| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of any scenario where "I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing" would not make sense.Like I said, why don't they have to make the same effort when staying single-classed?
If, as you say, things just need to make sense, that should cut both ways.
The fact that it's one-way only suggests to me that "making sense" is a rationalization and not the reason.
If you needed a mentor to improve, but you're in the middle of a megadungeon?
Does every fighter reinvent the wheel every time they level up? Do they discover how to fight all by themselves, creating a different style of heretofore unseen awesomefightingness in complete isolation? Or do they do what everyone else, in just about every other worldly pursuit, has ever done, and learn from those who have gone before?
If you let fighters level up in dungeons without mentors and training facilities, you're breaking my immersion dude. Take your anti-verisimilitudinous badwrongfun elsewhere!
I can see a massive, gaping distance between "not directly adding to the story", and "disrupting the story. If Bob's not adding but not disrupting, and he's pleasant, courteous and tactically skilled, he still gets a seat at my game.
Unless he never brings snacks. Or belongs to the KKK. Or other comparable bad stuff.
Did you just say those things were comparable? Seriously?
So what if the guy dresses up in a white hood and burns crosses every now and then? At least he brings SNACKS.
I can see a massive, gaping distance between "not directly adding to the story", and "disrupting the story. If Bob's not adding but not disrupting, and he's pleasant, courteous and tactically skilled, he still gets a seat at my game.
Unless he never brings snacks. Or belongs to the KKK. Or other comparable bad stuff.
Did you just say those things were comparable? Seriously?
** spoiler omitted **
Consider me rebuked and penitent :)
|
I can't think of any scenario where "I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing" would not make sense.Like I said, why don't they have to make the same effort when staying single-classed?
If, as you say, things just need to make sense, that should cut both ways.
The fact that it's one-way only suggests to me that "making sense" is a rationalization and not the reason.
If you needed a mentor to improve, but you're in the middle of a megadungeon?
Does every fighter reinvent the wheel every time they level up? Do they discover how to fight all by themselves, creating a different style of heretofore unseen awesomefightingness in complete isolation? Or do they do what everyone else, in just about every other worldly pursuit, has ever done, and learn from those who have gone before?
If you let fighters level up in dungeons without mentors and training facilities, you're breaking my immersion dude. Take your anti-verisimilitudinous badwrongfun elsewhere!
Why would they need a mentor? They spent an entire level being whatever they were.
Of course they would be getting better at it.
I can't think of any scenario where "I'm going to keep doing what I've been doing" would not make sense.Like I said, why don't they have to make the same effort when staying single-classed?
If, as you say, things just need to make sense, that should cut both ways.
The fact that it's one-way only suggests to me that "making sense" is a rationalization and not the reason.
If you needed a mentor to improve, but you're in the middle of a megadungeon?
Does every fighter reinvent the wheel every time they level up? Do they discover how to fight all by themselves, creating a different style of heretofore unseen awesomefightingness in complete isolation? Or do they do what everyone else, in just about every other worldly pursuit, has ever done, and learn from those who have gone before?
If you let fighters level up in dungeons without mentors and training facilities, you're breaking my immersion dude. Take your anti-verisimilitudinous badwrongfun elsewhere!
Why would they need a mentor? They spent an entire level being whatever they were.
Of course they would be getting better at it.
My experiences in learning martial arts (while not huge) and in other areas that require physical improvement such as jazz music, suggests that feedback from a teacher or mentor is invaluable, and irreplaceable, for improvement.
Too much deviation from reality! Immersion crumbling!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was it a trap card?What about a pretty pretty princess?Now I am thinking about one of the cards in Cards Against Humanity...it has so warped my perceptions of the world...
http://cardsagainsthumanity.com/
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the game, but the link is here. Anyway there is an alternative rule where you can play with "Rando Cardrissian", which basically means one of the players is just randomly pulled cards. Because it is kind of embarrassing to lose to cards pulled at random cards.
Anyway, there was a card that required the players play three cards. We all threw in, including Rando and his three random cards. As we read off who won, there was a clear winner that was some horrible sexually deviant reference that included "Pretty Pretty Princess Dress Up Game" that had us all rolling on the floor laughing, and when no one claimed it, we realized it was Rando.
