When did making sense become wrongbadfun?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
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.

Not the same thing. Nor did I mention banning multiclassing at all.

I read you as saying the Pimp archetype was ridiculous and you wouldn't allow it for that reason. You didn't say anything about the character's prior class, history or anything. I assumed you were banning the archetype.
Would you have allowed it for a starting character?

If we were playin "pimps n hoes" and not Pathfinder, maybe, or the game was light hearted.


littlehewy wrote:
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.

Let me add to this that all of my players would certainly give a reason and story as to why they multiclassed, and I very much like it that way! But if I had a player that didn't get into "story" at all, and basically wanted to hang and play a tactical game with us, his friends, I wouldn't disallow multiclassing if there was no story attached to it.

That's basically the entirety of my position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

I think it's safe to say everyone's been using core Pathfinder as a general baseline for this conversation.

No, what you propose doesn't make sense. In core PF, however, anyone can multiclass into a wizard. Period.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
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.

Not the same thing. Nor did I mention banning multiclassing at all.

I read you as saying the Pimp archetype was ridiculous and you wouldn't allow it for that reason. You didn't say anything about the character's prior class, history or anything. I assumed you were banning the archetype.
Would you have allowed it for a starting character?

If we were playin "pimps n hoes" and not Pathfinder, maybe, or the game was light hearted.

But not a new player (or a replacement character) in the same game as the one who wanted to multiclass.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."

True, but nothing to do with the post I was replying to.


littlehewy wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

I think it's safe to say everyone's been using core Pathfinder as a general baseline for this conversation.

No, what you propose doesn't make sense. In core PF, however, anyone can multiclass into a wizard. Period.

I don't let my players level up in dungeons, because it really doesn't make sense to spontaneously learn new techniques without having some time and space to train.

What goes for your table doesn't go for everybody's table.

It's not about the rules, it's about the group. Not everyone wants a crazy everything goes at any time.


I guess I can simplify my position to this:
A player being aware that a class exists does not necessarily mean the character would, or have access to learning it in game.

It would be upon the player to justify the change, with in game reasons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."

I raised the following point earlier, but it was never noticed, apparently.

This seems to me to be more about some kind of total wanker that can't bring themselves to even say, "Yeah, whatever, I was trained as a teenager, gave it up, and now I'm getting back into it." I mean, that's such a meaningless justification for multiclassing that it may as well not be made, yet you're willing to accept it. So the problem seems to me to be that the player is just a wanker. Not that they can't justify the multiclassing (which, with such a simple statement, anyone can), just that they're a dick.

In essence, this thread is not about "multiclassing needs justification", it's really about "don't be a dick".


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

I think it's safe to say everyone's been using core Pathfinder as a general baseline for this conversation.

No, what you propose doesn't make sense. In core PF, however, anyone can multiclass into a wizard. Period.

I don't let my players level up in dungeons, because it really doesn't make sense to spontaneously learn new techniques without having some time and space to train.

What goes for your table doesn't go for everybody's table.

It's not about the rules, it's about the group. Not everyone wants a crazy everything goes at any time.

Again, here's why I'm arguing:

littlehewy wrote:


But if I had a player that didn't get into "story" at all, and basically wanted to hang and play a tactical game with us, his friends, I wouldn't disallow multiclassing if there was no story attached to it.

That's pretty much it.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."

I killed enough orcs that a book of magic appeared in my stuff. When I looked at it, I suddenly knew how to cast Magic Missile.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@littlehewy - And the whole point of the OP was that even asking that minimal amount was being condemned as unreasonable by some people now.

I was literally told it was to much to ask a player explain they practiced a bit to take a level of fighter.

Another person said that I should just allow the player to be "the chosen one" who gained it without training.

This is my whole point.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."
I killed enough orcs that a book of magic appeared in my stuff. When I looked at it, I suddenly knew how to cast Magic Missile.

That I would facepalm.

