| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I pretty much feel the same. And as a player, I make sure I have telegraphed any new multi-classes I come up with via the play of my character. I generally find it quite disappointing that a player can't put in the effort to do this since it really doesn't take much at all.
I make sure I have telegraphed any new multi-classes I come up with via the play of my character. I generally find it quite disappointing that a player can't put in the effort to do this since it really doesn't take much at all.
The fact that it "really doesn't take much at all" for you does not mean it comes that easy for other people.
I have a degree in physics. My wife has a degree in mathematics. If I had a dollar for every time I've had a conversation with a workmate, family member or friend where I wanted to say "it really doesn't take that much at all" when I knew that it was true for me....
Well, lets just say that it didn't take me long to learn that other people have a different opinion about doing math.
And other people have a different opinion about developing backstory or character development rationale.
For some people, it actually is not fun. Yeah, I know, who coulda figgered that?
So why do you want them to do it? I wouldn't make you do math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
To me, it's more it really needs to make sense in the context of the world, party, campaign, and, to a lesser degree, the character's own history. A barbarian who hates wizards is going to have a lot of explaining to do if he wants to multiclass to wizard, especially if there is no wizard in the party to learn from, then a barbarian who has actively sought out help in that department, not only from NPCs, but any available PCs as well. That doesn't mean that the former example would automatically be banned, just that the player would need to be willing accept that the character would have a bumpier transition, and that a change that extreme would not simply be handwaved away.
I don't fuss over each individual decision that much, but if you try to do something that makes me as the DM, chief storyteller, and moderator of the game blink, you can bet that it's because it would make at least a few NPCs blink as well, and force them to react accordingly. The more information you give me, the more information I have to adjust the NPCs in a way that the player is going to be comfortable with (whether the character is or not is an entirely different conversation). So it's not required, but not giving me anything because "it's not fun" ends up hurting you more than me, because I have less ability to make sure things remain "fun" for you down the road.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sunshadow, OK that's fun for you to do.
Seriously, I want to know.
If that's not fun for another player to do, why do you think they should have to do it?
Because you want them to have fun the way you do?
I just don't get this.
If it is that important for you, then do it for them. Since you enjoy it (apparently) you shouldn't mind, and since they don't, they would probably be appreciative, and maybe feel guilty enough that they'd try themselves next time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that it "really doesn't take much at all" for you does not mean it comes that easy for other people.I have a degree in physics. My wife has a degree in mathematics. If I had a dollar for every time I've had a conversation with a workmate, family member or friend where I wanted to say "it really doesn't take that much at all" when I knew that it was true for me....
Well, lets just say that it didn't take me long to learn that other people have a different opinion about doing math.
And other people have a different opinion about developing backstory or character development rationale.
For some people, it actually is not fun. Yeah, I know, who coulda figgered that?
So why do you want them to do it? I wouldn't make you do math.
What's our context? A role playing game in which characterization and story matter. I should be able to expect people to put effort toward that context just as you'd be able to expect me to do the math and conduct experiments in a physics lab. Context is key.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's our context? A role playing game in which characterization and story matter. I should be able to expect people to put effort toward that context just as you'd be able to expect me to do the math and conduct experiments in a physics lab. Context is key.
I expect you to do it in a physics lab because physics labs are about learning and colleges have to maintain their credibility by proving that students can do the work. Gaming is about having fun.
That's the important context.
Isn't it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's our context? A role playing game in which characterization and story matter. I should be able to expect people to put effort toward that context just as you'd be able to expect me to do the math and conduct experiments in a physics lab. Context is key.I expect you to do it in a physics lab because physics labs are about learning and colleges have to maintain their credibility by proving that students can do the work. Gaming is about having fun.
That's the important context.
Isn't it?
Playing football is about having fun. So is baseball. So is curling. But if I won't run downfield, catch a ball, or sweep, there's not much point to participating in that particular fun. It's not the right fit.
Having fun isn't the only important issue. Being on board with the style of the game matters or that's not really the right fitting game.
I really, really wonder if you folks posting on this thread realize that this is what you sound like:
"Dammit! You're going to have fun the right way or I'll make sure you don't have any fun at all!"
I can just hear you muttering "and get off my lawn!" as they leave...
|
What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.
Sunshadow, OK that's fun for you to do.
Seriously, I want to know.
If that's not fun for another player to do, why do you think they should have to do it
Because you want them to have fun the way you do?
I just don't get this.
No, it's called putting forth a little effort now means it's easier to maintain the overall fun for longer. Anyone who thinks that they will never have to do anything they don't like over the course of a 20 level campaign is going be be very disappointed and end up doing a lot more such things than someone who understands up front that doing some of the less pleasant tasks ahead of time reduces the amount of time they, the DM, and the rest of the party have to deal with them later when they actually come up in the game. That doesn't mean that everything can be avoided, but often enough, something like having to come up with an explanation with something at the last minute, which I truly understand is very daunting at times, isn't nearly as painful or time consuming if one tries to anticipate any potential questions that might come up, and have at least some idea of how to respond to them if they do get asked. Especially with something like multiclassing, where the player has full control of how to proceed, it shouldn't be that hard to anticipate the potential questions that could arise.
