learn bits and pieces about them over time, and still never get the full story of everything that ever happened in their past.
You can "reveal" bits of a character's backstory as you think of them as well, and not have it change a damn thing since you've been acting as if those events had already shaped him anyway.
Give him personality traits (gruff, antisocial, drinks and smokes a lot). Now whenever they pop in your head, you can justify WHY he's antisocial, gruff, and drinks and smokes a lot. The backstory didn't matter at all.
Not having everyone at the table know it is considerably different from not having it exist.
Why go to such lengths to not do something so simple?
Not having everyone at the table know it is considerably different from not having it exist.
Not particularly, from my point of view.
If nobody knows about it, it may as well not exist. It can be changed at any time with absolutely no adverse effects. No plotholes would form since there's no plot there to begin with, as it were.
It's just like these personas we craft on this forum, really. All you know about me is that I play Pathfinder, browse the forums, and I'm easily irritated. You don't know any of my "backstory", so for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. The existence of something so mutable entirely hinges on your knowledge of its existence. I I told you I worked at an accounting firm but my real occupation was as a gas station attendant, and you believed it, it's true as far as you know.
I also had a DM that dictated that she write the background story for all the PCs. You don't get to pick your character's background, it was given to you.I don't have to make up my own backstory?! Wait, I need more information before I decide if this is appalling or amazing. Did she dictate the characters personality, growth, classes, preferences, etc? Or was it just the backstory?
Just the backstory. It was your choice how your character reacted to it. They were usually really messed up, and every character had a near death experience. One character backstory was that he nearly died of the plague, and woke up in a large burial pit surrounded by dead friends and family with dirt being shoveled onto him (the town assumed he died, too). Another backstory was that the character was a nobleman on the way back home with his entourage, and once or twice a day something happened that nearly killed him, but instead killed someone else in his group. By the time he got home, he was the only person left alive. Note that his entourage included many of his lifetime friends and mentors.
They were more detailed that that. Each one was several pages long.
I can see how that can be appealing to some, but I like writing my own character backstories, so it was annoying for me.
Wow, there have been a heap of posts since I signed off last night, so this is hearkening back a few pages, but...
To return to the issue of training (not vs experience, as some have tried to make out, but as a necessary addition to), my original point was a bit lost in the volume of posts, and obviously many people don't read the wntire thread. I was championing the neccesity of training in real life, not to suggest that it should be roleplayed and included in game, but to illustrate how so much of a character's skill development is hand waved, and IMO rightly so. Thus, to make a distinction between single-class levelling and multiclassing to the point where the GM feels they can deny multiclassing because of insufficient story reasons is rather indefensible, and pretty much arbitrary.
A fighter taking a new fighter level, complete with feats and skills, is comparable, if not exactly the same, as taking a new class. Just because the GM and everyone else hasn't been informed of what the PC has been doing in their downtime is not a justifiable readon (to me) to deny a player the right to multiclass.
Having said that, the more story the better, IMO.
Reverse engineer the argument.
Suppose I have written an extensive background and personality for a Poet Warrior, requiring a blend of multiple levels Bard and Fighter for the character to be realized. But, this campaign is starting at level 1.
Do I now have to justify lacking the mechanics of my RP in a way that makes sense?
If not, then why not? He's a warrior poet, but he can't even use a longsword with proficiency. Or he has barely any abilities in Perform (oratory) because it's not a class skill and he only has 1 rank in it.
<snip>
Oh... I wouldn't mind a background to explain my character's current placement with the party since sometimes I find it a bit tedious but that just went from awesome to creepy very quickly.
<snip>
I believe that was one of AD's points as well, that it doesn't make sense to suddenly stop hand waving it for multiclassing.