| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's taking the example in the exact opposite sense in which it was presented, discussing the loss of powers rather than the gaining of them. Which is pretty off from a mechanical sense as well sense you almost never lose the benefits of your old class when you multi-class.
But what the hell, I'll roll with it.
Let's say that happened. Then the character showed no reaction or IC response to having their constant connection to the divine/other world for the last X levels tell them they're unworthy and to sod off. They just went off to try their new class powers on the nearest goblin.
I would have no fun running a world for a player with that little interest in it. I've got a big shelf of strategy board games, and if building strategies and abilities to defeat enemies is what you want, we can play Tomb, or Prophecy, or something like that. No worries.
But if you're not going to have fun roleplaying in response to the world I build between sessions, especially when you put it on me to make the world revolve around your character choices, I'm not going to have fun building it anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh, it is so sad to hear that our gaming group, which has gamed for about a decade now, is totally doing it wrong and having all the wrong sorts of fun without any of the appropriate effort and rigor required to play this game. It's time to wrap it up I guess.
I'll have to break the news to them individually.
The serious role play guys (that's me and two others in the group) will be really surprised to learn that we should have been cracking the whip more and leading by example less.
The "just likes to kill stuff" guy is going to have to up his game because I have to assume most gaming groups out there won't accept his current lackadaisical, lazy and ignorant gaming style. I mean he just does what he wants with his character and has never produced an actual "backstory" or justified his class choices when he levels beyond "I thought it would be cool." I'm sure his gamer resume will be examined and rejected as "insufficiently dedicated" almost immediately by any serious gamer groups out there. He may have to go to a "gamer boot camp" or something to get accepted in a new group.
The "look at my cool mini" guy is probably in pretty good shape to continue playing with another group since his passion for miniature painting might be a suitable substitute of effort and commitment to make up for the absolute lack of interest in backstory, and only a middling interest in mechanics. I'll miss his miniatures for sure.
But the one I worry about most is the "this is my poker night" guy. He really only plays with us because we're good friends and it's what the rest of the group does. Heck, most nights he doesn't even remember to bring his dice. And making him use the "pink dice of shame" hasn't even bothered him at all. Of course he never was any problem with strange level up desires since he didn't even level up his character in the first place. We did that as a group since he would show up to play with his character still languishing at whatever level we finished the last session at, meaning we had to spend fifteen or twenty minutes as a group leveling him up before we could even start gaming at all.
Yes, definitely, undoubtedly a group of shameful slackers we are.
Dang it, I'll miss it though, as excruciatingly horrible as the sessions have apparently been. Luckily though we've been blissfully unaware of our gaming incompetence and have just been enjoying ourselves for almost a decade now.
They'll be better off though.
|
But if you're not going to have fun roleplaying in response to the world I build between sessions, especially when you put it on me to make the world revolve around your character choices, I'm not going to have fun building it anymore.
Then...don't? Seriously...what the heck is the issue here? If your not having fun doing something...don't do it. Don't make the world revolve around THAT character choices anymore. I assume you have other characters that you can world build around if that makes you have fun? The character who does not want to really respond can be background lackey that follows the other main characters around. If the player complains request they do X for you so you can do Y...if they still refuse and compain...remember what I said about prissy entitled players and hammerguns.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh, it is so sad to hear that our gaming group, which has gamed for about a decade now, is totally doing it wrong and having all the wrong sorts of fun without any of the appropriate effort and rigor required to play this game. It's time to wrap it up I guess.
You can ditch the martyr schtick. No one's saying you're doing it wrong and need to stop.
Just about everyone taking the position that characters need some explanation for the multiclass has explicitly said that however you want to play is fine, but we want a focus on roleplay and characterization at our tables, and while other people have other styles, this is ours.
I've said that explicitly. So has JohnF, so has sunshadow21, so has Bill Dunn. And we're the only ones that have been talking on the other side of the argument since you started telling us our position is really saying back in post #100.