The other benefit of being communicative is that when you have concerns, I as a DM am a lot more willing to consider them because I have a far better idea of what is driving those concerns, and can even to a certain extent anticipate them, rather then being left to come up with responses to unexpected concerns in the middle of the actual game; while that does not directly translate to you having more fun, it does very much impact my ability to deliver as optimal an experience as possible.
Playing football is about having fun. So is baseball. So is curling. But if I won't run downfield, catch a ball, or sweep, there's not much point to participating in that particular fun. It's not the right fit.Having fun isn't the only important issue. Being on board with the style of the game matters or that's not really the right fitting game.
OK Bill, since you are bent on citing rules, show me the rule in the core rulebook that says you have to write up an explanation of why your rogue suddenly wants to add a level of wizard.
Where is the rule that says you have to do it?
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.
I've started writing responses to this topic several times now, and then I keep stopping, because it sounds like a lot of people have said what I would already, but then others just don't feel that it fits their style.
This is very well stated though. In short, it's a 'PC' for a reason - it's the player's character. If they want to multiclass into something else, it is entirely their prerogative. Choices on their character development are pretty much the only thing in the entire game that is not for the GM to have say on.
So if the player wants to multiclass, then so does their character. Whether they've been vocal about studying magic/swinging swords in their spare time or not, they apparently have been and have learned enough about it to get their first level in that class. I don't see any reason that they should need to justify it to the GM.
What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.
But even hobbies have aspects that aren't particularly fun. In the example above, I doubt anyone loves pulling weeds, but it's a necessary and fundamental part of enjoying gardening as a whole. It's also one that is significantly reduced if one accepts and prepares for the inevitable times it comes up rather than trying to avoid it, and being grumpy when it comes up at the worst possible time. Same thing with providing explanations to your fellow gamers; what is often enough a quick conversation if dealt with as soon as the potential issue is known is rarely that quick or easy if it is allowed to mature and develop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing football is about having fun. So is baseball. So is curling. But if I won't run downfield, catch a ball, or sweep, there's not much point to participating in that particular fun. It's not the right fit.Having fun isn't the only important issue. Being on board with the style of the game matters or that's not really the right fitting game.
OK Bill, since you are bent on citing rules, show me the rule in the core rulebook that says you have to write up an explanation of why your rogue suddenly wants to add a level of wizard.
Where is the rule that says you have to do it?
What rules have I cited? You are reading things that aren't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.But even hobbies have aspects that aren't particularly fun. In the example above, I doubt anyone loves pulling weeds, but it's a necessary and fundamental part of enjoying gardening as a whole. It's also one that is significantly reduced if one accepts and prepares for the inevitable times it comes up rather than trying to avoid it, and being grumpy when it comes up at the worst possible time. Same thing with providing explanations to your fellow gamers; what is often enough a quick conversation if dealt with as soon as the potential issue is known is rarely that quick or easy if it is allowed to mature and develop.
Sigh... Maybe, just maybe sunshadow, that's why I play Pathfinder instead of gardening.
So if the player wants to multiclass, then so does their character. Whether they've been vocal about studying magic or training with swords in their spare time or not, they apparently have been and have learned enough about it to get their first level in that class. I don't see any reason that they should need to justify it to the GM.
As long as they understand that by doing so, they basically negate the need of the DM to explain themselves for anything, and that they are basically giving up any legitimate case for complaining to the DM about how the rest of the world reacted, I agree. If, however, they are not willing to put themselves in that position, they need to try their best to give some kind of reason if asked; it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to be long, but they cannot expect others to communicate and work with them if they won't work with others.
What rules have I cited? You are reading things that aren't there.
My mistake then, I thought by bringing up sports you were making an argument about following rules.
Anyway, I'm done with this. You guys can continue to argue that you know better how people should have fun than they themselves can judge.
Go right ahead. It only makes YOUR gaming less fun, not mine. If one of my players wants to give me a backstory and explanation, I love it. I will do it myself because I like it.
But I game as an excuse to get together with friends and get away from the stress of life. The last thing I'm going to do while gaming is get stressed out because Joe doesn't have fun right.
Have fun dudes. I hope the folks who game with you do too.
Sigh... Maybe, just maybe sunshadow, that's why I play Pathfinder instead of gardening.What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.But even hobbies have aspects that aren't particularly fun. In the example above, I doubt anyone loves pulling weeds, but it's a necessary and fundamental part of enjoying gardening as a whole. It's also one that is significantly reduced if one accepts and prepares for the inevitable times it comes up rather than trying to avoid it, and being grumpy when it comes up at the worst possible time. Same thing with providing explanations to your fellow gamers; what is often enough a quick conversation if dealt with as soon as the potential issue is known is rarely that quick or easy if it is allowed to mature and develop.
How is Pathfinder different from any other hobby? You get out of it what you put into it. If you think you can get maximum enjoyment with minimal effort out of anything, you must be living in a very different world than the one I live in.
|
|
What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.But even hobbies have aspects that aren't particularly fun. In the example above, I doubt anyone loves pulling weeds, but it's a necessary and fundamental part of enjoying gardening as a whole. It's also one that is significantly reduced if one accepts and prepares for the inevitable times it comes up rather than trying to avoid it, and being grumpy when it comes up at the worst possible time. Same thing with providing explanations to your fellow gamers; what is often enough a quick conversation if dealt with as soon as the potential issue is known is rarely that quick or easy if it is allowed to mature and develop.
