PDA

View Full Version : "Just Say it is the Case"



Tormsskull
2008-09-04, 01:44 PM
Hi all,

So I've noticed in various threads that people are giving the advice of "Just say that your character did that, had that experience, etc".

This often takes place in multi-classing scenarios (Example: "I want my Barbarian to take a level of wizard, but my DM said I would need to study for a while in game time, what should I do?" "Just say that your character was really interested in magic when he was younger, and his uncle who was a wizard would often stop by and show him how magic worked")

or knowledge of certain items (Example: "I really want a holy avenger for my paladin, but my DM said my character wouldn't even know what a holy avenger is. What should I do?" "Just say that your character had trained with a senior paladin who had a holy avenger and that's where he found out about it.")


As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory? So you have any restrictions placed on the PCs for when they craft their backstory, or the kind of knowledge that a player might try to claim that their character has.

Also, when you answer the above questions, explain if this would apply to newly created characters starting at level 1 or newly created characters starting at 3, 5, 10, 50, whatever. Thanks.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 02:03 PM
A lot of times even I don't know my character's full backstory, so saying he grew up in Waterdeep instead of Icewind Dale isn't a problem. The higher level the character, the easier it is to say something happened earlier, but it's not hard anyways. If you're an Evoker going into Elemental Savant, it's perfectly reasonable to say that the reason you're so interested in flames is because you had Salamanders in your fireplace as a child. Oftentimes, the RP requirements for a PrC would be impossible in certain campaigns, and ridiculously easy in others.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-04, 02:08 PM
In general, when my players do something, and I ask players "Why...?" I'm not trying to find a reason to disallow them that thing, but rather I'm trying to encourage them to flesh out their character.

I frequently game with people who are more interested in combat tactics than my story, so I use such underhanded methods to force them to come up with backstory. Usually it's some PoS like "My mentor used a Holy Avenger!" but at least he and I both now know that he had a mentor, and the mentor was reasonably powerful.

If I were in a more role-playing-interested group, I'd press them for more interesting details, but I still have no problem with allowing players to amend their backstories, as long as it adds flavor to the game. That last bit is the biggest part, though; if the backstory change doesn't enhance the game, and is blatantly for purely mechanical reasons, I'll use Rule 0 to disallow it and ask the player to re-compose the change in a more fulfilling manner.

only1doug
2008-09-04, 02:11 PM
I don't normally write huge amounts of backstory for my PCs but i have upon occasion (my "kid" character in WEG starwars had 5 pages of backstory, which meant i had a ready made replacement when he turned to the darkside and became the main antagonist). I also wrote a 3 page history of a item for WFRP (the GM had announced that we could swap fate points for magic items of our choice).

If i wanted to justify something then yes, i'd expand the characters backstory to explain it, but it would be a case of just say... I would write a decent story and that would then become part of the character sheet.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 02:12 PM
I do the same thing as TwystidMynd does, but I do it to myself. Gestalt Halfling Monk/Barbarian//Druid? One of my favorite characters, in part because he wore a bear pelt with the head still attached as pants. Bad*** short guys FTW. My new Malconvoker had my DM cracking up when I described her. I come up with epic backstories that fit the mechanics, and it works for me.

Krrth
2008-09-04, 02:15 PM
This is valid in most games, although you need to be careful. The barbarian would have a hard time justifing wizard, even with the explination, unless he also knew how to read.
As others have mentioned, when a player does this, it both helps and hurt them. They can get what they want, but the GM gets a story hook or plot device. Take the paladin for example. If the mentor had a Holy Avenger, then he was fairly powerful. Powerful enough that his enemies may want to kill or convert his protogee .....

Deepblue706
2008-09-04, 02:21 PM
Personally, I don't mind it when players fill in more details to their character's background as the game progresses. I don't think it's right to make all of my players have everything down about their character before play begins, and I don't really see the harm in cutting them some slack. Sometimes, it can even be rather interesting.

However, if it becomes habitual, I start to get a little restrictive. I pretty much always require some roleplaying when multiclassing after play has begun, although there is rarely any challenge involved. I just believe that if it's significant enough to change how your character operates, it deserves more mention in actual gameplay. I've always felt that once it all becomes about tweaking your sheet just right, the feeling of the game begins to weaken.

I pretty much enforce rolling for all Knowledge, unless it's absolutely vital for a PC to know about a specific thing for their character to work. Knowledge about a "cool weapon" is only permitted if they happen to want it because they like the idea of a "cool weapon" enough to explain to me why it's important, and not just on how they like the mechanics that come with having one.

nagora
2008-09-04, 02:54 PM
Hi all,

So I've noticed in various threads that people are giving the advice of "Just say that your character did that, had that experience, etc".

This often takes place in multi-classing scenarios (Example: "I want my Barbarian to take a level of wizard, but my DM said I would need to study for a while in game time, what should I do?" "Just say that your character was really interested in magic when he was younger, and his uncle who was a wizard would often stop by and show him how magic worked")
Congratulations, your Barbarian is now 30 years older and shunned by his/her tribe.


or knowledge of certain items (Example: "I really want a holy avenger for my paladin, but my DM said my character wouldn't even know what a holy avenger is. What should I do?" "Just say that your character had trained with a senior paladin who had a holy avenger and that's where he found out about it.")
You mean "THE Holy Avenger", in my campaign world. It's been lost for a couple of generations, so no, you didn't. Finding the whereabouts of the Holy Avenger is something that will mark your character out in legend, song, and history, not some glib backstory hackwork.


As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory? So you have any restrictions placed on the PCs for when they craft their backstory, or the kind of knowledge that a player might try to claim that their character has.
It has to: make sense within the gameworld - so no barbarian wizards or druid-paladins; be interesting in proportion to the extra power it gives the character; and come with all the logical costs such as extra aging due to training time or obligations such as knightly service etc.


Also, when you answer the above questions, explain if this would apply to newly created characters starting at level 1 or newly created characters starting at 3, 5, 10, 50, whatever. Thanks.
I don't usually allow characters to start above 1st. It never works out, IME. One of the core concepts in D&D is that you start off small and become big. So starting with lots of extras or lots of unplayed experience is really against the spirit of the game.

Things like the examples you gave are signs of oncoming munchkinism, IMO.

valadil
2008-09-04, 02:57 PM
I usually ask about those options ahead of time, rather than surprising my DM with a request to learn a wizard level.

However we can't always plan ahead like that. New books come out every month. Sometimes new material will be applicable for a character whose background was written too early.

In those cases I think the GM should try to let the story accommodate the player if possible.* There's no reason why a paladin can't go on a quest where the end reward is a holy avenger. It doesn't matter if he knows of holy avengers at the start of the quest or not.

* note that I'm coming from the background where the GM works with the players to create a story. If a player wants to quest for a special sword, meet a new organization, play politics with the king, all they have to do is ask and I'll incorporate it into the game if possible.

Thinker
2008-09-04, 03:27 PM
I am a very lenient DM. I approach the world as a sandbox and the characters are people living in that world. If a player wants their character to have something, I generally allow it. You could call it "story-light" since most characters that people have played don't have long backstories, most times not even half of a page.

I really don't care if a barbarian wants to pick up a level of wizard. He lives in a world of magic, its perfectly reasonable for him to know about magic and after gaining a level's worth of XP to know about at least one way to gain magical power. Learning as a child or learning on the fly doesn't matter to me.

I play with the purpose of fun, not the purpose of cooperative story-telling. This is not to say other playstyles are not fun, but that I simply prioritize it at the expense of other things.

Telonius
2008-09-04, 03:44 PM
I only have a few requirements, in no particular order.

It has to make sense in the context of the character. (No, your Paladin does not suddenly become a Frenzied Berserker for no apparent reason. But, if seeing his comrade fall in battle uncorks all of the righteous indignation that's been building up after a lifetime of repressed anger, then we might be able to work something out).
It has to make sense in the context of whichever game world we're playing. (No psychic dinosaur ninjas from outer space if we're playing in a generally European-style medieval setting. No knights in mithral fullplate if we're in outer space).
It has to be fun/interesting/cool.
It can't overshadow the other players.
It has to be allowable within the rules of D&D.

If it meets all of that, then go to town.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-04, 04:02 PM
Hi all,

So I've noticed in various threads that people are giving the advice of "Just say that your character did that, had that experience, etc".

This often takes place in multi-classing scenarios (Example: "I want my Barbarian to take a level of wizard, but my DM said I would need to study for a while in game time, what should I do?" "Just say that your character was really interested in magic when he was younger, and his uncle who was a wizard would often stop by and show him how magic worked")

or knowledge of certain items (Example: "I really want a holy avenger for my paladin, but my DM said my character wouldn't even know what a holy avenger is. What should I do?" "Just say that your character had trained with a senior paladin who had a holy avenger and that's where he found out about it.")


As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory? So you have any restrictions placed on the PCs for when they craft their backstory, or the kind of knowledge that a player might try to claim that their character has.

Also, when you answer the above questions, explain if this would apply to newly created characters starting at level 1 or newly created characters starting at 3, 5, 10, 50, whatever. Thanks.

There's not really a 1-to-1 connection between character class and what the character says is their adventuring specialty. If you want to be a sneaky monk, there's no reason you need to take a monk level to call yourself a Monk. Just plain vanilla rogue works fine (better, actually) or you could be a variant unarmed swordsage or even a ranger with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. There's no way to look at a character and tell what classes they've taken.

So when I see huge long strings of multiclassing characters, I think of it as actually fleshing out a character. If you're a Barbarian 1/Swashbuckler 1/Crusader 1/Duskblade 1/Warshaper 4 there's a story to explain that. The player just needs to develop their background along those lines. Character classes are more a set of abilities than they are packages of fluff in the 3.5 system; if they weren't, multiclassing would have been made much more difficult.

As far as "knowing" obscure lore, the existance of Knowledge skills leaves little excuse there. If you want your character to know something few others in the game world do, then you need to make the relevant knowledge check. Be sure and take enough ranks to make me believe that your character could know what you want him/her to know.

Tormsskull
2008-09-04, 05:17 PM
Hmmm, interesting but not unexpected. I personally have always played that any important details of a character's past needs to be in their character's background at the beginning of play. I also nearly always start campaigns at level 1, which to me represents a green character, one without a lot of exposure to the world.

Therefore I would not let a player add an important detail into their character's backstory simply so that they could obtain some kind of mechanical advantage (or knowledge, which in my games is very important).


There's not really a 1-to-1 connection between character class and what the character says is their adventuring specialty.

While I do not agree with this general assessment, I understand it for 3e. Personally I always viewed the multi-classing penalty / favored class system as something that was used to reign this idea in, but many players who see it the way you do ignore that rule.



If you want to be a sneaky monk, there's no reason you need to take a monk level to call yourself a Monk.


You can call yourself whatever you want, of course. But when I compare a 1st level fighter to a 1st level mage, their background/experiences are assumed to be radically different. If a player didn't write anything in their backstory about having some kind of predisposition towards arcane magic, I wouldn't allow them to simply take a level of wizard upon level up. I'd require a training period, mentor, etc.




So when I see huge long strings of multiclassing characters, I think of it as actually fleshing out a character.


I think of it as blah. Nothing specifically bad about the system here, only my preference.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-09-04, 05:40 PM
I guess I'm something of a hard-fisted DM, I take measures against this pre-emptively by laying out right at the start what I'm not going to allow. e.g, "there are no monks in this country, none of your characters know what one is or would have any way to find out, sorry but if you want to multiclass to monk you'll have to wait until the next game."

I think I'm pretty lucky because I have players who don't usually "set goals" at the start. i.e, capturing a Pegasus mount or finding a Holy Avenger. They play it by ear and take whatever comes up. That leaves me free to build a world I want, which may or may not have space for Pegasi and Holy Avengers.

(Uh, not that I don't ask my players what they want before we even do a campaign and try to work it in. I designed a civilized ogre kingdom and got a pretty good adventure idea out of it one time because I had a player who really, really wanted to be a Half-Ogre).

It also helps that I award my players XP if they write up a backstory and give it to me. It doesn't have to be much, depending on the starting level--for a 1st level PC, half a page would be fine, while three pages would be ideal for 3rd level, say.

Starsinger
2008-09-04, 05:54 PM
"there are no monks in this country, none of your characters know what one is or would have any way to find out, sorry but if you want to multiclass to monk you'll have to wait until the next game."


Damn. An entire country where there's no one who knows how to effectively punch someone in the face. See, this is why I prefer to look at clases as a bundle of abilities instead of tying fluff to a class.

Stupendous_Man
2008-09-04, 05:57 PM
Damn. An entire country where there's no one who knows how to effectively punch someone in the face. See, this is why I prefer to look at clases as a bundle of abilities instead of tying fluff to a class.

he never said improved unarmed strike was banned

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-04, 06:01 PM
Hmmm, interesting but not unexpected. I personally have always played that any important details of a character's past needs to be in their character's background at the beginning of play. I also nearly always start campaigns at level 1, which to me represents a green character, one without a lot of exposure to the world.

Therefore I would not let a player add an important detail into their character's backstory simply so that they could obtain some kind of mechanical advantage (or knowledge, which in my games is very important).

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this. While I don't like players revising their history after the game has begun it's sometimes hard to keep that seperate from developing their character. Some players write almost nothing about their characters to start and let the game experience and game world shape their characters pasts. I'm not prepared to say that's a wrong way to play, and sometimes it even results in a character that fits in better. Your mileage will vary.


While I do not agree with this general assessment, I understand it for 3e. Personally I always viewed the multi-classing penalty / favored class system as something that was used to reign this idea in, but many players who see it the way you do ignore that rule.

The Favored Class system is sooooo broken though. Elves have a favored class of wizard but are giving racial feats that suggest they're rangers? Not to mention the fact that I can walk all around multiclass XP penalties by only taking 1 or 2 levels of each base class and jumping into PrC's ASAP pretty much invalidates the whole penalty concept. Not that it made much sense in the first place.

It makes much more sense to ignore the class labels and look at what a character is able to actually *do.* Can they do a lot of unarmed damage? Then this character is Shaolin monk-like. If it uses a big freakin' sword and wears lots of metal armor, people will assume the character is a fighter regardless of the class actually being Paladin, Barbarian, Crusader or Warblade. If the character wears cloth and carries a staff, how is one to tell if it's a wizard or a monk until a spell is cast or a punch is thrown?


You can call yourself whatever you want, of course. But when I compare a 1st level fighter to a 1st level mage, their background/experiences are assumed to be radically different. If a player didn't write anything in their backstory about having some kind of predisposition towards arcane magic, I wouldn't allow them to simply take a level of wizard upon level up. I'd require a training period, mentor, etc.

Not necessarily. Wizards don't always have to be scholarly types who live in towers and read endless numbers of books. You could be a savage tribal wizard, tattooing your spellbook onto your own body and performing arcane experiments on the bodies of your tribes foes. Until I cast a Shocking Grasp spell, how do you tell the crazy tatoo'ed wizard from the 15 or so other equally colorful barbarians?

You could be a smart fighter (like Roy) who studies tactics at a University and knows history and the fine points of combat. Without his armor, he'll be just as eloquent and knowledgeable as your garden variety wizard and his background will be very similar to one.

You don't have to let class defined stereotypes guide how you build your character. But on the other hand it's simple personal preference if you choose not to. As long as the players and the DM generate characters so everyone has fun it makes no difference.


I think of it as blah. Nothing specifically bad about the system here, only my preference.

I like playing optimized (NOTE: Not theoretical optimized. No one plays Pun-Pun or Omnisifier and has fun) characters. It doesn't make me a bad roleplayer. I'd like to think it makes me a better one, but that's not true. In truth how you build your character and how you roleplay your character has almost nothing to do with each other. Play the way you prefer, but keep in mind that there are people out there that have a totally opposite perspective from yours on how classes should work, and you're both equally right about them.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-09-04, 06:17 PM
Damn. An entire country where there's no one who knows how to effectively punch someone in the face. See, this is why I prefer to look at clases as a bundle of abilities instead of tying fluff to a class.Did you just imply that the monk was effective at something?

On a more serious note, you can't, or at least shouldn't, write down the complete, detailed minutia of every minute of your character's life in your backstory. It would kill your hands, your mind, and your DM's mind. If the Holy Avenger is a famous item, the Paladin doesn't need to have an excuse in his backstory as to why he knows it - he knows it because any Paladin with his head screwed on straight (all two of them) knows what it is. Finding it is a different story.

As for the example of the barbarian with the wizard uncle, it again depends on the setting and the character's specific background. If he was just a bit of a wild child who grew to love hitting people with large weapons while screaming bloody murder, he could easily have a wizardly relative who attempted to show him a different path years ago, and it might not even have been worth mentioning in the original backstory. If he was a part of a wild tribe, then it probably requires a more fleshed-out explanation, but obtaining that explanation is usually a good thing.

Starsinger
2008-09-04, 06:22 PM
Did you just imply that the monk was effective at something?

Now let's not be silly. A level dip or two in monk is good if you want to fight unarmed.

Worira
2008-09-04, 06:25 PM
You mean "THE Holy Avenger", in my campaign world. It's been lost for a couple of generations, so no, you didn't. Finding the whereabouts of the Holy Avenger is something that will mark your character out in legend, song, and history, not some glib backstory hackwork.


That's really not relevant here, since the character in question isn't in your campaign world. The default assumption of DnD is that Holy Avengers can be made by 18th level clerics (or 17th level with the Good domain). In my (hypothetical) campaign world, only 10 cubic feet of adamantine exists, but that doesn't mean I should go into a topic and criticize someone for playing a character who wants an adamantine greataxe.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-09-04, 06:35 PM
Damn. An entire country where there's no one who knows how to effectively punch someone in the face. See, this is why I prefer to look at clases as a bundle of abilities instead of tying fluff to a class.

The problem with the monk class (and one of the reasons I don't like it) is that it's very hard to divorce the fluff from the abilities. I mean, if you want to play a pugilist that's fine, but that doesn't explain stuff like Diamond Body and becoming an Extraplanar Being.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 06:50 PM
The problem with the monk class (and one of the reasons I don't like it) is that it's very hard to divorce the fluff from the abilities. I mean, if you want to play a pugilist that's fine, but that doesn't explain stuff like Diamond Body and becoming an Extraplanar Being.That's why you only take 2 levels, or 6 if you're desperate. The "abilities" don't start till after that.

Mewtarthio
2008-09-04, 07:36 PM
The problem with the monk class (and one of the reasons I don't like it) is that it's very hard to divorce the fluff from the abilities. I mean, if you want to play a pugilist that's fine, but that doesn't explain stuff like Diamond Body and becoming an Extraplanar Being.

You can punch things so hard, that you beat the crap out of age, disease, and the like.

Tormsskull
2008-09-04, 07:47 PM
I'm not prepared to say that's a wrong way to play, and sometimes it even results in a character that fits in better. Your mileage will vary.


Obviously not, we're talking about preferences here. Regardless of what someone's preference is, it doesn't make it wrong.




The Favored Class system is sooooo broken though. Elves have a favored class of wizard but are giving racial feats that suggest they're rangers? Not to mention the fact that I can walk all around multiclass XP penalties by only taking 1 or 2 levels of each base class and jumping into PrC's ASAP pretty much invalidates the whole penalty concept. Not that it made much sense in the first place.


When you say that elves get racial feats that suggest that they are rangers, you are saying that they optimize well as a ranger class? Or something else?

As far as avoiding the multi-class penalty, I'm sure it is possible, it just seems that most of the time when players make a 'build' with a variety of classes in it, they disregard the rule. That made me assume that they often would be affected by the rule.



It makes much more sense to ignore the class labels and look at what a character is able to actually *do.*


Again, a preference, but I don't like to do that. I like to read the description of the class, which explains to me how that class is. I think only looking at the mechanics often ends in "huh, what?" moments.




Not necessarily. Wizards don't always have to be scholarly types who live in towers and read endless numbers of books. You could be a savage tribal wizard, tattooing your spellbook onto your own body and performing arcane experiments on the bodies of your tribes foes. Until I cast a Shocking Grasp spell, how do you tell the crazy tatoo'ed wizard from the 15 or so other equally colorful barbarians?


That depends on who you ask. Some people like to play that mechanics are interpreted in character. So if an enemy has low hit points, then they will actually appear so to a character. If your spellbook is tattooed on your body, then another spell caster might be able to determine that it is a spellbook with a spellcraft or knowledge arcana check in 3e.



You could be a smart fighter (like Roy) who studies tactics at a University and knows history and the fine points of combat. Without his armor, he'll be just as eloquent and knowledgeable as your garden variety wizard and his background will be very similar to one.


I'd disagree. Being smart is something two people are likely to share, but two people of separate classes will likely have a lot of characteristics/knowledge that separates them.



As long as the players and the DM generate characters so everyone has fun it makes no difference.


100% Agree.




I like playing optimized (NOTE: Not theoretical optimized. No one plays Pun-Pun or Omnisifier and has fun) characters. It doesn't make me a bad roleplayer.


I think you're shadow-boxing here.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-09-04, 11:44 PM
As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory? So you have any restrictions placed on the PCs for when they craft their backstory, or the kind of knowledge that a player might try to claim that their character has.

Also, when you answer the above questions, explain if this would apply to newly created characters starting at level 1 or newly created characters starting at 3, 5, 10, 50, whatever. Thanks.

I think, as always, it comes down to the roleplaying. I have, myself, played a character who would remember stories told to him about his uncle when I needed to bring player knowledge to the character. Eventually, we started meeting people who had met my uncle in his previous travels. I never used it for stuff like, "Oh Uncle Featherfoot always said you could be a troll with acid," but if you could put it in a neat fairy-tale rhyme, then we're talking.

So as a DM, I almost wish people would add to their backstories randomly, not only during character creation but during play as well. My primary rule is this:

"If the players can do it, then so can I."

