Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I'm Tired of Vanilla
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tequila Sunrise" data-source="post: 3046001" data-attributes="member: 40398"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p>1) Nitpick at the mechanics of the game or of certain classes in an attempt to argue against my logic,</p><p>2) Are written by someone who is having a bad day and simply wants me to share their misery,</p><p>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</p><p>4) Are written with such incredibly poor grammar and spelling that I can’t decipher what the point of the post is.</p><p></p><p>Cheers, TS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tequila Sunrise, post: 3046001, member: 40398"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I'm Tired of Vanilla
Top