On the other hand, if the player just mentioned an interest in going for a level of wizard, I may have them fight a wizard randomly that drops a spell book which is convieniently in their language...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

What goes for your table doesn't go for everybody's table.

It's not about the rules, it's about the group. Not everyone wants a crazy everything goes at any time.

Lol at my table, we're playing RotRL, and bar the ranger and the dwarf cleric that both took one level of fighter at lvl 1 for story reasons even though they knew it would hurt their builds, everyone is singe-classed.

Don't assume my game is crazy everything goes because I don't agree with restricting players because they're not into story. All my players are way into story, and I'm very thankful for that. But I don't see it as an obligation they have to fulfil to be able to access the basic rules of the game.


thejeff wrote:
ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."
True, but nothing to do with the post I was replying to.

I got it.

But even taking an allowed class should fit into the story, imho.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, if you want to maintain "verisimilitude" and have any remote chance of multi-classing "making sense" in the game world, every initial level in any new class should take months at least to accomplish (with the exception of pure spontaneous classes like sorcerer). The idea that a character can pick up a book and read it at the campfire to become a "wizard", or can shadow-fence between watch and sleeping in camp to become a "fighter," or can do a few chants, meditation and prayers between encounters to become a "cleric" completely and utterly ignores the class descriptions which typically present learning the class abilities as a long, complex process finally earning the reward of reaching level 1.

Since that would mean any multiclassing would require months of "downtime" then any attempt to allow multi-classing through some sort of "makes sense" explanation of how it managed to happen overnight due to some "I read a book" or "I shadow fenced a bit" is no more plausible or believable than "it just happened."

So all this talk about "I want it to make some sense in my campaign" is pure balderdash. None of it makes sense without those months of training, and unless you force your players to role play that, then it's all a bunch of ridiculous hand-waving for the purpose of keeping the game going.

So since that's the case, why force the "I read a book" explanation at all? It strikes me as a pure GM control issue. "I'm the GM, it's my world so do it my way."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Again, if you want to maintain "verisimilitude" and have any remote chance of multi-classing "making sense" in the game world, every initial level in any new class should take months at least to accomplish (with the exception of pure spontaneous classes like sorcerer). The idea that a character can pick up a book and read it at the campfire to become a "wizard", or can shadow-fence between watch and sleeping in camp to become a "fighter," or can do a few chants, meditation and prayers between encounters to become a "cleric" completely and utterly ignores the class descriptions which typically present learning the class abilities as a long, complex process finally earning the reward of reaching level 1.

Since that would mean any multiclassing would require months of "downtime" then any attempt to allow multi-classing through some sort of "makes sense" explanation of how it managed to happen overnight due to some "I read a book" or "I shadow fenced a bit" is no more plausible or believable than "it just happened."

So all this talk about "I want it to make some sense in my campaign" is pure balderdash. None of it makes sense without those months of training, and unless you force your players to role play that, then it's all a bunch of ridiculous hand-waving for the purpose of keeping the game going.

So since that's the case, why force the "I read a book" explanation at all? It strikes me as a pure GM control issue. "I'm the GM, it's my world so do it my way."

I tried to make a similar, if simpler, point in this post, but you just said it better.


That's funny, becasue any time one of my characters has multi-classed, I've asked for the RP to go with it, not demand it be handwaved.

Liberty's Edge

Why would it require months? If you were always interested in magic, read up on what you could and then you found a spellbook, you might quickly pick up enough to learn a few spells...which is basically a first level wizard.

Sorcerer is easy. Cleric could be someone who was always quietly religious, but now has decided to really dedicated themselves.

It taking months assumes you are going from zero to class. You can easily say "I had been thinking about this for some time, studying in my spare time, and then..."

Liberty's Edge

Also, why is it GM control issues to ask a player to try and make sense, but not Player control issues to refuse?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Why would it require months? If you were always interested in magic, read up on what you could and then you found a spellbook, you might quickly pick up enough to learn a few spells...which is basically a first level wizard.

Sorcerer is easy. Cleric could be someone who was always quietly religious, but now has decided to really dedicated themselves.