Bastard...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experiences in learning martial arts (while not huge) and in other areas that require physical improvement such as jazz music, suggests that feedback from a teacher or mentor is invaluable, and irreplaceable, for improvement.
"Irreplaceable"? Really? You wanna give that some thought and decide if you wanna stick with it?
Sometimes a mentor gives you feedback that leads to understanding that leads to improvement that otherwise would not have occurred.
No, I'm pretty happy with irreplaceable :)
I'm not saying improvement is impossible without a mentor or dedicated training away from the act itself. But it is certainly irreplaceable.
To the OP question.
No, not necessarily.
No-one in my world knows what a "character class" is. That "warrior" over there might be a Rogue/Assassin, an Expert/Aristocrat, a Ranger/Magus, a Fighter/Barbarian, an Adept/Warrior or an Wizard (Illusionist)/Sorceror that is actually a bit cut, ripped and shredded and with some spells carries it off (a personal favorite of mine).
No classes maketh the fantasy man in-game in my world. So it doesn't need to make sense mechanically. Making sense theme-wise is always good, but if you just want to buff your character concept or round out your character, go for it. Give me some few theme/fluff reasons and I'm good. If not, I don't think I'll mind either. Hve fun with it.
But really, let's get back to basics: does a Single Class character have to make sense? That's the real question here. I propose a new thread:
If I single class level-up in a dungeon but my Player isn't there to see it, am I still a character, and do I make sense?
To the OP question.
No, not necessarily.
No-one in my world knows what a "character class" is. That "warrior" over there might be a Rogue/Assassin, an Expert/Aristocrat, a Ranger/Magus, a Fighter/Barbarian, an Adept/Warrior or an Wizard (Illusionist)/Sorceror that is actually a bit cut, ripped and shredded and with some spells carries it off (a personal favorite of mine).
No classes maketh the fantasy man in-game in my world. So it doesn't need to make sense mechanically. Making sense theme-wise is always good, but if you just want to buff your character concept or round out your character, go for it. Give me some few theme/fluff reasons and I'm good. If not, I don't think I'll mind either. Hve fun with it.
But really,let's get back to basics does a Single Class character have to make sense? That's the real question here. I propose a new thread:
If I single class level-up in a dungeon but my Player isn't there to see it, am I still a character, and do I make sense?
Not unless your character eats bacon.
People that don't eat bacon don't make sense.
Murderer! Get thee to the "when did making sense become badwrongfun" thread!
They spent an entire level being whatever they were. Of course they would be getting better at it.
There's absolutely no "of course" about it. You know the saying about the guy with ten years' experience, vs. with one year's experience repeated ten times? I know plenty of people for whom practice DOESN'T make perfect. Instead, it further ingrains bad habits. YMMV.
By the logic of "realism," casting fireball on groups of goblins doesn't improve your ability to create a telekinetic sphere. It just makes you more apt to throw fireballs, and then maybe throw daggers when you're out of fireballs...
|
|
They spent an entire level being whatever they were. Of course they would be getting better at it.There's absolutely no "of course" about it. You know the saying about the guy with ten years' experience, vs. with one year's experience repeated ten times? I know plenty of people for whom practice DOESN'T make perfect. Instead, it further ingrains bad habits. YMMV.
We are assuming they are gaining experience.
Can I just say I feel like I am in a bizarro universe when it is being completely unreasonable to expect the players in a role playing game to make even a perfunctory effort to have their characters make sense in the setting.
I feel like if I gave this as an example of something that could happen when players entitlement grew out of control, I would have been accused of being hyperbolic and exaggerating.
And yet, here we are. Try to make sense = to much to ask.
And yet, here we are. Try to make sense = to much to ask.
No, you're telling me this:
Try to make sense of multi-classing = required.
Try to make sense of single-classing = not required.
Please note the distinction, and think about WHY you've put that distinction there. Because one does not in any way inherently "make more sense" than the other.
We are assuming they are gaining experience.
When you say that, be aware that "we" are assuming two different things.
I'm assuming they're gaining experience in life, and it may involve fighting, or it might involve magic, or whatever else.
You're assuming they're gaining no experience in anything outside of their own specialty.
I remain totally unconvinced that your assumption is more "realistic" than mine.
|
...Can I just say I feel like I am in a bizarro universe when it is being completely unreasonable to expect the players in a role playing game to make even a perfunctory effort to have their characters make sense in the setting...