So please, stop telling us what we're saying and start listening to what we're saying.
|
|
Sigh, it is so sad to hear that our gaming group, which has gamed for about a decade now, is totally doing it wrong and having all the wrong sorts of fun without any of the appropriate effort and rigor required to play this game. It's time to wrap it up I guess.
I'll have to break the news to them individually.
The serious role play guys (that's me and two others in the group) will be really surprised to learn that we should have been cracking the whip more and leading by example less.
The "just likes to kill stuff" guy is going to have to up his game because I have to assume most gaming groups out there won't accept his current lackadaisical, lazy and ignorant gaming style. I mean he just does what he wants with his character and has never produced an actual "backstory" or justified his class choices when he levels beyond "I thought it would be cool." I'm sure his gamer resume will be examined and rejected as "insufficiently dedicated" almost immediately by any serious gamer groups out there. He may have to go to a "gamer boot camp" or something to get accepted in a new group.
The "look at my cool mini" guy is probably in pretty good shape to continue playing with another group since his passion for miniature painting might be a suitable substitute of effort and commitment to make up for the absolute lack of interest in backstory, and only a middling interest in mechanics. I'll miss his miniatures for sure.
But the one I worry about most is the "this is my poker night" guy. He really only plays with us because we're good friends and it's what the rest of the group does. Heck, most nights he doesn't even remember to bring his dice. And making him use the "pink dice of shame" hasn't even bothered him at all. Of course he never was any problem with strange level up desires since he didn't even level up his character in the first place. We did that as a group since he would show up to play with his character still languishing at whatever level we finished the last session at, meaning we had...
That sounds a lot like one of my gaming groups. We have 2 serious roleplayers, 1 rules monkey, 1 mini guy, 2 noobs and 1 girl who just kinda is there to roll dice once in a while while hanging out with friends and cracking jokes. It's funny, they tell me they are all having fun...but that seems incompatible with what people here seem to think is possible. How very odd.
But if you're not going to have fun roleplaying in response to the world I build between sessions, especially when you put it on me to make the world revolve around your character choices, I'm not going to have fun building it anymore.Then...don't? Seriously...what the heck is the issue here? If your not having fun doing something...don't do it. Don't make the world revolve around THAT character choices anymore.
Just a couple posts ago you told me that it was the GM's responsibility to justify the character's choices on a world level. I'm not entirely clear on what you're arguing.
eta:
Me: 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.
You: YOU control the world...seriously there is NO reason to ever need to control the issue at a character level.
I assume you have other characters that you can world build around if that makes you have fun? The character who does not want to really respond can be background lackey that follows the other main characters around. If the player complains request they do X for you so you can do Y...if they still refuse and compain...remember what I said about prissy entitled players and hammerguns.
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
You apparently don't think it would be fun for a player to follow around as a background lackey since he's complaining in your hypothetical, and that I should should shut him down as a prissy and entitled player if he doesn't want to do X so I can do Y.
But if I ask him to do X so I can do Y, I'm insisting that non-X wanting players are having badwrongfun and I'm making them do work instead of play and am enacting the only kind of BADWRONGFUN in existence.
At this point I can honestly say I'm unclear on your position.
eta: And I'm going to bed now, so don't rush a response on my account.
Sigh, it is so sad to hear that our gaming group, which has gamed for about a decade now, is totally doing it wrong and having all the wrong sorts of fun without any of the appropriate effort and rigor required to play this game. It's time to wrap it up I guess.
I'll have to break the news to them individually.
The serious role play guys (that's me and two others in the group) will be really surprised to learn that we should have been cracking the whip more and leading by example less.
The "just likes to kill stuff" guy is going to have to up his game because I have to assume most gaming groups out there won't accept his current lackadaisical, lazy and ignorant gaming style. I mean he just does what he wants with his character and has never produced an actual "backstory" or justified his class choices when he levels beyond "I thought it would be cool." I'm sure his gamer resume will be examined and rejected as "insufficiently dedicated" almost immediately by any serious gamer groups out there. He may have to go to a "gamer boot camp" or something to get accepted in a new group.
