When did making sense become wrongbadfun?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Erosthenes wrote:


Thank you for grokking what I was trying to say. Look, I think that you have to play to your party as a GM. If they want "realism", then thats what you should do. If you have thought ahead about training regime's for characters changing classes, then thats what you should stick too. As long as it feeds your players the "fun" they want, then that is great.

I do not like playing an evil character, and I prefer not running with groups that want to run evil characters. That is my personal taste, so I avoid campaigns focusing on evil characters, unless the group of players is too good to resist. I once had a Call of Cthulhu game where the GM focused our investigation on a child abuser, I got to blast his head off with a double barrel shotgun. It was wonderful! He laughed his head off, telling me "I...

As an aside, I applaud your eloquent double-barrel shotgun solution in the Cthulu game, and your GM's reaction to it. I mean you gotta get those moments in where you can, because...ya know...it's a Cthulu game... and it never ends well for the characters. Well it didn't for me anyway :)


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Ciretose has a problem of not knowing what he's asking for. It's not realism or control or even etiquette. In this thread, anyone with any ability to read subtle context cues can probably tell that he's just trying to understand why people are calling his games badwrongfun for asking/requiring his players to make an effort to keep the immersion.

If there's something that actually annoys me on these boards is that the "player entitlement" is so high that GMs who ever say "no" or even just "wait, let's work something out" are bashed as over-controlling GMs who don't care about their players and just want to narrate their own story. It never occurs to anyone that maybe, the GM might be hosing down one player so they aren't ruining it for all the other players. Because if another player is telling another how to play their character, they really just need to mind their own business, right? Forget the setting, forget any sense of a story, forget what the other players want. You as a player are entitled to a character and as long as its in the rules, you may as well play that and no silly GM is gonna stop you because rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
bookrat wrote:
I'm confused how "nonsensical multiclassing" = "disruptive player."
I'm confused how "trying to making sense" = "to much to ask"...

There are 7 pages of back and forth trying to explain that to you. I'd like you to explain why you think nonsensical multiclassing equals being a disruptive player.

I honestly don't understand that. I've seen some beautifully sensible and roleplayed characters who were played by players who were very disruptive to the game. They made their characters well, and when they bothered to deem us with their attention, they roleplayed well. They were disruptive because they always side-tracked the game into other conversations, or they would walk out of the game when it was their turn to smoke a cig (when they could have easily just waited until the battle was over). These are disruptive things that have nothing to do with how they play (when they actually do play).

Conversely, I've also seen players who don't roleplay at all who were not disruptive in any sense of the word. They just sit there quietly and listen to everyone else. They don't say a word until it's their turn in battle, and then they act tactically. They like the mechanics, but not the roleplay. They are not disruptive to the game. In addition, these were also the players who would have a hard time trying (or in some cases, caring) to come up with a character background or worry about multiclassing that makes sense.

So I'm really curious how not making sense when mutliclassing is in an way being a "disruptive player."


bookrat wrote:
ciretose wrote:
bookrat wrote:
I'm confused how "nonsensical multiclassing" = "disruptive player."
I'm confused how "trying to making sense" = "to much to ask"...

There are 7 pages of back and forth trying to explain that to you. I'd like you to explain why you think nonsensical multiclassing equals being a disruptive player.

I honestly don't understand that. I've seen some beautifully sensible and roleplayed characters who were played by players who were very disruptive to the game. They made their characters well, and when they bothered to deem us with their attention, they roleplayed well. They were disruptive because they always side-tracked the game into other conversations, or they would walk out of the game when it was their turn to smoke a cig (when they could have easily just waited until the battle was over). These are disruptive things that have nothing to do with how they play (when they actually do play).

Conversely, I've also seen players who don't roleplay at all who were not disruptive in any sense of the word. They just sit there quietly and listen to everyone else. They don't say a word until it's their turn in battle, and then they act tactically. They like the mechanics, but not the roleplay. They are not disruptive to the game. In addition, these were also the players who would have a hard time trying (or in some cases, caring) to come up with a character background or worry about multiclassing that makes sense.

So I'm really curious how not making sense when mutliclassing is in an way being a "disruptive player."

