|
And if that works for your group, great. But that "you" enjoy it and it makes it better for "you" isn't the same as "I bring something to the game that makes it more enjoyable for everyone"
I actually find your argument confusing. Most people you talk to irl, their skills will be a hodgepodge and mishmash of this and that. I have a friend whose father got a masters in Bio Chemistry. He went on to work as a weather man with that degree. When he left that job he decided to work at a school as kind of a career aide kinda guy.
Logical? I think not. Your insistance that people in a game have some logical continuation is confusing because thats actually contrary to whats realistic.
Call me crazy I like my players and characters to act like real people.
What part of what he did, didn't make sense.
You are conflating two separate arguments. Weird is fine, as long as it make sense.
There is a big difference between "I have studied disparate fields" to "I am not even trying to come up with a way I could have possibly done what I am describing, and how dare you ask me to!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose,
I set a simple bar; I expect players to generate characters sympathetic to the theme and tone of the adventure they are participating in - or to put it bluntly - for their character to make sense in the setting.
|
|
It isn't "that I don't like" it. It is that it doesn't make sense.
Using your friend as an example, the pre-requisites for weatherman were met by whatever he did.
As to the second question, in one of the threads, someone gave an example of a player who hates their gods becoming a cleric of a god who would not be cool with that.
If a player asked if they could do that, I would discuss it with them and explain my concerns. Unless they could make a strong rationale for why, I would veto it.
If a player just showed up and said "I'm doing this, you can't stop me!" I would likely say "Let's play Smallworld tonight, I don't feel up to running" and accept that person can't handle playing well with others.
|
The whole point is the attempt. If you actually attempt to create a story where it makes sense then we can work from that but if you are trying to take several classes because of a mechanical build that make no sense what so ever RPG, current campaign fluff wise, then that is the problem.Making sense from an RP standpoint is mostly just point of view.
Someone stated that a character wanting to be a Monk (core class) was basically not cool because there was not another Monk around for miles. Yet it was cool for him to take a level in Fighter (core class) without the training.
Yet I could say just the opposite. I could justify it by saying the Monk class fits better because the character had an epiphany about the meaning of life and all his experiences in life finally "clicked" well enough to allow him to use the abilities of the Monk. I could also be shocked at the idea that he dare think his character has practiced with enough weapons, gained enough muscle memory or how dare he think he think he is now proficient with complicated heavy armor even though he has never in his life worn a set!
The problem with this is that any one can justify it some way at some time. It is a shared world. The core classes especially, are there for any one to pick up as they wish. Prestige Classes have RP prereqs like killing someone for no reason or something like that.
I don't feel that the "make sense" argument is a good argument because everyone has a different opinion of what "makes sense."
Unless the player is tied to a specific concept, its possible to make any set of mechanics make sense.
The only people being affected will be players who aren't good at coming up with stories. And I wouldn't want to punish a player because of that.
It's not about the people who can't or have trouble with it, it's about the people who don't bother reading the class and only focus on the mechanical aspect of the class.
|
|
So it sounds like your issue isn't with characters not making sense, but with players who don't care about backstories.
Not even that. I don't care if you don't feel like having a specific backstory. I do care if you don't care enough to come up with some way that your character can even exist, within the group.
Because some of the other people at the table do care about the setting and the story, even if you don't. So basic, minimum courtesy would be to at least try to make sense. Even if it is a reach, at least make the effort.
Because you are sitting at a table with a group of people. So, you know, basic courtesy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it sounds like your issue isn't with characters not making sense, but with players who don't care about backstories.Not even that. I don't care if you don't feel like having a specific backstory. I do care if you don't care enough to come up with some way that your character can even exist, within the group.
Because some of the other people at the table do care about the setting and the story, even if you don't. So basic, minimum courtesy would be to at least try to make sense. Even if it is a reach, at least make the effort.
Because you are sitting at a table with a group of people. So, you know, basic courtesy.
I don't like the assumption that people who don't come up with specific backstories don't care. People who are new to tabletop or just aren't very literarily minded typically don't and often play themselves as the character. It isn't because they don't care, and it's not as if being unable to come up with your own backstory means you are outright refusing to. When this happens I just say "So maybe your character was pirate and he found the Blackblade in an allegedly cursed treasure hoard) and then done.
Is this from that multiclassing thread? Or the paladin one?
|
|
I literally just said they don't need to come up with a specific backstory.
Literally, I used those exact words.
