The Fluff Veto: GMs Controlling the PC "Why"

[Anzyr]

Death_Keeper wrote:

Anzyr, please make an FAQ with the question "When my character multiclasses into wizard, does he get a spellbook instantly, from nowhere?" and when you get back with the answer, you should post the link here.

Why don't you go make an FAQ about "When a character multiclasses into Gunslinger, do they get a blunderbuss, musket, or pistol with the battered condition that *only they can use* out of thin air."

Note how "only they can use* is game language that makes 0 sense in reality. Because again, Pathfinder is a game, not a novel. It doesn't have to make sense when that would detract from the game.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Anzyr wrote:

It is assumed to have been there all along. Much in the way it is assumed that Giants can function despite being at odds with physics. Because it's a game.

Maybe that assumption would be made in your campaign. Not everyone plays that way. To most GMs who put work into it, a game-world is not a game-board. You don't get $200 dollars just because you pass GO.

[Anzyr]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

It is assumed to have been there all along. Much in the way it is assumed that Giants can function despite being at odds with physics. Because it's a game.

Maybe that assumption would be made in your campaign. Not everyone plays that way. To most GMs who put work into it, a game-world is not a game-board. You don't get $200 dollars just because you pass GO.

The rules of Pathfinder say to assume that. And I follow those. Since I play the game called Pathfinder. I guess you don't have any giant insects in your campaign, because they can't stand up to the Square Cube law. After all they don't "make sense".

[Kalindlara]

Anzyr wrote:

Death_Keeper wrote:

Anzyr, please make an FAQ with the question "When my character multiclasses into wizard, does he get a spellbook instantly, from nowhere?" and when you get back with the answer, you should post the link here.

Why don't you go make an FAQ about "When a character multiclasses into Gunslinger, do they get a blunderbuss, musket, or pistol with the battered condition that *only they can use* out of thin air."

Note how "only they can use* is game language that makes 0 sense in reality. Because again, Pathfinder is a game, not a novel. It doesn't have to make sense when that would detract from the game.

What about when an event not making sense itself detracts from the game? That would be the case for me...

Also, you should probably get together on that FAQ... they're virtually the same question. :)

EDIT: The gunslinger actually includes rules for what happens if somebody else uses their battered gun.

Did you find the reference? You seem very careful about RAW, so I figured you would know right where it was...

[Anzyr]

The reference is that text itself in plain English. It doesn't need further explanation, the text says what the text says. If you GM doesn't agree, ask in the PFS section of the boards if you get it the spellbook when you take their first level of Wizard and then show your GM the resulting "Yes."

[Kalindlara]

Anzyr wrote:

The reference is that text itself in plain English. It doesn't need further explanation, the text says what the text says. If you GM doesn't agree, ask in the PFS section of the boards if you get it the spellbook when you take their first level of Wizard and then show your GM the resulting "Yes."

Isn't that just other players' opinions, though? At that point, we are citing other non-developer posters as a rules reference. And why PFS? By that standard, item creation feats are illegal by RAW. Did you mean the Rules Questions forum?

[Anzyr]

No, I meant the PFS forum, since they have to go by what's written, outside of the changes imposed by PFS like crafting feats. But yes in retrospect the Rules Question forum might be more appropriate.

[thejeff]

PFS also guarantees downtime between all sessions and assumes all kinds of things happen offscreen. It has the reputation of being strict RAW, which is probably why he suggested asking there, but the fundamental question at play here doesn't even make sense.

In PFS, I wouldn't bat an eye at someone who I"d seen before as an X, coming back in another scenario with a level of wizard. Because, unlike most campaigns, there's always plenty of time. He's known to be off doing his own thing.

PFS requires a heftier helping of Suspension of Disbelief than usual anyway. You can, for example, find that both you and another character are wielding the same unique weapon and that you got it by taking from the same enemy that you both separately killed.

But yeah, that question is kind of pointless to ask because anyone will just say "Of course you get them. Come up with a roleplay reason." Except for a few who apparently get stuck on the "I don't have to have a reason, because it's a game!"

[Anzyr]

No you do have to have a reason. That reason is just "It's been there all along." as the multiclassing rules indicate.

[Jerry Wright 307]

The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

[Kalindlara]

Plus, in PFS, you always level up at home, between adventures. So the circumstances would never come up anyway.

In any case, without clarification, it seems as though the RAW is open to interpretation and different readings. That's why we have DMs, after all. :)

[Kalindlara]

Anzyr wrote:

No you do have to have a reason. That reason is just "It's been there all along." as the multiclassing rules indicate.

