|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't require it, but encourage a reason for it.
My friend is building a gunslinger / wizard (spellslinger) / eldritch knight. He's an arcane student who experiments with casting spells using guns. However, an accident destroyed his spellbook and he was banished from casting spells. When he gets his first level of wizard, the ban will be lifted and he'll find a new spellbook.
Idea's like that actually bring more to the game in my opinion and that is the kind of thing I require in my games. Suddenly taking a class because you read about a cool ability it had the night before makes the game a bit more artificial to me. It's supposed to be a role playing game where concepts are a part of your character, I personally don't like playing or running a pure numbers game. If you do this then you might as well drop class names, races and everything else and just focus on the numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.
Pretty much, what TOZ is saying. And to address the it breaks immersion, it's still a game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.
I think I'm going to start calling this the "WoW" fallacy.
"Anything I personally disapprove of in the game can be blamed on the influence of video games (especially WoW) regardless of the fact that the issue existed long before video games became popular."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much, what TOZ is saying. And to address the it breaks immersion, it's still a game.
depends on the game you run. I don't like the reasoning of "its ok because DRAGONS!". When I run a game, I am also running a story. It's a story I share with my players as they're the ones writing their character's destiny with the help of some dice. I expect them to RESPECT the story, the game, and the other players who take the game serious. I love action and high adventure in my games, it's a role playing game and expect my players to treat it as such. The tactical combat game that is the rules books aids the role play and story telling. I probably enjoy a different game than most who would allow that. I don't see anything wrong with any play style out there. In the end it's about everyone having fun(I just want some sense made of things).
I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.I think I'm going to start calling this the "WoW" fallacy.
"Anything I personally disapprove of in the game can be blamed on the influence of video games (especially WoW) regardless of the fact that the issue existed long before video games became popular."
I've been a pen and paper rpg player for 20 years now. I've had my share of stupid in many games. I could have just as easily compared it to board game which it can be played as. I prefer a story oriented game where the world and npcs are more than mechanical. I enjoy a world that feels like it lives and breathes. A level 4 rogue becoming a wizard suddenly with no back story or role play leading up this is taking the rp out of rpg.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Dragon up there. If I started telling my players how they could build their characters and how they couldn't, I wouldn't have players for much longer.
There is a difference in saying that your characters have to find a way to make logical sense and saying you can't do something.
I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.
Table top gaming is an incredibly inefficient system to use if you are just number crunching. A computer can do it so much better, that it is almost archaic that we still roll dice and count.
So the only real advantage you gain from having a live human GM is that they have a better grasp on what "makes sense" than a computer would.
We spend all this money on settings, and the people who write them spend so much time on trying to work out the logic of why and how things interact. And then a GM spends literally hours preparing a game that most players expect should follow some chain of logic.
I think the least a player can do is make an effort to have the character they create make sense in the setting. If they can't even bother to do that, what exactly are they adding to the table other than disruption?
I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.I think I'm going to start calling this the "WoW" fallacy.
"Anything I personally disapprove of in the game can be blamed on the influence of video games (especially WoW) regardless of the fact that the issue existed long before video games became popular."
THANK YOU! I've been trying to find a name for that argument...it's getting annoying how everything somebody doesn't like about RPGs is described as being the fault of videogames (particularly WoW)
Seriously guys, it's getting old.
I agree with Dragon up there. If I started telling my players how they could build their characters and how they couldn't, I wouldn't have players for much longer.There is a difference in saying that your characters have to find a way to make logical sense and saying you can't do something.
I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.
Table top gaming is an incredibly inefficient system to use if you are just number crunching. A computer can do it so much better, that it is almost archaic that we still roll dice and count.
So the only real advantage you gain from having a live human GM is that they have a better grasp on what "makes sense" than a computer would.
We spend all this money on settings, and the people who write them spend so much time on trying to work out the logic of why and how things interact. And then a GM spends literally hours preparing a game that most players expect should follow some chain of logic.
I think the least a player can do is make an effort to have the character they create make sense in the setting. If they can't even bother to do that, what exactly are they adding to the table other than disruption?
be careful. That's wow fallacy territory.
Exactly. If you run a whimsical comedy game then go for it. Serious natured game? Not so much.
I wouldn't allow it. It breaks immersion to treat the game like a video game. You just have to be upfront with your players.I think I'm going to start calling this the "WoW" fallacy.