And I've read Ciretose's response to this argument before about how he works with the more "wallflower" of the bunch.

This whole thread is a big back and forth. Everyone is asking the same questions over and over in different forms. Tossing in specific examples.

In reality, there are people who's "roleplay" can ruin everyone else's roleplay, it's even worse to witness as a player who's GM isn't willing to deal with it. I've left a group because of that mess.

I may not agree with everything that Ciretose spouts out, but I respect that he takes care of his group and doesn't let some overbearing player take over the game.

Liberty's Edge

In general, because that player has decided to basically say "I am not even going to try to fit in with the setting and the story. I refuse to make even a modest effort to fit in."

And yet, in general that player will still fully expect a reasonable story be created for and including the character he has made with no such effort or courtesy.

Why it is a problem at my table, as a player or GM, is that we actually like the setting and game to make sense. We like to use our imagination and pretend our players exist in the world where we are playing.

When I'm watching a movie, and I notice the greenscreen, it can pull me out of the experience and lessen my enjoyment.

And in that instance, they were at least making an effort and failed.

When a player refuses to even try, it basically means about 25% of the people at the table are making no effort to even try to make sense.

Which is the equivalent of adding Jar Jar Binks to the game.

Are there times that can be fun? Sure.

Is that what I want week after week through an extended campaign or AP.

No.

Now there are a lot of people who like Jar Jar. Hell, an entire generation of people think the new Star Wars are cool. I have no issue with those people playing how they want at the tables they play at.

But it is completely and utterly ridiculous for anyone to criticize any group for saying "You have to try and make sense." to play at a table in the same way it would be ridiculous for anyone to criticize any group for saying "You need to wear pants when we game."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's "unreasonable" to ask someone to provide some explanation for why they took a level in another class. I think it's "unreasonable" to say "if you don't give me a good reason, you're ruining my game."


ciretose wrote:


I'll just say it, many people on here don't seem to get they don't game alone. That other people don't come to the table to serve their desire to play whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or disrupts the game for everyone else.

I guess I'm NOT the only one!

Yes. You are absolutely right. I'll do you one step further and opine that perhaps many people in the world do not get that they do not live on Earth alone. That other people do not exist simply as inconveniences and obstacles to them getting what they want.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Precisely why I do not play competitive games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Am I The Only One? wrote:
ciretose wrote:


I'll just say it, many people on here don't seem to get they don't game alone. That other people don't come to the table to serve their desire to play whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or disrupts the game for everyone else.

I guess I'm NOT the only one!

Yes. You are absolutely right. I'll do you one step further and opine that perhaps many people in the world do not get that they do not live on Earth alone. That other people do not exist simply as inconveniences and obstacles to them getting what they want.

I absolutely love how "No, I don't have an in-story explanation for why I took a level of wizard" has become "I live on earth alone and all you other people exist simply as inconveniences and obstacles to me getting what I want!"

I mean don't you have to add the "MuuaahahahahahAHAHAHHHA!" to that for it to be complete?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I don't think it's "unreasonable" to ask someone to provide some explanation for why they took a level in another class. I think it's "unreasonable" to say "if you don't give me a good reason, you're ruining my game."

Our game. The whole table now has to accommodate you, the person who refuses to show basic courtesy.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Am I The Only One? wrote:
ciretose wrote:


I'll just say it, many people on here don't seem to get they don't game alone. That other people don't come to the table to serve their desire to play whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or disrupts the game for everyone else.

I guess I'm NOT the only one!

Yes. You are absolutely right. I'll do you one step further and opine that perhaps many people in the world do not get that they do not live on Earth alone. That other people do not exist simply as inconveniences and obstacles to them getting what they want.

I absolutely love how "No, I don't have an in-story explanation for why I took a level of wizard" has become "I live on earth alone and all you other people exist simply as inconveniences and obstacles to me getting what I want!"

I mean don't you have to add the "MuuaahahahahahAHAHAHHHA!" to that for it to be complete?

And I love how "Try to at least make sense" has become an unreasonable request.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I don't think it's "unreasonable" to ask someone to provide some explanation for why they took a level in another class. I think it's "unreasonable" to say "if you don't give me a good reason, you're ruining my game."