It taking months assumes you are going from zero to class. You can easily say "I had been thinking about this for some time, studying in my spare time, and then..."

If it's so easy, why must it be said? And who would refuse to say it?

Again, this seems more like a courtesy, and that your outrage is more about the idea of the courtesy not being observed than there being any special need to justify it.


ciretose wrote:

@littlehewy - And the whole point of the OP was that even asking that minimal amount was being condemned as unreasonable by some people now.

I was literally told it was to much to ask a player explain they practiced a bit to take a level of fighter.

Another person said that I should just allow the player to be "the chosen one" who gained it without training.

This is my whole point.

I pretty much agree with what you've been saying so far. I'm not having fun unless there's a basic level of immersion (which to me implies characters have some in game justification for their abilities).

It seems many of the others posters here can enjoy the game without it making sense to them which is fine too.

But the question then becomes; is it ok for Ciretose to ban or require something (as GM) to avoid completely ruining the game for him? To me this is not unreasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Why would it require months? If you were always interested in magic, read up on what you could and then you found a spellbook, you might quickly pick up enough to learn a few spells...which is basically a first level wizard.

Sorcerer is easy. Cleric could be someone who was always quietly religious, but now has decided to really dedicated themselves.

It taking months assumes you are going from zero to class. You can easily say "I had been thinking about this for some time, studying in my spare time, and then..."

Ciretose, the process of becoming a wizard, for example, is presented in the class fluff as an extremely arduous process of learning highly complex and difficult to comprehend magical terms, processes, somatic and verbal components, how to use material components, etc. It isn't presented as something that you can just "pick up as you go" any more than nuclear physics is. You need expert instruction to accomplish it.

Fighters have a similar fluff built around extensive training where fighters learn how to master dozens of weapon types, highly difficult combat maneuvers, the ability to move in armor, etc.

All of the classes have that sort of fluff. Even the spontaneous classes like sorcerer have added fluff about "discovering their heritage" and "mastering their powers" which also takes time.

Sure you can convince yourself that your "makes sense" approach makes sense. But trust me, I'm laughing up my sleeve at your hand-waving while you are simultaneously complaining about my hand-waving.

Liberty's Edge

littlehewy wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Why would it require months? If you were always interested in magic, read up on what you could and then you found a spellbook, you might quickly pick up enough to learn a few spells...which is basically a first level wizard.

Sorcerer is easy. Cleric could be someone who was always quietly religious, but now has decided to really dedicated themselves.

It taking months assumes you are going from zero to class. You can easily say "I had been thinking about this for some time, studying in my spare time, and then..."

If it's so easy, why must it be said? And who would refuse to say it?

Again, this seems more like a courtesy, and that your outrage is more about the idea of the courtesy not being observed than there being any special need to justify it.

My "outrage" is at the lack of courtesy, or rather that people are "outraged" that anyone would have any expectations of courtesy.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Ciretose, the process of becoming a wizard, for example, is presented in the class fluff as an extremely arduous process of learning highly complex and difficult to comprehend magical terms, processes, somatic and verbal components, how to use material components, etc. It isn't presented as something that you can just "pick up as you go" any more than nuclear physics is. You need expert instruction to accomplish it.

Fighters have a similar fluff built around extensive training where fighters learn how to master dozens of weapon types, highly difficult combat maneuvers, the ability to move in armor, etc.

All of the classes have that sort of fluff. Even the spontaneous classes like sorcerer have added fluff about "discovering their heritage" and "mastering their powers" which also takes time.

Sure you can convince yourself that your "makes sense" approach makes sense. But trust me, I'm laughing up my sleeve at your hand-waving while you are simultaneously complaining about my hand-waving.

I would prefer to game with people who are invested in the game. Again, I am setting the absolute bare minimum, not what I would like.

Your argument seems to be "Why have any standard if you can't meet X standard"


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


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."