I'm afraid I don't see anything in the Core Rulebook's Multiclassing section about that. Can you provide a more specific reference? Was it clarified in a later printing or a different sourcebook?

[thejeff]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

Someday I want to run a one-shot with no roleplay, no fluff, just stats. No descriptions. No names. No motivations or reasons for anything. Just combat encounters (with stats, but no creatures. Make your Know roll you get mechanical information, but nothing else), loot to convert into new powers and bonuses, and xp that also gives you new powers and bonuses.

[Anzyr]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

The reason has been provided. It has been there all along. You don't like that answer. But it is a valid one. Unless you want to bring reality into it, in which case please explain how your giant insects are avoiding the square cube law.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Plus, in PFS, you always level up at home, between adventures. So the circumstances would never come up anyway.

In any case, without clarification, it seems as though the RAW is open to interpretation and different readings. That's why we have DMs, after all. :)

The RAW really isn't. A Wizard begins play with one. As soon as you take your first level of Wizard, you are beginning play (as a Wizard). A GM can rules otherwise, but that is true of everything.

[thejeff]

Kalindlara wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

No you do have to have a reason. That reason is just "It's been there all along." as the multiclassing rules indicate.

I'm afraid I don't see anything in the Core Rulebook's Multiclassing section about that. Can you provide a more specific reference? Was it clarified in a later printing or a different sourcebook?

Seconded. As I asked in the other thread, quote/link please. I'd like to see the wording.

[Jerry Wright 307]

thejeff wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

Someday I want to run a one-shot with no roleplay, no fluff, just stats. No descriptions. No names. No motivations or reasons for anything. Just combat encounters (with stats, but no creatures. Make your Know roll you get mechanical information, but nothing else), loot to convert into new powers and bonuses, and xp that also gives you new powers and bonuses.

Let us know how it works out if and when you do. Wouldn't want to play it, but I'd love to watch it.

[thejeff]

Anzyr wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

The reason has been provided. It has been there all along. You don't like that answer. But it is a valid one. Unless you want to bring reality into it, in which case please explain how your giant insects are avoiding the square cube law.

Magic.

You could actually rule that spellbooks magically appear for anyone who takes their first level in wizard. It would be kind of a weird way to do it, but it would work. As a player, I would be interested in figuring out what or who was behind it.

[Aranna]

Actually I disagree on the spellbook thing. Your starting level is 1 so you only get the free spellbook if the first level class you took was wizard. If you switch to wizard after 3 levels of barbarian than you began play as a barbarian, Pretty straight forward.

[Jerry Wright 307]

thejeff wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

The reason has been provided. It has been there all along. You don't like that answer. But it is a valid one. Unless you want to bring reality into it, in which case please explain how your giant insects are avoiding the square cube law.

Magic.

You could actually rule that spellbooks magically appear for anyone who takes their first level in wizard. It would be kind of a weird way to do it, but it would work. As a player, I would be interested in figuring out what or who was behind it.

Good idea. Of course, that means the game-world has to change.

[thejeff]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

The question is not that the character who gains a wizard level in the course of the game gets a spellbook. The question is how he gets the spellbook. An in-game reason must exist, or there's no point in having a game-world.

The reason has been provided. It has been there all along. You don't like that answer. But it is a valid one. Unless you want to bring reality into it, in which case please explain how your giant insects are avoiding the square cube law.

Magic.

You could actually rule that spellbooks magically appear for anyone who takes their first level in wizard. It would be kind of a weird way to do it, but it would work. As a player, I would be interested in figuring out what or who was behind it.

Good idea. Of course, that means the game-world has to change.

Well, wouldn't change so much as be that way all along.

If it changed or if it only affected those PCs who multiclassed, the mystery would be even more intriguing.

[thejeff]

From the newly spawned thread:

Anzyr wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

RAW is clear. They get them for free when they level. And as per the multiclassing rules you should assume the character has been training with it all along.

Can you quote/link the bit in the rules that says you should assume that?

I actually thought it was there, but can't find it now.

I can't find it via some searching and am away from book at the moment, but this should cover the RAW of multiclassing, that a Fighter gains all the Wizards abilities anyway.