Our game. The whole table now has to accommodate you, the person who refuses to show basic courtesy.

As opposed to your whole table sitting there obstinately refusing to accept "I really don't have an explanation" and demanding "well, make one up then!"

Yep, models of civility and restraint your group is ciretose.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

And I love how "Try to at least make sense" has become an unreasonable request.

And I have pointed out many, many times in this thread ciretose that it's not an unreasonable "request."

It's an unreasonable "demand."

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I don't think it's "unreasonable" to ask someone to provide some explanation for why they took a level in another class. I think it's "unreasonable" to say "if you don't give me a good reason, you're ruining my game."

Our game. The whole table now has to accommodate you, the person who refuses to show basic courtesy.

As opposed to your whole table sitting there obstinately refusing to accept "I really don't have an explanation" and demanding "well, make one up then!"

Yep, models of civility and restraint your group is ciretose.

Or your version where when the guy says "No. I am going to play something that makes no sense, exactly how I want to play it, regardless of if it makes the game less fun for everyone else, and if even ask me not to, you are a jerk."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


Or your version where when the guy says "No. I am going to play something that makes no sense, exactly how I want to play it, regardless of if it makes the game less fun for everyone else, and if even ask me not to, you are a jerk."

And I have repeatedly asked you how "I practiced at night" makes your game hunky-dory but "I don't really have an explanation" sends you into a death spiral of story funk.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:

And I love how "Try to at least make sense" has become an unreasonable request.

And I have pointed out many, many times in this thread ciretose that it's not an unreasonable "request."

It's an unreasonable "demand."

Would you prefer the term "prerequisite"?

Or is the concept that someone might need to adapt to the group also a bridge to far and an unreasonable "demand"

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Or your version where when the guy says "No. I am going to play something that makes no sense, exactly how I want to play it, regardless of if it makes the game less fun for everyone else, and if even ask me not to, you are a jerk."

And I have repeatedly asked you how "I practiced at night" makes your game hunky-dory but "I don't really have an explanation" sends you into a death spiral of story funk.

It isn't "I don't really have an explanation"

It is "I don't have to give any explanation. I will not even try. And you have to accept that and make the game work for me."


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

And I love how "Try to at least make sense" has become an unreasonable request.

And I have pointed out many, many times in this thread ciretose that it's not an unreasonable "request."

It's an unreasonable "demand."

Would you prefer the term "prerequisite"?

Or is the concept that someone might need to adapt to the group also a bridge to far and an unreasonable "demand"

Until you explain to me how "I practiced at night" makes everything in your story move swimmingly along, but "I don't really have an explanation" drives it into a literary black hole, I'm just not getting the whole "our group has to have it or it ruins our fun" deal ciretose.

How does the first make everything warm and fuzzy but the second raises your group's hackles and threatens to evict the player?

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:

And I love how "Try to at least make sense" has become an unreasonable request.

And I have pointed out many, many times in this thread ciretose that it's not an unreasonable "request."

It's an unreasonable "demand."

Would you prefer the term "prerequisite"?

Or is the concept that someone might need to adapt to the group also a bridge to far and an unreasonable "demand"

Until you explain to me how "I practiced at night" makes everything in your story move swimmingly along, but "I don't really have an explanation" drives it into a literary black hole, I'm just not getting the whole "our group has to have it or it ruins our fun" deal ciretose.

How does the first make everything warm and fuzzy but the second raises your group's hackles and threatens to evict the player?

Scroll up.


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


Or your version where when the guy says "No. I am going to play something that makes no sense, exactly how I want to play it, regardless of if it makes the game less fun for everyone else, and if even ask me not to, you are a jerk."

And I have repeatedly asked you how "I practiced at night" makes your game hunky-dory but "I don't really have an explanation" sends you into a death spiral of story funk.

It isn't "I don't really have an explanation"

It is "I don't have to give any explanation. I will not even try. And you have to accept that and make the game work for me."

Oh, so you would be fine then with "I really don't have an explanation?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Am I The Only One? wrote:
ciretose wrote:


I'll just say it, many people on here don't seem to get they don't game alone. That other people don't come to the table to serve their desire to play whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or disrupts the game for everyone else.