The "look at my cool mini" guy is probably in pretty good shape to continue playing with another group since his passion for miniature painting might be a suitable substitute of effort and commitment to make up for the absolute lack of interest in backstory, and only a middling interest in mechanics. I'll miss his miniatures for sure.
But the one I worry about most is the "this is my poker night" guy. He really only plays with us because we're good friends and it's what the rest of the group does. Heck, most nights he doesn't even remember to bring his dice. And making him use the "pink dice of shame" hasn't even bothered him at all. Of course he never was any problem with strange level up desires since he didn't even level up his character in the first place. We did that as a group since he would show up to play with his character still languishing at whatever level we finished the last session at, meaning we had...
And your group has been playing together long enough, and probably know each other well enough outside of the game that no one is expecting you to change your ways. But if by chance you would ever add a player to that mix, things could get very interesting very quickly; how interesting and how quickly would depend on how well that player already knew the existing players, but it would almost definitely force a reexamination of everything you've been doing unless you ended up simply driving the new player away. Not everyone has the luxury of playing in a group like that where the challenges of forging a group identity and consensus are long in the past and no longer an issue. For those people not so fortunate, communication and effort are still vitally important aspects of the game that they cannot afford to ignore.
|
|
But if you're not going to have fun roleplaying in response to the world I build between sessions, especially when you put it on me to make the world revolve around your character choices, I'm not going to have fun building it anymore.Then...don't? Seriously...what the heck is the issue here? If your not having fun doing something...don't do it. Don't make the world revolve around THAT character choices anymore.Just a couple posts ago you told me that it was the GM's responsibility to justify the character's choices on a world level. I'm not entirely clear on what you're arguing.
eta:
Me: 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.
You: YOU control the world...seriously there is NO reason to ever need to control the issue at a character level.
I assume you have other characters that you can world build around if that makes you have fun? The character who does not want to really respond can be background lackey that follows the other main characters around. If the player complains request they do X for you so you can do Y...if they still refuse and compain...remember what I said about prissy entitled players and hammerguns.
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
You apparently don't think it would be fun for a player to follow around as a background lackey since he's complaining in your hypothetical, and that I should should shut him down as a prissy and entitled player if he doesn't want to do X so I can do Y.
But if I ask him to do X so I can do Y, I'm insisting that non-X wanting players are having badwrongfun and I'm making them do work instead of play and am enacting the only kind of BADWRONGFUN in existence.
At this point I can honestly say...
Oh my freaking gods...seriously?!?
I NEVER said it was the GM's JOB to do ANYTHING. You as the GM aren't having fun making stuff up for an unresponsive player. Then DON'T DO IT. Is that so freaking hard to understand? Is the concept of don't so something that isn't fun such a foreign concept to you at this point that you just can't grasp that notion? You may have been working at this pathfinder job WAY too long then. Go take a break.
The player when written out of the main story could care less and could still have fun. In which case, your having fun, they are having fun and all is fine. The player may however not have fun anymore. In such a case, you can request what you need from him to make writing him back in fun for YOU. If that request is not fun for him, he can suck it up and do it anyways for more future fun, he could decide the game is no longer fun and leave or he could not do anything but complain more. If he does 1 or 2, he is doing what he want to continue his fun and your having fun and all is well. He does 3 and he is expecting you to sacrifice your fun for his and he can get bent.
So stop WORKING and start PLAYING. You have obviously been working WAY too long.
|
|
And your group has been playing together long enough, and probably know each other well enough outside of the game that no one is expecting you to change your ways. But if by chance you would ever add a player to that mix, things could get very interesting very quickly; how interesting and how quickly would depend on how well that player already knew the existing players, but it would almost definitely force a reexamination of everything you've been doing unless you ended up simply driving the new player away. Not everyone has the luxury of playing in a group like that where the challenges of forging a group identity and consensus are long in the past and no longer an issue. For those people not so fortunate, communication and effort are still vitally important aspects of the game that they cannot afford to ignore.