CRB wrote:

For example, let's say a 5th-level fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, and adds one level of wizard when he advances to 6th level. Such a character would have the powers and abilities of both a 5th-level fighter and a 1st-level wizard, but would still be considered a 6th-level character. (His class levels would be 5th and 1st, but his total character level is 6th.) He keeps all of his bonus feats gained from 5 levels of fighter, but can now also cast 1st-level spells and picks an arcane school. He adds all of the hit points, base attack bonuses, and saving throw bonuses from a 1st-level wizard on top of those gained from being a 5th-level fighter.

If the Fighter decides to dabble in the arcane arts, all they need to do is add a level of Wizard when they advance. I'm sure someone will find the language in the meantime, because I am also sure I've read that.

I'd also found that. It says nothing directly relevant to the question. It also doesn't explicitly say the new wizard gets a book or any free spells.

[Anzyr]

Those are part of the Wizards "Spells" class feature. So they would.

[Snorter]

thejeff wrote:

Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.

Other examples for other settings and games could abound.

Even in a low-magic or realistic setting, you'd only be justified up to a point;

"When did your 19th century Inuit tribesman get hold of a Winchester?" could be answered by "I was given it by a grateful explorer, whose life I saved", through to "I took it off the corpse of a guy who'd been mauled by a polar bear", to "I killed some idiot at the trading station, who thought he could use it to order me around.".

All these reasons make sense in a zero-magic setting; throw in reliable teleportation, shadow walk, wind walk, races with natural flight, and weightless inter-dimensional storage pouches, and there's no reason why typical gaming worlds aren't homogenous monocultures, except for Writer Fiat.

Most people are asking the wrong questions;
Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

[Death_Keeper]

Anzyr wrote:

Those are part of the Wizards "Spells" class feature. So they would.

Nope... Spells are: *hem hem* "A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list presented in Chapter 10

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10+the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw againgst a wizard's spell is 10+the spell level+the wizard's Intelligence Modifier.
A wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on table 3-16. In addition he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high intelligence score (see Table 1-3).
A wizard may know any number of spells. He must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour studying his spellbook. While studying the wizard decides which spells to prepare."

[thejeff]

Snorter wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.

Other examples for other settings and games could abound.

Even in a low-magic or realistic setting, you'd only be justified up to a point;

"When did your 19th century Inuit tribesman get hold of a Winchester?" could be answered by "I was given it by a grateful explorer, whose life I saved", through to "I took it off the corpse of a guy who'd been mauled by a polar bear", to "I killed some idiot at the trading station, who thought he could use it to order me around.".

All these reasons make sense in a zero-magic setting; throw in reliable teleportation, shadow walk, wind walk, races with natural flight, and weightless inter-dimensional storage pouches, and there's no reason why typical gaming worlds aren't homogenous monocultures, except for Writer Fiat.

Most people are asking the wrong questions;
Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

The question then becomes, if they're so easy to come by, why aren't they cheaper and in widespread use? Which annoys me too, but is much easier for me to firewall if I assume that Alkenstar really does keep a tight lid on them.

Also don't forget that the gunslinger not only has a gun, but knows how to make and repair guns and make his own ammunition.

The difference in your example is that there was an entire trading and colonial culture using guns to dominate the real world in that time. You're 19th Inuit village doesn't have a firearms industry, but if they've had any contact with the outside world, they've had contact with cultures that do.
Does Alkenstar have colonies and trading posts all over Golarion?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to keep people from playing gunslingers, but if it doesn't fit the area, I'd like there to be a reason there's a gunslinger there.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Snorter wrote:

Most people are asking the wrong questions;

Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

I think that game settings with a variety of cultures are there for the GM to cherry-pick his preferences. You use this culture and this culture and this culture, but you discard these others.

The assumption that "it's in the rules, so it is allowed" should be amended to "it's in the rules, so it is an option" and GMs need to say yea or nay to that option.

[Kalindlara]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Snorter wrote:

Most people are asking the wrong questions;

Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

I think that game settings with a variety of cultures are there for the GM to cherry-pick his preferences. You use this culture and this culture and this culture, but you discard these others.

The assumption that "it's in the rules, so it is allowed" should be amended to "it's in the rules, so it is an option" and GMs need to say yea or nay to that option.

I don't have a link at the moment (sorry, Anzyr) but I believe James Jacobs has said that Golarion is a deliberate patchwork of unmixing cultures - making it easy to cut out Alkenstar, or Numeria, or whichever trope you have no desire for. This way thejeff can have his campaign with no unexplained gunslingers and Anzyr can say "I'm from Alkenstar, NBD" when his GM asks. Something for everyone. :)

[thejeff]

Kalindlara wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Snorter wrote:

Most people are asking the wrong questions;

Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

I think that game settings with a variety of cultures are there for the GM to cherry-pick his preferences. You use this culture and this culture and this culture, but you discard these others.