I guess I'm NOT the only one!

Yes. You are absolutely right. I'll do you one step further and opine that perhaps many people in the world do not get that they do not live on Earth alone. That other people do not exist simply as inconveniences and obstacles to them getting what they want.

I absolutely love how "No, I don't have an in-story explanation for why I took a level of wizard" has become "I live on earth alone and all you other people exist simply as inconveniences and obstacles to me getting what I want!"

I mean don't you have to add the "MuuaahahahahahAHAHAHHHA!" to that for it to be complete?

One does not lead to the other, O He Who Somehow Leapt From Here to There and Missed All Logic In-Between (consider changing your screen name to that). They are both symptoms of the same thing. And nobody said anybody is trying to Take Over The World. Just that people tend toward selfishness, and ignore the worth of working together or actually, you know, compromise and collaboration.

Now, maybe every single person you drive next to on the freeway gazes over at your intoxicating loveliness, craps his pants with joy, and cannot help but to blow you kisses and an engraved invitation to do with him as you will, follow him to an ATM and take all his money while his hot wife services you in what manner you see fit. You might be very lucky that way.

As for me, 99% of them just cut me off at will, most of them rudely and some of them quite dangerously.

Yes, in my experience, nowadays, most people are so concerned with where they are going, what they are doing, and mostly WHAT THEY WANT, that they are more apt to run through stop signs, cut you off, drive dangerously at the pick-up spot at middle school (provided they have already picked up their own kid - something I get to deal with every day), blame the people who are trying to help them do their job, and other simply unthoughtful actions. Does that mean they are evil geniuses? In your universe, I guess. To me, it just means they are self-obsessed plugs who ought to look up from their fancy phones once-in-a-awhile.


Bruunwald, bravo, such a virtuoso performance of sheer monumental sarcastic bombasity deserves kudos. I salute you.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Or your version where when the guy says "No. I am going to play something that makes no sense, exactly how I want to play it, regardless of if it makes the game less fun for everyone else, and if even ask me not to, you are a jerk."

And I have repeatedly asked you how "I practiced at night" makes your game hunky-dory but "I don't really have an explanation" sends you into a death spiral of story funk.

It isn't "I don't really have an explanation"

It is "I don't have to give any explanation. I will not even try. And you have to accept that and make the game work for me."

Oh, so you would be fine then with "I really don't have an explanation?"

If they then try to come up with one, yes.


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

Oh, so you would be fine then with "I really don't have an explanation?"

If they then try to come up with one, yes.

But if they then say "I'm not really good at that, and not really interested in it. I just think a level of wizard would be cool."

What then?

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Oh, so you would be fine then with "I really don't have an explanation?"

If they then try to come up with one, yes.

But if they then say "I'm not really good at that, and not really interested in it. I just think a level of wizard would be cool."

What then?

We, as a group, help them come up with something. Preferably in game, so we can have what could have been disruptive become a story element that adds to the game.

Because we want them to be involved in the game.


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

Oh, so you would be fine then with "I really don't have an explanation?"

If they then try to come up with one, yes.

But if they then say "I'm not really good at that, and not really interested in it. I just think a level of wizard would be cool."

What then?

We, as a group, help them come up with something. Preferably in game, so we can have what could have been disruptive become a story element that adds to the game.

Because we want them to be involved in the game.

And if the player simply says "Hey, that's not really my thing, but if you want to come up with something for me, I'm more than happy to let you."

What then?

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Oh, so you would be fine then with "I really don't have an explanation?"

If they then try to come up with one, yes.

But if they then say "I'm not really good at that, and not really interested in it. I just think a level of wizard would be cool."

What then?

We, as a group, help them come up with something. Preferably in game, so we can have what could have been disruptive become a story element that adds to the game.

Because we want them to be involved in the game.

And if the player simply says "Hey, that's not really my thing, but if you want to come up with something for me, I'm more than happy to let you."

What then?

I (generally we, as in the whole table) bounce ideas of him on how to make it work, unless it is something we (again the table) think is going to be a problem, in which case we throw alternatives at them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ciretose, see the other thread. We got to exactly the same point.