I think you just got trapped in the bizarro universe. Can you say "Mxyztplk" to get out of it? No wait that might be something else...
|
|
Trying to make sense is always required.
It is just much, much easier to do so when the only answer you need give to reach even the highest reasonable threshold of overcoming suspension of disbelief is "I got better at the thing I was already doing by doing it more"
Please don't conflate more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying.
It is just much, much easier to do so when the only answer you need give to reach even the highest reasonable threshold of overcoming suspension of disbelief is "I got better at the thing I was already doing by doing it more"
Again, this is true for you, but not for me.
You would require more than that?
On the contrary, I go to the lowest common denominator. That way it gets applied equally for everyone.
I'm still trying to figure out why it is so critical to ciretose's story that he know WHY I took a level in another class.
See, it's not that I TOOK another class that's ruining his story, it's that I did so without giving him an adequate explanation. And he's repeatedly said that the "explanation" can be as simple as "I practiced with my sword at night".
So I I tell him "I practiced with my sword at night" then his story zooms on, pristine and undamaged. But if I tell him "I dunno, I just felt like it" his story comes crashing down in shattered ruins.
I still don't understand that. How does the first keep the story true, but the second ruins it for the whole table?
|
|
You would require more than that?On the contrary, I go to the lowest common denominator. That way it gets applied equally for everyone.
Communist :)
@AD - As I have said, 99 times out of 100 I don't need to ask, even for a multi-class, because I know why, or at least can guess why the the character developed that way. Even if it is some odd turn, either the player has been talking about it or foreshadowing it during play.
And of the 1 out of 100 times when I ask "why" the answer is usually something that I go "Oh...cool."
The only time a player refuses, in my experience, is when the character wouldn't do it, and they know it, but they don't give a crap about the setting or the game.
And screw that guy. That guy doesn't give a crap about the rest of the table, or if their non-concept makes for crap play because the story has this jarring speed bump that everyone else needs to accommodate, because they can't be bothered to even show a basic courtesy of trying, either because they don't care or because they only care about their personal experience and screw everyone else at the table.
If a player having a Half-Drow Noble Paladin/Barbarian/Druid makes sense at your table, this criteria doesn't effect you at all.
The only time this would come up is if it doesn't make sense at your table. If someone does something that the table thinks is ridiculous.
Why on earth, should that happen, would you defer to the one person at the table who can't fit in?
Makes absolutely no sense.
Again, this ain't about multiclassing or making sense at all. It's about a player being a dick, which could be connected to the multiclassing thing, but isn't necessarily.
I think we can all agree that "one player being a dick can easily ruin others' fun, and shouldn't be tolerated".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, I think we can both agree that this thousand-post plus thread is an absurdly uncommon corner case.
It's the philosophy that I'm trying to uproot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, this ain't about multiclassing or making sense at all. It's about a player being a dick, which could be connected to the multiclassing thing, but isn't necessarily.
I think we can all agree that "one player being a dick can easily ruin others' fun, and shouldn't be tolerated".
hewy, please explain to me how "I really don't have an explanation and I'm not really into trying to make one up. I just thought it would be a cool thing." is being a dick.
|
|
ciretose, I think we can both agree that this thousand-post plus thread is an absurdly uncommon corner case.
It's the philosophy that I'm trying to uproot.
It is an uncommon thing at people who have tables where they pick who they invite. Where I think you and I primarily play.
In my conversations with friends who have tried to run at your FLGS (not to mention board posts), it ain't uncommon at all.
ciretose, I think we can both agree that this thousand-post plus thread is an absurdly uncommon corner case.
It's the philosophy that I'm trying to uproot.
It is an uncommon thing at people who have tables where they pick who they invite. Where I think you and I primarily play.
In my conversations with friends who have tried to run at your FLGS (not to mention board posts), it ain't uncommon at all.
And yet in 30+ years of gaming, both as player and GM, I've yet to run into it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hewy, please explain to me how "I really don't have an explanation and I'm not really into trying to make one up. I just thought it would be a cool thing." is being a dick.Again, this ain't about multiclassing or making sense at all. It's about a player being a dick, which could be connected to the multiclassing thing, but isn't necessarily.
I think we can all agree that "one player being a dick can easily ruin others' fun, and shouldn't be tolerated".