The assumption that "it's in the rules, so it is allowed" should be amended to "it's in the rules, so it is an option" and GMs need to say yea or nay to that option.

I don't have a link at the moment (sorry, Anzyr) but I believe James Jacobs has said that Golarion is a deliberate patchwork of unmixing cultures - making it easy to cut out Alkenstar, or Numeria, or whichever trope you have no desire for. This way thejeff can have his campaign with no unexplained gunslingers and Anzyr can say "I'm from Alkenstar, NBD" when his GM asks. Something for everyone. :)

And then I'll ask him, "So what brings you way the hell up here?" and we'll start all over again. :)

Now mind, if the game was starting in Absalom or some other major trade hub, I probably wouldn't even ask. Everything comes through there eventually.

It's part of my issue with the kitchen sink, segregated nature of Golarion. It's all nicely divided up so you can segregate stuff out as you please, but players often just assume they can take any of the bits as they please, with no concern how they fit together.

Edit: And I don't want to outright ban that, because with some creativity it can lead to great characters with great plot hooks. Or it can just lead to silliness that breaks my suspension of disbelief.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Kalindlara wrote:

I don't have a link at the moment (sorry, Anzyr) but I believe James Jacobs has said that Golarion is a deliberate patchwork of unmixing cultures - making it easy to cut out Alkenstar, or Numeria, or whichever trope you have no desire for. This way thejeff can have his campaign with no unexplained gunslingers and Anzyr can say "I'm from Alkenstar, NBD" when his GM asks. Something for everyone. :)

It would seem strange if such a patchwork wasn't designed for that.

[Kalindlara]

thejeff wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Snorter wrote:

Most people are asking the wrong questions;

Instead of grilling players, as to why their character has some skill or equipment originating from another country, they should be asking the writers and publishers of gaming settings how the hell they justify the existence of anachronistic primitive cultures, in worlds where the technologically and magically dominant empires have the means to travel anywhere on the globe in seconds, and forcibly assimilate the native population.

I think that game settings with a variety of cultures are there for the GM to cherry-pick his preferences. You use this culture and this culture and this culture, but you discard these others.

The assumption that "it's in the rules, so it is allowed" should be amended to "it's in the rules, so it is an option" and GMs need to say yea or nay to that option.

I don't have a link at the moment (sorry, Anzyr) but I believe James Jacobs has said that Golarion is a deliberate patchwork of unmixing cultures - making it easy to cut out Alkenstar, or Numeria, or whichever trope you have no desire for. This way thejeff can have his campaign with no unexplained gunslingers and Anzyr can say "I'm from Alkenstar, NBD" when his GM asks. Something for everyone. :)

And then I'll ask him, "So what brings you way the hell up here?" and we'll start all over again. :)

Now mind, if the game was starting in Absalom or some other major trade hub, I probably wouldn't even ask. Everything comes through there eventually.

It's part of my issue with the kitchen sink, segregated nature of Golarion. It's all nicely divided up so you can segregate stuff out as you please, but players often just assume they can take any of the bits as they please, with no concern how they fit together.

Edit: And I don't want to outright ban that, because with some creativity it can lead to great characters with great plot hooks. Or it can just lead to silliness that breaks my...

Of course. I really am with you on this.

In my Carrion Crown group (yes, them again), I had one player who knew Golarion. And he had a concept. Oh, did he. A True Neutral dhampir cleric of Urgathoa. Raised by his vampire mother. In Geb. Sent to Ustalav both for the Professor's funeral, and to oppose the Whispering Way. We worked it out, and it's been strange... but fun. He basically wanted to be a cleric of gluttony (of all sorts: food, sex, you name it) and eventually go into (Un)Holy Vindicator. It also led to an interesting subplot where the Church of Pharasma (as a political entity) became semi-antagonistic... although the rest of the group was involved in that as well.

In Wrath of the Righteous, I had a player ask to play an elf/duergar crossbreed barbarian (trickster) that never wore armor. With an intricate back story back to how his parents met, and a love interest left behind. This is off-the-wall even for Golarion. So, we decided to have him wake up with a form of amnesia. Recently, he's been learning more about his unique nature (with the aid of some actual dwarves and a wand of modify memory). But he doesn't yet know that

Wrath of the Righteous:

he's Desna's creation. His backstory is the dream of the elvish priestess that Arueshalae seduced and entered, and she's the love interest from his backstory.