My point all along has been that a player not coming up with a good "explanation" was not evidence of some sort of self-centered, rude and insensitive lout. Some players just don't get into that.

I'm pretty sure that you and I would deal with this just about the same way, and I felt that from the beginning of this discussion. Your group would throw out some ideas, the player would say "that sounds good" and you'd all continue gaming.

If a player truly is a selfish jerk, there will be plenty of other clues to his personality and it would not be one single event that got him kicked from the game.

OK, I'm good. Thanks for playing along ciretose. It was fun. :)

Liberty's Edge

It was fun. Thanks.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And if the player simply says "Hey, that's not really my thing, but if you want to come up with something for me, I'm more than happy to let you."

It doesn't look like anybody else is going to say it, so I will.

I'd say, "We're not a good fit as gamers. I wish you the best of luck with your next group."

It should be obvious that this is a different guy than a guy who refuses out of a sense of player-entitlement, but the end result is the same (for me and my group; obviously YMDV): gamer breakup. I want players in my game that are engaged beyond the mechanics, and as a player, I want a GM who wants players that are engaged beyond the mechanics.

EDIT: And, BTW, unless I missed something, cirelose's entire point here was that he was attacked as being unreasonable for requiring players that are engaged beyond the mechanics. It was fascinating how people kept flipping it around so that he was portrayed as the one attacking how other people played the game, but that's not how it was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
If there's something that actually annoys me on these boards is that the "player entitlement" is so high that GMs who ever say "no" or even just "wait, let's work something out" are bashed as over-controlling GMs who don't care about their players and just want to narrate their own story. It never occurs to anyone that maybe, the GM might be hosing down one player so they aren't ruining it for all the other players. Because if another player is telling another how to play their character, they really just need to mind their own business, right? Forget the setting, forget any sense of a story, forget what the other players want. You as a player are entitled to a character and as long as its in the rules, you may as well play that and no silly GM is gonna stop you because rules.

Honestly, I find the exact opposite to be the case on the forums. A player can't say one word against their GM without having half a dozen posters leap down his throat screeching about "player entitlement" and how the ungrateful bastard should be licking his GM's feet in gratitude for being allowed to play the game at all.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And if the player simply says "Hey, that's not really my thing, but if you want to come up with something for me, I'm more than happy to let you."

It doesn't look like anybody else is going to say it, so I will.

I'd say, "We're not a good fit as gamers. I wish you the best of luck with your next group."

It should be obvious that this is a different guy than a guy who refuses out of a sense of player-entitlement, but the end result is the same (for me and my group; obviously YMDV): gamer breakup. I want players in my game that are engaged beyond the mechanics, and as a player, I want a GM who wants players that are engaged beyond the mechanics.

EDIT: And, BTW, unless I missed something, cirelose's entire point here was that he was attacked as being unreasonable for requiring players that are engaged beyond the mechanics. It was fascinating how people kept flipping it around so that he was portrayed as the one attacking how other people played the game, but that's not how it was.

LOL, sure there was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing on all sides, but ciretose handles this sort of thing well, and the main thread mostly just debated pretty civilly, I thought.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Handle it, hell I love it :)

Better it come at me who gives as well as he gets than someone else who might feel bad about it later.


ciretose wrote:

Handle it, hell I love it :)

Better it come at me who gives as well as he gets than someone else who might feel bad about it later.

Indeed. I enjoy a good debate. But there are so few good debaters.

I, of course, am a master debater.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose handles this sort of thing well

He really does. I genuinely don't understand it ... and am impressed. Around about the third time someone responded to literally the opposite of what I'd stated, I'd be saying things that would have my posts deleted by the admins. Patience truly is a virtue.


Jeff Wilder wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose handles this sort of thing well
He really does. I genuinely don't understand it ... and am impressed. Around about the third time someone responded to literally the opposite of what I'd stated, I'd be saying things that would have my posts deleted by the admins. Patience truly is a virtue.