There is, but I think there's also a case when a particular multiclass combination in the hands of a particular player, based on how the character has developed so far, may be a bit over or under powered compared to the rest of the PCs in the group. At times like that, I think the GM should step in and disallow the combination. That's not exactly "I don't allow that archetype/class/whatever" but it's not an arbitrary "I'm not going to allow you to multiclass into it" either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
My "outrage" is at the lack of courtesy, or rather that people are "outraged" that anyone would have any expectations of courtesy.

Ciretose, as I said before, I really respect your opinions and feel you are one of the bright spots of this forum, so please don't think I'm being critical of you personally.

However, the concept of courtesy goes both ways. As a player if you've hand-waved 25.9 miles of the marathon, telling me I have to run the final 100 yards before you will let me say it's done just seems arbitrary to me.

I don't understand this constant refrain that "all I want is someone to say 'my character did some practice between encounters" since that is just as silly as "it just happened."

Sure, I'll do it if you want because I'm a nice guy, but all the time I'm going to be wondering why it's such a big deal in the first place. Especially since the stated reason (to make it "make sense") is utterly ridiculous on the face of it.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."
I killed enough orcs that a book of magic appeared in my stuff. When I looked at it, I suddenly knew how to cast Magic Missile.
That I would facepalm.

"So I killed this orc, and then looked at the door and suddenly knew how to unlock it!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aurumaer wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@littlehewy - And the whole point of the OP was that even asking that minimal amount was being condemned as unreasonable by some people now.

I was literally told it was to much to ask a player explain they practiced a bit to take a level of fighter.

Another person said that I should just allow the player to be "the chosen one" who gained it without training.

This is my whole point.

I pretty much agree with what you've been saying so far. I'm not having fun unless there's a basic level of immersion (which to me implies characters have some in game justification for their abilities).

It seems many of the others posters here can enjoy the game without it making sense to them which is fine too.

But the question then becomes; is it ok for Ciretose to ban or require something (as GM) to avoid completely ruining the game for him? To me this is not unreasonable.

As stated, I think it just offends ciretose's sense of politeness. He's already stated how simple it is to justify - how does the lack of that injure his sense of immersion.

=
An entirely facetious, but not irrelevant, comparison:

GM: Now, you all get to level up!

Players: Great!

Player X: I'm going to multiclass into rogue I think.

Player Y: I'm going to multiclass into wizard...

GM: Hang on a minute, it's not that easy.

Player Y: What do you mean?

GM: It ruins my enjoyment if you don't ask nicely to multiclass.

Player X: Huh?

GM: You have to say, " Please GM, may I multiclass?"

Player X: Don't be silly! I'm multiclassing into rogue!

GM: No you're not. Not unless you satisfy my very simple requirement. Anyone can. All you have to do is say the words.

Player Y: Please GM, may I multiclass? I want to take a level in wizard.

GM: Sure you can Y! See X, it's really very simple. Just think about it for a minute, then say what I'd like to hear.

Player X: I'm not really into that...

GM: Too bad so sad, guess you're taking another level of [previous class]...


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Again, if you want to maintain "verisimilitude" and have any remote chance of multi-classing "making sense" in the game world, every initial level in any new class should take months at least to accomplish (with the exception of pure spontaneous classes like sorcerer). The idea that a character can pick up a book and read it at the campfire to become a "wizard", or can shadow-fence between watch and sleeping in camp to become a "fighter," or can do a few chants, meditation and prayers between encounters to become a "cleric" completely and utterly ignores the class descriptions which typically present learning the class abilities as a long, complex process finally earning the reward of reaching level 1.

Since that would mean any multiclassing would require months of "downtime" then any attempt to allow multi-classing through some sort of "makes sense" explanation of how it managed to happen overnight due to some "I read a book" or "I shadow fenced a bit" is no more plausible or believable than "it just happened."

So all this talk about "I want it to make some sense in my campaign" is pure balderdash. None of it makes sense without those months of training, and unless you force your players to role play that, then it's all a bunch of ridiculous hand-waving for the purpose of keeping the game going.