Edit: Does anyone else feel like they spend more time arguing against things they didn't say than things they actually did say, or is it just me?
I think it's because you lower the bar so far that it's meaningless and then claim that the bar is very important.
If "they don't need to come up with a specific backstory", then what do they need to do to "come up with some way that your character can even exist, within the group"?
Again, the bar I described is the bare minimum. If you can't even reach that bare minimum, or argue that the bare minimum is to much, I'm not interested in having you kill the verisimiltude for the rest of us, let's go play Mariokart.
If you are at least trying to make sense, no matter how badly, you are at least trying. Badly, perhaps. Bordering on pathetic...but you are trying and that has a value to me.
If you won't at least try, you don't care about fitting into the game, and so maybe we should try Munchkin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any legal character option makes sense. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an option. Everything else is a houserule.
|
|
Is this from that multiclassing thread? Or the paladin one?
Mostly the multiclassing, but some from the Paladin. The "chosen one" example is from the Paladin thread, hundreds of posts ago.
I am just honestly mind blown how entitled people seem to be about being catered to in a group dynamic based game, and on the other hand how much people fear losing someone from a game who brings so little to the game, as if no one else will be able to fill that seat. Or that the seat might not be better empty than with someone who can't even bother to try and fit in.
Can't even bother to make even a half hearted effort.
Saying "You have to try and make sense" is now seen as an undo hardship to some people, and others are like "Well, that is Timmy...say no...why, I could never do that...how cruel..."
In my games, the class chosen during creation has to fit the world I'm running for. After creation, the mutliclass has to make RP sense for them. For instance, a player can say "Hey I'm interested in taking alchemist, I think it will fit." But if he hasn't run accross one, or even learned what it would take or the study involved to become one, in character, then no. For things like sorceror, if there's something in the backstory that makes sense for their sorcerous blood to activate, then ok, maybe. Otherwise, you want to learn arcane magics? Wizard or witch, and the latter will really take some story work.
On the other hand, if a player comes to me up front and says "this is the character paths I'd liek ot take" I can work them into the story.
Like all things in this game, it's give and take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any legal character option makes sense. If it didn't, it wouldn't be an option. Everything else is a houserule.
Pretty much.
I'm right into immersion, roleplaying, all the good stuff you're talking about ciretose. Except for PbP, I'm pretty much always the GM. I encourage backstory, players giving me angles to work with, fitting their characters to the campaign... I may not allow that race for this campaign, or that alignment, etc, etc.
I would much prefer that a player give me a yarn that justifies a class level, every time. In fact, just yesterday, I threw out free feats for all because my players described really cool downtime stuff. Yay for stories!
But I'd pretty much never disallow a multiclass. AD has given a plethora of good reasons why he wouldn't either, but I'll briefly put it in my own words. If you're at my table, you're probably already my mate. If you're my mate a) you're a cool person, and b) I'd rather spend time with you than not. If I ask you to tell me a story about how your wizard just took a monk level, and you've got nothing, I may throw my hands up in the air, or roll my eyes, but it's your character. I'm not your dad, or your boss, or your wife/husband. I'm your friend, we're all here for a good time, and though having a good story for your character would make my RPG time maybe a little bit cooler, you don't have to jump through my hoops because I'm the GM.
If you weren't already my friend, and I didn't enjoy your play style for whatever reason, and your presence didn't seem to add anything to my experience that could mitigate that difference in play style, I probably wouldn't invite you back, but I would never insist/argue with you about such an issue.
That really is a player's choice. And even if you kick them from your game because you're the GM and you can, that's actually your problem, a problem of righteousness and inflexibility.
Edit: I'm using a general, global "you" in that last paragraph, not saying, " you, ciretose, you!"
|
|
Or possibly just how much not bothered people are by the things that bother you.I haven't heard anybody saying "It drives me crazy that Timmy doesn't try to have his characters make sense, but I can't kick him out."
I've heard people saying "Timmy's characters don't make a lot of sense, but he's fun to game with for other reasons, so it's all okay."
And I've said, several times, I don't care what you do at your table.
What I do care about is when people start saying it is wrong to even ask your fellow players to make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with the Original Post and with Komodo.
I think there is an agreement between players to stay in character. Both DMs I play with support this effort with bonus xp for roleplay. Then the metagamers arent punished but they notice that their neglect of "fluff" has a price. It keeps the game immersive.