It's at least in part because ciretose doesn't seem to assume that someone is intentionally misreading his intentions. That helps a lot.


so i can't call my highly anemic pajama wearing purple haired Samsaran wizard a sickly Yokai Magician specialized in the 5 controlling the 5 chinese elements? can i treat the purple silken pajamas as a reskinned silken ceremonial robe?

and i can't have said anemic purple haired magician take the leadership feat for a youthful tiefling magus cohort that she calls her devil familiar? and i can't call the dervish dancing tiefling cohort's 'scimitar' an oversized letter opener?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
It's at least in part because ciretose doesn't seem to assume that someone is intentionally misreading his intentions. That helps a lot.

Probably. That's not a help for me, because I actually get at least as annoyed by sheer dumbness. Back in law school, my partner and I would win our mock trials, but in literally 75 percent of them, her notes from the judge and jury would be things like, "Be more confident," and "Make eye contact." Mine would be, "Try to hide your contempt just a little better."


LOL Jeff... I seem to be some sort of hybrid cross of you and ciretose...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a civilized debate is handled. Thank you, ceritose, AD, and everyone else for contributing to the debate in a very respectful manner (except that one guy who had his post deleted).


shallowsoul wrote:

The main problem I see is the fact that unless the book tells you you have to come up with a reason, it does for PrC's, then people are going to argue that you don't have to, even though it is the nature of the game and has been for a long time.

Ignoring fluff all together is actually ignoring half the game itself.

Under and over the rules, is the fluff. The fluff is ever-changing. Each player and dm holds a slightly different fairy floss of the fluff, they may share in part, but they are not the same.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Oh, so you would be fine then with "I really don't have an explanation?"

If they then try to come up with one, yes.

But if they then say "I'm not really good at that, and not really interested in it. I just think a level of wizard would be cool."

What then?

Sorry to butt in but--I would ask myself as the GM --is wizardry something that someone could reasonably pick up in a game session on a whim. Or in this game world does it take years of practice , study and dedication to achieve the power that comes along with that. If I have a wizard character who has put in time and effort and backstory and this has added to the game and they have some objection on game world to this being a simple pick up option--then yes-I would need some justification. If the game world simply allows anyone to cast a spell --then no I wouldn't need a ton of justification. In my present game world where being a wizard is rare and takes a long time to make happen--then I'm going to have to rule in game--having told them that at the beginning that there are limitations of this nature--that they can't simply pick up a new skill set without some serious justification. Having said that--understand that that decision isnt made in a vacuum. They are not going to run into spell casters very often and when they do it is an especially tense encounter. But as with most things chacon son gout.


Rocketman, not sure how much of this thread you bothered to read, but we already covered the "it actually takes months or years to learn the basics required to become level 1 in the vast majority of classes" approach to this.

The discussion was restricted to the group allowing leveling in a new class to occur, but just providing some in-game explanation. The examples given in the thread were "I found a wizard spell book and have been studying it." Or "I've been practicing with weapons in my spare time."

If you really want to enforce the months or years it takes to learn the basic skills of any class and have your players role play it out, more power to you.

I suspect you won't have much multi-classing going on in your games though.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Rocketman, not sure how much of this thread you bothered to read, but we already covered the "it actually takes months or years to learn the basics required to become level 1 in the vast majority of classes" approach to this.

The discussion was restricted to the group allowing leveling in a new class to occur, but just providing some in-game explanation. The examples given in the thread were "I found a wizard spell book and have been studying it." Or "I've been practicing with weapons in my spare time."

If you really want to enforce the months or years it takes to learn the basic skills of any class and have your players role play it out, more power to you.

I suspect you won't have much multi-classing going on in your games though.

I actually use a different mechanic that works for my players--they can buy arcane casting as add on--with justification.

I also feel free to grant extra skill points for characters who take the time to learn things in game or get tutored by other classes of characters. The skill point award is something I can be flexible about--funny how a tome that grants a +1 to Knowledge Geography is something each character regardless of class is delighted to find. But they have to take the time (20 days -INT) to read and study it.

But I have had the question on occasion about multi-classing in other attempts to play--but as stated in other threads I run a lower magic /grittier version myself.


I don't think a desire to make sense, or have someone else make sense, is badwrongfun.