So since that's the case, why force the "I read a book" explanation at all? It strikes me as a pure GM control issue. "I'm the GM, it's my world so do it my way."

I don't think that's entirely fair. You said yourself earlier in this thread that what 'makes sense' will differ from one person to another and from one group to another. I don't see the need to accuse anyone of having 'GM control issues' for requiring a little verisimilitude so as not to ruin their own enjoyment

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

And yet that "ridiculous" stretch of having some reasonable period of time pass (which is not months/years/decades) to ground that second class for the character is sought after by my players, so they can feel that their character development is valid. So it isn't a waste of time for the story, or for the players, or such a ridiculous notion. The entire game is an illusion, but whatever it takes for the players to feel that they gained that class "legitimately" in the story is not a waste of time.

I understand your logic that the first class took years while the "splash class" took only weeks or the character suddenly had a lightbulb go off, but that doesn't negate the need. Otherwise, we can take all kinds of logical inconsistencies in the game mechanics (magic item availability coming to mind) and just say "sure that doesn't make perfect sense so just hand-waive it and it doesn't matter blah blah" ... which is not the game I'd want to play (nor my players).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

littlehewy, you made my point better than I did.

ciretose keeps saying "do this because it's a courtesy I demand".

That's not a courtesy. That's a demand. How courteous is a demand?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Why would it require months? If you were always interested in magic, read up on what you could and then you found a spellbook, you might quickly pick up enough to learn a few spells...which is basically a first level wizard.

Sorcerer is easy. Cleric could be someone who was always quietly religious, but now has decided to really dedicated themselves.

It taking months assumes you are going from zero to class. You can easily say "I had been thinking about this for some time, studying in my spare time, and then..."

If it's so easy, why must it be said? And who would refuse to say it?

Again, this seems more like a courtesy, and that your outrage is more about the idea of the courtesy not being observed than there being any special need to justify it.

My "outrage" is at the lack of courtesy, or rather that people are "outraged" that anyone would have any expectations of courtesy.

I can understand that. In fact, I can agree with that statement in general.

But it's not really about the story then, is it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vorduvai, if your group wants to role play the actual time consuming process of learning a new class, I commend you and your group.

But the vast majority of groups don't want to do that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aurumaer wrote:


I don't think that's entirely fair. You said yourself earlier in this thread that what 'makes sense' will differ from one person to another and from one group to another. I don't see the need to accuse anyone of having 'GM control issues' for requiring a little verisimilitude so as not to ruin their own enjoyment

What people can convince themselves "makes sense" differs from group to group. That doesn't change the fact that it's all hand-waving to one degree or another.

I understand what ciretose is saying, but he keeps saying "I just want courtesy" and I keep hearing "I just want some control."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Yes it can 'not make sense'.

Scenario:
You're playing in a low magic world and a player wants to mc into wizard. His character has never met a wizard in game (they don't exist) and has no reason to believe wizards ever have or do exist.
Does this make sense?

Again, difference between "Wizards are banned in this game" and "You can play a wizard, but you can't multiclass into one."

There is also a difference between "You can't multiclass into a wizard" and "At least put a half hearted effort into coming up with a reason your character decided to become a wizard."
I killed enough orcs that a book of magic appeared in my stuff. When I looked at it, I suddenly knew how to cast Magic Missile.
That I would facepalm.
"So I killed this orc, and then looked at the door and suddenly knew how to unlock it!"

"So I fired my crossbow at an orc and played with a sword while at camp, and now I know how to use a tower shield!"

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Vorduvai, if your group wants to role play the actual time consuming process of learning a new class, I commend you and your group.

But the vast majority of groups don't want to do that.

That's where I would disagree with you from my own experiences, that my play-style is "fringe" and yours is not. However, I don't think we're going to get a Gallup Poll on that one :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

littlehewy, you made my point better than I did.

ciretose keeps saying "do this because it's a courtesy I demand".

That's not a courtesy. That's a demand. How courteous is a demand?

"It's common courtesy!"