I honestly don't see how...
I have 3 new players added to the group I mentioned above...with the occasional dice roller being one of the new additions to the mix. I have multiple groups that have influx of new players constantly and recently joined a few new ones as well and as long as everyone goes with the whole this is a game and we do this for fun model, there really isn't an issue...I mean at all.
In such a case, you can request what you need from him to make writing him back in fun for YOU. If that request is not fun for him, he can suck it up and do it anyways for more future fun, he could decide the game is no longer fun and leave or he could not do anything but complain more. If he does 1 or 2, he is doing what he want to continue his fun and your having fun and all is well. He does 3 and he is expecting you to sacrifice your fun for his and he can get bent.
This is precisely the position that I have been arguing for and that you have been arguing against.
And your group has been playing together long enough, and probably know each other well enough outside of the game that no one is expecting you to change your ways. But if by chance you would ever add a player to that mix, things could get very interesting very quickly; how interesting and how quickly would depend on how well that player already knew the existing players, but it would almost definitely force a reexamination of everything you've been doing unless you ended up simply driving the new player away. Not everyone has the luxury of playing in a group like that where the challenges of forging a group identity and consensus are long in the past and no longer an issue. For those people not so fortunate, communication and effort are still vitally important aspects of the game that they cannot afford to ignore.I honestly don't see how...
I have 3 new players added to the group I mentioned above...with the occasional dice roller being one of the new additions to the mix. I have multiple groups that have influx of new players constantly and recently joined a few new ones as well and as long as everyone goes with the whole this is a game and we do this for fun model, there really isn't an issue...I mean at all.
Then count yourself well blessed, because there aren't a lot of people who can say that and mean it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player when written out of the main story could care less and could still have fun. In which case, your having fun, they are having fun and all is fine. The player may however not have fun anymore. In such a case, you can request what you need from him to make writing him back in fun for YOU. If that request is not fun for him, he can suck it up and do it anyways for more future fun, he could decide the game is no longer fun and leave or he could not do anything but complain more. If he does 1 or 2, he is doing what he want to continue his fun and your having fun and all is well. He does 3 and he is expecting you to sacrifice your fun for his and he can get bent.
If I'm running a game, there are certain things that make that fun for me.
Chief among them is: When I build a world that can encompass the player characters, the players build their characters to fit within the world.
If the players have no interest in doing so, or if this isn't fun for them, then in such a case, I can request what I need from them to make running the game fun for ME. If that request is not fun for them, they can suck it up and do it anyways for more future fun, they could decide the game is no longer fun and leave or they could not do anything but complain more. If they do 1 or 2, they are doing what they want to continue their fun and I'm having fun and all is well. They do 3 and they are expecting me to sacrifice my fun for theirs and they can get bent.
Sound fair?
|
|
In such a case, you can request what you need from him to make writing him back in fun for YOU. If that request is not fun for him, he can suck it up and do it anyways for more future fun, he could decide the game is no longer fun and leave or he could not do anything but complain more. If he does 1 or 2, he is doing what he want to continue his fun and your having fun and all is well. He does 3 and he is expecting you to sacrifice your fun for his and he can get bent.This is precisely the position that I have been arguing for and that you have been arguing against.
No, I have NEVER argued that you can not REQUEST something. I haven't even said you can't REQUIRE something...I just said it's bad to REQUIRE something as that just creates work for honestly no good reason.
If you want to multiclass into a cleric, I would request a small backstory so I can incorporate your new character concept better into my world.
is NOT
You CAN NOT multiclass into cleric unless you give me a backstory.
The first is fine...not even AD is saying that is bad. The second is bad as it creates un-needed work to progress fun for the players. The key here is CHOICE...for EVERYONE.