And that rule applies to bad guys and players as well. So if a character adds a detail to his character, which I think is only for metagaming purposes, then I'm okay with that story detail coming back to bite him in the posterior once or twice. It actually often ends up making the world more vibrant, and in future games, the players tend to be much more interested in their backstories as roleplaying tools than as character building excuses.

TSGames
2008-09-05, 12:28 AM
As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory? So you have any restrictions placed on the PCs for when they craft their backstory, or the kind of knowledge that a player might try to claim that their character has.

Also, when you answer the above questions, explain if this would apply to newly created characters starting at level 1 or newly created characters starting at 3, 5, 10, 50, whatever. Thanks.

Why not? Unless they're a khobold. F$%&ing Khobolds

ghost_warlock
2008-09-05, 12:28 AM
@OP

When I'm DMing I try to get a general feel for the character's backgrounds and get them to put together a rough idea of how they want to progress the character with regards to feats, skills, PrCs, and character development (like, are they hoping to play through an alignment shift later or do they have certain goals for the character such as "king by his own hand" stuff).

Unfortunately, I find that I'm more-and-more playing with players who like to "just wing it." This grates my nerves because I'm the type of player who'll submit a 5-20 page character bio (depending on starting level), complete with NPC names, suggested plot hooks for the character, and a tentative advancement progression (with the understanding that new material may result in some changes). Also, "wing it" players tend to desire more retcon-ish things for their characters like you're describing.

Generally, I'm willing to allow a certain degree of "just say..." so long as it makes sense for what I already know of the character and what's said could actually happen/make mechanical sense in the game world (saying, as a 1st-level character, that the character single-handedly killed an mind flayer is just dumb).

I tend to lose my patience with a player/character that needs retroactive "just say..." frequently.

Higher level characters tend to have more leeway with their backstories since, really, all of the character background is "just say..." information. My major source of annoyance comes in when the background needs to change or requires major additions.

Bassetking
2008-09-05, 01:06 AM
You can punch things so hard, that you beat the crap out of age, disease, and the like.
I have actually played a monk based around this concept...

Kinda like an Orcish Jack LaLanne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne).

nagora
2008-09-05, 03:51 AM
That's really not relevant here, since the character in question isn't in your campaign world. The default assumption of DnD is that Holy Avengers can be made by 18th level clerics (or 17th level with the Good domain). In my (hypothetical) campaign world, only 10 cubic feet of adamantine exists, but that doesn't mean I should go into a topic and criticize someone for playing a character who wants an adamantine greataxe.
The point was that players don't get to make up background information without clearing it with me, the DM, especially if the backstory is, as in the example, dull as ditch water, and assumes something about the background.

As to editions of D&D that assume magic items of that power can be churned out by mere NPCs - you can keep them. It's a small step from rubbish like that to buying magic swords in shops, at which point the game might as well be about accountants.

Knaight
2008-09-05, 08:11 AM
Well yes. That said sometimes the players want to advance a character a certain way, and just don't write it down, with only a loose idea of the background. For instance I had a character who was an arrogant, condescending person who always assumed people would fail, and was incredibly harsh on mistakes, and who had traveled the world because whenever he settled someone would inevitably screw things up. The idea was that he would come to trust in his companions, and become less arrogant and condescending. That said, it made sense for him to have quite a few abilities, since he refused help because he assumed he could do everything better than everyone he met, even though in many cases he couldn't. So for instance one combat trick had the justification of it coming to him when he was rushed by a goat because:

"That idiot goat herd apparently didn't understand the concept of goats running fast with horns, and put some flimsy gate up. At some point they got scared, probably due to his idiocy, and one rushed right through the gate at me. So I used my sling as a weighted rope, sort of like a man I saw a few countries ago, although without breaking any expensive objects, slung it around the goats feet, grabbed the other end, twisted it, and yanked, pulling the goat to the ground. Of course some of the others escaped, and I left the city, seeing as nobody involved with the goats had decided to reinforce the gate, and I didn't want to risk death again to those incompetents. Not that the people in the next city were much better. I had to build my own house there because about three days after I got there there was a minor earthquake and about half the city fell down, so clearly nobody knew how to build there. Then some kids sabotaged it any my house fell down"

This was justification for using a sling to try and trip three guards. It failed, because they stepped over the sling, except for one of them. And it was typical of the character, he could have fixed up that gate at any time, and it was mostly bad luck, and a minor mistake. And of course I cleared it with the GM. Oh and as for the house, it was horribly built, and the collapse was inevitable, not that the character would admit it.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-05, 09:33 AM
The point was that players don't get to make up background information without clearing it with me, the DM, especially if the backstory is, as in the example, dull as ditch water, and assumes something about the background.

Yeah, because the poster was obviously posting a full backstory and not just a quick concept to give an example. And how did you know that the player was just making stuff up about the backstory? Looking at it from 3.5 RAW, nothing looks out of place, so the only thing it violates is your specific campaign world. Sorry, I didn't realize it was illegal to play DnD in a different way than you.



As to editions of D&D that assume magic items of that power can be churned out by mere NPCs - you can keep them. It's a small step from rubbish like that to buying magic swords in shops, at which point the game might as well be about accountants.

So, why again is this relavent? Your way is not the only way to play the game. Some worlds are simply High Magic, and in those worlds this might not be out of place. And why is the idea of someone selling a magic item so abhorrent? How is it different from say, a computer or a luxury car?

nagora
2008-09-05, 10:52 AM
Yeah, because the poster was obviously posting a full backstory and not just a quick concept to give an example. And how did you know that the player was just making stuff up about the backstory? Looking at it from 3.5 RAW, nothing looks out of place, so the only thing it violates is your specific campaign world. Sorry, I didn't realize it was illegal to play DnD in a different way than you.
The OP asked for responses and gave examples; I gave my responses to those examples and then generalised about the reasons. Sorry if you don't like it.


So, why again is this relavent? Your way is not the only way to play the game. Some worlds are simply High Magic, and in those worlds this might not be out of place. And why is the idea of someone selling a magic item so abhorrent? How is it different from say, a computer or a luxury car?
That's exactly my point: it makes it no different. I don't want to play in or run worlds where magic is mundane as it defeats the object of adventuring. I prefer a bit of escapism in my fantasy roleplaying, not just the real world with the names changed.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-05, 10:58 AM
When you say that elves get racial feats that suggest that they are rangers, you are saying that they optimize well as a ranger class? Or something else?

I'm saying that it makes no sense for elves to have wizard be their favored class considering all the natural friendly fluff and mechanics they have. Moreover, the favored class system is broken. It doesn't take into account classes outside of core unless a race and a class happen to appear in the same book.

It should have been much more general, like halflings should have favored class: stealth/skillmonkey or half-orcs had favored class: tank/heavy melee. That would be something you could work with, rather than have to work around.



As far as avoiding the multi-class penalty, I'm sure it is possible, it just seems that most of the time when players make a 'build' with a variety of classes in it, they disregard the rule. That made me assume that they often would be affected by the rule.

Well, there really is no reason to disregard the multiclass rule as it stands. Like I said before it's an easy system to work around, and if you don't it's sloppy optimization. Just avoid taking too many base class levels of the same class and use Prestige classes whenever possible. Simple, really.


Again, a preference, but I don't like to do that. I like to read the description of the class, which explains to me how that class is. I think only looking at the mechanics often ends in "huh, what?" moments.

And I'm the reverse. The mechanics of the class are what interests me because the fluff is endlessly mutable and can be made to fit whatever campaign scenario I need.


That depends on who you ask. Some people like to play that mechanics are interpreted in character. So if an enemy has low hit points, then they will actually appear so to a character. If your spellbook is tattooed on your body, then another spell caster might be able to determine that it is a spellbook with a spellcraft or knowledge arcana check in 3e.

You'd need to cast read magic on yourself in the middle of the battle. Not impossible, but why would you assume there's a spellcaster in the group of barbarians? In any case, the point is that the wizard is nearly the same in history, personality and appearance as the barbarian/fighters he's with.


I'd disagree. Being smart is something two people are likely to share, but two people of separate classes will likely have a lot of characteristics/knowledge that separates them.

And I insist that it's a lot more complicated than that. You can build a character to behave and appear in whatever way you want, irregardless of their actual class. If you want a Fighter that acts and appears in all ways to be a Wizard, (or vice versa) you can make that your character design. The fluff is ever-mutable, and that's why it's fluff. The crunch can be altogether invisible to the PC's and NPC's.

If you want to play your world so that the crunch is somewhat translucent, that's a design choice you make as a DM. I wouldn't do it, because then when a player brings a huge multiclass mishmash of classes to the table, it's going to throw your campaign through a loop, since people in your world used to seeing single base classes now see a Half-Giant/Half-Dragon Barbarian 1/Dragonfire Adept 3/Platinum Knight 4 and have no idea what he is.

Tormsskull
2008-09-05, 11:40 AM
I'm saying that it makes no sense for elves to have wizard be their favored class considering all the natural friendly fluff and mechanics they have.


You say that their mechanics suggest that a different class would be more optimal for a player to pick if they wanted to be an elf, which means their favored class doesn't make sense. Is that correct?



Moreover, the favored class system is broken. It doesn't take into account classes outside of core unless a race and a class happen to appear in the same book.


Hmm, I don't see how so. Splat book classes are generally viewed as being far more rare than the core classes. In most cases it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for a whole race to be predispositioned to Shadow Mage of Ultimate Time Control and Destruction class.



It should have been much more general, like halflings should have favored class: stealth/skillmonkey or half-orcs had favored class: tank/heavy melee. That would be something you could work with, rather than have to work around.


To each their own, of course. I saw it as more of a way to limit the crazy combos you could come up with.



Well, there really is no reason to disregard the multiclass rule as it stands. Like I said before it's an easy system to work around, and if you don't it's sloppy optimization. Just avoid taking too many base class levels of the same class and use Prestige classes whenever possible. Simple, really.


Sure, but it still hinders you sometimes. If you see an ability here in this class you want to snag, and then an ability there, oh wait, another one over there, etc, etc. It also kind of pushes you towards a Favored Class: Any race.



And I'm the reverse. The mechanics of the class are what interests me because the fluff is endlessly mutable and can be made to fit whatever campaign scenario I need.


Mechanics are mutable as well. It even specifically says so on page 110 of the PHB.



You'd need to cast read magic on yourself in the middle of the battle.


I could be wrong, but wouldn't read magic only be necessary if you wanted to know the actual spells that were tattooed there? Recognizing arcane writings could be done with Knowledge Arcana (page 78 of the PHB states 'Arcane Symbols' as one of items you're knowledgable about).



And I insist that it's a lot more complicated than that. You can build a character to behave and appear in whatever way you want, irregardless of their actual class. If you want a Fighter that acts and appears in all ways to be a Wizard, (or vice versa) you can make that your character design. The fluff is ever-mutable, and that's why it's fluff. The crunch can be altogether invisible to the PC's and NPC's.


I think this simply leads to really odd conclusions. One character spent 30 years studying in an arcane university, where he learned how to cast spells. This is represented mechanically by his class, Wizard level 1. Perhaps he also has Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft.

If a Fighter level 1 wants to have the same kind of background (I studied magic for 10 years before realizing it wasn't for me, so I left and became incredibly skilled with weapons and armor instead), he should have something mechanically to explain it.

So he can act how he wants, within reason, but when questions start to arise about arcane magic or theories, he won't know. When there the group finds a scroll on the ground, he won't be able to use it or know what it is.

Which means his background is irrelavant, which is a pretty good sign that he has a poor background.



If you want to play your world so that the crunch is somewhat translucent, that's a design choice you make as a DM.


I'm not sure what you mean by translucent. Characters see through the mechanics, or?



I wouldn't do it, because then when a player brings a huge multiclass mishmash of classes to the table, it's going to throw your campaign through a loop, since people in your world used to seeing single base classes now see a Half-Giant/Half-Dragon Barbarian 1/Dragonfire Adept 3/Platinum Knight 4 and have no idea what he is.

Honestly, this character would never make it into a campaign of mine.

Akimbo
2008-09-05, 12:10 PM
You say that their mechanics suggest that a different class would be more optimal for a player to pick if they wanted to be an elf, which means their favored class doesn't make sense. Is that correct?

I know you ask these questions over and over again because you can't believe that anyone who disagrees with you isn't solely concerned with optimization, but no.

He is saying: Elves all have profeciency with bows and swords, and live in the woods in trees, and shoot their most hated enemy, Orcs, in the face with arrows, and are really good at fighting Orcs. That sounds a lot more like a Ranger then a Wizard to me. Heck, it even has allusions to Ranger class features.

Personally, I hate all that favored class crap because it makes no sense to me that races would inherently learn profession X faster. It should just be that whatever you take your first level in is your favored class, since that's the one you were raised for.

I'm sure in little elf school some of them learned bowcraft better then spells, and in Orc school, some of them really like praying and rituals more then face smashing.

Hmm, I don't see how so. Splat book classes are generally viewed as being far more rare than the core classes. In most cases it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for a whole race to be predispositioned to Shadow Mage of Ultimate Time Control and Destruction class.


I'm not sure what you mean by translucent. Characters see through the mechanics, or?

I'm pretty sure he means that if you look at some guy with a spiked chain, you have no way of knowing if he's a Fighter 20 or a Ranger 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Knight 2/Paladin 2/Exotic Weapons Master 5/Kensai 7.

Since both those people hit people in the face hard.


Honestly, this character would never make it into a campaign of mine.

Of course not. You would much sooner ban a sensible, awesome, themed character who perfectly fits an archetype just because the multiclassed.

DeathQuaker
2008-09-05, 12:24 PM
I generally ask my players for relatively detailed backstories, so we have them at the start. If they say something later on in the game like, "Okay, so since we already established that my character spent some time in Adventurer City, can I put some Knowledge: Local points in when I level up?" THAT I have no problem with. If it already makes sense for the character to do or have done, sure, it can be "the case."

If, however, a player who is playing a Barbarian from a magic-hating culture says, "Okay, my next level is going to be a wizard," he damn well better be reading arcane theory books double time during gameplay, or I'm not going to allow it. And to answer the main OP question, no, I wouldn't allow the player to suddenly dramatically revise his backstory to, in this specific example, make his culture a magic-loving one instead. Minor alterations are one thing ("Hey, I realized this concept doesn't quite work so can we make this little change here?") but sudden upheaval like rewrites aren't really the tone I want to set.

And related to that, I generally do advise my players to think ahead of time what multiclasses or prestige classes they might take, or what skills they want to learn, so they can make sure it's either appropriate to their concept or can roleplay out their training as the game progresses. This training in character should be a viable option--it just shouldn't come out of nowhere.

Frex, when my one player knew he wanted to eventually take Shadowdancer, early on he started saying, "While we're at the library, I want to find any books I can on the Shadow Plane," and "Since we've got some Priests of the God of Shadows here, I want to tell them I've heard of people who can jump through shadows and see if they can tell me more about that." This led to a cool character sidestory where he went through some training and a rite of passage to take his Prestige Class--and I managed to time it so he hit this part around the time he was able to level into the class. He enjoyed doing this and how it helped him develop his character's story, more than just randomly taking the class would. (And I tied important NPCs in his sidequest to other PCs in other ways, so everyone had something to do while he was training.)

Knaight
2008-09-05, 01:01 PM
That's exactly my point: it makes it no different. I don't want to play in or run worlds where magic is mundane as it defeats the object of adventuring. I prefer a bit of escapism in my fantasy roleplaying, not just the real world with the names changed.

Wait what? It doesn't defeat the point of adventuring at all. It defeats the point of magic, since mundane magic should be an oxymoron, but not adventuring. Loot and fame is still there. Escapism doesn't change either, seeing as escapism works just fine in modern games. Unless you actually are a CIA agent by trade or something. Though the secret service is more fun(except for the American secret service or the Australian secret service. Think about the acronyms, and think about just how scary you would be if you flashed a badge, and ending your name with something like that.

Jayabalard
2008-09-05, 01:01 PM
As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory? Anything important in your backstory should be there in from the start, so any re-writing of your background would be a RetCon, and is not allowed unless everyone agrees, which is very very very rare.


So you have any restrictions placed on the PCs for when they craft their backstory, or the kind of knowledge that a player might try to claim that their character has.It has to fit with the game world; I reserve the right to veto anything that is wildly out of place, and we allow the group as a whole to veto pretty much anything.

Knaight
2008-09-05, 01:12 PM
That said minor details aren't such a problem. For instance an uncle who visited every so often doesn't need mentioning, your favorite childhood uncle and role model, or senior paladin trainer, then yes that should be in a back story already. The fact that one of your friends knew how to cook, and had a tendency to poison on the side, and taught you a few underhanded tricks about poisoning people, doesn't need to be in some cases.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-05, 02:42 PM
I think this simply leads to really odd conclusions. One character spent 30 years studying in an arcane university, where he learned how to cast spells. This is represented mechanically by his class, Wizard level 1. Perhaps he also has Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft.

If a Fighter level 1 wants to have the same kind of background (I studied magic for 10 years before realizing it wasn't for me, so I left and became incredibly skilled with weapons and armor instead), he should have something mechanically to explain it.

So he can act how he wants, within reason, but when questions start to arise about arcane magic or theories, he won't know. When there the group finds a scroll on the ground, he won't be able to use it or know what it is.

Which means his background is irrelavant, which is a pretty good sign that he has a poor background.

Uhh.. the solution to this is to take cross class ranks in Knowledge: Arcana, Use Magic Device or Spellcraft. I'm pretty sure that's what those skills are for.


I'm not sure what you mean by translucent. Characters see through the mechanics, or?

I mean translucent mechanics (aka crunch) as opposed to a transparent ideal. If you made the mechanics totally opaque then you'd have a 4th wall busting world like:

"Greetings, Kevin the Fighter 5/Barbarian 2. Congratulations on your gaining your level yesterday."

"Thanks, I though I would never make it through that last encounter. The CR on that demon was way too high compared to the Encounter Level. Thank my Player he bought the DM a Mountain Dew for a reroll on my fort save or I would have been toast!"

"That was a great save though, the way our cleric held his charge and took a 5-foot step right into the demons threatened area so he could deliver a heal to you without provoking an attack of opportunity. Did you remember to give him the split of party loot?"

"I was on my way to do that right now. See ya in the next session!"

There's nothing wrong with playing with the mechanics more visable to your characters, it just tends to be less immersive for some players.


Honestly, this character would never make it into a campaign of mine.

This is what I was afraid of when you accused me of shadow-boxing earlier. It's the Stormwind Fallacy. Optimization doesn't mean the character can't be roleplayed well. If you tell me why it is you feel that such a character shouldn't exist or be allowed, we can get to the real heart of this matter.

Totally Guy
2008-09-05, 02:50 PM
I thought ret-conning the backstory was standard practice. Nobody knows the entire character until they start playing, then, in the case of the homebrewed settings the character can retroactivly fit into the world. Say one of the pc's is a war veteran, which war? I don't know which war, the player doesn't either. We've got to cooperate to fill in these details but I've got 3 other players that would like to play a game on this day so the player and myself will work it out another day but until then it's know as an undetermined war in the East.

Anyway, if I was looking at the multiclassing situation then I'd probably ask to barbarian to consider Sorceror instead as it fits fluff, as a compromise. If the player has specific needs for wizard mechanics I would allow it by re-fluffing the wizard level with the fluff of a sorceror level. It's fun.

skywalker
2008-09-05, 02:58 PM
I haven't read even a tenth of this thread, just dropping into say, as DM, you should say "yes" as often as possible.

Sometimes, this results in Monty Haul/insert-other-pejorative-here type games.

I see D&D as writing a story together. With that in mind, I don't think we should focus too much on writing something that came before. Even real authors have to sometimes go back and add something fairly major into someone's backstory.

Hzurr
2008-09-05, 03:49 PM
Yay for telling people their opinions are wrong!!!


On a side note, things like favored class and the elf woods/wizards thing have been recognized issues for a while. That's why they changed it in 4E

Also...if your method for doing background with your players is fun for everyone involved, don't change it. Seriously, that's all there is to it. If it's working, and you're having fun, don't change it. If it's not, do change it.

Yay!!!!

Jayabalard
2008-09-05, 04:01 PM
And I'm the reverse. The mechanics of the class are what interests me because the fluff is endlessly mutable and can be made to fit whatever campaign scenario I need.The fluff and the mechanics are equally mutable.


So, why again is this relavent? Your way is not the only way to play the game. In general, the statement "you can keep them" is a declaration of personal preference, nothing more, so it seems pretty obvious to me that that's not what he's claiming.


There's I find nothing wrong with playing with the mechanics more visable to your characters, it just tends to be less immersive for some players.Fixed. You don't have a problem with it; many people find it extremely distasteful. Whether there's anything wrong with it or not is strictly a matter of personal taste.


I haven't read even a tenth of this thread, just dropping into say, as DM, you should say "yes" as often as possible. It's always possible to say yes; I far prefer saying "yes" as often as reasonable.

I'm not going to throw out something defining to the the setting because someone wants to play something that just doesn't fit.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-05, 04:25 PM
The fluff and the mechanics are equally mutable.

Yeah, but it's more work to change the crunch. The fluff is meant to be changed. I'm aware the crunch is changable, I just meant to stress that the fluff is changable. Apologies if I didn't convey that.


Fixed. You don't have a problem with it; many people find it extremely distasteful. Whether there's anything wrong with it or not is strictly a matter of personal taste.

I think any way you play D&D that results in fun for all involved can't be wrong. If you have, for example, a group that plays their characters like autistic emotionless killing machines and always has a blast doing it then keep that up. There is a lot more to D&D of course and some tastes, as you say, will be different.