You missed the point. The point where a hobby becomes a job is when you HAVE to do it...regardless of your WANT. Yes pulling weeds sucks...and when you HAVE to pull weeds, your hobby is temporarily a JOB. So the moment you REQUIRE a backstory for your multiclassing, the hobby becomes a JOB for anyone who doesn't WANT to do it. Why would be you add weeds to your garden?!?
How is Pathfinder different from any other hobby? You get out of it what you put into it. If you think you can get maximum enjoyment with minimal effort out of anything, you must be living in a very different world than the one I live in.
Apparently so sunshadow, because in the world I live in, gamers can have fun without writing up in depth explanations for their character choices if they don't really enjoy doing so. I'll accept "I just wanted to do it" and move on. And somehow, in spite of our lazy, uninspired approach...
... we have fun. Oh I'm sure it's not nearly the exquisite, sublime quality of fun that YOU have. Of course not, because we just don't invest enough effort into it after all.
It occurs to me that some people in this thread are like that guy who no-lifes a video game and then puts other people down for not having a K/D as ub3r-1337 as theirs is.
I wonder if there are people that get really super intense about gardening too. "You stupid noob, you're supposed to plant tulips THIS way, not THAT way. Get on my level."
Look, play however you want, but don't say I'm playing wrong because I prefer to just let things happen and flow along without interruption.
Just like I sincerely don't care if you're a level 100 in Battlefield 3 or that you got one kill more in TDM. Let it goooooo.
Though be warned that I don't take kindly to people killing me with a tank and then bragging about it. There's a reason my highest ranked class is in Engineer.
You missed the point. The point where a hobby becomes a job is when you HAVE to do it...regardless of your WANT. Yes pulling weeds sucks...and when you HAVE to pull weeds, your hobby is temporarily a JOB. So the moment you REQUIRE a backstory for your multiclassing, the hobby becomes a JOB for anyone who doesn't WANT to do it. Why would be you add weeds to your garden?!?
It's not about making it a job, it's about getting the players to conform to a similar style and minimum effort. If you don't want to do that, why are you sitting at this table? Find one that fits your style or pull your weight at the one you're sitting at.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.
That's fine. Until you're playing a campaign where the classes have significance beyond the mechanics, and picking them up without consideration is going to degrade the story for everyone.
Multi-classing into Cleric, Witch, or Oracle introduces divine and otherworldly powers that want to grant you magical abilities. If that doesn't make your character have a stronger reaction than "neat new abilities" you can pretty much write that guy off as a level grinder and save the rp moments for the rest of the party. Because if he's not interested in how that happened or why, any hooks you dangle off it aren't going to catch. And it's such a big, personal, special development for that character he should be interested.
Inquisitors carry a lot of baggage, Druids as well. Dipping into Barbarian deserves at least a note on why you get so crazy angry now, if you were not playing that style before. A summoner should have some reaction to a loyal extraplanar buddy showing up to be his new best friend.
Classes are more than just ways to get new skills and abilities. They have their own favor and their own consequences that impact character development and storyline.
You missed the point. The point where a hobby becomes a job is when you HAVE to do it...regardless of your WANT. Yes pulling weeds sucks...and when you HAVE to pull weeds, your hobby is temporarily a JOB. So the moment you REQUIRE a backstory for your multiclassing, the hobby becomes a JOB for anyone who doesn't WANT to do it. Why would be you add weeds to your garden?!?What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.But even hobbies have aspects that aren't particularly fun. In the example above, I doubt anyone loves pulling weeds, but it's a necessary and fundamental part of enjoying gardening as a whole. It's also one that is significantly reduced if one accepts and prepares for the inevitable times it comes up rather than trying to avoid it, and being grumpy when it comes up at the worst possible time. Same thing with providing explanations to your fellow gamers; what is often enough a quick conversation if dealt with as soon as the potential issue is known is rarely that quick or easy if it is allowed to mature and develop.
Because the rest of the gardening experience is worth the hassle of gardening. If coming up with even a basic backstory is that much of a hassle that you are willing to fight about it, it makes me as a DM question how much you are truly enjoying the rest of the experience.
And again, I would like to point out that it's not what I as a DM think makes sense that concerns me; my concern is how it effects the world, the campaign, and the other players. The more impact it has on someone other than that character, the more I'm going to be seeking information that I need to make sure that any other adjustments can be made in an appropriate and timely manner.
As long as they understand that by doing so, they basically negate the need of the DM to explain themselves for anything, and that they are basically giving up any legitimate case for complaining to the DM about how the rest of the world reacted, I agree. If, however, they are not willing to put themselves in that position, they need to try their best to give some kind of reason if asked; it doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't have to be long, but they cannot expect others to communicate and work with them if they won't work with others.
Sunshadow, most of your posts I've seen seem reasonable, and I'm personally in agreement that roleplaying a character who has an interest in multiclassing wouldn't be very difficult in most cases.