In such a case, you can request what you need from him to make writing him back in fun for YOU. If that request is not fun for him, he can suck it up and do it anyways for more future fun, he could decide the game is no longer fun and leave or he could not do anything but complain more. If he does 1 or 2, he is doing what he want to continue his fun and your having fun and all is well. He does 3 and he is expecting you to sacrifice your fun for his and he can get bent.This is precisely the position that I have been arguing for and that you have been arguing against.No, I have NEVER argued that you can not REQUEST something. I haven't even said you can't REQUIRE something...I just said it's bad to REQUIRE something as that just creates work for honestly no good reason.
If you want to multiclass into a cleric, I would request a small backstory so I can incorporate your new character concept better into my world.
is NOT
You CAN NOT multiclass into cleric unless you give me a backstory.
The first is fine...not even AD is saying that is bad. The second is bad as it creates un-needed work to progress fun for the players. The key here is CHOICE...for EVERYONE.
See last post and tell if if we're still in disagreement or if we were just talking past each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since this is the Internet and everything has to be taken to the extreme, lets keep it going. I love building characters. I literally have dozens (if not hundreds) of character concepts lying around here in some form or another. Now one reason I do this is because it is easier for me to learn how the rules work than just reading the CRB cover to cover but often I will write down a background or motivation that I like for a character (even ones that will never see the light of day). However, one of the people I game with hates dealing with the numbers and rules and just wants to get to gaming. He's a great guy that I have gamed with for years, but he runs his own business, is married, has other hobbies and doesn't have time to pour through rule books night after night like I do. (You see where this is going.) Are we asking to much that he comes to the game with a character (or makes one there if that's what we are doing)? Is this turning his hobby into a job? Should the DM have to make his character for him? If he gamed with you could he just use the character you made and the two of you just have different names? (It's not the same character, just the same mechanics)
Now to be a little more reasonable. If a player wants his character to start a new class, is it unfair to ask why "from the character's perspective?"
And that's all anyone here has been arguing for. In my case, if I request something, it's because I need to the information to adjust my actions to better adjust to yours. I don't require a response, but I make it very clear that the lack of a response will likely hurt you as much as, if not more than, me. If the person I'm asking views that as work rather than common courtesy, they need to reexamine themselves and why they are present, because common courtesy is really all I ask for. No one exists in a vacuum, and every decision you make will impact someone else; that is just as true in a game like Pathfinder as it is anywhere else in life. Respecting that by giving any appropriate warning and/or explanations doesn't seem overly much to ask from someone who claims to be enough of a friend to willing to game with me; what is appropriate is obviously going to differ from circumstance to circumstance, but to say that the player has no obligation to give a reason for multiclassing is as dangerous as the other thread where some DMs are saying they don't have to give a reason for banning the archetype. Technically, both are correct, but in reality, the effectiveness of either is limited to what those around you are willing to accept. If no one else cares, than you're fine, but if everyone else is expecting at least some kind of reason, you need to learn to give one, even if it short, basic, and generic, or find a group that doesn't care. There is nothing wrong in the absolute sense with either stance, but you have to know your audience and what their likely reactions are going to be.
Except the Pathfinder class is not based on historical ninjas, but the pop culture lore of the ninja which has been incorporated into Golarion.
That is precisely why I hate them.
One of the many reasons why I don't like Ninja. They didn't have magic abilities, they didn't dress in black bathrobes, they didn't have large organizations, and for the most part they never used fancy tools. They were nothing more than assassins. They didn't even have super acrobatics, since all it takes is some woman or man dressed as a servant to sneak up and kill a target. That's it. And as such they are represented just fine by the Assassin prestige class.But monks totally had magic powers. Totally. Oh yea, and freakin' wizards!
IMHO, ninja should be identical to the Rogue class. And I don't allow Monks in my game, either.
You still don't understand the this is a game and we are here to have fun model then. Because if you did, you would not say that.
Then count yourself well blessed, because there aren't a lot of people who can say that and mean it.