In Serpent's Skull, he plays a fighter who wields a shovel. Nothing relevant; I just want everyone to envision him slaying the end boss of that campaign... with a shovel.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Kalindlara wrote:

he plays a fighter who wields a shovel. Nothing relevant; I just want everyone to envision him slaying the end boss of that campaign... with a shovel.

Now, he did meet a gardener in-game so he can have that shovel, right?

[Death_Keeper]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

he plays a fighter who wields a shovel. Nothing relevant; I just want everyone to envision him slaying the end boss of that campaign... with a shovel.

Now, he did meet a gardener in-game so he can have that shovel, right?

Battle-gardener no, a friendly battle-gardener... with a trowel sidekick

[Hama]

Only if the PC has dominate cast upon them.

[GM Tyrant Princess]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

he plays a fighter who wields a shovel. Nothing relevant; I just want everyone to envision him slaying the end boss of that campaign... with a shovel.

Now, he did meet a gardener in-game so he can have that shovel, right?

Aaargh!

I knew I'd forgotten something. I killed him and reincarnated him as an ancient Azlanti heroine, though, so... call it a wash.

[Kalindlara]

In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)

[bookrat]

thejeff wrote:

bookrat wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.

Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...

This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.

Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.

No. Give me something.

"I want to play a gunslinger and I don't want to bother with any reason I've come to this godforsaken corner of the world or why someone from half the world away shared their country's military secrets with me" just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not saying there can't be a justification. I'm not saying you can't play a gunslinger.

But if it's just "I want to play a gunslinger and I've given no thought to what one would be doing here or how he'll fit in", that's a sign we shouldn't be gaming together.

As, I suspect, me asking is a sign that you don't want me to run a game for you.

So my wife is dyslexic. She doesn't read any of the rule books. She often has no idea what the rules are or how to play in anyway beyond rolling a d20 for skills and to attack, and then the damage dice. She has a very poor creative imagination and has an extremely difficult time coming up with character concepts, especially backgrounds for characters. But she wants to play because she wants to be involved with my hobbies and she enjoys spending time with me and our friends.

Are you saying she wouldn't be allowed at your

...

Wow. So she literally can't play the character she wants to play because she is unable to creatively come up with a background. You really do discriminate against people who have poor imaginations.

I guess you're right, we wouldn't do well in a game together. I'm against discrimination against people with disabilities.

[Kalindlara]

bookrat wrote:

thejeff wrote:

bookrat wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.

Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...

This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.

Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.

No. Give me something.

"I want to play a gunslinger and I don't want to bother with any reason I've come to this godforsaken corner of the world or why someone from half the world away shared their country's military secrets with me" just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not saying there can't be a justification. I'm not saying you can't play a gunslinger.

But if it's just "I want to play a gunslinger and I've given no thought to what one would be doing here or how he'll fit in", that's a sign we shouldn't be gaming together.

As, I suspect, me asking is a sign that you don't want me to run a game for you.

So my wife is dyslexic. She doesn't read any of the rule books. She often has no idea what the rules are or how to play in anyway beyond rolling a d20 for skills and to attack, and then the damage dice. She has a very poor creative imagination and has an extremely difficult time coming up with character concepts, especially backgrounds for characters. But she wants to play because she wants to be involved with my hobbies and she enjoys spending time with me and our friends.

Are you saying she

...

Please read the rest of the thread. Thank you :)

[CapeCodRPGer]

As a GM there was only one time I overruled what a PC did in game.

GURPS fantasy game. Party thief had overconfidence as a disadvantage. He checked a chest for traps. I rolled and told him he didn't find any traps. Player told me before he open chest he backs away a bit to be safe. I said that he does not do that. "You checked the chest yourself, you have overconfidence you know it's not trapped."

I thought that was fair.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Kalindlara wrote:

In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)

I had a monk in a 3.5 game called "Honorable Street-Washer Wu". He was a drunken fighting master who pushed around a street-cleaner's cart (secretly loaded with brandy). It was his cover as the lord's spy.

He was in the west of the world because his lord sent him to find out what happened to two trade envoys who disappeared (turned out they were living the high life in a coastal city a lot like San Francisco).

He actually died when he was hiding behind his cart from an angry dragon. The dragon breathed, the cartload of brandy (along with some thunderstones and a load of fireworks) exploded and Wu was no more.

Until his sister came out of the east looking for him and found a way to resurrect him from his ashes. He turned out to be one of my all-time favorite characters.