"Anything I personally disapprove of in the game can be blamed on the influence of video games (especially WoW) regardless of the fact that the issue existed long before video games became popular."
THANK YOU! I've been trying to find a name for that argument...it's getting annoying how everything somebody doesn't like about RPGs is described as being the fault of videogames (particularly WoW)
Seriously guys, it's getting old.
you have it wrong. We're complaining about people treating it like a video game. The GAME is not the problem. That type of player is the problem(not that there is anything wrong with this play style if that's what you're into).
|
I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.
I fail to see how a Fighter taking a level in Wizard, or a Monk taking a level in Inquisitor, or a Cleric taking a level in Paladin, is some kind of horrendous act against reality.
It's also why I level characters up when I feel they deserve it, instead of smack dab in the middle of a dungeon, or whenever the exp would say they should. They ain't MY characters, and so long as they're following the rules, I don't care what kind of ridiculous multiclassing my players play around with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.I fail to see how a Fighter taking a level in Wizard, or a Monk taking a level in Inquisitor, or a Cleric taking a level in Paladin, is some kind of horrendous act against reality.
It's also why I level characters up when I feel they deserve it, instead of smack dab in the middle of a dungeon, or whenever the exp would say they should. They ain't MY characters, and so long as they're following the rules, I don't care what kind of ridiculous multiclassing my players play around with.
Well if you want to argue with yourself about the things you are saying people are saying, feel free. Because no one, other than you, said taking a multiclass level was, in your words "some kind of horrendous act against reality."
What I did say, and I'll speak for myself, is "I think the least a player can do is make an effort to have the character they create make sense in the setting."
Do you think that is to much to ask?
I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.I fail to see how a Fighter taking a level in Wizard, or a Monk taking a level in Inquisitor, or a Cleric taking a level in Paladin, is some kind of horrendous act against reality.
It's also why I level characters up when I feel they deserve it, instead of smack dab in the middle of a dungeon, or whenever the exp would say they should. They ain't MY characters, and so long as they're following the rules, I don't care what kind of ridiculous multiclassing my players play around with.
it's perfectly ok as long as it make sense in the world the game is taking place in. These are the sort of things that need to be discussed in advance. If your character's backstory has a ton of gaps or was vague I'd allow a logical addition to your background to make this fit. You.cannot just say "I'm gonna take a level of wizard because DRAGONS!!!".
Some of us do.
|
|
I think it's not nearly as big a deal as you claim.
If a player levels up and decides they want to take a level in Fighter, despite never having fought a day in their life, okay. It's not going to change my narrative or the overall story, so who gives a damn?
Taking a level in fighter is really easy to explain.
"I decided to focus on learning how to fight"
There, done. No problem.
Is that really to much to ask?
I think it's not nearly as big a deal as you claim.
If a player levels up and decides they want to take a level in Fighter, despite never having fought a day in their life, okay. It's not going to change my narrative or the overall story, so who gives a damn?
Taking a level in fighter is really easy to explain.
"I decided to focus on learning how to fight"
There, done. No problem.
Is that really to much to ask?
The problem comes from requiring a justification for certain PrCs and such, especially the ones that have easy to obtain prerequisites, but are reliant on specific fluff.
I dunno, I just think it's not something you should require an in-depth justification for.
|
|
The problem comes from requiring a justification for certain PrCs and such, especially the ones that have easy to obtain prerequisites, but are reliant on specific fluff.I think it's not nearly as big a deal as you claim.
If a player levels up and decides they want to take a level in Fighter, despite never having fought a day in their life, okay. It's not going to change my narrative or the overall story, so who gives a damn?
Taking a level in fighter is really easy to explain.
"I decided to focus on learning how to fight"
There, done. No problem.
Is that really to much to ask?
Is that a problem? Having to actually play a prestige class as designed is a "problem"?
Is that a problem? Having to actually play a prestige class as designed is a "problem"?
Yes, kinda. If you do away with the setting specific fluff and just focus on the mechanics it works fine, but when you start making people write in a whole big hoo-ha about how they were inducted into the Hellknights or why their mount suddenly became such a bigass animal it starts straining suspension of disbelief more than just handwaving it.
Yes. However, my players generally declare taking in-game actions that explain multiclassing on their own initiative as they expect the story of their characters to make some sense. Even the party's primary optimizer with penchant for weird multiclassing combinations does this in D&D game. Well, especially him...
|
|
That doesn't invalidate my statement.For me, I ain't having fun when the story doesn't matter.I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.Story don't matter if you ain't having fun.