However... it's not the same for everyone. They might have done it because they like it for their character's personality, because they think it shores up a weakness, they want to try something else with the character, they're trying to optimize it, or they just got wind of something they didn't know about before and want to go for it. There are a lot of different reasons for it.
Some people plan for it, and will have played their character with it in mind. Simple enough. Some people won't have planned for it and so haven't been thinking about it. In such a case, they may need to backpedal, their character might need to rethink some of their values, and some of their previous actions might look out of place.
But what's going to detract more from the game? The character suddenly acting a bit different in light of new abilities that weren't expected in-universe? Or the player not being allowed to take a class in the level they would like to, because the GM finds it to be a poor fit for them or they can't 'justify' it through roleplaying?
I at least know which one I'd find less intrusive.
That's fine. Until you're playing a campaign where the classes have significance beyond the mechanics, and picking them up without consideration is going to degrade the story for everyone.
Multi-classing into Cleric, Witch, or Oracle introduces divine and otherworldly powers that want to grant you magical abilities. If that doesn't make your character have a stronger reaction than "neat new abilities" you can pretty much write that guy off as a level grinder and save the rp moments for the rest of the party. Because if he's not interested in how that happened or why, any hooks you dangle off it aren't going to catch. And it's such a big, personal, special development for that character he should be interested.
Inquisitors carry a lot of baggage, Druids as well. Dipping into Barbarian deserves at least a note on why you get so crazy angry now, if you were not playing that style before. A summoner should have some reaction to a loyal extraplanar buddy showing up to be his new best friend.
Classes are more than just ways to get new skills and abilities. They have their own favor and their own consequences that impact character development and storyline.
I say this a lot and it never seems to catch on...but flavor doesn't matter. At all, period, whatsoever.
If I wanted to make a Barbarian that went into "Zen Focus" for X+Con rounds per day would you say no because it doesn't fit the flavor?
Why? There's no mechanical difference, so what's the issue?
And what's with this utter bullshit about "If he doesn't want to spend time belaboring over character justification for new abilities" he's a level grinder who has no interest in RP and should be shunned from everything?
I know this is something Adamantine and I don't agree on, but mechanics and RP are pretty separate things. Does it matter if my happy go lucky Fighter guy suddenly becomes a happy go lucky fighter guy with some minor magical tricks? Nothing changed in the RP, he's still the same character, he just has some new stuff to play with.
And you can dangle plot hooks all you like, as long as the character that hates writing stuff doesn't have to make them up himself, he's probably cool with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If coming up with even a basic backstory is that much of a hassle that you are willing to fight about it, it makes me as a DM question how much you are truly enjoying the rest of the experience.
Unintended irony is sublimely ironic.
How is Pathfinder different from any other hobby? You get out of it what you put into it. If you think you can get maximum enjoyment with minimal effort out of anything, you must be living in a very different world than the one I live in.Apparently so sunshadow, because in the world I live in, gamers can have fun without writing up in depth explanations for their character choices if they don't really enjoy doing so. I'll accept "I just wanted to do it" and move on. And somehow, in spite of our lazy, uninspired approach...
... we have fun. Oh I'm sure it's not nearly the exquisite, sublime quality of fun that YOU have. Of course not, because we just don't invest enough effort into it after all.
Who said in-depth or that I would insist on it for every decision made? All I ask is that if you are going to make a change that impacts others, you have the common courtesy of giving others some kind of appropriate warning and explanation so that they can adjust their decisions accordingly. If you're in a group where that understands each other well enough that not much explanation is needed, great; if you're in a group that more explanation is required to keep things moving smoothly, and you are unwilling to provide it, than you as a player need to decide how much playing in that group is worth to you and adjust accordingly, either by finding a different group or by adjusting your own expectations on that one matter to make the whole experience work. I have never said anywhere there is an absolute value of what is enough to make things work, as that would be really stupid, so please stop making me sound like I have; you need to be willing to put forth as much effort as is needed for the smooth operation of that group; long established groups will require a great deal less effort than one trying to establish itself or trying to incorporate a brand new member.
|
|
It's not about making it a job, it's about getting the players to conform to a similar style and minimum effort. If you don't want to do that, why are you sitting at this table? Find one that fits your style or pull your weight at the one you're sitting at.
You missed the point. The point where a hobby becomes a job is when you HAVE to do it...regardless of your WANT. Yes pulling weeds sucks...and when you HAVE to pull weeds, your hobby is temporarily a JOB. So the moment you REQUIRE a backstory for your multiclassing, the hobby becomes a JOB for anyone who doesn't WANT to do it. Why would be you add weeds to your garden?!?
Conform? Effort? Pulling your weight? Umm sounds like a job to me...so why the heck am I sitting at your table? I play to have fun...not work. Sounds like you should be paying your players for doing a job there....
|
If I'm GMing, then it's my game. I reserve the right to make whatever house rules work for me. Sure, according to the rulebook, summoners (and ninjas, and gunslingers, and tengu PCs, and weird animal companions ...) all exist. But in my RotRL campaign, they pretty much don't. If I were running a different AP, the rules would be different (my wife, for example, is running a Jade Regent campaign where almost all of the PCs have some tie in to Tian Xia; for her campaign, a Samurai fits in just fine, while some characters that would fit into my game wouldn't be a good fit for hers).