The point is his entire background came out of a very short conversation I had with the GM, and explained how an eastern character that absolutely didn't belong managed to fit in a decidedly western campaign, with in-game reasons for his presence.

[thejeff]

bookrat wrote:

thejeff wrote:

bookrat wrote:

So my wife is dyslexic. She doesn't read any of the rule books. She often has no idea what the rules are or how to play in anyway beyond rolling a d20 for skills and to attack, and then the damage dice. She has a very poor creative imagination and has an extremely difficult time coming up with character concepts, especially backgrounds for characters. But she wants to play because she wants to be involved with my hobbies and she enjoys spending time with me and our friends.

Are you saying she

Wow. So she literally can't play the character she wants to play because she is unable to creatively come up with a background. You really do discriminate against people who have poor imaginations.

I guess you're right, we wouldn't do well in a game together. I'm against discrimination against people with disabilities.

I answered further a little later down.

me wrote:

Maybe I misread it, but I suspect such a player would be more likely to just be willing to make a character who would fit easily into the setting. In my experience, players who aren't into either the mechanics or the roleplaying, but just the social aspect of the game, don't usually care much what they play. If she was really fixated on gunslinger for some reason in that game, maybe her husband could help her come up with the backstory? Or I could. Especially if one of us is building the character anyway.

So, just to be clear: Despite having little idea of the rules or any background for the character or even interest in the game other than as social activity, she does have a definite character that she's set on playing? And it's not something suggested to her as part of the campaign proposal? Does she have a determination not to have any explanation or background, even if someone else comes up with it?

Most of the people I've played with before who fit that description, even without the "poor creative imagination" didn't get strongly attached to character concepts. In fact were usually just as happy playing a character someone else had made for them. That's why I thought it wouldn't be a big deal.

Does she get into the roleplaying part at least?

Beyond that, I wouldn't describe someone with "a very poor creative imagination" as disabled (and it's that we're talking about as the problem here, not the dyslexia). I'm not sure how much accommodation I'd make for that. This is a game of creative imagination. Maybe it just isn't for her. At least as I prefer to play.

[thejeff]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)

I had a monk in a 3.5 game called "Honorable Street-Washer Wu". He was a drunken fighting master who pushed around a street-cleaner's cart (secretly loaded with brandy). It was his cover as the lord's spy.

He was in the west of the world because his lord sent him to find out what happened to two trade envoys who disappeared (turned out they were living the high life in a coastal city a lot like San Francisco).

He actually died when he was hiding behind his cart from an angry dragon. The dragon breathed, the cartload of brandy (along with some thunderstones and a load of fireworks) exploded and Wu was no more.

Until his sister came out of the east looking for him and found a way to resurrect him from his ashes. He turned out to be one of my all-time favorite characters.

The point is his entire background came out of a very short conversation I had with the GM, and explained how an eastern character that absolutely didn't belong managed to fit in a decidedly western campaign, with in-game reasons for his presence.

You shouldn't have ever had to have that conversation. And wouldn't have, if the GM didn't really want to be writing a novel!!

[The Shining Fool]

I'm with thejeff on this too. I'd like people who want to play a collaborative storytelling game. You can be a minmaxer, you can theorycraft, you can bring crazy ideas, but give me something to work with. If you don't want to give reasons outside "the rules are the final arbiter and they said I could" then I probably wouldn't enjoy playing with you, and you probably wouldn't enjoy playing with me.

And that's fine.

What's not fine, but what's been done a lot on this thread, is claiming that people with different preferences about non-factual concepts are simply wrong.

Some people allow magic-hating barbarians to, when they level up, suddenly have always had a spellbook in their bag and become spellcasters. That wouldn't be fun for me, or for the groups I play with. It's also one of the reasons that I don't play as often as I'd like, because I'm not going to play a game I don't enjoy–I'm going to wait until I've found a group of like-minded players.

Someone up-thread asked why the DM should even care. I honestly have a hard time even grokking the question. It implies, to me, that the DM's campaign and the players' characters are completely independent of each other, instead of deeply intertwined with each other's fates.

I can't speak for other DMs, but I care because I'm there to have fun too. And my fun is not 100% rules, 0% novel. (Though it would, admittedly, make a terrible novel, full of irrelevant digressions, over-used tropes, and hackneyed pop-culture references.) My fun is closer to 60% rules, 40% novel. Wanting there to be a coherent and internally consistent story in a collaborative storytelling game is not the mark of a frustrated or impotent would-be novelist. It's a valid style of play for many tables, including mine. But, luckily, no-one is going to make someone who would find that distasteful play in my game.