Knaight
2008-09-05, 04:26 PM
The fluff is far more easily mutable, at least in D&D. You still have to futz around with the level structure, as well as preventing spotlight hogging a-la worst way to do a wizard. Fluff is much easier, assuming that they aren't totally screwing with a setting. And in the barbarian case said uncle could have been an ambassador, who learned about magic on a trip, and practiced it in secret. And there is nothing inherently wrong with making the mechanics open. Its not like it hurts anyone, although in my opinion there is no faster way to suck the fun out of the game. Except for switching to FATAL.

Jayabalard
2008-09-05, 04:51 PM
Yeah, but it's more work to change the crunch. The fluff is meant to be changed. I'm aware the crunch is changable, I just meant to stress that the fluff is changable. Apologies if I didn't convey that.That's precisely what I'm disagreeing with; equally mutable means just as difficult to change one as the other.


I think any way you play D&D that results in fun for all involved can't be wrong. I disagree; but I'll agree that it's your right to enjoy it even if you're doing it wrong. Unless the way that you're doing it wrong involves real human sacrifice, or anything else illegal, then it's not your right to do it that way, no matter how much you enjoy it.


The fluff is far more easily mutable, at least in D&D. Not so; they both involve nothing more than a decision to change them. If you have more problem changing one over the other, that's a personal problem.

Some people like might disagree, and say that the crunch (roleplaying) is much harder to change than the fluff (rules/mechanics).

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-05, 05:08 PM
That's precisely what I'm disagreeing with; equally mutable means just as difficult to change one as the other.

Hmm.. I don't see what you mean. Are you saying that it's as easy to completely refluff a class to a new campaign setting as it is to change all of a particular classes mechanics from the ground up to agree with the rest of the 3.5 system?

Because I don't get that. One is a lot harder than the other and doesn't require you to check with all the errata, updates, and splatbooks out there to make sure you didn't open up another Pun-Pun rules vulnerability. :smallconfused:

Is there something I'm missing somehow?

Edit: I think I get it. We're using different definitions of fluff and crunch. I'm using crunch meaning mechanics, and you're using crunch as in roleplaying. The fluff I mean is the theming elements and decriptions in a classes entry, whereas you mean the entire class entry taken as a whole mechanics and all.

So umm.. now I have no idea what we're arguing over. Let's agree that you win. I yield you victory this day, but the Red Baron will have revenge! *flies off in a red Fokker Dr.I*


I disagree; but I'll agree that it's your right to enjoy it even if you're doing it wrong. Unless the way that you're doing it wrong involves real human sacrifice, or anything else illegal, then it's not your right to do it that way, no matter how much you enjoy it.

Well, what if the human sacrifice enjoys it too? After all I did say *all involved.* If someones only wish on this earth is to throw their lives away to make human sacrifice in D&D temporarily more realistic, who am I to tell them they're wrong? :smalltongue:

Jayabalard
2008-09-05, 05:25 PM
Hmm.. I don't see what you mean. Are you saying that it's as easy to completely refluff a class to a new campaign setting as it is to change all of a particular classes mechanics from the ground up to agree with the rest of the 3.5 system?Yes.

more words because "yes" is too short of an answer to allow me to post..

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-05, 05:28 PM
Yes.

more words because "yes" is too short of an answer.See, I don't like homebrewing at all, and neither do my D&D DMs. We have no experience for it and no eye for balance. I had to pressure one of them to let the Favored Soul Turn Undead instead of getting his other abilities. For us, we just ignore fluff if we need to, but crunch is nearly immutable, and I don't see how rebuilding a Base class from the ground up would be easier and more fun than just taking 2 PrCs and calling your Swordsage a Monk.

Akimbo
2008-09-05, 05:29 PM
Some people like might disagree, and say that the crunch (roleplaying) is much harder to change than the fluff (rules/mechanics).

Can you people stop doing this? It's really annoying. It's not funny, or cute, or meaningful, or proving a point.

It pretty much just proves that you are a deceptive person willing to lie and/or make fun of everyone you disagree with because you don't actually have a point.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-05, 05:34 PM
Some people like might disagree, and say that the crunch (roleplaying) is much harder to change than the fluff (rules/mechanics).Seriously, doing something like that, especially in an edit, isn't funny. All you do is make the debate confusing and annoying.

Jayabalard
2008-09-05, 05:59 PM
Seriously, doing something like that, especially in an edit, isn't funny. All you do is make the debate confusing and annoying.I really have no idea what you mean; doing something like what?

Nothing in that post was supposed to be funny.

Nothing in this post needs to be changed in response to your clarifying edit.

chiasaur11
2008-09-05, 06:21 PM
I really have no idea what you mean; doing something like what?

Nothing in that post was supposed to be funny.

Well, as many have picked up by now, in conversation, setting is called "fluff" and rules are called "crunch". Reversing them just makes conversation more difficult.

Jayabalard
2008-09-05, 06:35 PM
Well, as many have picked up by now, in conversation, setting is called "fluff" and rules are called "crunch". Reversing them just makes conversation more difficult.Aside one line where I point out that some people disagree with the terms being used the way that they are (since they are derogatory toward a style of play by referring to it as something unimportant), that is, in fact, the way that I'm using them.

chiasaur11
2008-09-05, 06:42 PM
Aside one line where I point out that some people disagree with the terms being used the way that they are (since they are derogatory toward a style of play by referring to it as something unimportant), that is, in fact, the way that I'm using them.

Look, language works best if people use the same words for things.
If I, for example, think "A" is too good a word for its purpose and should mean "potato", that does not mean people will appreciate that even if I clarify every time I use it. It would be even worse if I changed every post I quoted to mean that.

We all compromise in language so we can understand each other.

Jayabalard
2008-09-05, 06:54 PM
Look, language works best if people use the same words for things.That doesn't mean that any arbitrary word for people with dark skin is ok. For something even more relevant to these fora, you can't refer to people who are heavily into powergaming and not so much into the rules by a specific derogatory term, even though people have referred to them as that for 20+ years. I'm not really sure why the mod's allow this particular one to get by.

Not that I'm letting that stop me; aside from that one sentence, I have been using your definition of fluff and crunch even though I have an objection to the terms being used.

I'm sure you can offer up an explanation of why it's not derogatory, but I'll just say "I disagree with your reasoning" and leave it at that.

Knaight
2008-09-05, 06:56 PM
Crunch comes from number crunching. Rules are hard, itself meaning rigid and logical, strong but brittle, and are seen more as rules than as guidelines in many cases. When hard things break they either crack or crunch, in regards to sound. Occasionally you get snap. Crack has a meaning referring to an illegal substance, and snap sounds like an interjection. Its used as such. Hence crunch, plus its backed up by the number crunching bit.

Fluff implies that something is light and fluffy, and easy to change without breaking. It doesn't get in the way, if anything it is protective. Think of a game as fluff built around crunch, where fluff is something like insulation, and crunch a framework. A house needs a framework, but a bad framework doesn't help at all. If you have just the fluff/insulation/padding it all falls down if not constantly supported. If you have just the framework then you stub your toe, or smack your head across the bar, or any number of other things every few seconds. Crunch is pointless on its own, and if alone fluff must be added. Fluff can survive on its own, but has to be held up, and crunch can hold it up.

Crunch doesn't imply superiority to fluff. To use a different metaphor jaw breakers are not inherently better than cotton candy. They aren't derogatory at all, and they don't target people anyways, which is why if they were they would be let by.

Worira
2008-09-05, 06:58 PM
I really don't see how you can find "fluff" a derogatory term. I find kitties more important than kibble, personally.

Animefunkmaster
2008-09-05, 07:12 PM
As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory?

Hello, I am here to offer how I personally do things. A short answer to your question is 'yes I do'. I often find that multiclassed characters often have a much more interesting backstory (whether created before hand and the multiclassing is the best way to represent it, or as some result of a 20 level build they are working threw). I believe these characters are more interesting because of how much more time they spend thinking about there back story in order to make everything "fit". For my personal games, any excuse I have to get the players to think about their back story is a good thing.

I generally stipulate that backstories should not radically change mid game (say we start at level 10, if we progress a few more levels and a player who was a crusader barbarian half giant wants to dip into war mind, they can't have another uncle lend them the talic text to study as a warmind... generally speaking they should have had psionics and warminds apart of there character before). 'Radically' is the key word, for some people it means 'any', for others it means 'within reason'. My players generally know this, and they will explain there builds to me before hand. Being a DM who likes to enable my pcs, I would then try to weave in a warmind or two to get that player enough knowledge that I feel satisfied he can take a level.

This does two things for me, I believe. First, player/dm communication is increased, a players build isn't secret any potentially broken things, or mis interpreted things, come out before game time. Second, it helps me guide the story, it makes making npcs easier as I know I will need X because player Y wants to do this... or say I have a player who likes OA material in eberron... I might just put in an iaijutsu master npc just to give him a thrill, or make his half drunk sensie show up and leave the tab on the pcs for an adventure hook.

I approach my games as telling a story and having fun. If no one is having fun, no one will want to hear the story. So I encourage my players to take any crazy multiclass combination they can think of... as its only to my benefit.

Tormsskull
2008-09-06, 02:00 AM
This is what I was afraid of when you accused me of shadow-boxing earlier. It's the Stormwind Fallacy. Optimization doesn't mean the character can't be roleplayed well. If you tell me why it is you feel that such a character shouldn't exist or be allowed, we can get to the real heart of this matter.

I play Core only when I play 3e, so:

Half-Giant - No
Half-Dragon - No
Barbarian 1 - Ok
Dragonfire Adept 3 - No
Platinum Knight 4 - No

Secondly, I'll tell you the same thing I told Tempus Stormwind when he made the Stormwind Fallacy (in direct response to a post of mine) "Its bunk."

The fact, 99% of the time, is that you define roleplaying differently that I do. So when you say optimization doesn't affect roleplaying, you're using your definition of roleplaying.

Using my definition of roleplaying (and applying common sense), optimization will always affect roleplaying. Always.

Theoretically it is possible that a player could optimize his character and roleplaying perfectly, but is it also theoretically possible that I will win the lottery tomorrow.

Keep in mind that in the above context, optimization means making the most mechanically optimal choices for your character.



I really don't see how you can find "fluff" a derogatory term. I find kitties more important than kibble, personally.


The reasoning behind terming it 'fluff' is that it is unimportant. A lot of 3e and post players find the class descriptions (along with favored classes, alignment restrictions, sometimes other things) to be unimportant. Thus they call it fluff to say that it has no real value.

It basically infers that the only important part of the game is the mechanics, which a lot of other players will find offensive.

Sholos
2008-09-06, 02:33 AM
Wait, people use fluff as a derogatory term? Weird. I like my fluff. Heck, try a pillow that feels like a rock. Yeah, you'll be wanting your fluff soon.

Anyways, it does bother me when people ignore fluff behind classes. Like when someone wants to play a "Good" Assassin. Minor changes to fluff don't bother too much, but when you take a central concept of the class and discard it, that bothers me.

turkishproverb
2008-09-06, 02:44 AM
The term fluff has been used for gaming for a while now. It was basically made up as a secondary term because crunch was used as it related to numbers, not because it related to superiority in importance. From there, the evolution of the word fluff most likely happened simply because it was a word that played off of Crunch, as it was the opposite sensation.

Fluffy or crunchy etc...

nagora
2008-09-06, 06:03 AM
The term fluff has been used for gaming for a while now. It was basically made up as a secondary term because crunch was used as it related to numbers, not because it related to superiority in importance. From there, the evolution of the word fluff most likely happened simply because it was a word that played off of Crunch, as it was the opposite sensation.
Well, I disagree insofar that I think that while "crunch" may have been coined in reference to number crunching (and I don't think it actually was), the wider adoption of it and the derogatory term "fluff" was intended to, and has had the result of, making mechanics sound more important than setting.

(And if you think it's not derogatory then imagine your posts being called "just fluff" and people saying that they can be ignored or altered without any difficulty - would that not be anoying?)

I see it used that way on these boards all the time - people consistantly dismiss any change in a background as "just refluffing" or "a simple change of fluff", while suggestions that the rules as written can be treated that way causes protests about being unfair to the players or even wanting to screw them over.

To use a building analogy, the RAW are a basic house in a street of identical homes built in a development. Fine, but who wants that when you can have something made to your own specification and then invite your friends around to party? Knock that wall through, put a swimming pool in the lounge, and, naturally, put in a dungeon. Planing rules say you can't? You're the DM, you can change them! How cool is that?

I, and I assume Jayabalard, think it's at least as easy to (using your definitions here) change the "crunch" as to change the "fluff". Changing either has wide ranging effects on the world. Allowing Barbarians to pick up a level of wizard just because the player wants to play an "optimised" character instead of a proper role impacts the setting every bit as much as changing the WBL rules or the damage done by fireball. Moreso, in fact.

Knaight
2008-09-06, 01:37 PM
You also play 1e nagora, and I think Jaybalard plays 1 or 2. But heres the thing, most of us care about the fluff, and fight the crunch to create it. The crunch is a tool to hold up our fluff. Occasionally people go for pure optimization, but its usually for a character, and the barbarian mage may have been created to show a rash, angry mage, who learned combat because he kept punching out the other apprentices before his master threw him out on the street. So alternate sorcerer and barbarian, and pick up big, explosive spells. The reason people react to changing crunch more than fluff is that it makes optimization possible, and to challenge the optimized people the GM needs to use creatures that kill off the other interesting characters easily. I don't want my angry mage who was kicked out of the academy for throwing another apprentice out of the third floor window to die because the GM accidentally allowed the pure wizard to become obscenely powerful, and had to challenge him, and 3.5 is a touchy system. 3.5 is like the normal neat row of houses. But somebody forgot to add screws, and pretty much built it out of oversized cards, so when you take some out it all falls down, killing everyone in it, except for the guy who spent all his time predicting this, and asked for the modification, who survives. That being the optimized character that was not created to construct the fluff.

To use another example, fluff is like a kitten. Crunch is harder, and has sharp ends. Like a porcupine. You can play with a kitten. A porcupine, not so much. Just because people are OK with you playing with a kitten, and warn you about playing with a porcupine does not mean that the porcupine is more important. Which is why, when it rains, you bring the kitten inside, and not the porcupine. Settings get transferred between systems, as do characters. For people who really understand the mechanics, and can get them to work without stabbing themselves, they're more like an armadillo. A baby armadillo. You can play with an armadillo and not die, but it soon loses its novelty, and just fades into the background. And that kitten is still loved.

horseboy
2008-09-06, 02:03 PM
I have actually played a monk based around this concept...

Kinda like an Orcish Jack LaLanne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_LaLanne).Darn, and I was going to go with Chuck Norris. :smallamused:

Hmm.. I don't see what you mean. Are you saying that it's as easy to completely refluff a class to a new campaign setting as it is to change all of a particular classes mechanics from the ground up to agree with the rest of the 3.5 system?
"This is stupid, my fighter was a royal guard, who's he going to spend time intimidating?" "Sure, switch intimidate for diplomacy as class skill." Crunch changed. That 3.x is a horrid little snafued system that it requires players and DMs to tread with kit gloves to keep from snapping it isn't going to be changed in any way.



To answer Thorm's question: I don't run D&D, therefore do not have this problem.

Knaight
2008-09-06, 02:07 PM
Changing skills around doesn't affect things much, its when you start changing classes around that things fall apart. I totally threw away cross class and not available skills the first time I looked at it, and thats not going to generate a response. The availability of skills is the porcupines stomach, to use my old analogy.

Neon Knight
2008-09-06, 02:13 PM
Secondly, I'll tell you the same thing I told Tempus Stormwind when he made the Stormwind Fallacy (in direct response to a post of mine) "Its bunk."

The fact, 99% of the time, is that you define roleplaying differently that I do. So when you say optimization doesn't affect roleplaying, you're using your definition of roleplaying.

Using my definition of roleplaying (and applying common sense), optimization will always affect roleplaying. Always.

Theoretically it is possible that a player could optimize his character and roleplaying perfectly, but is it also theoretically possible that I will win the lottery tomorrow.

Keep in mind that in the above context, optimization means making the most mechanically optimal choices for your character.



Language is communication. It fails the second it does not accurately convey the information was meant to convey. If you use a definition of roleplaying that few people agree with, then your communication with most people will fail. By insisting on using an aberrant definition of roleplaying, you effectively exclude yourself form communicating your ideas.

If one man in the whole world uses the word pear to refer to an apple, but everyone else uses pear to refer to pears, guess which will appear in dictionaries and textbooks, and which one will be used in debates and discussions? The prevailing one, because it is a more effective means of communication.

Secondly, your definition of optimization cannot be considered the universal one, as optimization is almost an informal slang term used to describe a wide variety of activities from your definition to the definition of "making a character that does not fail at basic tasks".

Thirdly, common sense is not common. Common sense is, in fact, a merely a term one applies to knowledge, ideas, concepts, or beliefs, that one wishes to apply a positive connotation such as "good" or "self-apparent" to. I find that it is intellectually dishonest to attempt to equate not agreeing with you to violating common sense.

Your contention with the Stormwind fallacy is merely one of semantics. Your arguments are purely based on redefining the language and terms it uses.



The reasoning behind terming it 'fluff' is that it is unimportant. A lot of 3e and post players find the class descriptions (along with favored classes, alignment restrictions, sometimes other things) to be unimportant. Thus they call it fluff to say that it has no real value.

It basically infers that the only important part of the game is the mechanics, which a lot of other players will find offensive.

Fluff is a slang term with an imprecise and variable connotation and meaning; most people I know online and offline use it with no negative connotation. One person I knew thought that fluff referred to the stuffing of a teddy bear, and that the "crunch" was thus the skin or body of the teddy bear; and that thus the fluff was vital to the "teddy bear" of the game, so to speak, and that it would be lifeless and inferior otherwise.

I find it offensive that you attempt to misrepresent the views of such a wide and diverse body by attempting to redefine the terms they use so as to change the nature of our statements; you are putting words in our mouths, so to speak. The term fluff has evolved beyond the sole definition of the negative connotation with which you attribute it.

In fact, I am noting a pattern of you assigning explicitly negative connotations to terms most people use in non-connotative manners.

turkishproverb
2008-09-06, 05:28 PM
Well, I disagree insofar that I think that while "crunch" may have been coined in reference to number crunching (and I don't think it actually was), the wider adoption of it and the derogatory term "fluff" was intended to, and has had the result of, making mechanics sound more important than setting.

(And if you think it's not derogatory then imagine your posts being called "just fluff" and people saying that they can be ignored or altered without any difficulty - would that not be anoying?)

I see it used that way on these boards all the time - people consistantly dismiss any change in a background as "just refluffing" or "a simple change of fluff", while suggestions that the rules as written can be treated that way causes protests about being unfair to the players or even wanting to screw them over.

To use a building analogy, the RAW are a basic house in a street of identical homes built in a development. Fine, but who wants that when you can have something made to your own specification and then invite your friends around to party? Knock that wall through, put a swimming pool in the lounge, and, naturally, put in a dungeon. Planing rules say you can't? You're the DM, you can change them! How cool is that?

I, and I assume Jayabalard, think it's at least as easy to (using your definitions here) change the "crunch" as to change the "fluff". Changing either has wide ranging effects on the world. Allowing Barbarians to pick up a level of wizard just because the player wants to play an "optimised" character instead of a proper role impacts the setting every bit as much as changing the WBL rules or the damage done by fireball. Moreso, in fact.

Round and round and round we go.


I can see no amount of logical argument about the terms origins/meanings or linguistics is going to change your mind. It's a shame too, as you seem to be intelligent and worthy of debating aside from the redefinition issues you have. If your willing to agree to popular definitions, though, I think we can at least continue the debate the thread was started about.

nagora
2008-09-06, 07:49 PM
Round and round and round we go.


I can see no amount of logical argument about the terms origins/meanings or linguistics is going to change your mind. It's a shame too, as you seem to be intelligent and worthy of debating aside from the redefinition issues you have. If your willing to agree to popular definitions, though, I think we can at least continue the debate the thread was started about.
I didn't actually want to mention it, but Jay's reference to "some people" seemed to me, perhaps egotistically, to be a reference to a post I made on another thread so I thought I should say something.

I certainly don't agree to the "popular" definition (just as a black person would propably not agree that the "N word" was "just the popular word for people with black skin"), but I don't see the question of perjorative names as being core to this thread.

The main point is that a setting should be consistant and I don't think a player should be able to change it carte blance just to play a particular character idea that does not fit the DM's vision for that setting.

In addition, changing the rules to fit the setting is no harder (actually, propably easier) than changing the setting to fit the rules, which is what is being advocated by some here.

Tormsskull
2008-09-06, 10:05 PM
If you use a definition of roleplaying that few people agree with, then your communication with most people will fail. By insisting on using an aberrant definition of roleplaying, you effectively exclude yourself form communicating your ideas.


You're missing the point. I didn't make up a definition of roleplaying. Roleplaying as it existed in Basic D&D, 1e, and 2e are a totally different thing from what they are in 3e and 4e (or perhaps, just on forums they are). What I consider roleplaying is playing in your character, not metagaming, not using OOC information, etc.

Some people prefer to take OOC information, respin it as 'what their character would know from having lived in the fantasy world' and then convert it into IC information. I disagree with this type of conversion of knowledge. A lot of people would say there is no problem with this, and would still call it 'good roleplaying'. I would not.




If one man in the whole world uses the word pear to refer to an apple, but everyone else uses pear to refer to pears, guess which will appear in dictionaries and textbooks, and which one will be used in debates and discussions? The prevailing one, because it is a more effective means of communication.


Thank you for the elementary lesson. As I am sure you are aware, however, there is a vast difference between something that is a physical, tangilble object that many people can see, feel, taste versus a concept. Your analogy here is comparing apples to oranges (cause apparently fruit analogies are helpful).



