:)
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 think maybe this lies at the heart of it. Perhaps I am having a really hard time seeing how this thread has gotten so long if there is really nothing at play beyond the bare bones OP topic, because if there isn't then it seems like it just a really, really trivial topic on which to argue vociferously for either side.
Well, nothing at play besides that and the color of the drapes I guess.
For my own part I have played in games where the DM does demand justifications from players a la ciretose, and I have played in games where the DM does not. When I have DMed I fall into the latter camp but it's not like I take a hard line objection to either way of playing: if I played in Ciretose's game I would have no problem giving a brief narration of how I gain abilities when I level up (multiclassing or otherwise) and I hope that if he played in a game of mine he would have no problem with my not requiring such narrations from my own players upon level ups.
Sigh...saw this thread a few days ago. Wanted to reply but got busy. Now I have come back it is all one big love fest.
We'll always have OTD.
OTD?
Sigh...saw this thread a few days ago. Wanted to reply but got busy. Now I have come back it is all one big love fest.YOU SHUT YOUR CAKE HOLE!
Better?
But...I kinda agree with you more that the otherside. I mean if I have to put up and adapt to the time the accountants take to get their character's math perfect...and the obligatory combat to keep the hack n' slashers happy...could they you know actualy put up a little effort into RPing and immersion?
Thanks for the thought though.
It's not wrongbadfun, but it is badwrongfun. wrongbadfun isn't nearly as goodrightposting as badwrongfun. In fact, anyone who writes about wrongbadfun is badwrongposting. wrongbadfun is the One True form of goodrightposting.
It's not wrongbadfun, but it is badwrongfun. wrongbadfun isn't nearly as goodrightposting as badwrongfun. In fact, anyone who writes about wrongbadfun is badwrongposting. wrongbadfun is the One True form of goodrightposting.
That was a very useful and relevant bit of necromancy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not wrongbadfun, but it is badwrongfun. wrongbadfun isn't nearly as goodrightposting as badwrongfun. In fact, anyone who writes about wrongbadfun is badwrongposting. wrongbadfun is the One True form of goodrightposting.
Necroing is badwrongfun.
Seriously though, why the necro?
Necroing is badwrongfun.
Seriously though, why the necro?
Because if I started a new thread, people would complain that it was badwrongposting for not using the search feature and starting a thread on a topic which already had a thread.
Also, Raise Thread is a part of Thread Conjuration, not Thread Necromancy. This isn't AD&D. AD&D is badwrongfun.
Eh. badwrongfun too often comes across (at least in many of these discussions) more along the lines of "you aren't doing it "Right!" with right meaning "how I would do it" or "how the consensus of people I agree with would do it!"
I don't agree with many posters at times, but they aren't doing it wrong. They are doing it wrong for me. There's a difference there.