To answer the OP, I feel that your questions are bound entirely by the group's social contract. Since written social contracts are generally a terrible idea, it sometimes becomes a little murky, but that's when communication comes in. If you are unhappy with your group's style, but they are all having a blast, perhaps you should find a different table. If everyone is unhappy with the current game except for the DM, maybe y'all need a new DM. Or maybe you just need to voice your displeasure.

The only universal answer to your question is "A DM should engage in X% of tampering with character choices and history" where X is a number between 0 and 100, inclusive.

[Jerry Wright 307]

thejeff wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)

I had a monk in a 3.5 game called "Honorable Street-Washer Wu". He was a drunken fighting master who pushed around a street-cleaner's cart (secretly loaded with brandy). It was his cover as the lord's spy.

He was in the west of the world because his lord sent him to find out what happened to two trade envoys who disappeared (turned out they were living the high life in a coastal city a lot like San Francisco).

He actually died when he was hiding behind his cart from an angry dragon. The dragon breathed, the cartload of brandy (along with some thunderstones and a load of fireworks) exploded and Wu was no more.

Until his sister came out of the east looking for him and found a way to resurrect him from his ashes. He turned out to be one of my all-time favorite characters.

The point is his entire background came out of a very short conversation I had with the GM, and explained how an eastern character that absolutely didn't belong managed to fit in a decidedly western campaign, with in-game reasons for his presence.

You shouldn't have ever had to have that conversation. And wouldn't have, if the GM didn't really want to be writing a novel!!

It took longer to explain it here than to talk with the GM about it.

Finding the envoys living it up was the GM's way to get Wu to the city where the other PCs were.

The bit with the dragon was just an encounter gone bad.

The sister was the character I replaced Wu with, until he got resurrected.

There wasn't a lot of rp involved in this, honestly.

[Scythia]

I'm a DM, and I view games as a story that we're all telling together.

That said, I worry alot less about the mechanics of what someone wants to play, and more about the concept. I don't like multi-classing because I've found it usually dilutes concepts. However, if someone has a concept that they think requires multi-classing, they're welcome to it. I don't require them to justify it to me. A character is more than their mechanics, and their character (and the choices/actions thereof) is their contribution to the story.

Maybe Grot the barbarian sees magic writing and suddenly realises that he understands it. Maybe he's playing with a wand, when it activates. Maybe he was secretly interested in magic all along, and used to sneak away at night to watch the tribal shaman perform rituals. If I feel like an in-game reason is needed, it's easy to produce one. If the player just thinks "magical barbarian" sounds more fun, that's reason enough for me. I'll arrange a method for them to get a spellbook (a discarded knapsack in the ruins, centerpiece of a goblin altar, among the effects of a bandit, gift from a saved traveller, curiosity for sale cheap from a wandering trader, so on), or maybe even just have it manifest one morning. That sounds like an excellent plot hook, actually. Who sent the book... and why? Even better if the spells gained per level also simply appear in it.

[thejeff]

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)

I had a monk in a 3.5 game called "Honorable Street-Washer Wu". He was a drunken fighting master who pushed around a street-cleaner's cart (secretly loaded with brandy). It was his cover as the lord's spy.

He was in the west of the world because his lord sent him to find out what happened to two trade envoys who disappeared (turned out they were living the high life in a coastal city a lot like San Francisco).

He actually died when he was hiding behind his cart from an angry dragon. The dragon breathed, the cartload of brandy (along with some thunderstones and a load of fireworks) exploded and Wu was no more.

Until his sister came out of the east looking for him and found a way to resurrect him from his ashes. He turned out to be one of my all-time favorite characters.

The point is his entire background came out of a very short conversation I had with the GM, and explained how an eastern character that absolutely didn't belong managed to fit in a decidedly western campaign, with in-game reasons for his presence.

You shouldn't have ever had to have that conversation. And wouldn't have, if the GM didn't really want to be writing a novel!!

It took longer to explain it here than to talk with the GM about it.

Finding the envoys living it up was the GM's way to get Wu to the city where the other PCs were.

The bit with the dragon was just an encounter gone bad.

The sister was the character I replaced Wu with, until he got resurrected.

There wasn't a lot of rp involved in this, honestly.

My comment was snark, based on my frustration with some of the rest of this thread. I failed a will save, basically. :)

Definitely sounds like a cool character.

[thejeff]

Scythia wrote:

I'm a DM, and I view games as a story that we're all telling together.