That's a much better solution than "go away, I don't want you here if you won't join our fluff party". As my last post mentioned, I like rewarding immersive, roleplaying-based stuff, but I pretty much exclusively use the carrot, not the stick.
|
|
@littlehewy - But it seems what you are saying is "I'm not going to invite anyone who would play something I don't think would be fun" which is basically banning people prior to play.
At least that is a way of wording it.
What I have said, many times, is if I don't think you are going to make an effort to try and make sense, we can still be friends but we'll be doing something other than gaming together.
How is that different from what you are saying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or possibly just how much not bothered people are by the things that bother you.I haven't heard anybody saying "It drives me crazy that Timmy doesn't try to have his characters make sense, but I can't kick him out."
I've heard people saying "Timmy's characters don't make a lot of sense, but he's fun to game with for other reasons, so it's all okay."And I've said, several times, I don't care what you do at your table.
What I do care about is when people start saying it is wrong to even ask your fellow players to make sense.
I don't think it's wrong to ask.
I think it's wrong to require it, ignoring all other possible factors.
|
|
I have to agree with the Original Post and with Komodo.
I think there is an agreement between players to stay in character. Both DMs I play with support this effort with bonus xp for roleplay. Then the metagamers arent punished but they notice that their neglect of "fluff" has a price. It keeps the game immersive.
That's a much better solution than "go away, I don't want you here if you won't join our fluff party". As my last post mentioned, I like rewarding immersive, roleplaying-based stuff, but I pretty much exclu
sively use the carrot, not the stick.
But you just said
"If you weren't already my friend, and I didn't enjoy your play style for whatever reason, and your presence didn't seem to add anything to my experience that could mitigate that difference in play style, I probably wouldn't invite you back, but I would never insist/argue with you about such an issue."| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@littlehewy - But it seems what you are saying is "I'm not going to invite anyone who would play something I don't think would be fun" which is basically banning people prior to play.
At least that is a way of wording it.
What I have said, many times, is if I don't think you are going to make an effort to try and make sense, we can still be friends but we'll be doing something other than gaming together.
How is that different from what you are saying?
You've misunderstood. I deliberately included the phrase "and your presence didn't seem to add anything to my experience that could mitigate that difference in play style". There are plenty of reasons I would let someone like that play in my game. Friendship, as noted. Personality, a general sense of fun. A good head for tactics. Maybe you own five suitcases of minis...
I have friends who are not into gaming, but if they were willing to play, even if they sucked, my enjoyment would be increased by their presence.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Does anyone else feel like they spend more time arguing against things they didn't say than things they actually did say, or is it just me?
Naturally. We are only discussing what we see on forum posts, which are a narrow slice of what we actually think, and are easily misread and misunderstood.
That's a much better solution than "go away, I don't want you here if you won't join our fluff party". As my last post mentioned, I like rewarding immersive, roleplaying-based stuff, but I pretty much exclusively use the carrot, not the stick.I have to agree with the Original Post and with Komodo.
I think there is an agreement between players to stay in character. Both DMs I play with support this effort with bonus xp for roleplay. Then the metagamers arent punished but they notice that their neglect of "fluff" has a price. It keeps the game immersive.
But you just said
"If you weren't already my friend, and I didn't enjoy your play style for whatever reason, and your presence didn't seem to add anything to my experience that could mitigate that difference in play style, I probably wouldn't invite you back, but I would never insist/argue with you about such an issue."
Like I said, I included that part of the sentence, "and your presence didn't seem to add anything to my experience that could mitigate that difference in play style" for a reason. If you were pleasant and fun, I'd still invite you back, because your presence added something to my experience that could mitigate our difference in playstyle.
Edit: I'm really hoping I don't have to paste that sentence again, but I'm leaving it on my clipboard just in case you continue to overlook it :)
|
|
Edit: Does anyone else feel like they spend more time arguing against things they didn't say than things they actually did say, or is it just me?Naturally. We are only discussing what we see on forum posts, which are a narrow slice of what we actually think, and are easily misread and misunderstood.
But I literally said it. Like literally, said the exact thing I was being accussed of denying.
To the word.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@littlehewy - But you did say you wouldn't invite them back if they didn't meet some threshold, correct?
Sure, that's what humans do. But I disagree with the black/white way that you paint the issue - a difference in playstyle is far less important to me than other things.