Secondly, your definition of optimization cannot be considered the universal one, as optimization is almost an informal slang term used to describe a wide variety of activities from your definition to the definition of "making a character that does not fail at basic tasks".


Here is the definition of optimizer (one who performs optimization):


Optimizer: 1. A poster on WotC's Character Optimization boards. 2. A synonym for the given definition of min/maxer. Has generally replaced that term as it is less pejorative.


So then we look at the definition of min/maxer:


The practice of attempting to derive the maximum benefit for the minimum penalty. Oft times looked down upon as power gaming or munchkinism, but in most cases is merely attempting to build the best character given a certain set of stats and other restrictions. Usually does not attempt to exploit rules loopholes intentionally. Someone who does this is a “min/maxer.”


Here's my definition:



Keep in mind that in the above context, optimization means making the most mechanically optimal choices for your character.


How is my definition here wrong?



Thirdly, common sense is not common. Common sense is, in fact, a merely a term one applies to knowledge, ideas, concepts, or beliefs, that one wishes to apply a positive connotation such as "good" or "self-apparent" to. I find that it is intellectually dishonest to attempt to equate not agreeing with you to violating common sense.


That's because you're misunderstanding. I'm saying if you take the definition of roleplaying that I use, and apply common sense on top of that, then it shows that optimization nearly always leads to sacrificing the integrity of the character (or in a broader term 'negatively affecting roleplaying').

Someone could easily make the argument "D&D 3.5 Core only is perfectly fine if you apply common sense." Obviously, drowning increasing your health is not the intent of the game designers. Its obvious. Therefore you don't use the rules as they are written, you use the rules as they are intended (i.e. apply common sense).

Knaight
2008-09-06, 10:15 PM
It kind of fits, although I have no idea where your getting the third and fourth edition role playing definitions from. That and there are other games, that aren't D&D.

Neon Knight
2008-09-06, 11:31 PM
You're missing the point. I didn't make up a definition of roleplaying. Roleplaying as it existed in Basic D&D, 1e, and 2e are a totally different thing from what they are in 3e and 4e (or perhaps, just on forums they are). What I consider roleplaying is playing in your character, not metagaming, not using OOC information, etc.

Some people prefer to take OOC information, respin it as 'what their character would know from having lived in the fantasy world' and then convert it into IC information. I disagree with this type of conversion of knowledge. A lot of people would say there is no problem with this, and would still call it 'good roleplaying'. I would not.


Although I don't necessarily agree with "old edition roleplay is inherently different from newer edition roleplay" I'll grant you that the two separate roleplays exist for my next point. If there are two things called roleplay, why not add a modifier like old DND/1e, 2e, Basic DND/etc that would indicate which of the two types you were referring to?




Thank you for the elementary lesson. As I am sure you are aware, however, there is a vast difference between something that is a physical, tangilble object that many people can see, feel, taste versus a concept. Your analogy here is comparing apples to oranges (cause apparently fruit analogies are helpful).


Apples and peaches also exist as ideas, memories, and concepts. The point is that if you want your ideas to be understood, your audience has to understand precisely want you intend to convey. Using terminology differently from your audience, even when you highlight or note the differentiation, still puts your communication at a disadvantage.



Here is the definition of optimizer (one who performs optimization):

So then we look at the definition of min/maxer:

Here's my definition:

How is my definition here wrong?


I did not say that your definition was wrong. I said it should not be considered universal. By that, I meant that not everyone associated the word optimization with the definition you did. However, I will admit that I was barking up the wrong tree here, as the definition you gave for optimization is rather close both to the board definition you quoted and to the general usage of the term. Consider it an erroneous digression on my part.

Also, the definition you quote mentions "given a certain set of stats and other restrictions." Using that definition of optimization, anything I consider an "other restriction" can be used to limit the window of "optimal choices" so to speak. Your post leaves out the "other restriction" bit.



That's because you're misunderstanding. I'm saying if you take the definition of roleplaying that I use, and apply common sense on top of that, then it shows that optimization nearly always leads to sacrificing the integrity of the character (or in a broader term 'negatively affecting roleplaying').

Someone could easily make the argument "D&D 3.5 Core only is perfectly fine if you apply common sense." Obviously, drowning increasing your health is not the intent of the game designers. Its obvious. Therefore you don't use the rules as they are written, you use the rules as they are intended (i.e. apply common sense).

Very well. I misunderstood you. I will say that I find the term logical to be more appropriate, but it was still my error. My apologies.

skywalker
2008-09-07, 12:43 AM
Wait, people use fluff as a derogatory term? Weird. I like my fluff. Heck, try a pillow that feels like a rock. Yeah, you'll be wanting your fluff soon.

Anyways, it does bother me when people ignore fluff behind classes. Like when someone wants to play a "Good" Assassin. Minor changes to fluff don't bother too much, but when you take a central concept of the class and discard it, that bothers me.

They already made a "good" assassin. It's called a Slayer of Domiel, it's a PRC from Book of Exalted Deeds, and it is exactly a good-aligned assassin PRC. IMO, you're expected to re-flavor almost everything in that book, except in very rare cases.

Mr. Balard likes to use a turn-of-phrase to make a point that to him, what we normally refer to as "fluff," is of the type of importance implied by the term "crunch." It's not that hard to understand, and attempting to undermine his argument based solely on linguistics and semantics is just silly, I think. Regardless, it wasn't my argument, so I bow out here.

Totally Guy
2008-09-07, 03:43 AM
You're missing the point. I didn't make up a definition of roleplaying. Roleplaying as it existed in Basic D&D, 1e, and 2e are a totally different thing from what they are in 3e and 4e (or perhaps, just on forums they are). What I consider roleplaying is playing in your character, not metagaming, not using OOC information, etc.

Some people prefer to take OOC information, respin it as 'what their character would know from having lived in the fantasy world' and then convert it into IC information. I disagree with this type of conversion of knowledge. A lot of people would say there is no problem with this, and would still call it 'good roleplaying'. I would not.

I don't get it.

To go back to the orc barbarian wizard... No, maybe a better example would be a prestige class. The player has knowledge of a prestige class and is aiming for it. The character needs to either dig around in his backstory for an excuse for knowing about it (which you are arguing against) or the character needs to interact with individuals that can inform him of a new style (which requires perhaps DM~Player communication (which you are for). And to just pick up the prestige class without any warning would be lazy in a roleplay perspective and bad.

Do I get it? It's getting complicated to understand and remember all this stuff.

Akimbo
2008-09-07, 04:05 AM
I don't get it.

To go back to the orc barbarian wizard... No, maybe a better example would be a prestige class. The player has knowledge of a prestige class and is aiming for it. The character needs to either dig around in his backstory for an excuse for knowing about it (which you are arguing against) or the character needs to interact with individuals that can inform him of a new style (which requires perhaps DM~Player communication (which you are for). And to just pick up the prestige class without any warning would be lazy in a roleplay perspective and bad.

Do I get it? It's getting complicated to understand and remember all this stuff.

You missed the most important part.

According to Tormsskull, seeing a PrC and wanting to take levels in it, is all by itself a reprehensible act that deserves DM punishment.

The only reason you should gain the benefits of a PrC is if your character accidentally meets the pre-reqs, without you even knowing what they are, and the DM notices that the PrC is an exact fit for your character (IE being a really good Wizard isn't enough to be an Archmage, you have to actually be an Archmage, and you have to be elected by a council that has existed since before you were born, if you founded it, that's cheating.) And then, if it's possible, he won't even tell you that you have the PrC, he'll just mentally take into account that your abilities are different then you think they are, unless he absolutely has to tell you.

Tormsskull
2008-09-07, 02:05 PM
Using terminology differently from your audience, even when you highlight or note the differentiation, still puts your communication at a disadvantage.


This sounds like a conform because it is easier argument. I'm not real big on that.


The character needs to either dig around in his backstory for an excuse for knowing about it (which you are arguing against) or the character needs to interact with individuals that can inform him of a new style (which requires perhaps DM~Player communication (which you are for).


Exactly, this is the crux of the matter. Assume WotC releases a new book which has a PrC with some super special power that the player thinks is really cool. For a character of the player to say "Yeah, yah know, now that I think about it, my great grandmother knew a guy who knew a guy that had that super special power. I'm going to go talk to him" would completely break immersion to me.

If this is a brand new character and the player works with the DM to include that knowledge in their backstory, I could see that possibly working. For the player to simply make the connections in their backstory (which up until this point did not exist), I would not allow.



Do I get it? It's getting complicated to understand and remember all this stuff.

I would say you do. I think that a character living in a fantasy world should only know what he is exposed to. I don't think saying "I want this particular mechanic for my character" is a legitimate reason for the DM to allow a player to take a prestige class.

Under the best case scenario, a character is introduced in-character to a PrC in someway or another (could be he has a brush with an assassin, could be he is studying with someone who happens to be a loremaster, etc), and from that point forward studies whatever is needed in order to take levels in that PrC.

nagora
2008-09-07, 04:09 PM
Generally, adding something as major as a new class, prestige or not, is very hard to do in a running campaign as it raises all sorts of questions about why nobody's ever mentioned it or met a member of it up until now. On the other hand, if your "campaign" only lasts a year I suppose it's not that big a deal and you can just start using the new class at the next reboot.

Teeka
2008-09-07, 06:50 PM
Alright, normally I get all that I want from just reading posts here, but there are things that are starting to confuse me.

This is what I always thought:

Number crunching is 'crunch', right? Like the guy who can calculate things on the fly and make up astounding encounters and epic battles is working with crunch.

Then, when he fills things in and makes the battle more than just a bunch of numbers, when he is adding the things that actually make it epic, that is fluff, right? Fluff is the stuff you talk about long after the session is over, things that come up in conversation when talking about the highlights of the campaign.

Why would one invert the terms?

As for the idea of adding little things to back story on the fly, we do that a lot in our sessions, mostly because none of us have the time to write down all of what has ever happened to our characters. A lot of times the little random things like that become really memorable. Talking about the stories a favorite relative would tell your character when he was little, recalling rumors you once heard and dismissed as too outlandish to be true, or remembering a legendary weapon your mentor once told you about can really make a character more interesting and often such things are too trivial to be mentioned in your back story. Not to mention if you remember to make what your character knows slightly flawed/inaccurate, it can make things even more interesting (one of my characters once made a very memorable statement about how to deal with undead things to keep them from coming back that was about half truth, half utter nonsense, but close enough to accurate that it was useful).

Akimbo
2008-09-07, 07:24 PM
Generally, adding something as major as a new class, prestige or not, is very hard to do in a running campaign as it raises all sorts of questions about why nobody's ever mentioned it or met a member of it up until now. On the other hand, if your "campaign" only lasts a year I suppose it's not that big a deal and you can just start using the new class at the next reboot.

And why on earth does one have to have met a member of a class for it to exist? Or to take levels in it?

Can you really tell the difference between a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker and regular old Barbarian? Or a Wizard/Archmage vs just Wizard?

I mean, there is no reason for you to actually be able to distinguish most classes from others.

Neon Knight
2008-09-07, 08:18 PM
This sounds like a conform because it is easier argument. I'm not real big on that.


It is not a message to conform, but to communicate. If you want your ideas to be understood, comprehended, and considered, your communication must be understood. What if, say, Watchman or Deathnote, or perhaps A Song of Fire and Ice where written or communicated entirely in Klingon and Klingon only? They would not be anywhere near as popular, influential, or well-known.

chiasaur11
2008-09-07, 09:03 PM
It is not a message to conform, but to communicate. If you want your ideas to be understood, comprehended, and considered, your communication must be understood. What if, say, Watchman or Deathnote, or perhaps A Song of Fire and Ice where written or communicated entirely in Klingon and Klingon only? They would not be anywhere near as popular, influential, or well-known.

Yeah.
Even if Shakespeare is better in the original Klingon, you need to translate it for the masses.

Klingon Hamlet is a notable improvement.

Knaight
2008-09-07, 09:42 PM
"Yeah, yah know, now that I think about it, my great grandmother knew a guy who knew a guy that had that super special power. I'm going to go talk to him" would completely break immersion to me.

Well it makes sense, your grandmother may have mentioned them before. Of course, this would involve actually finding them. Based on a vague mention of your grandmother coming off of a minor conversation between her and your great grandmother who actually knew the guy, who saw an impressive power. You don't know the guys name, nationality, whether they are still alive, what they look like, etc. Good luck.

Xenogears
2008-09-07, 10:16 PM
For most prestiege classes it seems stupid to require the character to explain how they know about it. Everyone knows about things like assassins. Some prestiege classes are so different from what is normal that the character should need some specialised knowledge in order to take it (unless it is something that doesn't require training because then it is just unlocking a power you never knew you had. Sorta like becoming a sorceror). But for some classes like assassin and some others are such everyday knowledge of their existence that anyone should know of them.

If the player can come up with a believable explanation for the knowledge then they can come up with backstory on the fly. If they come up with something stupid then tell them to try better. If they come up with something inconsistent then same thing. Say that a barbarian from a tribe of barbarians says that he observed wizards as a child doesn't make much sense.

Sholos
2008-09-07, 10:53 PM
While I wouldn't go so far as to ban a player from making changes to his backstory, I would require that the changes not in any way conflict with what is already there. Also, to take most PrCs, I would require the character to specifically go out of his way to either find someone to train him, or do something towards taking the class. Focused Specialist, for example. Let's say Illusions. If the player rarely uses Illusion spells, or even only uses them no more than other schools, then I'd be very hesitant to just let him take the PrC. Now, if the player went out of his way to receive training, or constantly used lots of Illusion spells, then I probably wouldn't have any problem.

nagora
2008-09-08, 03:42 AM
And why on earth does one have to have met a member of a class for it to exist? Or to take levels in it?

Can you really tell the difference between a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker and regular old Barbarian? Or a Wizard/Archmage vs just Wizard?

I mean, there is no reason for you to actually be able to distinguish most classes from others.

I did say that was part of the problem. Generally, the existance of people with certain special powers or abilities implies certain things about the world and if you've been playing in that world for five or ten years it seems odd if no one's ever come across either such people or stories about people who can do what they do. Obviously, it's not an issue if the class has absolutely no special features about it that would mark its members out from the general population, but then what the heck is the point of the class then?

Tormsskull
2008-09-08, 05:56 AM
Everyone knows about things like assassins.

BEEP! Wrong answer. As a character, you know exactly what the DM says you know. What if there are no assassins (specifically the PrC) in this world? Then when you just assume they exist, you are wrong. Then, if you roleplay your character knowing they exist (which they don't) it creates holes in the game world.

I have to assume that once again, this all comes down to a playstyle difference. I have a feeling that I (and a few others) are coming from a totally different type of gamestyle than everyone else.

I'm shooting in the dark here, but I am guessing that under the playstyle that assumes everyone knows certain PrCs exist, that before the campaign starts everyone sits down and discusses what they'd like in the game. All the players talk about the rules, figure out what setting they want to use, what PrCs are or aren't allowed, etc. Then a DM is nominated and off they go.

While that is an interesting way to play, I would hazard a guess that it is definitely not the standard. The more traditional type of gamestyle is where one guy/gal asks a handful of people if they are interested in playing D&D, and if so (or even if not so) they go ahead and make up a campaign world. They decide all the rules, all the PrCs, everything.

Then, the players sign on to play and off they go. If an issue comes up with a rule a player doesn't like or whatever, they'd probably mention it to the DM, who would then double-check the books (outside of a game session), verify that they are doing it correctly (or not) and then proceed as necessary.

In the first type of gamestyle, it makes sense that the players have more direct control over their character's backstories, what PrCs are available, and so on. Basically all the players are DMs, with 1 person handling all of the typical DM duties.

In the second gamestyle, players do not know the setting in and out, they don't know what PrCs are out there, which means it makes absolutely no sense to ad hoc their backstory at their whims.

Teeka
2008-09-08, 07:16 AM
But if you do not know the setting in and out, might there come a time when your character is in a situation that they should know more about, but do not since you did not know everything about the setting beforehand and had no way of putting it into your character concept. There might come a time when you need to make something up based on a situation you are in to explain why your character does not know something that should be common knowledge, or revise your back story so that the character does know the appropriate information.

nagora
2008-09-08, 07:29 AM
But if you do not know the setting in and out, might there come a time when your character is in a situation that they should know more about, but do not since you did not know everything about the setting beforehand and had no way of putting it into your character concept. There might come a time when you need to make something up based on a situation you are in to explain why your character does not know something that should be common knowledge, or revise your back story so that the character does know the appropriate information.

There are two answers to this: firstly the PHB is assumed unless otherwise specified (and "specified" can be as broad as the DM saying "Nothing in the PHB can be relied on in this setting", although that would be extreme). Secondly, if the setting is new to the players the DM should do a handout introducing it. At least 1 side of A4. I usually do a booklet of about 6 A5 pages, although sometimes I do a single sheet for each player which reflects what their character knows, but this assumes that the DM is handing out the characters at the start rather than having the players roll/build them.

On that last point, for truely new settings that the players have no knowledge of, I've found that DM-generated PCs are best.

Akimbo
2008-09-08, 08:11 AM
{Scrubbed}

nagora
2008-09-08, 08:23 AM
{Scrubbed}

Teeka
2008-09-08, 08:25 AM
nagora, you make the characters for your players? That is a bit odd in my opinion. I mean our DM met with each of us, one on one so we could tell him about our characters, then wrote lovely little short stories for us to explain how our characters all met, but he never actually wrote anything that didn't go perfectly with what we told him. He encouraged us to embellish on them as we wished. All of what he wrote was based on what we told him though, he used the specific goals we had stated our characters had, even going so far as to be sure that there would be a valid story reason for one of the characters to do something his player had always wanted to do in a campaign.

Our DM does everything he can, with in reason, to shape the setting around what we want for our characters, rather than forcing us to make our characters fit his setting perfectly.

I just realized why my situation might be different though, our DM has us playing Second Edition and most people here are probably playing Third or Fourth, right?

nagora
2008-09-08, 08:38 AM
nagora, you make the characters for your players? That is a bit odd in my opinion.
I agree; it seems odd to me still. It started when I ran a Tekumel game and, rather than run a series of hour-long lectures on what people knew before they tried to generate sensible characters, I just handed them out. This worked really well and later I played with another DM who did the same thing (iactually, the players who suggested this solution to the Tekumel game had all previously played with him), and in fact has been running things this way for about 25 years now. Likewise, it worked our really well.

So much so, in fact, that players started to ask for their charaters to be done by me even in settings they knew well.

Now, my group is very hard-core roleplayers, and so they are not very interested in mechanics and enjoy a challenging role more than spending time on optimisations and stuff like that, so perhaps that's part of the reason.

I personally prefer to roll my own characters, but I'm CN so perhaps that's not a good gude :smallsmile:


I mean our DM met with each of us, one on one so we could tell him about our characters, then wrote lovely little short stories for us to explain how our characters all met, but he never actually wrote anything that didn't go perfectly with what we told him. He encouraged us to embellish on them as we wished. All of what he wrote was based on what we told him though, he used the specific goals we had stated our characters had, even going so far as to be sure that there would be a valid story reason for one of the characters to do something his player had always wanted to do in a campaign.

All of which is fine, but it can be hard to do in a new environment where you don't know what a character's culture classes as important, for example.


I just realized why my situation might be different though, our DM has us playing Second Edition and most people here are probably playing Third or Fourth, right?

Most people here are, I'm a first-edition hold out, but the DM-generated character thing has spread across pretty well all the roleplaying I do now regardless of system or genre, and regardless of who's DM/GMing.

At the end of the day, the character comes to life by how you play them rather than the numbers on the character sheet, so I guess it's not that surprising that this approach seems to work, but even after years of playing that way it seems a bit weird to me. But, it does work for the groups I play with.

Akimbo
2008-09-08, 08:40 AM
{Scrubbed}

Jayabalard
2008-09-08, 08:43 AM
I didn't actually want to mention it, but Jay's reference to "some people" seemed to me, perhaps egotistically, to be a reference to a post I made on another thread so I thought I should say something.There were a few people in that thread that weren't really happy with the board terminology, though you certainly were among the most vocal.

Really though, I'm kind of surprised that a single line aside blew the thread so far off kilter. I made a fairly mild statement indicating my displeasure with the terminology being used even though I had been using the term that way for clarity's sake. In the same way, I'd expect anyone who thinks that powergamer or optimizer is different than munchkin to offer at least a token objection when someone uses the word munchkinism to describe their playstyle.


In addition, changing the rules to fit the setting is no harder (actually, propably easier) than changing the setting to fit the rules, which is what is being advocated by some here.Agreed; Rules and setting are equally mutable; some people are going to require more work to change the setting, and some people are going to require more work to change the rules, but that's just a preference thing. It doesn't have anything to do with one being inherently easier or harder to change.


But for some classes like assassin and some others are such everyday knowledge of their existence that anyone should know of them.Not so, especially in the case of assassins. Unless you've been involved with court intrigue enough, you won't have heard of assassins. Your word for "people who kill other people for money" is probably "bandit"


{Scrubbed} {Scrubbed}

nagora
2008-09-08, 08:52 AM
{Scrubbed}
It takes a lot of time to get people up to speed on a new background of any complexity; time that the players I know would rather spend actually playing, and learning that way, than reading loads of sourcebooks.

I fully acknowledge that many people think that's odd. But I play and GM with several groups who all now do it this way as the idea has spread by word of mouth and people have found that they enjoy it.

only1doug
2008-09-08, 10:05 AM
It takes a lot of time to get people up to speed on a new background of any complexity; time that the players I know would rather spend actually playing, and learning that way, than reading loads of sourcebooks.

so for a new player joining your game:
So, here's your character, lets play... Make your own character? No you don't know enough about the setting. The setting? oh, you'll find out as we play. You want to know the basic background first? stop wasting my time!