No, I understand it; I just have seen far too many examples of implementation of it fall far short of the ideal. A lot of people say it and don't really mean it, either because they don't or won't recognize their own feelings on the matter, and a lot of people don't bother saying it at all because they just can't bring themselves to lie that much. If you can say it and mean it, great, you're one of the lucky ones; I highly doubt that the same could be said for each and every person you've ever played with in those groups, no matter how well they faked it to seem like they could.
|
In case anyone hasn't read this.
Some prestige classes are quite
focused and heavy on f lavor that might not be compatible
with your campaign—consult with your GM before you
start to work toward qualifying for a prestige class to
make sure that the class is allowed.
From the CRB.
Now your DM needs to inform you before the start of the game if this is how the game is going to be run, except for PrC's because they are GM choice anyway.
The allowance of other books into a campaign is by GM decision as well, everything isn't core as was in 4th edition D&D.
| 2 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...
Shouldn't it be a summa describing their experiences with number of pages equal to their lab total +10?
|
But thankfully I'm not the one who's making it out like the game is ruined 5evr for everyone involved if multiclassing mechanics stay under the hood where they belong.
I don't make my players justify why they're suddenly able to do <Action that X Feat Allows> when they weren't capable of doing so before either.
No, you are saying it is ruined 5ever if what your character is doing actually has to make sense.
|
|
| 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.
Actually it is a perfectly find justification for being a Sorcerer. That can just happen. It is in your blood,
It isn't, however a justification for being a Wizard, where you actually would need to study magic.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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...
We are saying that if you sit down at our table and can't be bothered to find a way to fit into the setting, you may be having fun but you have made the game less fun for the rest of us at the table.
What we hear is ""Dammit! If I can't do it my way and ignore the setting or the story or I won't have any fun at all! so screw the rest of the table, this is about me"
Hyperbole works both ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
THIS.
This is pretty much it.
|
|
Perhaps irrelevant now with the last four pages of player vs. GM debate, but to answer SS's original question with my one opinion - YES the character development and progression for splash classes, feat selections, etc. need to make sense ... in my campaigns. No one else's, but in mine they do. That goes hand-in-hand with constructing an arc story and campaign world to be as immersive and engaging as possible.
The mechanism I use to achieve this is to (a) have players discuss their character class progressions (and upcoming feat choices) with me directly out-of-game before the level-up happens, and (b) to have level-ups occur between sessions when characters are not in the middle of an adventure/mission/dungeon/etc.
Trying not to be snarky about it, but my players WANT to have it that way - they want the character progression and leveling to make sense for their characters, and for me to build in logical hooks and interactions to get them there. They want my input, knowing I (as GM) will not try to nerf them in their choices. Fundamental trust between GM and players has always been there. They see it as a win/win, and working with me ahead of time enhances the story and their choices.
So, yes, in my campaigns it has to make sense. The players want it to make sense. None of us would have it any other way. Weird that our group doesn't fall into the radical extremes represented here. I imagine most games don't either.
So I think a BETTER question, is 'Do you think the DM has the right to tell you how to build your character?'
This gets into interesting questions. Does the DM have the right to tell a player to tone down his choices in character build? Does a DM have the right to tell a player to redesign if things aren't fitting the rest of the group?
I think the answer to both of those questions is yes. It's part of a DM's job to help put the group in harmony - power gamey-wise, character theme-wise, play style-wise.
|
|
Now to be a little more reasonable. If a player wants his character to start a new class, is it unfair to ask why "from the character's perspective?"
Only if the character could actually notice a difference. Suddenly being able to cast spells is a reasonable condition. Suddenly being able to Power Attack is not.
IMHO, ninja should be identical to the Rogue class. And I don't allow Monks in my game, either.
Why?
No, the reason is 'I don't want pop culture ninjas in my game'. And so, he does not have them in his game.
But what's the difference between pop culture ninjas and pop culture monks and the pop culture wizards, sorcerers, barbarians, and fighters?
I've seen the ninja class reflavored as a varisian gypsy. Same mechanics, different fluff.