This isn't telling the players with characters I might object to that they're having badwrongfun; it just tells them that perhaps my table might not be a place they'd find a good fit for that particular character.
Mind you, I don't anticipate having to actually take any drastic steps. All the players at the table were pretty much OK with this idea; if one of them feels that some way they are planning to grow their character might fall into a grey area they'll talk it over with me first, and we'll usually be able to come up with something that we can both live with. Imagine that! Behaving like co-operating adults - what next?
Another good idea (not mine, but one which I shamelessly intend to steal in the future) is to have prospective players bring two potential PCs to their first session, and to have the rest of the party pick which one they'd rather invite to join their little band. Sure, the player owns the character. But that doesn't mean the rest of the table have no voice in deciding who gets to sit down with them.
I say this a lot and it never seems to catch on...but flavor doesn't matter. At all, period, whatsoever.
Wrong. Flavor does matter to some degree in actual gameplay. How much varies considerably, but even those who claim that it doesn't matter at all will flinch at least a little bit if the DM were to simply throw the party into a series of increasingly harder dungeons without even the barest of plots. Same goes for character decisions; one of the biggest complaints I heard about 4E when it came out was that the PHB had no flavor to it, and one of the biggest differences between the PHB and the essentials books was that the essentials books had at least some "fluff" that was not strictly describing the mechanics of the classes.
|
|
What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.That's fine. Until you're playing a campaign where the classes have significance beyond the mechanics, and picking them up without consideration is going to degrade the story for everyone.
Multi-classing into Cleric, Witch, or Oracle introduces divine and otherworldly powers that want to grant you magical abilities. If that doesn't make your character have a stronger reaction than "neat new abilities" you can pretty much write that guy off as a level grinder and save the rp moments for the rest of the party. Because if he's not interested in how that happened or why, any hooks you dangle off it aren't going to catch. And it's such a big, personal, special development for that character he should be interested.
Inquisitors carry a lot of baggage, Druids as well. Dipping into Barbarian deserves at least a note on why you get so crazy angry now, if you were not playing that style before. A summoner should have some reaction to a loyal extraplanar buddy showing up to be his new best friend.
Classes are more than just ways to get new skills and abilities. They have their own favor and their own consequences that impact character development and storyline.
They may have such for YOU...but to say that it is universally true is patently FALSE. Because I can tell you right now that most of my groups see flavor as QUITE mutable to the desire of the character concept the player has in mind.
Other then flavor can be quite mutable if you so choose, if the DM wants the clerics/druids/inquisitors or whatever class to have deeper connections to their new found divine powers, they can in every way do so through the WORLD they shape. There is ZERO need to do it at character level in all honesty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conform? Effort? Pulling your weight? Umm sounds like a job to me...so why the heck am I sitting at your table? I play to have fun...not work. Sounds like you should be paying your players for doing a job there....
And if you're going to not put in the same effort as the other players and not conform to our expectations, why would we want you at the table? You're only going to bring the energy down.
Man, this whole thread could be used as in a Masters level course on the First Rule of Holes.
It's riveting watching you guys just keep digging.
|
|
Because the rest of the gardening experience is worth the hassle of gardening. If coming up with even a basic backstory is that much of a hassle that you are willing to fight about it, it makes me as a DM question how much you are truly enjoying the rest of the experience.
Umm a simple I'm having fun isn't good enough for you? Because seriously, that's all I need to hear myself. Seriously, I think you all are overthinking a VERY simple concept here.
THIS IS A GAME. GAMES ARE SUPPOSE TO BE FUN.
If what you REQUIRE isn't increasing the fun for somebody, maybe...JUST maybe, you shouldn't REQUIRE it...just politely request it. Because remember, games are for FUN.
|
|
And if you're going to not put in the same effort as the other players and not conform to our expectations, why would we want you at the table? You're only going to bring the energy down.
Conform? Effort? Pulling your weight? Umm sounds like a job to me...so why the heck am I sitting at your table? I play to have fun...not work. Sounds like you should be paying your players for doing a job there....
Seriously not helping the whole it sounds an AWEFUL lot like work deal....
So if I wanna be at your table, I need to work...with no pay? Yeah...sounds like a bad deal to me.
I say this a lot and it never seems to catch on...but flavor doesn't matter. At all, period, whatsoever.Wrong. Flavor does matter to some degree in actual gameplay. How much varies considerably, but even those who claim that it doesn't matter at all will flinch at least a little bit if the DM were to simply throw the party into a series of increasingly harder dungeons without even the barest of plots. Same goes for character decisions; one of the biggest complaints I heard about 4E when it came out was that the PHB had no flavor to it, and one of the biggest differences between the PHB and the essentials books was that the essentials books had at least some "fluff" that was not strictly describing the mechanics of the classes.
Please keep the rest of the post's context in mind before making a post replying to it.
Absence or presence of flavor matters, of course. What kind of flavor it is doesn't matter a whit. I can flavor a Barbarian into being a Sorcerer that specializes in a very specific brand of Polymorphing that increases his strength and fortitude and grants him a few effects that aren't reproducible by more traditional magics.