Edit: And my thresholds are rarely rock solid, in isolation, if you know what I mean. I don't seek to play with crap gamers, but if I came across someone who, in my opinion, was a crap gamer but was a great guy, I'd be happy to play with them. Someone who is a crap gamer and has the personality of a lump of wood? Probably crossing too many thresholds for my liking :)
The ability, or at minimun the attempt to make sense is a more than reasonable threshold to hold to, I think.
Well, we simply disagree on that. End of conversation I guess.
|
|
@littlehewy - But you did say you wouldn't invite them back if they didn't meet some threshold, correct?Sure, that's what humans do. But I disagree with the black/white way that you paint the issue - a difference in playstyle is far less important to me than other things.
The ability, or at minimun the attempt to make sense is a more than reasonable threshold to hold to, I think.Well, we simply disagree on that. End of conversation I guess.
It isn't simply a difference in playstyle. It is a person going "I want to be involved in this activity, but I am in no way willing to accomodate the expectations of the group or try to fit it. Everyone will need to adapt to my needs and expectations, or I will take my ball and go home."
Which is when I take the plywood with plexiglass over gaming paper off of the Pool table and pull out the triangle and pool cues.
It's a shared experience, and everyone that's part of that has a responsibility to keep the game fun and immersive. It only takes one person to ruin it.
I'm extremely confused on why everyone's getting on ciretose's case for wanting to keep verisimilitude in his game.
Some people are fine throwing out sensibility like some children's animation, but for others it's more fun to have a deep, captivating, and grounded story akin to Game of Thrones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@littlehewy - But you did say you wouldn't invite them back if they didn't meet some threshold, correct?Sure, that's what humans do. But I disagree with the black/white way that you paint the issue - a difference in playstyle is far less important to me than other things.
The ability, or at minimun the attempt to make sense is a more than reasonable threshold to hold to, I think.Well, we simply disagree on that. End of conversation I guess.It isn't simply a difference in playstyle. It is a person going "I want to be involved in this activity, but I am in no way willing to accomodate the expectations of the group or try to fit it. Everyone will need to adapt to my needs and expectations, or I will take my ball and go home."
Which is when I take the plywood with plexiglass over gaming paper off of the Pool table and pull out the triangle and pool cues.
Well, fair enough. But I think you would struggle to actually find that person in real life, and if you did, you probably wouldn't have them around to play pool either :)
I still disagree that the GM should be able to disallow a multiclass because of lack of fluff.
|
|
Well, fair enough. But I think you would struggle to actually find that person in real life, and if you did, you probably wouldn't have them around to play pool either :)I still disagree that the GM should be able to disallow a multiclass because of lack of fluff.
I know a few of that person. I can play competitive games with them quite well and have a great time.
Cooperative...not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, fair enough. But I think you would struggle to actually find that person in real life, and if you did, you probably wouldn't have them around to play pool either :)I still disagree that the GM should be able to disallow a multiclass because of lack of fluff.
I know a few of that person. I can play competitive games with them quite well and have a great time.
Cooperative...not so much.
Huh. I couldn't stand to be around someone with the mindset of
"I want to be involved in this activity, but I am in no way willing to accomodate the expectations of the group or try to fit it. Everyone will need to adapt to my needs and expectations, or I will take my ball and go home."
It's pretty much my life's mission to avoid these people as much as possible :)
I still disagree that the GM should be able to disallow a multiclass because of lack of fluff.
I could not disagree more.
What role does the GM play other than to provide the guidelines for his or her story?Player: I want to multiclass into this archtype I found for a bard called The Pimp. I'll get to wear big hat, platform shoes, and use a sword cane. I'll take leadership later to have some hoes. Deal?
GM: Uhhmmm, I'm gonna have to say no. Pimps don't adventure, and besides, it's ridiculous.
Player: YOU HAS NO RIGHTS TO TELLS ME NOES!
For me, an I really mean just for me, I see so many of these threads as less an argument over a particular idea, but rather people take extreem views and then talk but don't communicate.
Should a player be able to do what ever they want? Within reason sure. Should a GM be able to control their game? Within Reason, sure. The reality for me, is that both sides come to a middle ground that works for their game and they have fun.
One last thought: I have seen a shift over time in how a haracter is created. When I started to play back in the late 70's we mostly just crated a character and let the game mold them over time. Tody I see a lot of folks who create a whole character concept from 1st thrugh 20th. They have already thought about what feats they want etc. This shift in how one sees their character has impacted things like how they justify multi-classing. Today a dip into a class may have more to do with a final vision 10 levels aay then it does with where they are right now.