I fully acknowledge that many people think that's odd. But I play and GM with several groups who all now do it this way as the idea has spread by word of mouth and people have found that they enjoy it.

far beyond odd imo.

i have pre-generated characters for one shot adventures, it works nicely enough. those characters include backgrounds so the players have a feel for the history of the character and the setting.

there is a difference between an one shot adventure and a campaign, with a campaign the player will have the character for a long time, i find it hard to comprehend how anyone can accept a pregenerated character over a decent briefing and the chance to make their own choices.

Akimbo
2008-09-08, 10:05 AM
It takes a lot of time to get people up to speed on a new background of any complexity; time that the players I know would rather spend actually playing, and learning that way, than reading loads of sourcebooks.

I fully acknowledge that many people think that's odd. But I play and GM with several groups who all now do it this way as the idea has spread by word of mouth and people have found that they enjoy it.

But see this is my point: Why would you want to spend time playing a character you didn't make?

You can't determine the personality, that was decided for you, you can't determine combat style/casting style, determined in advance, you can't make references to your background, since that was also determined for you.

You aren't really playing at all, you are just running an NPC.

only1doug
2008-09-08, 10:24 AM
But see this is my point: Why would you want to spend time playing a character you didn't make?

You can't determine the personality, that was decided for you, you can't determine combat style/casting style, determined in advance, you can't make references to your background, since that was also determined for you.

You aren't really playing at all, you are just running an NPC.

I completely agree.

Jayabalard
2008-09-08, 10:27 AM
so for a new player joining your game:
So, here's your character, lets play... Make your own character? No you don't know enough about the setting. The setting? oh, you'll find out as we play. You want to know the basic background first? stop wasting my time!just curious, did you miss the part where he said his players requested this and enjoyed playing that?

only1doug
2008-09-08, 10:31 AM
just curious, did you miss the part where he said his players requested this and enjoyed playing that?

nope, i saw that. and yet i suspect (from his phraesology) that a new player joining his group would receive the treatment i posted.

with the exception of the last part which might read:

You want to know the basic background first? Thats GM only knowledge!

huttj509
2008-09-08, 11:04 AM
I suggest using the terms "cake" and "frosting"

Frosting would be the role playing part. To many people, this is the whole point, the cake just being something to support it and keep people from feeling guilty about enjoying a tube of straight frosting. This can be altered in a huge number of ways. Change the flavor, add fruit, make it with no sugar, etc. It's hard to ruin it unless you're really trying to (or maybe you just thought pickles would go really well, much to your chagrin).

Cake is the mechanics. This supports the frosting. In terms of the cake, if you know what you're doing you can alter the recipe and have it work, but it's easy to mess something up and have your cake refuse to rise due to the chemistry, or just taste really bland, or end up being as dense as a fruitcake (though some folks like fruitcake). In addition, there are many different types of cake, and an ice cream cake might go better with certain frosting than a carrot cake (analogy for different systems).

I think if there's any major changes to the scenario in your world from the default listed in the books you need to let players know, possibly ahead of time, depending on how pervasive it is. If in your world all magic users are pursued and slain on sight by the locals, then the players should know what they're getting into before they make their wizard. If a player's inquiring about the assassin prestige class, you should tell him "Actually, given the society as I've built it, the idea of killing someone just because you were hired to is horribly repugnant even to the lowest of the low. There's no Assassin orginization to join as the prestige class requires, and if you really want to pursue it and start such a group be prepared for every lowlife to shun you, or make things difficult for you in any way they possibly can."

I'm inclined to agree in general that if a player wants to change the magic fearing idea of his character, he should have a reason. A key part to that though is how much it has come into play so far. If half the adventure hooks have been based around a concept, then no it won't be retconned easily. If your character grew up in an orphanage raised by his mother, after his father went off questing for the fabled Holy Avenger and never returned, I don't see an issue with that, unless the orphanage was conveniently the site of major events that had come up in the campaign.

And the guy who wants a holy avenger? Ok, you want a holy avenger. If you really want to aim for it, you can start gathering information and clues about where to maybe start looking for it. Maybe the aforementioned father left a couple of notes that you could use to find out who his contacts were.

Unless this is during character creation at a high level, with wealth by level stuff. If he wants to buy one then that gets into the whole magic item availability issue, where there's not always a magic item mega-mart around the corner, but it's not fair to have the character's massive wealth unable to be spent on anything besides ale and *cough cough*, especially when said wealth is an assumption in character power for the CR system. But either way, if you intend for holy avenger swords to be megamega rare, that would be information to disclose when someone is making a paladin, as that might change their assumptions and plans, and they might end up making a different kind of cake.

Tormsskull
2008-09-08, 11:07 AM
There might come a time when you need to make something up based on a situation you are in to explain why your character does not know something that should be common knowledge, or revise your back story so that the character does know the appropriate information.

Common knowledge is not what we are talking about here. The examples that this situation shot off from was a barbarian adding knowledge of the arcane ways to his backstory in order to justify taking a level in wizard, and a character adding knowledge of a Holy Avenger in his backstory in order to try to obtain it.

I'm not saying that you, Teeka, are doing this specifically, but it seems to happen a lot that a scenario is purposed, people answer, other people question their answer and suddenly the scenario is way off base.

Also, keep in mind that the DM determines common knowledge. The DM creates the world, creates the setting, creates the cities and towns and countries, etc. What you think your character knows might not be compatible with what the DM knows that your character might or might not know.

Some players don't like this. They want to have more direct control in the setting, the theme, etc. Some don't (I know that when I am a player I do not).



I mean our DM met with each of us, one on one so we could tell him about our characters, then wrote lovely little short stories for us to explain how our characters all met, but he never actually wrote anything that didn't go perfectly with what we told him.


Out of curiosity, what setting were you playing in? Was it just some generic world? If not, did each of you read about this world and its occupants, the history, the major events that shaped the world to this point, etc?



Our DM does everything he can, with in reason, to shape the setting around what we want for our characters, rather than forcing us to make our characters fit his setting perfectly.


This is, again, definitely one way to do it. I personally do not DM this way, I do not like it. I don't like when the world adapts and changes to accomodate what the players want. It makes the world feel like a thin veil rather than an immersive world.

If there is an organization with a rich history, famous members, and strict rules for admittance, but my character easily gets in because 'he's a PC', then it means that the DM basically just nullified that organization. In other words, it makes the players accomplishments worthless.



I just realized why my situation might be different though, our DM has us playing Second Edition and most people here are probably playing Third or Fourth, right?


I've actually played all editions from Basic on up. I currently DM a 2nd edition game (we tried 4th and didn't like it). I've DMed a lot of 3.x games as well. Regardless of the edition, my DM style doesn't really change much.

Xenogears
2008-09-08, 11:15 AM
Not so, especially in the case of assassins. Unless you've been involved with court intrigue enough, you won't have heard of assassins. Your word for "people who kill other people for money" is probably "bandit"

So you think that no one who isn't involved with the nobles at court has ever heard of an assassin? I'm not sure if that sounds more like naivety or elitism. Either way most people can pretty easily understand the difference between an assassin and a bandit. A bandit wants money and kills you to take your money. An assassin wants money and is payed to kill you. Pretty big difference. Also in the real world an "assassin" in medieval times was more likely to just be a servent of the target or a peasent that needed money. Assassin's guilds were not that common.

Tormsskull
2008-09-08, 11:20 AM
I suggest using the terms "cake" and "frosting"


This reminds me. I was watching football yesterday and I saw a commercial for Walsh College of Business here in metro detroit. In the commercial they show a simple pie chart. In the pie chart it says "Business Classes" on the largest section, and then in a tiny section it says "Fluff Courses".

The pie then becomes animated and eats the "Fluff Courses" section so that it is gone, and then the whole pie says "100% Business Classes".

IMO, this is representative of how the term "fluff" can be used negatively.



Assassin's guilds were not that common.


Ok, does the Assassin PrC assume there is an organization of some kind to join? Yes, in fact it does. So while someone could have definitely heard of assassins, it does not mean that they are the PrC Assassin. If the DM says the PrC Assassin is not available in this campaign, it doesn't mean no one kills other people for money, it just means that no one can take classes in the PrC Assassin.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-08, 11:23 AM
"When I write my character's backstories, I often forget to include statements like "Twice a day, my character goes pee."

My DM usually points this out. I can sometimes object and say, "Just say it is the case that I go to the bathroom, jeez!" My DM summarily rejects my character idea, citing the following: "Your bladder exploded when you were 3 days old. You are dead." because he doesn't like retroactively saying that my character did something when I didn't explicitly include it in my backstory.

This usually leads to me never playing with my DM."

This is the story of a player whose DM never got to run a campaign.

Xenogears
2008-09-08, 11:44 AM
Ok, does the Assassin PrC assume there is an organization of some kind to join? Yes, in fact it does. So while someone could have definitely heard of assassins, it does not mean that they are the PrC Assassin. If the DM says the PrC Assassin is not available in this campaign, it doesn't mean no one kills other people for money, it just means that no one can take classes in the PrC Assassin.

But I wasn't arguing that DM's have to have the Assassin PrC avaliable. I was saying that in a campain where they are available it would be common knowledge. Have you ever read any of the DnD books (I am thinking specifically of the Drizzt series for this example). Everyone seems to know about all the thieves guilds. They even know the secret entrances and the prominent members of the guilds. Commoners tend to know a lot more about the City than people give them credit for. Also usually in Fantasy stories the "illegal" guilds, like thieves and assassins, are well known by the officials but no one has the power (or lack of corruption) to get rid of them.

Sure a DM can design a campain where no one knows about an Assassin's guild or there isn't one but in a standard campain it is common knowledge.

nagora
2008-09-08, 11:52 AM
so for a new player joining your game:
So, here's your character, lets play... Make your own character? No you don't know enough about the setting. The setting? oh, you'll find out as we play. You want to know the basic background first? .
"Okay, here's one of the handouts or booklets I mentioned earlier as something else I do for new games". The people I currenly play with simply don't like reading lots of background before they start; they enjoy the challenge of playing something they didn't come up with themselves.

Now, most of them have been roleplaying for decades and perhaps that's part of the reason (or perhaps time pressure - we all work full time and some have kids), but even the younger ones seem very happy and I've personally found it very difficult - to the point of it causing friction in the group - to get any of them to do character generation the traditional way.

Tormsskull
2008-09-08, 11:58 AM
I was saying that in a campain where they are available it would be common knowledge.


It MAY be common knowledge, sure. But it might not be. Assassins typically do really well when they are hidden and unknown. They don't do so well when everyone knows about them (i.e., it is common knowledge).

Maybe in the world assassins are a known group and not considered illegal at all. Maybe it is part of society that leader hire assassins to take each other out. It is very possible.

On the other hand, it is also very possible for them not to be. Again, its all up to how the DM crafts the world. I can guarantee you that if, as a DM, I wanted to have NPCs with the Assassin PrC and make it where virtually no one knew about them, I could do so with relative ease.



Sure a DM can design a campain where no one knows about an Assassin's guild or there isn't one but in a standard campain it is common knowledge.

Explain 'standard campaign' for me. It was my understanding that PrCs were an optional element of 3.5. If that is correct, they definitely cannot be considered standard.

Now, if you're using 'standard campaign' to mean anything that WotC has put out is 'standard' then sure, you're right.

Jayabalard
2008-09-08, 12:09 PM
I was saying that in a campain where they are available it would be common knowledge. Most certainly this would not be common knowledge; any competently run assassin's guild would make sure of that.


Have you ever read any of the DnD books (I am thinking specifically of the Drizzt series for this example). Yes; I'm not a fan. I find the fact that everyone knows of the thieves guild to be absurd. I wouldn't play in a game where the secret entrance and prominent members of the thieves guild are common knowledge unless I was playing in an intentionally silly campaign (ie discword)


Sure a DM can design a campain where no one knows about an Assassin's guild or there isn't one but in a standard campain it is common knowledge.The term "standard campaign" is a misnomer; what you really mean here is campaigns that you play in. Whether the players will tolerate having the assassin's guild be common knowledge is going to vary from campaign to campaign.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-08, 12:19 PM
But I wasn't arguing that DM's have to have the Assassin PrC avaliable. I was saying that in a campain where they are available it would be common knowledge. Have you ever read any of the DnD books (I am thinking specifically of the Drizzt series for this example). Everyone seems to know about all the thieves guilds. They even know the secret entrances and the prominent members of the guilds. Commoners tend to know a lot more about the City than people give them credit for. Also usually in Fantasy stories the "illegal" guilds, like thieves and assassins, are well known by the officials but no one has the power (or lack of corruption) to get rid of them.

Sure a DM can design a campain where no one knows about an Assassin's guild or there isn't one but in a standard campain it is common knowledge.

Perhaps an interesting analogy would be the CIA? For those who don't know, in America, there is an agency called the Central Intelligence Agency. Their mission according to their website is to be an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers.
It is common belief that the CIA were involved in a number of political assassinations and coups in various states around the globe. It is not fact, nor has it been undeniably proven. Some people may not even believe it, but those that don't believe it still know that some people do, even though most people around the world would never have interacted with anyone connected to the CIA.
This, to me, is how assassins may be viewed in a world that vanilla D&D supports. In most D&D-supported universes, there is a type of person who gets hired to go around killing people (differentiated from bandits by getting paid to kill someone, rather than being paid to not kill someone). Perhaps "assassin" isn't the word used to describe this person, but they still probably exist. Furthermore, it's likely that Random_Commoner_01 has heard that such a type of person exists. He probably has never seen one, or even heard a second-person account, but he probably has heard a story of a guy who once went to a bar in Big_City_02 and overheard of a guy who was talking about the Bard that was in the bar last night who sang a tale about Artemis Wilkes Booth, a guy hired to kill the King of Wenceslas.

So, in my mind, tales of Assassins would probably be common enough that it's feasible that any character would have heard of an assassin in a vanilla D&D world. Sure, a DM has complete creative control over his world, and is free to change whatever he wants. The way I DM, though, is I tell the players "The world is just like it's presented in Text_A. However, there are some exceptions:" and then make two lists:
On the first is a list of all the things that my world has that Text_A doesn't have.
On the second is a list of all the things that my world DOESN'T have that Text_A does.
If I were a player in a campaign, I would expect the DM to tell me if Assassins didn't exist in his world, because I'm going to go ahead and assume that they do unless otherwise told.

Branching off just a little bit into the philosophical... I feel that conflict is kind of a healthy assumption in any world where a D&D ruleset is being used. This means that things kill other things. It's not a hard stretch to imagine that humanoids kill other humanoids in a world where conflict exists.
Similarly, if a D&D ruleset is being used, then there is a distinction between Good and Evil. If Evil people exist, and conflict exists, then I also think that's it's not a huge stretch to imagine that some Evil people Kill things for Evil reasons. Lastly, if D&D is being used as a system, then gold is a pretty huge part of that system, as an economic incentive. So if normal people do normal things for gold, and evil people exist, and conflict exists, then it's another small leap to imagine that evil people kill people for gold. Thus the idea of an assassin is likely to exist in any D&D universe, as long as that D&D universe has: conflict (where killing occurs), evil, and gold.


But anyways, my main point is that a DM should make a serious effort to educate players on their world, so their players can roleplay their characters adequately. If the DM is making a universe so unlike the stereotypical D&D universe that they feel like telling their players "Forget everything you know about D&D" then I propose that it's probably simpler to write your own game system, and not call it D&D, rather than try to selectively pick and choose every aspect of D&D that fits your world, delete every aspect that doesn't, and write in the rest which isn't covered.

nagora
2008-09-08, 12:27 PM
Yes; I'm not a fan. I find the fact that everyone knows of the thieves guild to be absurd. I wouldn't play in a game where the secret entrance and prominent members of the thieves guild are common knowledge unless I was playing in an intentionally silly campaign (ie discword)
Just as a slight counterpoint, "thieves quarters" in the real world sometimes grew up where some type of sanctuary was available because the land was owned by the church. As such, the entrance to the thieves' guild may not be a secret.

In the real world, of course, such things were usually short lived (I think there was one in Edinburgh, but I may be misremembering), but I've stretched the point to allow the thieves' guild in the CSIO to operate under some dark and secret arrangement with the Temple of the Frog in the southeast corner of the city. The prominant members do indeed strut about a bit, although they are careful not to ever be caught red-handed, of course, and the Overlord only orders the occassional crack-down. It's not particularly realistic, but it appeals to the Conanesque side of me!

Assassins, of course, are quite often employed by governments and as such may be tolerated or even be adopted as a branch of the secret police network. But it's not hard to imagine a fantasy world without assassin's guilds.

"Killing people for money" covers a lot of ground; it doesn't have to imply the existance of an assassin's guild or D&D-style assassins at all. As ever, if it's in the PHB, then the players are entitled to assume that it holds true/exists unless told otherwise.

Jayabalard
2008-09-08, 12:28 PM
The CIA analogy doesn't hold; it has at it's root a dependency on fast communication and widely spread information, neither of which can be assumed in a pseudo-medieval setting.

In a world where the very existence of assassins is only communicated in the tales of bards, it's very easy to make sure that bards aren't telling those tales. The smart bards will learn not to spread such stories, leaving the commoners ignorant; the less than smart bards will not be telling tales to anyone.


Just as a slight counterpoint, "thieves quarters" in the real world sometimes grew up where some type of sanctuary was available because the land was owned by the church. As such, the entrance to the thieves' guild may not be a secret.

In the real world, of course, such things were usually short lived Short lived indeed; but that's not really comparable to what he's referring to.

The New Bruceski
2008-09-08, 12:45 PM
Yes; I'm not a fan. I find the fact that everyone knows of the thieves guild to be absurd. I wouldn't play in a game where the secret entrance and prominent members of the thieves guild are common knowledge unless I was playing in an intentionally silly campaign (ie discword)


Password: Swordfish

TwystidMynd
2008-09-08, 12:49 PM
The CIA analogy doesn't hold; it has at it's root a dependency on fast communication and widely spread information, neither of which can be assumed in a pseudo-medieval setting.

In a world where the very existence of assassins is only communicated in the tales of bards, it's very easy to make sure that bards aren't telling those tales. The smart bards will learn not to spread such stories, leaving the commoners ignorant; the less than smart bards will not be telling tales to anyone.

Short lived indeed; but that's not really comparable to what he's referring to.

Ah, my mistake. I must've overlooked that detail. Instantaneous travel and fast communication are non-existant in vanilla D&D worlds. I withdraw my generic statement and re-apply it only to the very small sample of D&D universes where magic exists.

This also explains why Assassin stories never cropped up until the Internet was born.

nagora
2008-09-08, 12:52 PM
Ah, my mistake. I must've overlooked that detail. Instantaneous travel and fast communication are non-existant in vanilla D&D worlds. I withdraw my generic statement and re-apply it only to the very small sample of D&D universes where magic exists.

This also explains why Assassin stories never cropped up until the Internet was born.
Oooh, sarcy!

On the other hand, do the possessors of instantanious travel and fast communication in your gameworld bother to tell the general population such things, and how many people can read?

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-08, 01:07 PM
It seems to me that as a weapon of fear an assassin is substantially less effective if no one knows what an assassin is. Sure, they can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, but if that fact is not something the potential victims know, you or your client can't use that information to leverage the victim. All that will happen is that you'll kill your target and they'll be replaced with someone else. You also couldn't use knowledge of your organization to disuade someone from investigating the source of the assassin. No one would know to look for you when they need to hire an assassin, and would instead hire a thug off the street; destroying the whole 'murder for hire' angle.

The fear is really the key to any sort of assassin guild, and you can't generate the fear if you're not at the very least whispered about when people think no one can hear them. Ideally, you would want to stay in the domain of rumors, urban legends and heresay but you do need at least that much if you're trying to stay in business.

Besides, complete secrecy smacks of cowardice. If you're a powerful assassin and able to kill anyone, why would you need a shroud of absolute anonymity to protect you?

TwystidMynd
2008-09-08, 01:09 PM
Oooh, sarcy!

On the other hand, do the possessors of instantanious travel and fast communication in your gameworld bother to tell the general population such things, and how many people can read?

Ask a Bard? Shakespeare told his tales to Royalty and Laymen alike, despite the fact that he frequently portrayed nobility as buffoons. He did it for the fame, despite the fact that he could have made just as much money (probably more) having his plays performed for Royalty.
Fame serves as an inspiration for people to do dangerous things as well. Journalists often try to "get their name out" by covering wars, or going into disaster areas, just to get their image out there.

On a separate point, if high-speed travel and instant communication is available, then Jayabalard would probably cede his argument, because of the example case of the CIA. If these things were available, then the story would get out much too fast for anyone to do anything about it. Especially if there were a Bard's Guild dedicated to preserving a Fair and Balanced Tale(tm).
On the other hand, if high-speed travel and instant communication weren't available, then sure a Bard may hold his tongue if he ever got a story about an assassin operating out of BigCity... for a while. Then he'd travel LittleTown (two towns away from BigCity), and tell the tale under a disguise and while using a false identity. By the time BigCity assassin heard that a tale similar to his was being told 2 towns away, the description of the bard would be so unreliable, and the name untraceable, that by the time the assassin even got to LittleTown, the Bard would be long gone.
And lastly, if no one knows assassins exist, then who is going to hire them? Bards telling their stories is probably one of the best marketing strategies the Assassin's Guild has.

only1doug
2008-09-08, 01:10 PM
Oooh, sarcy!

On the other hand, do the possessors of instantanious travel and fast communication in your gameworld bother to tell the general population such things, and how many people can read?