Does that matter? Nope.
|
|
If I'm GMing, then it's my game. I reserve the right to make whatever house rules work for me. Sure, according to the rulebook, summoners (and ninjas, and gunslingers, and tengu PCs, and weird animal companions ...) all exist. But in my RotRL campaign, they pretty much don't. If I were running a different AP, the rules would be different (my wife, for example, is running a Jade Regent campaign where almost all of the PCs have some tie in to Tian Xia; for her campaign, a Samurai fits in just fine, while some characters that would fit into my game wouldn't be a good fit for hers).This isn't telling the players with characters I might object to that they're having badwrongfun; it just tells them that perhaps my table might not be a place they'd find a good fit for that particular character.
Mind you, I don't anticipate having to actually take any drastic steps. All the players at the table were pretty much OK with this idea; if one of them feels that some way they are planning to grow their character might fall into a grey area they'll talk it over with me first, and we'll usually be able to come up with something that we can both live with. Imagine that! Behaving like co-operating adults - what next?
Another good idea (not mine, but one which I shamelessly intend to steal in the future) is to have prospective players bring two potential PCs to their first session, and to have the rest of the party pick which one they'd rather invite to join their little band. Sure, the player owns the character. But that doesn't mean the rest of the table have no voice in deciding who gets to sit down with them.
Umm...are you in the right thread? Because this discussion isn't about allowed materials.
Because the rest of the gardening experience is worth the hassle of gardening. If coming up with even a basic backstory is that much of a hassle that you are willing to fight about it, it makes me as a DM question how much you are truly enjoying the rest of the experience.
Umm a simple I'm having fun isn't good enough for you? Because seriously, that's all I need to hear myself. Seriously, I think you all are overthinking a VERY simple concept here.
THIS IS A GAME. GAMES ARE SUPPOSE TO BE FUN.
If what you REQUIRE isn't increasing the fun for somebody, maybe...JUST maybe, you shouldn't REQUIRE it...just politely request it. Because remember, games are for FUN.
I don't require it, but I do make it very clear that my games are very much driven by the players. How much fun they get out of it is directly proportional to the effort they put into it. I will not create a campaign that puts the party on rails that will be exactly the same regardless of what they do, why they do it, or how they do it. Character decisions matter a great deal in my campaigns; I may have a rough outline of events worked up, but I prefer to leave as many of the details as possible to the players. If they are unwilling to provide them, chances are they going to be disappointed when they get stuck with whatever I can come up with given the limited amount of time and understanding of their characters that I have. If the players find it more fun to not worry about such details, great, one less thing for me to worry about, but I better not have them complaining later on about they aren't having "fun" because I'll make it very clear that I can't create "fun" for them if they don't bother to tell me what they want out of the campaign. If they make seemingly random decisions that lead to a seemingly random campaign, that's on them, not me.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When my players want to multiclass, I require them to write a 20-page short story that explains rp reasons for multiclassing.
If they fail to comply, I beat them with a cane.
Until they bleed.
Like I always do when they're not RESPECTING MY ULTIMATE AUTHORITY!!! *hyperventilates*
;)
I say this a lot and it never seems to catch on...but flavor doesn't matter. At all, period, whatsoever.Wrong. Flavor does matter to some degree in actual gameplay. How much varies considerably, but even those who claim that it doesn't matter at all will flinch at least a little bit if the DM were to simply throw the party into a series of increasingly harder dungeons without even the barest of plots. Same goes for character decisions; one of the biggest complaints I heard about 4E when it came out was that the PHB had no flavor to it, and one of the biggest differences between the PHB and the essentials books was that the essentials books had at least some "fluff" that was not strictly describing the mechanics of the classes.Please keep the rest of the post's context in mind before making a post replying to it.
Absence or presence of flavor matters, of course. What kind of flavor it is doesn't matter a whit. I can flavor a Barbarian into being a Sorcerer that specializes in a very specific brand of Polymorphing that increases his strength and fortitude and grants him a few effects that aren't reproducible by more traditional magics.
Does that matter? Nope.
You can reflavor things to a point, but a rose is still a rose is still a rose. In your example, you could certainly do that, but if you expect any of the NPCs in my world to take you seriously if you try to explain something that convoluted, you're going to be disappointed. To me, it's a matter of degree; the more unbelievable something is, the more attention it's going to get. I would be perfectly willing to accept the above in my game, but it would come with a clear warning that strange things will be treated accordingly. The player is perfectly within his rights to come up with how little or as much as he wants; I am perfectly within my rights as controller of the NPCs to have them react accordingly. If the player is cooperative with me as DM, I will generally try to make it as painless to the player (again, the character is a different conversation) as possible; if they aren't, I'll go with whatever seems to work best with the world and party as a whole, and the player loses the right to complain if they don't get exactly what they want, or even anything close to it.
And if you're going to not put in the same effort as the other players and not conform to our expectations, why would we want you at the table? You're only going to bring the energy down.
Conform? Effort? Pulling your weight? Umm sounds like a job to me...so why the heck am I sitting at your table? I play to have fun...not work. Sounds like you should be paying your players for doing a job there....Seriously not helping the whole it sounds an AWEFUL lot like work deal....
So if I wanna be at your table, I need to work...with no pay? Yeah...sounds like a bad deal to me.
