I'm Tired of Vanilla

Or rather, I’m tired of the way that a lot of gamers use this term to describe certain classes. Vanilla is a slang term used to describe something that, while not inherently of lesser value, is undesirable due to over-familiarity or lack of overwhelming flavor.

I would not have a problem with a gamer claiming that a class is vanilla to them personally due to over-familiarity; after all who wants to play the same class over and over? Unfortunately, I’ve never heard a complaint that a class is merely vanilla to the complainant. When a gamer complains that class is vanilla, the invariable implication is that the class is inherently lesser due to its lack of flavor.

Most often, I’ve seen the vanilla label applied to the wizard and fighter classes. While classes such as these archetypal ones do lack the inherent flavor that many other classes, I would like to point out that this is not a bad thing. While other classes do not lack a prepackaged flavor, the fighter and wizard for example require more imagination on the player’s part to create their flavor.

For example anyone, even a non-gamer, who hears the word ‘barbarian’ instantly has a mental image of a muscular dirty man wielding some type of heavy blade and screaming at the top of his lungs. For a player, this makes character background and roleplaying easier; he or she only has to fill in the details of the character. Note: a player can create a non-stereotypical barbarian if he or she so chooses, but the point I am making is that they are not required to.

Someone hearing the word ‘fighter’ on the other hand, has no stereotype to fall back on. The only definitive thing that can be said about such a character is that they are well, good at some type fighting. Therefore, a player has to but more effort into creating his or her fighter’s background and personality in order to roleplay effectively and has to put more effort into choosing character options because fighters have more of them.

I’ve also heard the term vanilla applied to classes whose ‘viable options are limited’. For example, I’ve seen folks complain that wizards only have a certain number of worthwhile spells. Hence, their philosophy becomes that of ‘the wizard option’ rather than ‘the wizard’s options’. Just because a player believes that being a non-specialist is mechanically superior doesn’t mean that playing a specialist can’t be fun. It seems that many players create a set list of character options, such as spells, that are the best possible optimized combo for a particular class and then complain that that class is vanilla because they won’t consider playing with a non-totally-optimized set of options. Of course Joe the Mage is going to be a pretty boring character to all but new players, but what about trying Marvin the Magnificent who will only cast colorful spells?

If you are a gamer that prefers classes with built-in flavor and fewer character options to think about, be content with this preference but think twice about having disdain for the so called ‘vanilla’ classes.

These are my thoughts on the idea of ‘vanilla’ classes. You are welcome to comment or criticize but be aware that I will not respond to posts that:
1) Nitpick at the mechanics of the game or of certain classes in an attempt to argue against my logic,
2) Are written by someone who is having a bad day and simply wants me to share their misery,
3) Are so faulty in logical process that it is obvious that the poster will argue their point until Hell freezes over just to tell themselves that they are right, or
4) Are written with such incredibly poor grammar and spelling that I can’t decipher what the point of the post is.

Cheers, TS

See, I think more people should think like this because wacky is not a substitute for flavor.
A fun thing I've done a few time with groups that go bonkers with wacky race, feat, class, skill, and spell choices is play an Elven archer or a sword and board Dwarf. Now thats flavor.

I agree with all of what you have to say. I, myself, only use the term "vanilla" to refer to settings (i.e., large collections of commonplace genre tropes that are present in nearly every fantasy setting under the sun).

I guess I can see the use of the word vanilla to describe things that fall into the established tropes of D&D. I personally don't see it as a word with negative connotations, though I've seen it used as such by some reviewers.

But...what the hell. Vanilla is not the hands down best selling flavor of ice cream for nothing.

Amen, Shadowslayer.
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/23149690/
My picture fu has always sucked, but I think that poster says it all.

I should hang a copy of that in my game room.

I'm tired of "gish." Unless you're playing a githyanki character, this is a faux cool term misapplied to non-githyanki characters and doesn't clarify things for the most part, since people have to know what the heck's a "gish." Instead, one's better off using the much more, er, vanilla term "fighter/magic-user," since at least people know what the heck you're talking about without a primer on geek cool.

(Note I will not respond to any posts that do not include the letters X and Q in them.)

XQ

When a gamer complains that class is vanilla, the invariable implication is that the class is inherently lesser due to its lack of flavor.

Click to expand...

Not this gamer. Like Shadowslayer, I'd apply that term to pure mainstream tropes, be they gruff dwarf fighters or campaign features like an ancient elvish empire in decline.

Vanilla is good, but occasionally I'll gripe about it because there is more to the hobby than vanilla.

When I gripe about vanilla, its because I've been playing in generic D&D worlds for the past decade or so...PHB races only, PHB spells only, PHB classes only. No psionics. No Eastern themed classes. Its the same stuff over and over again.

My DMs, while they have run good campaigns, have not run imaginative campaigns.

When I have offered to DM something other than D&D (even those games that are derived from the D20 system with which they are all familiar, like Midnight or Arcana Unearthed), I've been turned down cold.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

I'm tired of "gish." Unless you're playing a githyanki character, this is a faux cool term misapplied to non-githyanki characters and doesn't clarify things for the most part, since people have to know what the heck's a "gish." Instead, one's better off using the much more, er, vanilla term "fighter/magic-user," since at least people know what the heck you're talking about without a primer on geek cool.

(Note I will not respond to any posts that do not include the letters X and Q in them.)

Click to expand...

So that's what "Gish" means! I've been wondering for months now!!

As for Vanilla, it really is the nicest of flavours... if it's real vanilla bean ice cream. mmmm.

I think you might be underestimating the folks who complain about things being vanilla. Lack of interesting flavor by it self can be a role-playing challenge, but that doesn't make it a flaw. But if the rules components lack flavor in such a way that they prevent more flavorful interpretations, then they become a problem.

The 3.5 fighter is a blank slate. Though he's largely devoid of flavor, you can project your own flavor onto him and come up with something great. On the other hand, the 3.5 Samurai is generally regarded as a flavorless heap of cliché. The default flavor isn't interesting enough to make the Samurai playable out-of-the-box, and the mechanical aspects of that flavor inhibit attempts to play non-traditional samurai.

Even less focused classes than the samurai can still present problems. I have trouble reconciling my vision of a spellcaster with the Spell Levels/Spell Preparization system that D&D uses. It's not that I can't come up with an interesting Wizard, It's just that I have trouble realizing my vision of a wizard whose grasp of magical theory lets him re-write his spells on the fly to be problematic when I have to memorize my spells four hours in advance.