That's what I'm saying. It's not. But I could see it possibly being part of a larger case of dickishness, and I think ciretose is taking a specific series of events where a player was being a dick and refusing to give a reason for multiclassing, and has extended that to every case of unjustified multiclassing.
I categorically don't agree that, in isolation, a GM should be able to deny multiclassing because of no story justification. When other factors come into play, I can see how a GM might not allow a certain multiclassing, but not for "failing to tell me a good story".
|
|
And yet in 30+ years of gaming, both as player and GM, I've yet to run into it.ciretose, I think we can both agree that this thousand-post plus thread is an absurdly uncommon corner case.
It's the philosophy that I'm trying to uproot.
It is an uncommon thing at people who have tables where they pick who they invite. Where I think you and I primarily play.
In my conversations with friends who have tried to run at your FLGS (not to mention board posts), it ain't uncommon at all.
Congratulations on picking good players and friends. But that kind of proves my point that you haven't had to deal with it, so how can you say it is wrong to not want it at your table?
Congratulations on picking good players and friends. But that kind of proves my point that you haven't had to deal with it, so how can you say it is wrong to not want it at your table?And yet in 30+ years of gaming, both as player and GM, I've yet to run into it.ciretose, I think we can both agree that this thousand-post plus thread is an absurdly uncommon corner case.
It's the philosophy that I'm trying to uproot.
It is an uncommon thing at people who have tables where they pick who they invite. Where I think you and I primarily play.
In my conversations with friends who have tried to run at your FLGS (not to mention board posts), it ain't uncommon at all.
ciretose, I think the reason I've never run into it is that I do my level best in all of my relationships, gaming, romantic, family or otherwise, to avoid issuing ultimatums.
It has been my experience in most cases that the issuer of the ultimatum is the one that generally suffers from the consequences of it.
That's really what I'm after here. If you issue this sort of ultimatum, what other ultimatums do you dictate?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations on picking good players and friends. But that kind of proves my point that you haven't had to deal with it, so how can you say it is wrong to not want it at your table?And yet in 30+ years of gaming, both as player and GM, I've yet to run into it.ciretose, I think we can both agree that this thousand-post plus thread is an absurdly uncommon corner case.
It's the philosophy that I'm trying to uproot.
It is an uncommon thing at people who have tables where they pick who they invite. Where I think you and I primarily play.
In my conversations with friends who have tried to run at your FLGS (not to mention board posts), it ain't uncommon at all.
ciretose, I think the reason I've never run into it is that I do my level best in all of my relationships, gaming, romantic, family or otherwise, to avoid issuing ultimatums.
It has been my experience in most cases that the issuer of the ultimatum is the one that generally suffers from the consequences of it.
That's really what I'm after here. If you issue this sort of ultimatum, what other ultimatums do you dictate?
Are you envisoning me standing over the player, Samuel L Jackson style going "Don't Make Sense Again. I Dare you!"
Because that is probably half the problem.
Usually we are all running ideas by each other, and occasionally the group will collectively roll their eyes or groan at some concept or idea and move forward.
I am probably the most frequently groaned at, mostly for comic effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, I frankly don't believe that you would evict a player for not coming up with a good story reason for taking a level of wizard. I think you'd do what I'd do, which is have the group propose some ideas and the player almost certainly would say "I'm good with that." High fives all around and back to the game.
This mythical "I only care about myself and to hell with the rest of you" player may or may not exist, but such a player would be disruptive in more ways than just choosing a class, so I just don't buy that this single event would evict a player from your group.
|
|
ciretose, I frankly don't believe that you would evict a player for not coming up with a good story reason for taking a level of wizard. I think you'd do what I'd do, which is have the group propose some ideas and the player almost certainly would say "I'm good with that." High fives all around and back to the game.
This mythical "I only care about myself and to hell with the rest of you" player may or may not exist, but such a player would be disruptive in more ways than just choosing a class, so I just don't buy that this single event would evict a player from your group.
We have absolutely decided not to invite people to the game because they couldn't come up with anything interesting to contribute to the game.
We still hang out with them, we just don't game with them.
Seats are to precious to waste on someone who makes the game less fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....finding myself liking posts from both sides of the discussion....