Nagora is of course correct; No Caster class ever talks to non-casters let alone having any as friends. Casters also don't bother with having apprentice's, servants, they never need to shop and even if they did such things they would never sully themselves with common gossip.

horseboy
2008-09-08, 01:29 PM
I agree; it seems odd to me still. I run into it fairly frequently. Of course, I introduce a lot of people to a lot of different systems and settings. People try to make a Texas Ranger, and forget to buy Law Dog, or their fighter forgets to buy body development, pretty quick they're usually "Just show up with the characters."


so for a new player joining your game:
So, here's your character, lets play... Make your own character? No you don't know enough about the setting. The setting? oh, you'll find out as we play. You want to know the basic background first? stop wasting my time!More like: "Tell me about the setting." You start into a four or five hour lecture on xeno psychology, political science, sociology, geography, and history and the other players just stop you right there and say "No, it's okay dude, we gotcha. Don't get him started again." Of course, you don't just give them any character, but one you know they're going to enjoy. You don't give Mr. I-kill-it-with-the-biggest-gun-I-can-find the stealth character (unless he asks for it), you give him the Big Game character with the 8 gauge shot gun.

far beyond odd imo.

i have pre-generated characters for one shot adventures, it works nicely enough. those characters include backgrounds so the players have a feel for the history of the character and the setting.

there is a difference between an one shot adventure and a campaign, with a campaign the player will have the character for a long time, i find it hard to comprehend how anyone can accept a pregenerated character over a decent briefing and the chance to make their own choices.To each their own, but if the choice is start playing or spend two sessions building characters, I know what I'd pick.

nagora
2008-09-08, 01:30 PM
Nagora is of course correct; No Caster class ever talks to non-casters let alone having any as friends. Casters also don't bother with having apprentice's, servants, they never need to shop and even if they did such things they would never sully themselves with common gossip.

I said "do they?" The traditional MU is indeed very reclusive, so it's not an unsual trope; not everyone plays their fantasy wizards as if they were the sort of person you meet in the average modern pub.

Jayabalard
2008-09-08, 01:31 PM
Ask a Bard? Shakespeare told his tales to Royalty and Laymen alike, despite the fact that he frequently portrayed nobility as buffoons. Shakespeare is pretty post-medieval (by about a century) so is not a good example. For example, black powder weapons predate him in Europe by quite a bit, his lifetime is in a time that is far more advanced than most game worlds.


And lastly, if no one knows assassins exist, then who is going to hire them?People with money at court, who know of assassins through past family connections, and even then it's still only vague information. They don't talk to most other nobles about it because they don't want to help their enemies and they don't want to even their allies knowing exactly what they are up to. They certainly aren't talking to commoners about it. This makes the knowledge of the assassin's guild anything but common knowledge.


Bards telling their stories is probably one of the best marketing strategies the Assassin's Guild has.Not so; bards spreading the information to the common people doesn't help the assassins guild in the slightest, since commoners don't have enough money to hire them.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-08, 01:40 PM
And lastly, if no one knows assassins exist, then who is going to hire them?[qupte]People with money at court, who know of assassins through rumors and past connections. They don't talk to most other people at court about it because they don't want to help their enemies and they don't want to even their allies knowing exactly what they are up to. They certainly aren't talking to commoners about it. This makes the knowledge of the assassin's guild anything but common knowledge.

Ok, so now some people know about assassins then. How did they know? Rumors and past connections have to come from somewhere and unless you're very careful about it it's going to filter around, like any meme. Assassins and the intrigues of the rich and/or powerful are a particularly memorable and exciting subject in the first place, so it's going to be hard for any messengers not to mention it in passing or as a story while drunk.

It's said that a secret can be kept between three people, only on the condition that two of them are dead: and this is a rather large secret to keep in the first place. Besides, as I posted before keeping an assassin guild utterly secret runs counter to it's purpose of inspiring terror in your enemies. You generally have a lot more to gain from having it become common knowledge than you do from keeping it a secret.

I guess I could understand a lone assassin wanting to stay secret, but not an entire guild. It doesn't make any sense.

Tormsskull
2008-09-08, 01:53 PM
No one would know to look for you when they need to hire an assassin, and would instead hire a thug off the street; destroying the whole 'murder for hire' angle.


The fact that a king or an evil church leader or anyone one else in the upper echlons of society would know of assassins does not make it 'common knowledge'. No one is suggesting that assassins are completely unknown, they are suggesting that not everyone it their brother know who they are.



Besides, complete secrecy smacks of cowardice. If you're a powerful assassin and able to kill anyone, why would you need a shroud of absolute anonymity to protect you?

You wouldn't. In a D&D game it is virtually impossible to have absolute anonymity. If an assassin kills someone and the person killed saw the assassin, there are various ways to speak with that dead person in order to obtain that information. Using scrying or other divination spells/powers would mean that some people will see an assassin doing their work sometimes.

This does not mean you have complete anonymity. It does, however, mean that it won't be common knowledge.

Common knowledge means that most people know about it. If leaders of a country kept mysteriously dying, it would be common knowledge that the countries leaders have a high mortality rate.

It doesn't mean that it becomes common knowledge that there is a group of assassins who can perform death attacks and everyone knows about them.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-08, 02:08 PM
Shakespeare is pretty post-medieval (by about a century) so is not a good example. For example, black powder weapons predate him in Europe by quite a bit, his lifetime is in a time that is far more advanced than most game worlds.

So I take it you've tasked me with finding other examples of assassinations prior to Shakespeare, then?


Narcissus assassinated Commodus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(murderer))

Cassius assassinated Caligula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Chaerea)

Shetu Ishbara issued plenty of assassinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6kt%C3%BCrk_Khagans#Shetu_Ishbara-Qa.C4.9Fan_581-587)

Of course you may claim that I found these on the internet, in an age with high-speed communication, so the laymen of the era that these occurred in couldn't possibly have known about them. Hopefully I won't have to answer to that.

Edit: Fixed links. I really need to preview changes before I submit.

Sholos
2008-09-08, 02:56 PM
Here's my take on the whole Assassins thing.

In most given campaigns, they probably exist. Maybe even the PrC, so I'll give that existence, too. Now I'll give that it's common knowledge that there exists people who kill for money. So, under these givens, it's pretty easy for the PCs to find out about the Assassins. Here's the catch, though. Without explicitly going to the Assassins, how does your character gain the training necessary to be an Assassin? I mean, you could fairly easily drop the whole Society thing along with killing someone purely to get in, but that doesn't explain why your character suddenly gains all the skills Assassins have. These aren't things that you just learn; that's what more levels in Rogue are for. These are things you are taught. So you not only need to find someone to teach you (which is left completely up to the DM), but you also need to convince them to teach you stuff, and that's not exactly the kind of thing I think you should be doing off-screen.

Tormsskull
2008-09-08, 03:07 PM
So you not only need to find someone to teach you (which is left completely up to the DM), but you also need to convince them to teach you stuff, and that's not exactly the kind of thing I think you should be doing off-screen.

I'm guessing the argument you are going to get is that classes are really just collections of abilities, and it doesn't make any sense that it requires a trainer, because obviously someone had to have initially invented the class right? I mean, who was the first PrC assassin, if he had to be taught by someone?

Which means of course someone wasn't an assassin and then became one without being trained by another person. Which means that option should be available to the PCs because they are the most important people in the world of course.

I don't agree with that line of thinking, but it is commonly brought out when these specific arguments come up.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-08, 03:16 PM
I'm guessing the argument you are going to get is that classes are really just collections of abilities, and it doesn't make any sense that it requires a trainer, because obviously someone had to have initially invented the class right? I mean, who was the first PrC assassin, if he had to be taught by someone?


This actually depends upon the setting. There doesn't need to have been some mortal that was the first PrC assassin or whatever. It could be something, at the start, taught to a few select or even just one mortal by some greater being i.e. a god/archdevil/flumph and that no mortal could have learned by themselves. Various abilities can be tied to various fluff requirements, if the setting is set up that way.

TwystidMynd
2008-09-08, 03:24 PM
I'm guessing the argument you are going to get is that classes are really just collections of abilities, and it doesn't make any sense that it requires a trainer, because obviously someone had to have initially invented the class right? I mean, who was the first PrC assassin, if he had to be taught by someone?

Which means of course someone wasn't an assassin and then became one without being trained by another person. Which means that option should be available to the PCs because they are the most important people in the world of course.

I don't agree with that line of thinking, but it is commonly brought out when these specific arguments come up.

Which means that only the most important people in the world can do anything novel, of course.

I don't agree with that line of thinking, but it is commonly brought out when these arguments come up.

TheElfLord
2008-09-08, 03:31 PM
While this thread has been really interesting, I skipped the last page or so because I want to respond to the OP, not the current position of the thread. (I may come back to that later)

To me the whole issue revolves around the DM's motivation. Why does the DM ask, "How would your character know x" To my mind there are two motivations, one good, one bad.

1) the DM does not have x included in the campaign or does not want x. In this case the DM is using the question to try to get the player to say,"I guess my character doesn't know about x." While this accomplishes the DM's goals, I think this is a shady way to go about it. The DM should be open and honest with the player about why he doesn't like the x element.

For example:

Player: My character is going to seek out a cleric to make him a holy avenger.
DM: Actually in my world there is just a single Holy Avenger. It was forged centuries ago and is passed down to the Grand Marshall of the Golden Guard. Its not possible to make another one.
Player: okay

Player: I want to take a level in (random pressitge class)
DM: The flavor of that class doesn't fit anywhere in my world, so it doesn't exist /or/ Some of those abilities are unbalanced so I'm not going to allow it.
Player: alright

The result is the same as asking a question but the DM doesn't have to worry about the player coming up with an answer the DM doesn't want. Also honest communication can onl help build the roleplaying experience.

The second reason DMs ask the question, and the more common reason in my experience is to prompt character depth and development. This of course depends on how fleshed out the characters already are. If the player brought a 20 page single spaced background that follows the character's life year by year, it might be hard to alter it. But if there is room in the background, adding a reason for knowledge may create depth and story hooks. If the paladin had a mentor and holy avengers aren't unique in your world, what's wrong with letting the mentor have one. This could be the springboard for development of the mentor, as well as plot hooks regarding the mentor's current activities and the whereabouts of his Avenger. If introducing some savage wizards into your world won't shake things up a lot, what's wrong with saying a young barbarian watched tribal magicians growing up and has come to appreciate their role in supporting the tribe.

If the DM askes the question without a desired answer in mind, it leaves both groups open to create character and setting detail. I think that adding elements to the background after character creation reflects not only greater understanding of the world, but of the character. Of course, some players will use it simply for powergaming purposes, but hopefully a DM will try to turn that into an opportunity anyway.

To sum up, Letting characters "say it is the case" can flesh out characters and add depth. If the DM is asking it as a round about way of saying no, he shouldn't be asking, he should just tell the player no and explain why.

Wow that turned out a lot longer than I expected. If you read it all the way through, congratulations and thanks!

Tormsskull
2008-09-08, 03:55 PM
1) the DM does not have x included in the campaign or does not want x. In this case the DM is using the question to try to get the player to say,"I guess my character doesn't know about x." While this accomplishes the DM's goals, I think this is a shady way to go about it. The DM should be open and honest with the player about why he doesn't like the x element.


This is one way to go about it, sure, but I wouldn't consider it 'shady' for the DM to prompt the player in this way. I honestly think it comes down to a playstyle difference. In my campaigns players know they are in for a heavy roleplaying session. They know that I am very strict about the separation between character knowledge and player knowledge.

I would much prefer that the players experience the world through their characters, and then draw conclusions from it. As such, and knowing that they are aware of this, I think it is perfectly fine to respond to an ad hoc backstory tie-in with "Oh really? And how did you learn that information, exactly?"

Sure, the DM is basically setting a trap for the player. The player knew the boundaries of the game, and tried to cross them, and as such the DM is calling them on it.



The second reason DMs ask the question, and the more common reason in my experience is to prompt character depth and development. This of course depends on how fleshed out the characters already are.


I do this a lot, for minor details. If a character wants to have spoken to a strange person in their past, or wants to have seen a dragon from a distance, or something similiar, let them go for it. But when the ad hoc to the storyline is specifically for increasing the character's mechanical power, it doesn't add enough to the game to counter the negative affects.



Of course, some players will use it simply for powergaming purposes, but hopefully a DM will try to turn that into an opportunity anyway.


In my perception, both of the original examples I would consider attempts obtain mechanical power (not necessarily powergaming I suppose, but related).



Wow that turned out a lot longer than I expected. If you read it all the way through, congratulations and thanks!

They usually do, and it was a good read.

TheElfLord
2008-09-08, 04:29 PM
This is one way to go about it, sure, but I wouldn't consider it 'shady' for the DM to prompt the player in this way. I honestly think it comes down to a playstyle difference. In my campaigns players know they are in for a heavy roleplaying session. They know that I am very strict about the separation between character knowledge and player knowledge.

I don't know what the roleplaying level has to do with it. To me the best response to a question about allowing something where the DM does not want to allow it is to simply say its not allowed. Why try to trick the player when the DM could just say your character doesn't know about X because x isn't in my world. From my perspective adding more background details prompts more roleplaying,so it would be a good thing to allow characters to expand their background.


I would much prefer that the players experience the world through their characters, and then draw conclusions from it. As such, and knowing that they are aware of this, I think it is perfectly fine to respond to an ad hoc backstory tie-in with "Oh really? And how did you learn that information, exactly?"

While this is good to an extent, I wouldn't expect any DM to convey 15+ years of knowledge and experience gained by a character before he started adventuring. If I were to list all the things I've learned in my life so far, it would probably take years to recite. So I think there has to be knowledge the character has that has not be relaid by the DM.

Related to this may be a playstyle difference, but I don't mind some player input in my world. I don't pretend to have planned out every little detail, and if the player has a good idea, I'm willing to give it a place. So this means that I'm okay with players trying to fill in the blanks between what the DM has told the players and what the characters know.


Sure, the DM is basically setting a trap for the player. The player knew the boundaries of the game, and tried to cross them, and as such the DM is calling them on it.

This thread is based on players not liking to be trapped and coming up with (depending on your view) legitimate or not reasons to avoid being trapped. There is an easy solution to this problem. The DM shouldn't try to trap players. If the DM things something is an issue, he should come out and say it. Asking the question opens up the possibility the DM won't like the answer, but it wouldn't be an issue if he'd used a statement instead of a question.




I do this a lot, for minor details. If a character wants to have spoken to a strange person in their past, or wants to have seen a dragon from a distance, or something similiar, let them go for it. But when the ad hoc to the storyline is specifically for increasing the character's mechanical power, it doesn't add enough to the game to counter the negative affects.

In a roleplay heavy game, even something that gives a mechanical advantage can be turned into a major roleplaying opportunity.




In my perception, both of the original examples I would consider attempts obtain mechanical power (not necessarily powergaming I suppose, but related).

I know you don't believe that a person can pursue mechanics and roleplaying at the same time, but the heroic warrior and iconic sword have a long history. King Arther, Prince Valiant, Berin, Turin, Aragorn etc. are all figures whith special swords. Also from my understanding of mechanics in 3.x, the Holy Avenger isn't that great a weapon, so I think many players would want one for the prestige/coolness (since a Holy Avenger is something most players can relate to, while no one outside a group may have heard of Kirshst's Anguish, magicl blade of the last Emperor)

I guess part of it is that since I believe that you can have a strong character (I would hesitate to say optimized, since I don't think anyone in my group has every played an optimized character) and still roleplay, I'm not afraid of characters seeking a mechanical advantage. After all, there are plenty of stories and legends about people seeking powerful items to aid them. Why can't those stories have a place in DnD?



They usually do, and it was a good read.[/QUOTE]

Jayabalard
2008-09-08, 04:34 PM
This actually depends upon the setting. There doesn't need to have been some mortal that was the first PrC assassin or whatever. It could be something, at the start, taught to a few select or even just one mortal by some greater being i.e. a god/archdevil/flumph and that no mortal could have learned by themselves. Various abilities can be tied to various fluff requirements, if the setting is set up that way.Needing someone to train you doesn't mean that they are necessarily an assassin... you just need someone who can train you in the things that assassins know. The first Assassins wouldn't have had any levels in the Assassin PRC.

This is true even of the base classes: the wizard class, for example, is just what the current state of wizardry is like in the game world, not what it's always been like. Early wizards would have had a much different set of abilities, and probably a totally different spell list.


In a roleplay heavy game, even something that gives a mechanical advantage can be turned into a major roleplaying opportunity.Somehow I doubt that you're using the same definition as Tormsskull

AKA_Bait
2008-09-08, 04:53 PM
Needing someone to train you doesn't mean that they are necessarily an assassin... you just need someone who can train you in the things that assassins know. The first Assassins wouldn't have had any levels in the Assassin PRC.

Right, but the point applies equally well to whatever abilities the assasin class bestows. If x ability bestowed by the class can only be learned either a) from some being that is beyond mortal capacity or b) from a mortal being that had it taught to them by (a) or several generations of teaching down the line therefrom, then a PC cannot just 'pick it up on their own'. Again, this is just to make the point that the argument 'since PC's are just collections of abilities then any PRC should be available to a PC that can figure it out' is bunk. That any given ability can just be 'figured out' rather than taught is entirely in the purvew of the DM's setting.


This is true even of the base classes: the wizard class, for example, is just what the current state of wizardry is like in the game world, not what it's always been like. Early wizards would have had a much different set of abilities, and probably a totally different spell list.

Again, that's dependant upon setting. It could be that the first Wizards got their spellbooks from Mystra or Boccob and the only spells that exist are those scribed in those first, ultimate book. All other spellsbooks are mere copies of pages of those books. It could also be that magic is like science and spells and components get tested experimentally over time, constantly being refined. It could be as wide or as narrow as the DM's imagination.

nagora
2008-09-08, 05:03 PM
Which means that only the most important people in the world can do anything novel, of course.
Isn't that a tautology? People who come up with novel things surely are important by definition. They may be dangerous or weird, but I think they're still imporant in either case.

Akimbo
2008-09-08, 05:18 PM
So, under these givens, it's pretty easy for the PCs to find out about the Assassins. Here's the catch, though. Without explicitly going to the Assassins, how does your character gain the training necessary to be an Assassin?

But this is the point from the beginning of the thread. The question is never if you can learn things without being taught. It's whether your character can know they exist.

A PC might decide they want to become an Assassin, and so their character, who knows about Assassins, tries to find the guild in character. But Nagora and Tormsskull had to jump all over the idea that anyone can know about Assassins and basically say that no one can know about anything in the game unless the DM specifically tells them.

Same with the Holy Avenger. No one ever said the guy decided in his backstory that he totally had it in his backpack all along. He just knows that it exists, and wants to find it. Which is perfectly okay and only a real **** of a DM would not allow him to look.

Akimbo
2008-09-08, 05:23 PM
To each their own, but if the choice is start playing or spend two sessions building characters, I know what I'd pick.

And my point is that you have a Strawman here.

You can easily make your own characters using no play time at all, since, you know, it doesn't require that everyone be there at once.

What's so hard about having the DM give you a brief rundown of the setting and then making a character when no one else is around.

You give up nothing.

nagora
2008-09-08, 05:27 PM
And my point is that you have a Strawman here.

You can easily make your own characters using no play time at all, since, you know, it doesn't require that everyone be there at once.
Well, one of our players works in a different country and has to commute by plane every day (another one has to travel to other countries at short notice), so it's tough for him to fit in non-session play especially now that he's got a small baby. The rest of us all work too and some have kids or live in another town. I think that might have something to do with it, although I remember the trend starting before all that was true.

only1doug
2008-09-08, 05:29 PM
I think this becomes an issue about the methodology of the GM, for some GMs are permissive and allow anything the players desire unless they feel it doesn't fit in their game world and other GMs are more prohibitive and only allow things they have already approved of.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-08, 05:30 PM
Another point, this is just me, but if I can't make a character in a system, then I won't play the system until I can because for me, character creation is when I learn most of the rules. After all, if you build a character to do X then you usually try and figure out the rules regarding X first.

nagora
2008-09-08, 05:40 PM
Another point, this is just me, but if I can't make a character in a system, then I won't play the system until I can because for me, character creation is when I learn most of the rules. After all, if you build a character to do X then you usually try and figure out the rules regarding X first.
Well, that's one style of play. We prefer to think and talk in terms of what the character's doing rather than get too bogged down in numbers and rules. I wouldn't (again) play a system that required me to know 30+ pages of rules in order to say "I'll try climbing the wall".

In fact, I'd really rather not play a system that requires me, as a player, to know any of the rules unless perhaps, they're for learning and casting spells or something else that I have no RL experience in. In reality, however, that ideal is hard to achieve.

Beleriphon
2008-09-08, 06:06 PM
Yes; I'm not a fan. I find the fact that everyone knows of the thieves guild to be absurd. I wouldn't play in a game where the secret entrance and prominent members of the thieves guild are common knowledge unless I was playing in an intentionally silly campaign (ie discword).

Or a world with organized crime sydicates like the Mafia. In all seriousness, everybody knows about the Mafia, but probably doesn't actually know anybody as a member. That said, the existence of the Mafia is common knowledge, and the government even knows about the Mafia, but can't do a damned thing to actually stop it outright.

Quietus
2008-09-08, 06:18 PM
Which means that only the most important people in the world can do anything novel, of course.

Rather, those that do novel things (as PCs tend to do) become some of the most important people in the world.



Now, as to player knowledge, setting, and such - I run my own play-by-post setting (as noted in my signature), and I couldn't possibly expect players to know everything about my setting - hell, *I* don't know every last detail about it, any more than we know every last detail of our character's pasts. I have, however, found that it's very easy to give a brief description of the world, and what's allowed, and run with that. For example, I could sum Vethedar up thusly :

A world recovering from centuries of draconic rule, where cities are few and far between, and dragons are attempting to reclaim their crowns.
Books allowed : PHB, PHB2, DMG, Draconomicon, All completes, BoVD, BoED. Anything not in those books is by individual request.