How much effort do you expect the GM to bring to the table? Do you pay him?
|
|
I don't require it, but I do make it very clear that my games are very much driven by the players. How much fun they get out of it is directly proportional to the effort they put into it. I will not create a campaign that puts the party on rails that will be exactly the same regardless of what they do, why they do it, or how they do it. Character decisions matter a great deal in my campaigns; I may have a rough outline of events worked up, but I prefer to leave as many of the details as possible to the players. If they are unwilling to provide them, chances are they going to be disappointed when they get stuck with whatever I can come up with given the limited amount of time and understanding of their characters that I have. If the players find it more fun to not worry about such details, great, one less thing for me to worry about, but I better not have them complaining later on about they aren't having "fun" because I'll make it very clear that I can't create "fun" for them if they don't bother to tell me what they want out of the campaign. If they make seemingly random decisions that lead to a seemingly random campaign, that's on them, not me.
Okay...well that's different. If you request it and they don't give it to you and then b&#++ about it because they get the short end of the stick in your world building...well tough noggie for them. That is a prissy entitled player that needs a smack from the hammergun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the difference between gardening and farming? One is a hobby, one is a job. What makes one a hobby and one a job? One you do it because you WANT to, the other because you HAVE to. If my players want to indulge in explaining why they multi-class, well great. If not...well I'd rather not turn their hobby into a job.That's fine. Until you're playing a campaign where the classes have significance beyond the mechanics, and picking them up without consideration is going to degrade the story for everyone.
Multi-classing into Cleric, Witch, or Oracle introduces divine and otherworldly powers that want to grant you magical abilities. If that doesn't make your character have a stronger reaction than "neat new abilities" you can pretty much write that guy off as a level grinder and save the rp moments for the rest of the party. Because if he's not interested in how that happened or why, any hooks you dangle off it aren't going to catch. And it's such a big, personal, special development for that character he should be interested.
Inquisitors carry a lot of baggage, Druids as well. Dipping into Barbarian deserves at least a note on why you get so crazy angry now, if you were not playing that style before. A summoner should have some reaction to a loyal extraplanar buddy showing up to be his new best friend.
Classes are more than just ways to get new skills and abilities. They have their own favor and their own consequences that impact character development and storyline.
They may have such for YOU...but to say that it is universally true is patently FALSE. Because I can tell you right now that most of my groups see flavor as QUITE mutable to the desire of the character concept the player has in mind.
Other then flavor can be quite mutable if you so choose, if the DM wants the clerics/druids/inquisitors or whatever class to have deeper connections to their new found divine powers, they can in every way do so through the WORLD...
I have absolutely no problem with the first part. If the players want to explain why the character concept makes sense in terms of their new abilities without the typical class flavor, or how we could reinterpret barabarian rage as a zen focus (as Rynjin suggested), or any other way to make those abilities work in terms of their character, that's great.
That's all I'm asking for. I don't particular care if you work the RP angle so that the character matches the class or the class matches the character. That's not the point.
The point is that you as a player are working with me as a GM to produce and maintain a world with a certain amount of consistency and narrative fidelity.
What I do have a problem with is when the player tries to dump it all on the GM. If you want to take a class in Witch, but you don't want to roleplay discovering your familiar, or being chosen by your patron, or learning your hexes, that's fine. I won't insist. But I will insist you tell me how the mutable flavor is working with this class if you don't.
I'm fine with someone dipping into Barbarian describing rage as a weird kind of zen and running with that characterization. I'm not so cool with them picking up abilities that make no sense IC as written and telling me its my job to figure out how to connect the dots or just ignore the reason characters can do amazing things and just have them run around as a collection of mechanics.
Continuing the Oracle/Witch/Cleric example, there are certainly ways to develop the world to account for the character's new connection to their new powers, but it's not the GMs responsibility alone to make that happen. If the attitude is "I want the powers of this class and I don't care how I get them or what it means to have them" and they don't think it would be fun to figure out a way to have it make sense in the campaign world, then I don't think they'd have fun at my table.
It's not telling them wanting to play a certain way is bad, or that they're bad people, or even that they're bad players. But I don't think players who want to play that kind of game are going to mesh with the kind of game I want to run.
When my players want to multiclass, I require them to write a 20-page short story that explains rp reasons for multiclassing.
If they fail to comply, I beat them with a cane.
Until they bleed.
Like I always do when they're not RESPECTING MY ULTIMATE AUTHORITY!!! *hyperventilates*
;)
I wouldn't want a 20 page essay; a couple of sentences is perfectly adequate in the vast majority of cases to give me the information I need to have going forward. Most of the time, anything more than that would get largely ignored due to lack of time to go over it.
|
|
How much effort do you expect the GM to bring to the table? Do you pay him?And if you're going to not put in the same effort as the other players and not conform to our expectations, why would we want you at the table? You're only going to bring the energy down.
Conform? Effort? Pulling your weight? Umm sounds like a job to me...so why the heck am I sitting at your table? I play to have fun...not work. Sounds like you should be paying your players for doing a job there....Seriously not helping the whole it sounds an AWEFUL lot like work deal....
So if I wanna be at your table, I need to work...with no pay? Yeah...sounds like a bad deal to me.