Wasn't trying to. Just pointing out that for some of us, having a guy who ruins the story ruins the fun for the rest of the table.
Which is a bigger problem to me than the 'hardship' to a person having to actually play something that makes sense to everyone else at the table.
|
|
Is that a problem? Having to actually play a prestige class as designed is a "problem"?Yes, kinda. If you do away with the setting specific fluff and just focus on the mechanics it works fine, but when you start making people write in a whole big hoo-ha about how they were inducted into the Hellknights or why their mount suddenly became such a bigass animal it starts straining suspension of disbelief more than just handwaving it.
Works fine for you, disrupts the setting and kills verisimilutude for others when a player can't even be bothered to think of a reason for something as central to a character as becoming a Hellknight.
The game is more than the mechanics for many of us.
Seems like the argument is going in other directions. The rogue levels up mid dungeon and does it by becoming a level 1 wizard with a spellbook and spell components that he didn't have before. Now if the player thought this through in advance it could have been assumed and role played that he's been studying and practicing for years. He mentions attempting cantrips and practicing gestures during the dungeon. When he casts his first spell in the heat of battle it becomes a life changing milestone and he role plays the accomplishment.
.....but the detractors here just think it should be swept under the rug and missing a wonderful role play opportunity.
|
|
Seems like the argument is going in other directions. The rogue levels up mid dungeon and does it by becoming a level 1 wizard with a spellbook and spell components that he didn't have before. Now if the player thought this through in advance it could have been assumed and role played that he's been studying and practicing for years. He mentions attempting cantrips and practicing gestures during the dungeon. When he casts his first spell in the heat of battle it becomes a life changing milestone and he role plays the accomplishment.
.....but the detractors here just think it should be swept under the rug and missing a wonderful role play opportunity.
Just sounds like laziness to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't invalidate my statement.For me, I ain't having fun when the story doesn't matter.I am constantly amazed how many people on here don't seem to care if the story that is being told through the game makes any sense or not.Story don't matter if you ain't having fun.
Nor his.
"It works for my build" is an honest answer, but it's fine for the GM to want a little explanation. Some players may be making a bad choice based on some impulse.
Or, maybe, it's a good idea you'll want to discuss a bit. Sharing your visions for your characters at level-up is a great time for the party.
When the GM announces that everyone's leveled, it's good to discuss things before you reconvene. Leveling changes the mechanics. Talking about it makes the characters feel more real, IMO.
There is a huge difference between learning how to bend the laws of reality and learning how to get a +1 dodge bonus.
Yea. You're a seasoned wizard. You've been training in this path your whole life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but the detractors here just think it should be swept under the rug and missing a wonderful role play opportunity.
Because I genuinely don't feel like stopping play for a few hours so people can come up with some way to work their new class into their old stuff.
If you're forced to do something, you're going to half-ass it. In which case, it's not going to be a "wonderful roleplaying opportunity" it's going to be "Homework I have to write while I'm playing a game and trying to relax and have fun".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but the detractors here just think it should be swept under the rug and missing a wonderful role play opportunity.Because I genuinely don't feel like stopping play for a few hours so people can come up with some way to work their new class into their old stuff.
If you're forced to do something, you're going to half-ass it. In which case, it's not going to be a "wonderful roleplaying opportunity" it's going to be "Homework I have to write while I'm playing a game and trying to relax and have fun".
If you can't even bother to come up with a few sentences worth of explanation and some very simple rping (in most cases), I don't know why you are playing this game to begin with. It doesn't take an essay, or a half hour long ordeal; in fact, if it takes that much effort, it's probably being done either for the wrong reasons and/or without being fully thought out, both of which are things the DM has every right to step in because of and intervene. In the end, it doesn't take that much effort to put something together that works, and anyone not even willing to do that much for the sake of the continuity of the story is going to have trouble at a lot of tables where story is at least somewhat important.
On the note of PrCs, yes, they should require actual effort and rp to get into, since the whole point of many, if not most, of them is to highlight a particular group in that world; you can't just wake up one morning and say "Now I'm a Hellknight."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't even bother to come up with a few sentences worth of explanation and some very simple rping (in most cases), I don't know why you are playing this game to begin with.To have FUN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't even bother to come up with a few sentences worth of explanation and some very simple rping (in most cases), I don't know why you are playing this game to begin with.To have FUN.