In any case, back to the original question: Is making sense "wrongbadfun? No it isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still disagree that the GM should be able to disallow a multiclass because of lack of fluff.I could not disagree more.
What role does the GM play other than to provide the guidelines for his or her story?Player: I want to multiclass into this archtype I found for a bard called The Pimp. I'll get to wear big hat, platform shoes, and use a sword cane. I'll take leadership later to have some hoes. Deal?
GM: Uhhmmm, I'm gonna have to say no. Pimps don't adventure, and besides, it's ridiculous.
Player: YOU HAS NO RIGHTS TO TELLS ME NOES!** spoiler omitted **
Was that a Paizo published thing? I just play Pathfinder with very little 3PP.
But your amusing anecdote (I'm still grinning widely) doesn't really change my point. If a player is being a dick, I can force him to retire his character, or leave my house. If he wants to break my game, I won't stand for it.
But if a player wants to multiclass, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. As GM, I can't disallow it because they haven't provided a story. If they want to multiclass with no story and they're being a dick, that's a different situation.
Could that be what this whole thread is about? It strikes me that perhaps what you're all outraged about is that you can't conceive that someone couldn't give a narrative reason for a multiclass for any other reason than they're being a dick.
I want to be involved in this activity, but I am in no way willing to accomodate the expectations of the group or try to fit it.
One of my friends is like that. He's great at strategy and other competitive games, fun and challenging, and is an alright dm, but when it comes to playing in games (specifically 3.5) everyone avoids running for him. He's got a name for himself because he'll break the system (still following 3.5 rules) and usually ignore the setting. If there's a book he needs for his concept, he's had a history of convincing his DMs to allow him to use it. But that's not what makes him a bad player. He picks a concept and he'll play it, regardless of the game, the setting, or the other players. This often leads to him avoiding any major events, and making a split between him and the other players. Any other game is fine, and he's awesome and super fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, do you expect the story your DM tells you to generally make sense? (Keeping in mind that it's the right of the DM to reserve information for the future or hide it completely.) Or do you just want to be thrown into a room to murder-hobo everything else in that room? If, as a player, you expect the DM to provide you with a story that makes sense, then you are obligated to do the same with your character. The DM puts loads of time into the game - sometimes more time outside of sessions than in sessions. That is a commitment he signs on to when he steps up to the plate, but still not one to be forgotten.
Is it really asking too much for players to put 15 minutes into providing a back story and motivations for their characters? If the answer to this question is "yes", then expect to find yourself in a cage match, fighting against a Red Dragon (CE) and a Gold Dragon (LG) who have teamed up against you for no reason other than the DM saying "but their abilities go really well together."
EDIT: Also, when did the story turn into "fluff"...? I missed that part in Lord of the Rings, the Dragon Lance Chronicles, the Dark Elf Trilogy, and the Eragon series...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still disagree that the GM should be able to disallow a multiclass because of lack of fluff.I could not disagree more.
What role does the GM play other than to provide the guidelines for his or her story?Player: I want to multiclass into this archtype I found for a bard called The Pimp. I'll get to wear big hat, platform shoes, and use a sword cane. I'll take leadership later to have some hoes. Deal?
GM: Uhhmmm, I'm gonna have to say no. Pimps don't adventure, and besides, it's ridiculous.
Player: YOU HAS NO RIGHTS TO TELLS ME NOES!** spoiler omitted **
The DM is wrong I watched the mobie The Other Guys, Pimps do adventure and they get things done.
No one says no to The Gator!
I still disagree that the GM should be able to disallow a multiclass because of lack of fluff.I could not disagree more.
What role does the GM play other than to provide the guidelines for his or her story?Player: I want to multiclass into this archtype I found for a bard called The Pimp. I'll get to wear big hat, platform shoes, and use a sword cane. I'll take leadership later to have some hoes. Deal?
GM: Uhhmmm, I'm gonna have to say no. Pimps don't adventure, and besides, it's ridiculous.
Player: YOU HAS NO RIGHTS TO TELLS ME NOES!There's a big difference between "I don't allow that archetype/class/whatever" and "I'm not going to allow you to multiclass into it."
Wel, in that instance it was the same thing.
But I dunno that anyone is saying that no one at their table is allowed to multiclass period. They're just asking that when they do, it makes sense.I have more stringent guidelines than that at my table. It (the class chosen to multiclass into) must flow with the story up to that point, or it ain't happening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclassing never "doesn't make sense". It's a basic part of the game. You get a level, you can choose a class to gain a level in.