Any character created under those limitations is generally accepted. I don't think it's unreasonable to give players that much information - or answer any questions that have, as long as that information is stuff that any random person could reasonably know - and I don't think it's too much to ask that players read a bit if they'd like to play.

Now, I'd never ask players to read an obscene amount of stuff; It's pretty easy to read the entirety of Vethedar's rules in ten minutes or less. I also have a "in-game information" section which, while you don't HAVE to read it, I've provided it for those who are interested in knowing more. And it's all information any random person could know. I don't see any problem with giving players that much leeway and backing it off when they start to push the limits of what makes sense; Assassins exist in my world, so players can aim for that class. Now, anyone who wanted their character to know exactly what an assassin can DO would need to make a Knowledge check of some sort, but that's because I do keep a strict barrier between in-character and out-of-character information.

horseboy
2008-09-08, 06:24 PM
Ah, my mistake. I must've overlooked that detail. Instantaneous travel and fast communication are non-existent in vanilla D&D worlds. I withdraw my generic statement and re-apply it only to the very small sample of D&D universes where magic exists.

This also explains why Assassin stories never cropped up until the Internet was born.You have the Black Horse Currier in your world?

Akimbo
2008-09-08, 06:38 PM
You have the Black Horse Currier in your world?

I believe the whole point was being sarcastic about how Assassin stories were common place before electronics, much less the internet.

horseboy
2008-09-08, 07:30 PM
And my point is that you have a Strawman here.

You can easily make your own characters using no play time at all, since, you know, it doesn't require that everyone be there at once.

What's so hard about having the DM give you a brief rundown of the setting and then making a character when no one else is around.

You give up nothing.Like Nagora said, Real life.
I live 50 miles outside of town and work night shift, and usually the GM.
Nukem has a 2 year old and a wife he actually likes spending time around (imagine that)
Zephry spends most of his spare time in court, trying to wrest custody of his 3 year old from his druggy baby momma.
Wizard is working just shy of 70 hours every week, and has a baby due.
I haven't seen Shakes in almost a year, so not sure about him.
Big 'un I might could get to outside of convention season.
Adam works at the same factory as me, but on the conflicting shift.
None of them check their e-mail. :smallamused:
I believe the whole point was being sarcastic about how Assassin stories were common place before electronics, much less the internet.You don't need electronics to have fast communication and widely spread communication. Just a well established mail carrying system and movable print. That's been around for quite some time.

Sholos
2008-09-08, 07:37 PM
But this is the point from the beginning of the thread. The question is never if you can learn things without being taught. It's whether your character can know they exist.

A PC might decide they want to become an Assassin, and so their character, who knows about Assassins, tries to find the guild in character. But Nagora and Tormsskull had to jump all over the idea that anyone can know about Assassins and basically say that no one can know about anything in the game unless the DM specifically tells them.

Same with the Holy Avenger. No one ever said the guy decided in his backstory that he totally had it in his backpack all along. He just knows that it exists, and wants to find it. Which is perfectly okay and only a real **** of a DM would not allow him to look.

On this point, I agree. My point was that it is silly for a PC to just one day decide to take a PrC that there has been no roleplaying towards.

I believe the question "How does your character know about that?" or "Why does your character want to do that?" should only be used as a means of fleshing the character out, not controlling the player's decisions. The issue comes when a player has a character do something that seems completely against how the character has been portrayed so far (the magic-hating barbarian taking a wizard level is a good example).

Roland St. Jude
2008-09-08, 07:53 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't flame each other or make comments, however amusing they may seem, that are aimed at stirring up flames. We have a broad definition of flaming here that includes telling others to shut up, that they haven't read your earlier posts, and insulting others for any reason, including preferred playstyle.

Worira
2008-09-08, 10:40 PM
Somehow I doubt that you're using the same definition as Tormsskull

If his definition of roleplaying forbids Arthur from claiming Excalibur, if it means Roland's a munchkin for wielding Durendal, then I don't want to roleplay.

turkishproverb
2008-09-09, 12:52 AM
If his definition of roleplaying forbids Arthur from claiming Excalibur, if it means Roland's a munchkin for wielding Durendal, then I don't want to roleplay.

Wow. Good way of putting the comment. It isn't as though RPing can't entail a certain amount of minmaxing.

Ganurath
2008-09-09, 01:06 AM
In response to the OP:

For multiclassing, feat, and skill options, I make sure they have a detailed character background, and ask that they have a general idea of where they want to be five levels from now.

In matters of equipment, that's actually easier. The OOC player is looking for a specific item? The IC character is looking for an item that does [distinct effect of specific item] and eventually finds out how to get it after the character or their partymate with Gather Information asks around.

Jayabalard
2008-09-09, 05:49 AM
If his definition of roleplaying forbids Arthur from claiming Excalibur, if it means Roland's a munchkin for wielding Durendal, then I don't want to roleplay.Are you suggesting that those decisions were done for anything but in character reasons?


Wow. Good way of putting the comment. It isn't as though RPing can't entail a certain amount of minmaxing.If by minmaxing, you mean making decisions about a character for ooc reasons for increased mechanical advantage (which I think is a pretty representative definition) then I'll have to disagree. Once you start doing that, you're not roleplaying.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-09, 09:05 AM
If by minmaxing, you mean making decisions about a character for ooc reasons for increased mechanical advantage (which I think is a pretty representative definition) then I'll have to disagree. Once you start doing that, you're not roleplaying.

Well, that's where the gray area between optimization and in character decisions comes into play. There is an overlap between the two where something is both a mechanical advantage and a good RP decision. A player wants good armor for his fighter because it grants the mechanical advantage of higher AC, his PC wants good armor because it means that he's less likley to get stabbed. Issues pop up in the foggy edges on either side of this overlap.

Tormsskull
2008-09-09, 09:46 AM
A player wants good armor for his fighter because it grants the mechanical advantage of higher AC, his PC wants good armor because it means that he's less likley to get stabbed. Issues pop up in the foggy edges on either side of this overlap.

This is true, but I think it is reasonable for a character to know that plate mail armor provides more protection than padded armor. It makes sense in character (most important) and it is also grants a mechanical benefit (also important).

The true question is where each person defines the foggy edges, as you call them. I guess I am most suprised at the people who are saying there are no foggy edges.

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-09, 09:48 AM
Are you suggesting that those decisions were done for anything but in character reasons?

There's really no such thing as a completely IC decision made by an OOC person. I've had situations before where I put my characters at great IC disadvantage (ordering a retreat while I stayed to hold the foes at a bridge or other stopgap.) I knew the likely result would be my characters death/capture and I know it would be IC for a good aligned PC to do that to save others.

However, I would also be lying if I didn't admit a certain OOC enjoyment that I was saving everyone else, and maybe even the selfish motive of 'I was getting kind of hungry/tired at the time and this lets us pause the session sooner.'

Arthur and Roland have their weapons not only because it's IC for them, but also OOC because their writers felt they needed a symbol that marked them as more having more force of arms than all the knights in their service or in history without a named weapon with mysterious powers/origins. You could certainly accuse who ever wrote the legend of Arthur or Roland of min/maxing, but they were just trying to make sure their characters were compelling. It's certainly tough to argue with their success, however. :smalltongue:

TheElfLord
2008-09-09, 10:42 AM
This is true, but I think it is reasonable for a character to know that plate mail armor provides more protection than padded armor. It makes sense in character (most important) and it is also grants a mechanical benefit (also important).

The true question is where each person defines the foggy edges, as you call them. I guess I am most surprised at the people who are saying there are no foggy edges.

This is interesting to me, because you seem to be the main person suggesting there are no foggy edges. You've dismissed the possibility that in any of the examples the player would have an IC reason for something and have presumed a purely mechanical benefit approach.

Tormsskull
2008-09-09, 11:06 AM
You've dismissed the possibility that in any of the examples the player would have an IC reason for something and have presumed a purely mechanical benefit approach.

"any of the examples"? You mean the two examples that I created in the OP? As in the ones that I disagreed with and thus was asking people how they handled it? It should pretty obvious that I am not going to view those as foggy edges.

The fact that a lot of other posters are saying "Oh yeah, you can pretty much put anything in the backstory after the game has already started" is more indicative to me that they believe in no foggy edges than my saying both of the situations that I hand-picked aren't.

An example of a foggy edge to me would be a barbarian who spent a bit of time with the tribal witch (but not an extensive amount) who then suddenly wanted to take a level of wizard. Should it be allowed? I could see it going either way. I personally would probably say no unless the character's backstory made some specific kind of mention that the barbarian was interested in magic, or if the player specifically told me he was thinking about taking a level in wizard at level 2.

If someone else thought that a bit of exposure to an arcane source (tribal witch) was enough for the player to take a level in wizard, I couldn't say they were totally wrong. I.E. foggy edge.

Absolutely no mention of an arcane source whatsoever in the background, and then suddenly take a level in wizard, no foggy edge IMO.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-09, 11:21 AM
Well, as always, it comes back to the question of playstyle. In most groups I run, if someone wants to take a weird class that they didn't have IC experience or backstory for, I'd probably let it slide even though it's not a foggy edge. The reason is that although it will probably bug me a little, as the DM, to allow that inconsistancy into my little created world, I'm not going to let that stand in the way of the player having more fun. The reasonable excuses I'd have for disallowing a nonfoggy request like that are:

1. It runs counter to the campaign setting / general plot I've created. If having x in a characters background retroactivley would change how actions that actually happened during play in earlier parts of the campaign progressed, I'd probably bar it.

2. If doing so made the rest of the players unhappy. Depending upon the group, the other players might be upset at a retcon to take a particular class. If they are group > individual player.

3. If it really just bothers me too friggin much. I'm supposed to have fun too. Mostly, this sort of thing doesn't bother me, but if an illiterate barbarian who has never even spent more than 2 mins with a wizard all of a sudden decided to take a level in it... it would bug the heck out of me and I'd need some sort of really really really really fantastic explanation for it for it not to grate on me for the rest of the campaign.

TheElfLord
2008-09-09, 11:27 AM
I'm not sure how many posters advocated being able to put anything in the background. Lots of us have advocated putting somethings, and to the position that doesn't want to allow nothing, something can look like anything. (I didn't go back and reread the whole thread, so there may be some posters advocating anything, but I think most are just advocating something.)

Plus people have pointed out the foggy edges with at least the Holy Avenger example. (Literary heroes with magic swords, character drive to have good equipment and be harder to kill).

This may come back to how much we trust people/players, but I honestly think the reason most players would want their paladin to have a Holy Avenger is not because it's a super awesome weapon (I'm sure there are several weapons that are better mechanically) but because it is the iconic weapon of a paladin, the ultimate martial tool in the service of good and justice. If the Holy Avenger is not a unique weapon in a given world, I think most people would imagine having one would be the halmark of a world famous paladin. Similar to Grand Klaives in Werewolf the Apocalypse, having one is a sign of great pestige and power.

Tormsskull
2008-09-09, 11:37 AM
Plus people have pointed out the foggy edges with at least the Holy Avenger example. (Literary heroes with magic swords, character drive to have good equipment and be harder to kill).


Ah, I see. It's because you are using foggy edge differently than AKA_Bait, that makes sense. What you consider a foggy edge is some kind of external reason/justification (some guys in real life legends had magic swords) for a player to want a magic sword for his character (and thus add it into his backstory).

He was using it (and I followed in suit) to mean a (sometimes flimsy) internal, in-character, in-game, etc for emphasis, reason that would make sense for the character to pursue the mechanic.

He also pointed out that if the foggy edge is going to make the player have fun without causing him (the DM) all that much trouble, he is going to allow it (even though he recognizes it is a foggy edge). I'd be more towards the not allowing it end, even under these same circumstances (becauses foggy edges usually irk me).

Allene
2008-09-09, 12:22 PM
He was using it (and I followed in suit) to mean a internal, in-character, in-game, etc for emphasis, reason that would make sense for the character to pursue the mechanic.

So in character reasons for doing things are foggy, and OC reasons for doing things are bad.

Is their anything that your players can do that you wouldn't take exception to? Throw the sword back into the lake and go die?

TheElfLord
2008-09-09, 02:27 PM
Ah, I see. It's because you are using foggy edge differently than AKA_Bait, that makes sense. What you consider a foggy edge is some kind of external reason/justification (some guys in real life legends had magic swords) for a player to want a magic sword for his character (and thus add it into his backstory).

He was using it (and I followed in suit) to mean a (sometimes flimsy) internal, in-character, in-game, etc for emphasis, reason that would make sense for the character to pursue the mechanic.


I understood his statement as saying that very rarely is a motivation either purely in-character, or purely mechanical. Its not black and white, in most situations there is a gray area inbetween. The real question comes from where does the gray end and the black or white begin, that's the foggy edge. I think you are the one who misunderstood what AKA_Bait meant. (AKA_Bait, if I complelty missed what you meant by the foggy edges of the overlap between mechanics and in-character reasoning, please tell me)

I don't consider a foggy edge to be an external justification, I was giving examples of in-character desires for something you consider to be out of character mechanicl decisions. Here is the impression your posts have given me.

Player: my paladin wants a holy avenger
Tormsskull: No you as a player want a holy avenger so your character has a mechanical advantage. You character doesn't have a reason to want a magical sword.

King Aurthor is pure character. He doesn't have a player who drives him to get Excallabur. The character has the internal in-character motivation to seek out a magical blade. So do all the other examples I mentioned. I gave them in respose to this:


in my perception, both of the original examples I would consider attempts obtain mechanical power (not necessarily powergaming I suppose, but related).


If you can't see the in-character reasons for wanting a holy avenger, than I fear the perception gap between us it too far to bridge.

Quietus
2008-09-09, 02:47 PM
If by minmaxing, you mean making decisions about a character for ooc reasons for increased mechanical advantage (which I think is a pretty representative definition) then I'll have to disagree. Once you start doing that, you're not roleplaying.

So my character, who puts his/her life on the line on a regular basis to perform feats ordinary people wouldn't even consider, but that need to be done, wouldn't want to increase their effectiveness and therefore, their chance of survival?

Let's see : Edan Longspear, town guard of Vaeles. His signature is his fighting style, he's a master of fighting with a Glaive. By your definition, my giving thought to what feats would make him most effective in fighting with a glaive is not roleplaying, despite it being entirely in-character for him to pursue those abilities.

Now, if Edan wanted to take levels of, say, Cleric, so that he could become ClericZilla, then that'd be an out-of-character decision made for purely mechanical advantage. He isn't a particularly religious person, so as a DM, if someone were playing Edan and wanted to go Cleric, I'd require some in-character justification; Some time spent in worship, learning the tenets of the faith, or even a massive worldview-shattering event after which he becomes devout... those things would justify Cleric levels in my mind.


As for the barbarian/wizard thing... if I were approached by a player before the game and they said "He used to study with the tribe witch", then I'd be fine with him taking levels of Wizard later. It'd be kind of strange, but I wouldn't deny them that, though I'd warn that it's a really suboptimal choice. If they didn't say that beforehand, but we'd just started and quickly reached second level, and wanted to take that level, I'd ask about their character idea, and make recommendations based on that. I'd do the same if they wanted to make that change much later in their character's life.


I'm trying to take a new stance on GMing; Never just say "no". If ever I have to, it'll be a "No, because...", or "No, but..." - for example, "No, you can't take Wizard levels, because you're illiterate and have always hated magic. If you give me a reason why you've made this massive change in personality, we can talk about it." Or if they aren't magic-hating but just spontaneously wanted to be a spellcaster, "No, but you can become a Sorcerer instead. If you want to learn Wizardry, learn to read and spend a little time studying."

TheElfLord
2008-09-09, 02:52 PM
I'm trying to take a new stance on GMing; Never just say "no". If ever I have to, it'll be a "No, because...", or "No, but..."

I think this should be a basic practice of DMing. It's something I'v tried to work on for my most recent game. Before it started I gave my players a handout explaining what was and was not allowed in the game, along with my explanation. I think its important for the characters to know the DM has a thought process, and is not just arbitrarily denying things.

Tormsskull
2008-09-09, 02:57 PM
I don't consider a foggy edge to be an external justification, I was giving examples of in-character desires for something you consider to be out of character mechanicl decisions. Here is the impression your posts have given me.


Could you please point out what your "in-character desire" was? Specifically which example was in-character? I had thought (and I guess still do) that you consider "King Arthur had Excalibur" to be an in-character desire. Is that right? If not, why did you list that?



Player: my paladin wants a holy avenger
Tormsskull: No you as a player want a holy avenger so your character has a mechanical advantage. You character doesn't have a reason to want a magical sword.


That's because you are completely ignoring the OP, the title of the thread, and most of the conversation that has gone on (like you said though, you didn't read the whole thread so this is understandable).

A more appropriate way of using your analogy is this:

Player creates character. Play begins. Sometime later Player hears about a holy avenger and how it is a great weapon for paladins (this is out of character mind you).
Player: "My character wants a holy avenger. Is it ok that I add into his backstory that his mentor paladin had a holy avenger, which will give me an in-character reason for seeking it out?"
Tormsskull: "No."



King Aurthor is pure character. He doesn't have a player who drives him to get Excallabur.


Exactly, which means trying to equate them with D&D is incredibly difficult and barely relevant.



The character has the internal in-character motivation to seek out a magical blade. So do all the other examples I mentioned. I gave them in respose to this:


Let's say for a minute that the above is true. Would you consider this as King Arthur's player in a D&D game adding that fact that he knows about a sword named Excalibur and the fact that the Lady of the Lake has it to his backstory? Or would you consider it just something that occured during gameplay.

Again, it is a poor excuse for a D&D event as it happened in a book, there was no DM or players, and a thousand other reasons. If you want to use the example only to show that a character can have a reason for obtaining a magical sword, you don't need to because I agree with you. The specific case that we are discussing in this thread, however, is would you as a DM allow a player to modify their background to obtain a magic sword that they didn't know anything about in-character up to this point.



If you can't see the in-character reasons for wanting a holy avenger, than I fear the perception gap between us it too far to bridge.

There are in-character reasons for wanting a lot of things. But I believe something has to happen, ya know, in-character for that character to know about it. If holy avengers are general knowledge in your world, then I suppose it makes sense for even level 1 character to know what holy avengers are and how they are especially beneficial to paladins. That's not how my campaign worlds operate.

Beleriphon
2008-09-09, 03:19 PM
If by minmaxing, you mean making decisions about a character for ooc reasons for increased mechanical advantage (which I think is a pretty representative definition) then I'll have to disagree. Once you start doing that, you're not roleplaying.

Sure you are, there is no reason that you can't have a mechanically advantageous character that you roleplay. Power Attack is a mechanically advantageous feat, a barbarian wielding a great axe can maximize his damage potential by using power attack. You just min-maxed a barbarian, for entirely OOC reason, that makes perfect sense IC.

As for the adding something to the backstory, unless a DM specifically details what is and isn't common knowledge upfront, then I'm going to assume that my character has at least heard of in some small way the item I as a player want for my character. To take the Holy Avenger example, a paladin probably knows about magic swords, they probablty know that some kind of special magical paladinish sword has existed at some point, at least some legend or story of such an item. I as a player know that I want a holy avenger, my character knows that he'd like to eventually find a spiffy magic sword that paladins can use to great effect. I don't see anything wrong with that, largely because I feel its the DMs job to work with the players to enhance the enjoyment of all.

Anything can be justified in character with a little bit of rationalization. Thats all it takes. A player needs to work the DM to rationalize a choice sometimes, but I don't think it really takes that much effort most of the time.

TheElfLord
2008-09-09, 03:28 PM
Could you please point out what your "in-character desire" was? Specifically which example was in-character? I had thought (and I guess still do) that you consider "King Arthur had Excalibur" to be an in-character desire. Is that right? If not, why did you list that?

Sorry, I didn't realize I had to break it down this far for you. All of them are examples of characters who in-character for them, decided they wanted a powerful magical sword. Aurthur wanted a magical sword to defeat the black night. Aragorn wanted to reforge his family's blade and restore his kingdom. Valiant wanted to survive a Viking attack. All of these decisions were not made by a player out there (yes there is an author but those tend to be more like DMs than players). So these should all be examples of how its possible for a character to want to have a magical sword without it only being brought on by player desires for mechanics.




That's because you are completely ignoring the OP, the title of the thread, and most of the conversation that has gone on (like you said though, you didn't read the whole thread so this is understandable).

A more appropriate way of using your analogy is this:

Player creates character. Play begins. Sometime later Player hears about a holy avenger and how it is a great weapon for paladins (this is out of character mind you).
Player: "My character wants a holy avenger. Is it ok that I add into his backstory that his mentor paladin had a holy avenger, which will give me an in-character reason for seeking it out?"
Tormsskull: "No."

This confuses me, because you say you like roleplay heavy games, but you just turned down huge amounts of roleplaying potential. The introduction of an NPC mentor to give quests, be sought after, dispense plot information. The possible quests for the sword, and all the interactions that prompt.

You have also poisoned the well by stating the player's motivations, "how it is a great weapon for paladins" Are you a mind reader? Would your answer of no change if the player's unspoken motivations were that they had heard about the Holy Avenger and how it is the iconic weapon of heroic paladins?

I can't read minds, so I don't jump to conclusions about why a certain person wants something when there are multiple legitimate reasons.




Exactly, which means trying to equate them with D&D is incredibly difficult and barely relevant.

Not relevant, or simply detrimental to your point? If you big issue is that players act from desire for mechanical benefit instead of in-character justification, then looking at a pure character is the a great way of separating them. The pure character lacks a player and therefore no actions are taken out of desire for mechanical benefit. So any action the character takes must therefore be capable of having an in-character justification.


Let's say for a minute that the above is true. Would you consider this as King Arthur's player in a D&D game adding that fact that he knows about a sword named Excalibur and the fact that the Lady of the Lake has it to his backstory? Or would you consider it just something that occured during gameplay.