I expect him/her to bring as much as they WANT to bring...no more, no less. I have no demand on them to conform, pull weight or exert effort more then they wish to...because this is a FREAKING GAME PEOPLE. I would say there is no badwrongfun...but if you have to pull your weight, put in more effort then you want to or conform to the people around you, I would kinda classify that as work...which isn't fun and so is actually the ONE AND ONLY BADWRONGFUN you could possibly have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect him/her to bring as much as they WANT to bring...no more, no less. I have no demand on them to conform, pull weight or exert effort more then they wish to...because this is a FREAKING GAME PEOPLE. I would say there is no badwrongfun...but if you have to pull your weight, put in more effort then you want to or conform to the people around you, I would kinda classify that as work...which isn't fun and so is actually the ONE AND ONLY BADWRONGFUN you could possibly have.How much effort do you expect the GM to bring to the table? Do you pay him?And if you're going to not put in the same effort as the other players and not conform to our expectations, why would we want you at the table? You're only going to bring the energy down.
Conform? Effort? Pulling your weight? Umm sounds like a job to me...so why the heck am I sitting at your table? I play to have fun...not work. Sounds like you should be paying your players for doing a job there....Seriously not helping the whole it sounds an AWEFUL lot like work deal....
So if I wanna be at your table, I need to work...with no pay? Yeah...sounds like a bad deal to me.
This is moving to a broader point, but:
If the players don't think it's fun to bring the effort to roleplay characters, then a GM who is in it for the roleplaying instead of the tactical battle aspect isn't going to have any fun building a world for them to not roleplay in, and that's pretty much the end of the campaign.
|
|
Continuing the Oracle/Witch/Cleric example, there are certainly ways to develop the world to account for the character's new connection to their new powers, but it's not the GMs responsibility alone to make that happen. If the attitude is "I want the powers of this class and I don't care how I get them or what it means to have them" and they don't think it would be fun to figure out a way to have it make sense in the campaign world, then I don't think they'd have fun at my table.
This is QUITE easy to deal with without having to stoop to character level. Your source of power (be it deity or patron or whatever) has noticed your utter lack of response to the powers you have been given and the responsibility of those powers and has cut you off from it. Done.
The player can control the their character...they do NOT control what the gods do. If you disrespect your god, they stop giving you powers. YOU control the world...seriously there is NO reason to ever need to control the issue at a character level.
I expect him/her to bring as much as they WANT to bring...no more, no less. I have no demand on them to conform, pull weight or exert effort more then they wish to...because this is a FREAKING GAME PEOPLE. I would say there is no badwrongfun...but if you have to pull your weight, put in more effort then you want to or conform to the people around you, I would kinda classify that as work...which isn't fun and so is actually the ONE AND ONLY BADWRONGFUN you could possibly have.How much effort do you expect the GM to bring to the table? Do you pay him?And if you're going to not put in the same effort as the other players and not conform to our expectations, why would we want you at the table? You're only going to bring the energy down.
Conform? Effort? Pulling your weight? Umm sounds like a job to me...so why the heck am I sitting at your table? I play to have fun...not work. Sounds like you should be paying your players for doing a job there....Seriously not helping the whole it sounds an AWEFUL lot like work deal....
So if I wanna be at your table, I need to work...with no pay? Yeah...sounds like a bad deal to me.
Ok, so someone showing up expecting someone else to handle everything about the math and development of their character while they just rolled dice, didn't really pay attention to what was going on, and yet would be the first to complain about "their" character getting screwed over wouldn't bother you at all? If they aren't willing to put forth at least some effort, then they clearly don't really want to be there in the first place, and chances are that most of the others at the table don't really want them there either, so why should I be expected to waste my time on them? Now, certainly, there can be individual circumstances that modify expectations, but generally unless you are being dragged to the game by somebody else, you need to be willing to put forth at least some effort; otherwise you are not only wasting other's time, but your own as well.
|
|
Ok, so someone showing up expecting someone else to handle everything about the math and development of their character while they just rolled dice, didn't really pay attention to what was going on, and yet would be the first to complain about "their" character getting screwed over wouldn't bother you at all? If they aren't willing to put forth at least some effort, then they clearly don't really want to be there in the first place, and chances are that most of the others at the table don't really want them there either, so why should I be expected to waste my time on them? Now, certainly, there can be individual circumstances that modify expectations, but generally unless you are being dragged to the game by somebody else, you need to be willing to put forth at least some effort; otherwise you are not only wasting other's time, but your own as well.
Are you all seriously missing the point about work and play STILL? Holy moly, this is like talking to a freaking brick wall. If the player you described is doing all that, then they obviously would rather NOT BE THERE AND THE GAME IS WORK FOR THEM...and in all likelihood they are there because they were dragged there or they NEED to be there for whatever reason. You should NOT CAUSE WORK IN A GAME unless absolutely needed (yes adding numbers can be work, but it is needed for this hobby). That person should be handed an I-pad or a book and told to go do something else they enjoy in a corner while you all game in that circumstance. If they are having fun just rolling some dice now and then...fine they can have fun doing that just fine. If the complain they are getting screwed because they did not pay attention however, remember what I said about prissy entitled players and hammerguns?