That said, I worry alot less about the mechanics of what someone wants to play, and more about the concept. I don't like multi-classing because I've found it usually dilutes concepts. However, if someone has a concept that they think requires multi-classing, they're welcome to it. I don't require them to justify it to me. A character is more than their mechanics, and their character (and the choices/actions thereof) is their contribution to the story.

Maybe Grot the barbarian sees magic writing and suddenly realises that he understands it. Maybe he's playing with a wand, when it activates. Maybe he was secretly interested in magic all along, and used to sneak away at night to watch the tribal shaman perform rituals. If I feel like an in-game reason is needed, it's easy to produce one. If the player just thinks "magical barbarian" sounds more fun, that's reason enough for me. I'll arrange a method for them to get a spellbook (a discarded knapsack in the ruins, centerpiece of a goblin altar, among the effects of a bandit, gift from a saved traveller, curiosity for sale cheap from a wandering trader, so on), or maybe even just have it manifest one morning. That sounds like an excellent plot hook, actually. Who sent the book... and why? Even better if the spells gained per level also simply appear in it.

Sounds great to me. I'm really a lot more flexible than it might be sound here.

I'm just not happy with the "I don't need a reason. It's a game and the rules say I can" line of thought.

[memorax]

I do think roleplaying class features should only be done rarely. I see some saying that a Wizard without a book is not useless because he can use wands, scrolls and potions. All well and good. Except do I also need to roleplay getting a wand, potion or scroll. Having to roleplay every single item or class feature does get annoying after awhile. As well do come up with a better example then saying that a Barbarian without Rage is the same as a Wizard without a spellbook. It's not even remotely in the same league imo. A Barbarian can still hit and do damage. Take more damage than a Wizard as well as being somewhat harder to hot. While only being slightly less effective. A wizard without a spellbook, scrolls, wands or potions. Is simply a commoner left with a ranged weapon and not really good with it.

[Stereofm]

Snorter wrote:

"When did your 19th century Inuit tribesman get hold of a Winchester?" could be answered by "I was given it by a grateful explorer, whose life I saved", through to "I took it off the corpse of a guy who'd been mauled by a polar bear", to "I killed some idiot at the trading station, who thought he could use it to order me around.".

All these reasons make sense in a zero-magic setting; throw in reliable teleportation, shadow walk, wind walk, races with natural flight, and weightless inter-dimensional storage pouches, and there's no reason why typical gaming worlds aren't homogenous monocultures, except for Writer Fiat.

Interesting question : the thing is that while all these magic options exist, they are not commonplace enough (emphasize the enough) to have much of an effect. All the spells require spellcaster of a sufficient level, and if you look at the pictures, there are not so many around.

Also, in the real world, innovation was often not that much restricted to specific areas. Many people were ahead of their time in knowledge or equipment. But if it cannot be mass-produced or easily transported, or if it is perishable, then it does not spread.The human factor of popularity, and impressing the masses, counts a lot too.

[thejeff]

memorax wrote:

I do think roleplaying class features should only be done rarely. I see some saying that a Wizard without a book is not useless because he can use wands, scrolls and potions. All well and good. Except do I also need to roleplay getting a wand, potion or scroll. Having to roleplay every single item or class feature does get annoying after awhile. As well do come up with a better example then saying that a Barbarian without Rage is the same as a Wizard without a spellbook. It's not even remotely in the same league imo. A Barbarian can still hit and do damage. Take more damage than a Wizard as well as being somewhat harder to hot. While only being slightly less effective. A wizard without a spellbook, scrolls, wands or potions. Is simply a commoner left with a ranged weapon and not really good with it.

Good thing no one is claiming any of that then. (Well, maybe the Barbarian/wizard thing, but no one is really arguing that wizards shouldn't be able to get spell books, just that some of us want there to be some thing beyond "It's a game and the rules say I have a spellbook, so I do")

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "roleplaying class features", but I'd say you do have to roleplay getting wands, potions and scrolls. Or at least acknowledge that you do so - That may be as simple as "Before we leave town I want to buy these wands, these scrolls and brew up these potions." Which might just get a nod from the GM or a session spent roleplaying out a shopping trip, depending on the groups preferences.

[Liz Courts]

Locking thread. If your approach to this topic is "you're playing the game wrong," please note that what works for one group may not work for another. We all have things that will or won't work in a particular group of people for a particular game, but those rules don't extend beyond your own game table. Please keep that in mind, and be civil to each other.