In the legend it happened during the equivalent of gameplay.


The specific case that we are discussing in this thread, however, is would you as a DM allow a player to modify their background to obtain a magic sword that they didn't know anything about in-character up to this point.

There are in-character reasons for wanting a lot of things. But I believe something has to happen, ya know, in-character for that character to know about it. If holy avengers are general knowledge in your world, then I suppose it makes sense for even level 1 character to know what holy avengers are and how they are especially beneficial to paladins. That's not how my campaign worlds operate.

I'll take these last two together, because they both effect playstyles and game worlds. Obviously the Aurthorian legends don't talk much about peasants, but I would think every peasent (the little 1st level commoners of Britton) knew who King Aurther was and the name of his magical sword. I would further guess that everyone in the Reunited Kingdom learned of King Elssar and the Flame of the West. These are examples of one man and one sword. So even if the holy avenger is unique in your world, I think a case could be made that most people (especally paladins) know if its existance. If you have twelve famous paladins each wielding a holy avenger, especally if they have been passed down for generations and enter into tales and songs, it makes it even more likely that everyone knows about holy avengers and their connections with paladins.

Of course, your world I free to operate differently, but unless someone is trying to keep something a secret, legends of famous heros tend to circulate.

In-character is a tricky term to pin down. It has two baisc meanings, either everything the character knows, or everything the character knows since the start of the game. The DM has easy control over the first, but characters know far more than what happened since the game started. Unless you make the players tell you everything their characters know before the game (an impposible task) the characters are always going to know something the DM and the players don't know they know. Also, them moment the DM says yes that's part of a character's background, it becomes in-character knowledge.

Would I let the player modify the background to lay the groundwork for large amounts of roelplaying and story hooks? In most cases I would be happy to. I'd tell the character to get the mentor a name and tell me a bit about him/her, and that I would start working on ways to incorporate the quest into the campaign.

Tormsskull
2008-09-09, 03:46 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize I had to break it down this far for you. All of them are examples of characters who in-character for them, decided they wanted a powerful magical sword.


Ok, so you're saying that sometimes character's want things and it makes total sense from an in-character perspective. I agree with you 100%.



This confuses me, because you say you like roleplay heavy games, but you just turned down huge amounts of roleplaying potential. The introduction of an NPC mentor to give quests, be sought after, dispense plot information. The possible quests for the sword, and all the interactions that prompt.


Because it wouldn't make any sense. If the character doesn't know anything about a holy avenger (and the player doesn't either), and then the player learns of the holy avenger (not the character), and then the player endows his character with this information, that is completely destroying the separation of player/character knowledge.

Why I agree that there could be a lot of roleplay potential here, I think breaking the separation of player/character knowledge here would set a very bad precedent.



You have also poisoned the well by stating the player's motivations, "how it is a great weapon for paladins" Are you a mind reader? Would your answer of no change if the player's unspoken motivations were that they had heard about the Holy Avenger and how it is the iconic weapon of heroic paladins?


Am I a mind reader, no. Did I create the history of this game world and how paladins in history used the holy avenger with great success, yes. That makes it a great weapon for paladins.



So even if the holy avenger is unique in your world, I think a case could be made that most people (especally paladins) know if its existance. If you have twelve famous paladins each wielding a holy avenger, especally if they have been passed down for generations and enter into tales and songs, it makes it even more likely that everyone knows about holy avengers and their connections with paladins.


Right, but you are adding qualifiers to the example now to make it more reasonable that a character would have heard about the holy avenger. Heck, maybe they are sold at the corner store. If so, I would totally assume everyone knows what they are.

Let me ask you this then, your honest interpertation is that a holy avenger is popular and a lot of people would know about it. My argument is that the holy avenger appears in the DMG, and that's where a player would probably see it and then make his character suddenly interested in it.

I have an easy way of putting this to the test. If you as a DM homebrew magic items, do you give a list of those magic items and their abilities to the players at the start of play?



Unless you make the players tell you everything their characters know before the game (an impposible task) the characters are always going to know something the DM and the players don't know they know. Also, them moment the DM says yes that's part of a character's background, it becomes in-character knowledge.

And that's understandable. I just assume anything not in a character's background is of minor significance. If a character is the heir to a kingdom, I want that in their backstory before play begins (if I'd even allow it in the first place). Not during play after the group runs into NPCs who will only allow the heir of said kingdom to pass into the treasury.

Allene
2008-09-09, 04:12 PM
Because it wouldn't make any sense. If the character doesn't know anything about a holy avenger (and the player doesn't either), and then the player learns of the holy avenger (not the character), and then the player endows his character with this information, that is completely destroying the separation of player/character knowledge.

But how do you know the character didn't know about the Holy Avenger? I would think, that in both your world, and in the standard D&D setting, every Paladin ever would know about the Holy Avenger, because it would be mentioned in Paladin 101.


Am I a mind reader, no. Did I create the history of this game world and how paladins in history used the holy avenger with great success, yes. That makes it a great weapon for paladins.

I think you must be confused here. The fact that Paladins have used it in the past is an example of it being a good weapon for Paladins in character. So if the reason the player wants the weapon, is because his character knows it's a good weapon for Paladins, then that is definitionaly in character.

AKA_Bait
2008-09-09, 04:58 PM
What I said before apparently needs some clarification and I didn't speak to the Paladin example specifically, but I guess I will now.

My original point was that there were many cases where in character desire for an object and ooc desire for a mechanical advantage both co-exist just fine (the plate mail example). There were places where they seem totally divorced (the illiterate barbarian becoming a wizard without IC justification). There were also murky places in between the two. The Holy Avenger example is only of those murky spots I'd say.

Basically, in that scenario we are saying that the player read about the item and wanted the mechanical advantage for his character. He then asks the DM if his character can know about the item. I'd say the DM can go either way on it justifiably, but should have a good reason in either case.

If Holy Avengers are common enough, or famous enough, then it's reasonable for almost any adventurer to have heard about one, if only from it being mentioned in some bards tale even if it has never actually come up specficially in game. There are plenty of things our PC's would know about without the Players needing to specifically say that they do (or even actually know it themselves).

If, however Holy Avengers are rare and not relativley common knowledge in the setting then the DM has to decide if allowing a retcon of the past to give the player that peice of obscure knowledge is worth the trouble. It may or may not be for their indvidual game. I'm more laid back about it than Tormskull, clearly. Either way, it's foggy.

Honestly though, in the latter murky case, I think the better soloution, rather than a retcon of the characters past is an agreement between DM and player to have that knowledge fall in the PC's hands in the future.


Why I agree that there could be a lot of roleplay potential here, I think breaking the separation of player/character knowledge here would set a very bad precedent.

Fortunatley, DM's are not bound by Stare Decisis. :smallwink:


I have an easy way of putting this to the test. If you as a DM homebrew magic items, do you give a list of those magic items and their abilities to the players at the start of play?

Unfair! I also don't require my players to own a copy of the DMG or MIC. If, however, an item comes up in game and the PC wants to make a knowledge check about it, homebrew or not, they get to make the check against a predetermined DC. Heck, if my players homebrew an item, show it to me and ask if it can exist in game and have IC knowldge of it I'll at least look it over and think about it.


I just assume anything not in a character's background is of minor significance. If a character is the heir to a kingdom, I want that in their backstory before play begins (if I'd even allow it in the first place). Not during play after the group runs into NPCs who will only allow the heir of said kingdom to pass into the treasury.

Of course, then we get into the matter of what is 'signifigant'. Is having heard some bards sing about great Paladins and their Holy Avengers really signifigant enough to warrant inclusion in a brief backstory? Murky.

The example you gave, of course, is signifigant. It is actually 'rocks fall, everyone dies' signifigant.


I think you must be confused here. The fact that Paladins have used it in the past is an example of it being a good weapon for Paladins in character. So if the reason the player wants the weapon, is because his character knows it's a good weapon for Paladins, then that is definitionaly in character.

I think it's just a matter of knowledge directonality that yall are arguing about. Does the Paladin want one because the Player saw it in the book, knows his PC is a Paladin, and wants the mechanical advantage or does the player want it because the PC knows 'it's a good weapon for Paladins'. Tormskull is ok with the latter but not the former. In many cases, I'm not sure how you would tell the difference.

Jayabalard
2008-09-09, 05:11 PM
Unfair! I also don't require my players to own a copy of the DMG or MIC. If, however, an item comes up in game and the PC wants to make a knowledge check about it, homebrew or not, they get to make the check against a predetermined DC. That kind of sidesteps the point; As soon as it comes up in game, you're not dealing with the same situation at all.

Bauglir
2008-09-09, 06:17 PM
Because it wouldn't make any sense. If the character doesn't know anything about a holy avenger (and the player doesn't either), and then the player learns of the holy avenger (not the character), and then the player endows his character with this information, that is completely destroying the separation of player/character knowledge.

No. It's perfectly reasonable. Do you expect a player character to know every detail of their character's life from birth through the end of the campaign? If the player has a decent explanation for why the character knew about it, but never acted on that information, why is that a problem? I mean, do you actually expect a player to read (and memorize, no less, for players who might play more than one campaign with you) the MIC, the DMG, and tons of other splatbooks so that they'll know what every magic item they could possibly want in their entire career will be so they can write up a justification before play even begins? What if an item makes the most sense because of something that happens in the campaign? Is the character required to have known that would happen in advance, and do you tell the players every last detail about your campaign world?

To make a long story short, if you're going to expect your PCs to have known every detail about their backstory before the game begins, and tell you about it, then you should show them the same courtesy and work out every detail of your campaign world and tell them beforehand.

TheElfLord
2008-09-09, 07:28 PM
Because it wouldn't make any sense. If the character doesn't know anything about a holy avenger (and the player doesn't either), and then the player learns of the holy avenger (not the character), and then the player endows his character with this information, that is completely destroying the separation of player/character knowledge.

I see where you are coming from. It's really a matter of preference. For me, its not possible for me as a player to know everything a character knows, because I didn't grow up in the world. Its no big thing for me to realize there are things my character knew before I did, which is how I view the above situation.


Why I agree that there could be a lot of roleplay potential here, I think breaking the separation of player/character knowledge here would set a very bad precedent.

Fair enough


Right, but you are adding qualifiers to the example now to make it more reasonable that a character would have heard about the holy avenger. Heck, maybe they are sold at the corner store. If so, I would totally assume everyone knows what they are.

I don't think I did. I used an example of how everyone a kingdom would know about the king and his magic sword. You can disagree with me that Aurthur would be that popular and that well known, but I think my point stands. Now if no one in your world has ever used a holy avenger to accomplish anything massively heroic, then my point falls flat, but I think the default presumption used in DnD is that someone has done something big with one. My Aurthur example shows the widespread knowledge a single hero with a magic sword can create. Then I asked you to imagine what a dozen hero with the same type of magic sword would generate.

I guess it depends how you look at th world. For me a dozen heroes using holy avengers would put it on everyone's lips. Even a single paladin. In a DnD world Paladins and Demons would replace Cops and Robbers. And instead of revolvers those Paladins would have holy avegners, because every peasant kid knows a holy avenger is neater than a normal sword. It doesn't have to go to selling them on the street corner for them to be common knowledge.


Am I a mind reader, no. Did I create the history of this game world and how paladins in history used the holy avenger with great success, yes

Then let me ask you this: In a world where paladins have used the holy avenger with such success, why wouldn't every first level paladin know of their existence?


Let me ask you this then, your honest interpertation is that a holy avenger is popular and a lot of people would know about it. My argument is that the holy avenger appears in the DMG, and that's where a player would probably see it and then make his character suddenly interested in it.

I have an easy way of putting this to the test. If you as a DM homebrew magic items, do you give a list of those magic items and their abilities to the players at the start of play?

I'm not a good DM to respond to this, because I've never homebrewed anything like the Holy Avenger into my world. I've made a few lost artifacts taht have disappeared for a couple thousand years during a dark age and very few people know about, but I've haven't made an iconic weapon like the holy avenger that everyone would know about (at least in my world)


And that's understandable. I just assume anything not in a character's background is of minor significance. If a character is the heir to a kingdom, I want that in their backstory before play begins (if I'd even allow it in the first place). Not during play after the group runs into NPCs who will only allow the heir of said kingdom to pass into the treasury.

I would agree something as big as being an heir to a kingdom should be in the background. It all comes down to how big a deal a character's mentor's sword is. I tend to think its not a big deal, but to each their own.

BRC
2008-09-09, 07:37 PM
Hi all,

So I've noticed in various threads that people are giving the advice of "Just say that your character did that, had that experience, etc".

This often takes place in multi-classing scenarios (Example: "I want my Barbarian to take a level of wizard, but my DM said I would need to study for a while in game time, what should I do?" "Just say that your character was really interested in magic when he was younger, and his uncle who was a wizard would often stop by and show him how magic worked")

or knowledge of certain items (Example: "I really want a holy avenger for my paladin, but my DM said my character wouldn't even know what a holy avenger is. What should I do?" "Just say that your character had trained with a senior paladin who had a holy avenger and that's where he found out about it.")


As a DM, do you allow players to add important details such as this to their backstory? So you have any restrictions placed on the PCs for when they craft their backstory, or the kind of knowledge that a player might try to claim that their character has.

Also, when you answer the above questions, explain if this would apply to newly created characters starting at level 1 or newly created characters starting at 3, 5, 10, 50, whatever. Thanks.

DISCLAIMER, I have only read the OP.
Concerning Multiclassing, I would allow it provided I could think of some not-too convoluted way of justifying it (For example, the barbarian is impressed with the wizard's abilities and asks to learn. The wizard humors him and finds him a remarkably quick study. This occurs while the party is on a ship, hanging around a town, or not actively adventuring for a decent period of time for one reason or another. I wouldn't allow the formerly illiterate barbarian to suddenly gain a level of wizard mid-dungeon).

Concerning the holy avenger question, I doubt the existance of a powerful weapon like the holy avenger would be especially rare knowledge. The location of one would be, but the fact that they exist sounds like somthing that would get rapidly spread through the ranks of paladins. If you don't buy that, then the PC just says "Alright, I go looking for the best paladin weapon I can find word of", and it happens to be the Holy Avenger.

monty
2008-09-09, 08:07 PM
Aren't there variant rules in one of the books for training new levels rather than automatically gaining them?

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-09, 08:11 PM
Aren't there variant rules in one of the books for training new levels rather than automatically gaining them?

Yes. Their are retraining rules from the PHB2.

Beleriphon
2008-09-09, 08:14 PM
Aren't there variant rules in one of the books for training new levels rather than automatically gaining them?

PHB2 has retraining rules, decent ones to boot, but thats not really the point. The idea is basically retconning a character history, like how Marvel retconned Spider-Man to be some kind of mystical spider proxy-thingy in addition to have radioactive blood. Mind you for most stuff its not a bid deal, so long as it pushes forward story and adventure hooks.

Also, AFAIK the retraining rules require somebody to actually retrain the character.

monty
2008-09-09, 11:32 PM
No, I was thinking of something else that made you train for new class levels. It may have just been a fluff suggestion, though, rather than an actual variant rule.

turkishproverb
2008-09-10, 12:06 AM
No, I was thinking of something else that made you train for new class levels. It may have just been a fluff suggestion, though, rather than an actual variant rule.

IN Hackmaster 4E you can't gain a level until you attend training reguardless of the class.

horseboy
2008-09-10, 01:36 AM
King Aurthor is pure character. He doesn't have a player who drives him to get Excallabur. The character has the internal in-character motivation to seek out a magical blade. So do all the other examples I mentioned. I gave them in respose to this.
Well, given that King Arthur started play with Excallabur, not to mention all his back story about how the Lady of the Lake gave it to his father and his father doing a dying curse type thing to lock it away for him, he may not be the best example to use.

nagora
2008-09-10, 03:59 AM
IN Hackmaster 4E you can't gain a level until you attend training reguardless of the class.

The same is true in pre-UA 1e. UA introduced the Barbarian, who does not need to train under a mentor btb, and the Cavalier who can train themselves at 6th level (Knight) rather than waiting until "name" level (10th in this case).

Training without a mentor is possible, but is slower and only available to characters who have been played well (where "well" means "like a member of their class", so a magic user who goes into melee combat is not eligible, for example).

Since you don't accumulate any more XP until you have done your training, it becomes a matter of urgency for most characters to get "back to base" and get it done once they have enough xp to increase a level.

only1doug
2008-09-10, 04:30 AM
<snip>

Player creates character. Play begins. Sometime later Player hears about a holy avenger and how it is a great weapon for paladins (this is out of character mind you).
Player: "My character wants a holy avenger. Is it ok that I add into his backstory that his mentor paladin had a holy avenger, which will give me an in-character reason for seeking it out?"
Tormsskull: "No."
<snip>

Tormsskull says No. this is because in Tormsskulls campaign THE holy avenger is an unique item that no one has heard of except in ancient legends.

Doug would say (if i had decided to have the same limitation on the holy avenger): "no, because its an unique item it wouldn't have been available for your mentor to have But your mentor could have been trying to track it down, chasing various histories of that mention the Holy Avenger. Write me some details about your mentor and i'll decide if its good enough."

nagora
2008-09-10, 04:36 AM
Tormsskull says No. this is because in Tormsskulls campaign THE holy avenger is an unique item that no one has heard of except in ancient legends.

Doug would say (if i had decided to have the same limitation on the holy avenger): "no, because its an unique item it wouldn't have been available for your mentor to have But your mentor could have been trying to track it down, chasing various histories of that mention the Holy Avenger. Write me some details about your mentor and i'll decide if its good enough."
Either seems fair enough. As another example, in some campaigns the Holy Grail may be something that's been lost so long no one even believes it's real anymore, while in others it might still be thw object of active quests.

Tormsskull
2008-09-10, 06:01 AM
Unfair! I also don't require my players to own a copy of the DMG or MIC. If, however, an item comes up in game and the PC wants to make a knowledge check about it, homebrew or not, they get to make the check against a predetermined DC.


Totally fair! :smalltongue:

Are there any real rules regarding the Knowledge skill and what magic items you would know about? Sort of like how for monsters you roll against a DC to determine its relative power, special characteristics, etc?



Heck, if my players homebrew an item, show it to me and ask if it can exist in game and have IC knowldge of it I'll at least look it over and think about it.


Interesting, but not something I would want to incorporate. I'm a Lawful DM I guess, I like my worlds structured with a deep rich history that isn't just whisked away at times. Others prefer making the world really adaptable so they can shove anything in there that the players are going to get more enjoyment out of.



Tormskull is ok with the latter but not the former. In many cases, I'm not sure how you would tell the difference.

I'm totally cool with the character learning that holy avengers are a good weapon for paladins, and then the character deciding to quest for one.



Then let me ask you this: In a world where paladins have used the holy avenger with such success, why wouldn't every first level paladin know of their existence?


Firstly because those events may have been a long time ago. Perhaps such a long enough time ago that it is only remembered by scholars or historians.

Secondly because a weapon such as the holy avenger wouldn't be called a holy avenger. It would be called Lord Callus' Blade of Divine Wrath, or Sir Hector's Gift from the Gods, or something else suitable for such a magnificent blade.

And thirdly, because level 1 character's are not supposed to be very knowledgable.

Anyway, been an interesting thread.

nagora
2008-09-10, 06:05 AM
Secondly because a weapon such as the holy avenger wouldn't be called a holy avenger. It would be called Lord Callus' Blade of Divine Wrath, or Sir Hector's Gift from the Gods,
Or "Excalibur".

Tokiko Mima
2008-09-10, 09:27 AM
Or "Caliburn." :smalltongue:

TheElfLord
2008-09-10, 06:35 PM
Well, given that King Arthur started play with Excallabur, not to mention all his back story about how the Lady of the Lake gave it to his father and his father doing a dying curse type thing to lock it away for him, he may not be the best example to use.

This is completely dependent on when "Aurthur's game" begins. If you start it late in the story then yes he would have it. If you start at the beginning, like most Arthurian stories, then he doesn't have Excalibur and gains it through gameplay.

Matthew
2008-09-10, 06:45 PM
No, I was thinking of something else that made you train for new class levels. It may have just been a fluff suggestion, though, rather than an actual variant rule.

That is a variant rule in the 3e DMG (p. 198 of the 3.5 DMG). Level limits and class restrictions by race can also be found listed there as optional rules (p. 171 of the 3.5 DMG).

[edit]
Hmmn, no level limits actually, maybe that was the 3.0 DMG...

Beleriphon
2008-09-10, 06:56 PM
That is a variant rule in the 3e DMG (p. 198 of the 3.5 DMG). Level limits and class restrictions by race can also be found listed there as optional rules (p. 171 of the 3.5 DMG).

[edit]
Hmmn, no level limits actually, maybe that was the 3.0 DMG...

That would be the 3.0 DMG, to help 2E converts keep the feel of the game while still using the new ruleset. By 3.5 I guess Wizards felt that including that optional setup wasn't really a preference for anybody since people were either playing 3.5 or 2E at that point.

Matthew
2008-09-10, 07:01 PM
That would be the 3.0 DMG, to help 2E converts keep the feel of the game while still using the new ruleset. By 3.5 I guess Wizards felt that including that optional setup wasn't really a preference for anybody since people were either playing 3.5 or 2E at that point.

I dunno, training and classes restricted by race are definitely in the 3.5 DMG. I can't really see level limits in the 3.0 DMG either, but they might be there somewhere.

Beleriphon
2008-09-10, 07:25 PM
I dunno, training and classes restricted by race are definitely in the 3.5 DMG. I can't really see level limits in the 3.0 DMG either, but they might be there somewhere.

Oh man, I must be spacing out then. Train yeah, but I'm honestly surprised by the classes limited by race.