Now to be a little more reasonable. If a player wants his character to start a new class, is it unfair to ask why "from the character's perspective?"Only if the character could actually notice a difference. Suddenly being able to cast spells is a reasonable condition. Suddenly being able to Power Attack is not.
I thought this was about multi-classing, not picking feats. Has somebody demanded background for leveling up? (And wouldn't that be the campaign itself?)
And to a much smaller point: Character backgrounds are fiction, to put it another way, they are lies. Lying is far easier than physics or advanced math regardless of context. If someone tells you they have a hard time lying, they are lying to you.
|
|
I thought this was about multi-classing, not picking feats. Has somebody demanded background for leveling up? (And wouldn't that be the campaign itself?)
What is the difference between a class and a feat when we are talking about in-world visibility?
Do you require a character to explain how he suddenly got a +2 to Will saves? Does it matter if he got it from multiclassing or from a feat?
If a character can suddenly dodge better, does he need to explain why he took the Artful Dodger class but not explain why he took the Dodge feat?
And your group has been playing together long enough, and probably know each other well enough outside of the game that no one is expecting you to change your ways. But if by chance you would ever add a player to that mix, things could get very interesting very quickly; how interesting and how quickly would depend on how well that player already knew the existing players, but it would almost definitely force a reexamination of everything you've been doing unless you ended up simply driving the new player away. Not everyone has the luxury of playing in a group like that where the challenges of forging a group identity and consensus are long in the past and no longer an issue. For those people not so fortunate, communication and effort are still vitally important aspects of the game that they cannot afford to ignore.
Hmm... we just added a guy to our group a few months ago. Just someone that one of the other gamers knew from work. He's a lot younger than the rest of us too.
And we have added a new person to the group on average about once every six months. We have attrition in our group just like any other group does. The core four gamers in our group have stuck through the entire time, although we've gone periods where we've lost one for a period of time, but they've come back when they can.
Anyway, the last four "new guys" we added over the past three years or so are like this:
1. The power gamer munchkin dude. He loved gaming with us because he always had the most awesome build, which is what he was looking for. He eventually got sent to Iraq and has spent time in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure he will rejoin us when his tour of duty is up.
2. The "specialist build" guy, who loves focusing his characters on one aspect of the mechanics (like grappling) and trying to optimize it as much as possible. He played with us for a while but had to quit when his career took him to the other side of the country.
3. The musician guy, who is still with us and who just loves bashing down doors and knocking heads.
4. The miniatures guy, who is also a solid role-player guy. This is the latest addition to our group and so far he seems to be a real winner. He's solid in the rules, builds reasonable and competent characters but doesn't need to power game and has great ideas during the game to improve both the role playing and the tactical elements of the game.
In fact our style of game play so far has worked out well for every player we've ever gamed with.
I think in large part that is because we don't tell people how they are supposed to have fun.
|
And to a much smaller point: Character backgrounds are fiction, to put it another way, they are lies. Lying is far easier than physics or advanced math regardless of context. If someone tells you they have a hard time lying, they are lying to you.
Very negative! Dang, lie is a very strong word, and pretty jerkish, if you ask me.
We are engaged in playing a game - an activity engaged in for relaxation, entertainment, pleasure. If one gets so hung up in logic, "sense" and playing games that are "realistic" one fails to comprehend the point of a game, in my opinion.
|
|
Someone a while back in this thread said something about "I also think that PFS contributes to this problem." I cannot find the post right now, but if I recall correctly, the point was that PFS contributes to an "unrealistic" game.
I play PFS mostly due to time constraints. I have played D&D for a long time, in various forms. D&D IS unrealistic by its very nature. It is not a model of reality. It is a game. When one tries to make more of it than it is, one drains the fun out of it! (In my opinion) Life is too short to spend so much time arguing over a non sequitor. If someone likes playing multi-classed monk/ranger/barbarian/inquisitor/wizard/sorcerer/rogue/cleric - who cares, if they are having fun with it? Remember, you have the ultimate control over whether or not you play in a game - you can leave!