So being able to rattle off two sentences explaining your actions in the world is somehow so unfun that people shouldn't be expected to do it? If nothing else, it gives the DM the ability to respond appropriately, and lay down the seeds ahead of time, make sure that the player has the equipment they need for it to work without breaking the story too much, etc. You say the point of the game is to have fun, but that holds true for the DM as well, and if you can't even be bothered to come up with something to help explain your actions, chances are that neither the DM nor the other players are having much fun of their own with you at the table; fun is important, but so is respect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone can think of a valid justification with a minute of thought.
Sure, anyone can come up with "So I woke up today and I breathed fire! Holy s*$! I'm a Sorcerer!" but that's not a justification and is little more than the aforementioned handwaving with a piece of belly button lint stuck on it as fluff.
Like I said, if you put someone on the spot and/or make them do something they don't want to do, they will half-ass it. It's a fact of life.
So if it's going to be half-assed anyway, why not cut out the middle man and just abstract the whole damn process and save people the trouble?
And I still fail to see how just having it all happen under the hood is less respectful than holding up the game while you come up with an explanation for multiclassing other than "I thought the combo would be cool and fun to play".
Not everyone can think of a valid justification with a minute of thought.
Sure, anyone can come up with "So I woke up today and I breathed fire! Holy s%$+ I'm a Sorcerer!" but that's not a justification and is little more than the aforementioned handwaving with a piece of belly button lint stuck on it as fluff.
Like I said, if you put someone on the spot and/or make them do something they don't want to do, they will half-ass it. It's a fact of life.
So if it's going to be half-assed anyway, why not cut out the middle man and just abstract the whole damn process and save people the trouble?
And I still fail to see how just having it all happen under the hood is less respectful than holding up the game while you come up with an explanation for multiclassing other than "I thought the combo would be cool and fun to play".
"It looked cool" is still a reason, and one that the DM and other players can work with. In a lot of cases, that is all you need to say, but perhaps someone else at the table know that while it looks cool, it doesn't actually work all that well. And I'm not saying you need a full blown detailed reason, but if you can't, or won't, articulate anything at all, that as a DM would make me a bit concerned. I would still probably allow it unless I had specific concerns, but if an individual was that uncommunicative on a regular basis, it would certainly cause problems at some point.
I think we may be talking on different topics here.
We're not talking about "Justify why you want to multiclass into this" , we're talking about "Justify why your CHARACTER would be able to suddenly gain these abilities".
I agree with you that there should be some reason for you to take the class, so that someone can maybe advise you on the best way to go about it and I know to look up how these abilities work and how that changes things.
I do not agree that every new ability/class after character creation needs to be justified in character.
Like I said, I encourage those who enjoy it to do so, and I get a kick out of seeing the ideas and justifications that come up. I do not, however, REQUIRE people to do so, because not everyone enjoys it and I don't see any reason to make people do something they don't enjoy in a game.
inb4Someone comes along and says "Hurr durr so you never attack or kill characters then huh durrrr?"
Like I said, I encourage those who enjoy it to do so, and I get a kick out of seeing the ideas and justifications that come up. I do not, however, REQUIRE people to do so, because not everyone enjoys it and I don't see any reason to make people do something they don't enjoy in a game.
I don't require it, but I do strongly encourage it because it just helps party cohesion and story development over the course of the campaign if people at least try to do so most of the time for things that may require notable adjustments from others at the table; someone going from barbarian to fighter would have far less effect on party roles and the type of challenges that the DM needs to come up with then a fighter going into wizard. If someone is going to potentially create a certain amount of work for others, they should at least have the courtesy of being willing to do the same amount themselves. Again, it's not absolutely required, but it really does help, and with a little bit of practice, it's actually pretty easy to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I genuinely don't feel like stopping play for a few hours so people can come up with some way to work their new class into their old stuff.
This is a role playing game. That's not stopping play, that counts as play.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue here is that "it has to make sense" is not an objective statement. It is a statement of opinion that can only be interpreted as "it has to make sense to me." And when this is said from the perspective of the GM that means "if it doesn't make sense to me then I will arbitrarily not allow it." The player can say "but... but... it makes sense to me" until they are blue in the face.
Here is what is being said whether people want to admit it or not:
"You have to convince me that you are role playing properly or I will not allow you to do it."
"Why not? I want to do it because it's what my character would do, and I'll have more fun that way."
"Well, unless you can convince me by giving me an essay on why you are doing it, then you are having fun wrong, and I won't allow that."
Nice.