This thread obviously doesn't have enough vitriol going on...
ciretose, I frankly don't believe that you would evict a player for not coming up with a good story reason for taking a level of wizard. I think you'd do what I'd do, which is have the group propose some ideas and the player almost certainly would say "I'm good with that." High fives all around and back to the game.
This mythical "I only care about myself and to hell with the rest of you" player may or may not exist, but such a player would be disruptive in more ways than just choosing a class, so I just don't buy that this single event would evict a player from your group.
We have absolutely decided not to invite people to the game because they couldn't come up with anything interesting to contribute to the game.
We still hang out with them, we just don't game with them.
Seats are to precious to waste on someone who makes the game less fun.
There are plenty of ways to contribute interesting bits to the game beyond explaining why you took a level of wizard.
I am sort of sorry that you would not play with my "poker night" player. He's a really nice guy, contributes a lot during game play, but he truly has zero interest in the story. He just games to have fun and likes the camaraderie of it. And we're OK with that. We have plenty of story-focused players without him, and we don't mind carrying him along. He's quite witty and tells great stories.
|
|
Low interest isn't the same as no interest.
We had a guy for awhile who let everyone else make up his story, because he just sucked at it. He would play the concept fine, but he just sucked at coming up with ideas.
I am not opposed to that kind of player. I'm opposed to the player who wants to dictate what they are going to do inflexibly, regardless of if it doesn't make sense or fit with the group.
"I hate to break it to you, but historically speaking," there is nothing to distinguish ninja from the rogue class.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.I hate to break it to you, but historically speaking, nobody had magic abilities.
Histotically speaking, I had magic powers. Had as I lost them, but there were awesome. I could read minds :)
(then the head injuries...removed my capacity to read minds)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]
So the player can give an ultimatum but for the dm it is forbidden?
Sometimes a mentor gives you feedback that leads to understanding that leads to improvement that otherwise would not have occurred.
No, I'm pretty happy with irreplaceable :)
I'm not saying improvement is impossible without a mentor or dedicated training away from the act itself. But it is certainly irreplaceable.
How do you know it would not have occurred?
Fighters getting better from fighting makes sense, as they kill and survive they are getting blades-on experience. Each kill is a further perfection of their killing skills. Every injury they survive hardens them and allows them to take hits better in the future.
Tutelage is good if you want to learn a form, a specific style, a set of movements with a lineage, and of course the basics. If you want to fight hard and get better, you need experience and to be forged by your struggles and what you have overcome, not by the wise words of a mentor. Words are not deeds, practice isn't the real thing.
Totally backing xp from fighting and surviving making the fighter better in game. Not paying, respecting and receiving wisdom from on high from a mentor. "You must pay me this much gold and listen to my wise words or you cannot advance young grasshopper. You are unable to do this on your own, taught by the world of experience, only I have the secrets of level advance."
We are assuming they are gaining experience.When you say that, be aware that "we" are assuming two different things.
I'm assuming they're gaining experience in life, and it may involve fighting, or it might involve magic, or whatever else.
You're assuming they're gaining no experience in anything outside of their own specialty.
I remain totally unconvinced that your assumption is more "realistic" than mine.
My sensei says only intentional practice leads to practical ability.
Overdoing it leads to sloppy practice which does nothing beneficial, so better to be more realistic.
The mechanics of the game reward winning, not training. I have had some players want training rules in-game so they could level safely without risk and injury.
In real life, you think practice in martial arts makes you good? Imagine how good you would be if you fought everyone you could? Think of this as a variant of Sun Tzu's quote. Not training, endless fighting, recovering, then fighting again. New opponents, things never seen before or trained against. Defeating them over and over, growing so fast by risking it all and experiencing so much more than training, developing in ways training never allowed or encouraged. This is the idea behind martials levelling through combat in dnd, and not at all through training (which they got before they were level 1).
To the real, I am suspicious of the sensei encouraging more training as the path to improvement, when each martial art has its weaknesses and emphasis. Train further in one, and you are becoming more orthodox and easier to counter by those that know the weaknesses of your style. More training improves your forms and appearance, your proficiency in that style and its techniques, but this is not exactly the same as fighting ability, or to use a gaming analogy, your level, bab and the feats you have unlocked. If your training does not involve taking hits, how will you get more hp? If you are not practiced in breaking bones of a moving target, how will you do so consistently when it is time to do so?
Just some challenging points there.