Liberty's Edge

Let me try an analogy.

I try to have parties at my house every few months, just to hang out. I usually invite between 20 and 40 people, depending on the scale of what I am looking for at the time and the season (More in the spring when we can spread out more and have a cookout)

If you bring beer and snacks, stick around to clean up after, don't cause any drama, I'll probably always invite you. Even if you are boring, you contribute.

If you don't bring snacks, and although you don't clean up after yourself you also generally don't make messes, and cause very little drama, I'll still invite you most of the time. Not as much as the other person, but you'll get an evite to the bigger gatherings.

If you bring nothings, and make messes, and cause drama, I'll generally not be inviting you. We can still hang out in other settings where you fit in better, but no you aren't invited to be a part of my party.

The more sense your character makes, the more likely I am to want to game with you. I don't need (or frankly want) 20 pages of backstory. I just want them to make sense so I have less disbelief to suspend.

The bare minimum isn't the same as the desired level.

It is the bare minimum.

I don't think it is a coincidence that those arguing against bare minimums seem to have never gamed with anyone who failed to meet that standard.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
"So I fired my crossbow at an orc and played with a sword while at camp, and now I know how to use a tower shield!"

"So I fireballed that ogre and suddenly knew how to speak ancient Thassilonian!"


littlehewy wrote:

As stated, I think it just offends ciretose's sense of politeness. He's already stated how simple it is to justify - how does the lack of that injure his sense of immersion.

=** spoiler omitted **...

I don't know why the lack of that injures his sense of immersion (I can only assume it's for the reasons other people have talked about) but the fact of the matter is it does.

That's why I tried to abstract it; is (having some requirement of your players) as GM unreasonable, provided that that the requirement is essential to your having fun?

Liberty's Edge

littlehewy wrote:


As stated, I think it just offends ciretose's sense of politeness. He's already stated how simple it is to justify - how does the lack of that injure his sense of immersion.
=** spoiler omitted **...

Please don't make absurd analogies. You are better than that.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a coincidence that those arguing against bare minimums seem to have never gamed with anyone who failed to meet that standard.

Ha. Ha ha. HA HA HA.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a coincidence that those arguing against bare minimums seem to have never gamed with anyone who failed to meet that standard.

Ha. Ha ha. HA HA HA.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, yes, poorly worded. But I asked both for an example of a player who they gamed with who asked for something that didn't make sense that was granted, and they couldn't come up with one.


ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a coincidence that those arguing against bare minimums seem to have never gamed with anyone who failed to meet that standard.

Well, there may be something in that point too... I wouldn't say never, but rarely.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:


I understand what ciretose is saying, but he keeps saying "I just want courtesy" and I keep hearing "I just want some control."

And I keep hearing "I don't have to give a crap about what anyone else at the table wants. You are all hear to facilitate my game and serve my needs."


I think most everyone is missing the real point that ciretose is making. He is only asking for a player to make an effort. I know there are a million different play styles and a million expectations. Ciretose has put an amount of time and energy to make up the game. He's invested in the game as a whole. And would like to feel that the people around the table are willing to give something back to make it feel worth it to him.

When you hold the door open for someone or help in some way. They don't have to say thanks but it sure in nice to hear!


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I don't understand this constant refrain that "all I want is someone to say 'my character did some practice between encounters" since that is just as silly as "it just happened."

They are actually not the same thing though. They are very close, and in many campaigns would function the same, but not in all campaigns. I've been in campaigns where how the NPC reactions and the story as a whole is very dependent on what the information the player provides, and in such cases, "it just happened" doesn't work very well as it gives no hint or clue as to what the player is thinking where "my character did some practice" gives enough information to guide the DM in at least a general direction while not overburdening the player. Campaigns where the story "is" the campaign would tend to require even more explanation to keep it from breaking down completely. That is why one of the barometers I use is the campaign itself; each campaign will have different built in minimums based on the style, tone, and goals presented by the DM and accepted by the players.

251 to 300 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / When did making sense become wrongbadfun? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.