I think one of the examples from the other topic was something along the lines of a rogue wanting to multiclass as a wizard mid-dungeon crawl or something. No I would not allow that, but I would work with him to find a way to logically become a wizard later. Some of you would allow it, others would not. There is no right or wrong to it, it's all dependent on the group of people you are with. If I had the kind of players who would get pissed off at a ruling like that I A) probably wouldn't be playing he get that upset over a game and B) would probably change my opinion on multiclassing to suit the needs of my players and us all having fun.

Luckily I play with like-minded friends and none of them have an issue with needing some logical reasoning for multiclassing. Actually in the three games we have going on right now I have the only 2 characters who have or will be multiclassing. A Cleric of Pelor who became a radiant servant of Pelor via a side-quest involving ancient Pelorian relics. And my fighter who will be multiclassing as a Chevalier, which is a PrC that caters to the way I play my fighter already so not much of a stretch in the first place.

If you in a group that does require logical class progressions and you want to do an odd combo then I think the easiest way is to let your GM know ahead of time your game plan so you can begin thinking of a unique or interesting way to achieve your goal.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
My point all along has been that a player not coming up with a good "explanation" was not evidence of some sort of self-centered, rude and insensitive lout. Some players just don't get into that.

And not getting into that aspect is a valid reason to a point, but if they understood the expectation of that before they started playing, refusing to even attempt to meet it does tend to make that person look at least a little bit loutish. That isn't to say that the others are entirely free of making some movement toward his position, but there has to be some sort of compromise on that player's part as well.


I am not about player entitlment or GM supremacy. at least I dont think I am... i think when a game starts the DM lays out the basic concept and rules "okay guys in this world elves are like nazis that have enslaved other races so if you want to be an elf you need to work with me" "oh yeah and vital strike can be used with a full round action if you want"

"you will be starting has prisoners so be aware that this game will involve you and a underground resistance fighting to over throw the elves."

any questions?

besides that I feel like any other class option is on the table. I understand Citerose wanting it to make sense to HIM but that is not his role has a dm to have his players characters make sense. it is his job has a dm to incorprate his players design to make it fit in my opinion.I will say it is common courtesy to explain your classs choice. I will say that i have never ran across it being an issue either has a player or a DM.

I will give you an example. I played some vampire the masquerade game where we could see the evil creatures i wanted to play a masked luchador. now in my mind and in the movies form the 70's the luchador fight vampires all the time and it is no big deal. My dm did give me a funny look but he worked with me and and during the day I was a wwf star but at night a masked vigilante. not the most vampire orientated but it worked. until we actually fought vampires..... I decided to charge this vamp and try to wrestle him he pulled out a gun and shot me. my character spent 2 weeks in the hospital. after that I changed my tactics and started to carry a gun and lost the mask. I truly believe the mark of a great DM is to be able to incorporate any play style into his system. we have all had the adventure where we let we buddy play a Jedi

The same for Pathfinder if a character wants to be a bard with -9 cha then a paladin. you has a DM in my opinion should allow him to build a character this is his time to explore a character he wants to create and when he goes to smite evil he will be less effective but he will be having fun and that is the most important. the fun for the player not a complicated back story involving multiple aliases and a sick aunt who fed you do food.


Someone will likely denounce this as the "But... Dragons?" argument, but can I just ask:

What single class addition to a character is so incomprehensible that it completely disrupts the world where you just found a stick that can magically knit fatal wounds together inside the hole-in-nothing that the ogre you just killed with a ray from your finger was carrying?

I keep going through the list. I keep adding class to class. Gunslinger. That's it, and only because it's hard to re-skin. Asian flavored classes... maybe, and only because of flavor.


TOZ wrote:
Here you go.

D: You're a bad person. Even if you like Robot Chicken and Legos.

Liberty's Edge

The Crusader wrote:
What single class addition to a character is so incomprehensible that it completely disrupts the world

"Always"? Almost nothing. Maybe literally nothing.

"Very occasionally, depending on the situation in the game-world"? Lots of stuff.

You want a concrete example? The manifestation of a sorcerer level in a world where a BBEG just, last adventure, obliterated The Weave (or Mana, or whatever you wanna call it).

As a GM, it is entirely reasonable for me to disallow that. (It's also entirely reasonable for a player to work with me to find ways around it, even something fairly prosaic.) What's unreasonable is a player doing it anyway, "because the player owns the character."

351 to 400 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.