D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

[Shasarak]

You beat me to it. Per the 5e Basic Player's Handbook v02 page 3:
"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."


And as shown above, if Arial Black (or anyone else) is saying that that you are wrong, the game states you are right. Now, some DMs may extend the ability to refluff classes to their players, but by default the designers have assigned the DM.

Sorry but I have to call Shenanigans on that, the designers can not give you any power. If your game is so perfect that no other person can have any creative control over it then it would be best for everyone if you just stay at home writing your fan fic rather then inflicting it on your players.

 

[empireofchaos]

No. The Class is "Monk". Not "Generic Martial Artist with a hint of Mystical Powers". Monk means something. What exactly it means is determined by the setting of the game, and the setting of the game is determined by the DM. The player has the right to make a unique character within the confines of the setting, and not all concepts are created equal.

People just want to begin with the metagame assumption that the crunch is real, and the fluff is not. Then, after they've excised the fluff (i.e. changed the text), they can translate the IRL crunch into gameworld fluff, and then claim that their various translations are accurate.

But what if we do the translation the other way around? I.e. taking into account that,

The crunch is what's true to the player; the fluff may be irrelevant.
The fluff is what's true to the character; the crunch may be irrelevant.

start with the conceit that the fluff is real in-world, and it is then translated for we players into crunch. This way, charges to the effect of "Oh, you think class is real? So, does your fighter talk about how many hit points he has and how many times he can swing his sword in a 6-second round" become irrelevant, since "Hit points" and "rounds" are our translations of the character's reality of class, but the terms mean nothing to the character, because he doesn't understand the language?

To avoid misunderstanding: this is not the only way to do it, but I find it more immersive and aesthetically pleasing.

EDIT: Changed second quote for proper attribution.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Of course the flavor is true to the character and is real in-world. Nobody's arguing otherwise.

What we're arguing is that the flavor given in the PHB is just one of the options/possibilities. The flavor is real, but isn't necessarily that flavor (or only that flavor).

 

[Greg K]

Sorry but I have to call Shenanigans on that, the designers can not give you any power. If your game is so perfect that no other person can have any creative control over it then it would be best for everyone if you just stay at home writing your fan fic rather then inflicting it on your players.

Sorry. You are reaching. Try again. The DM having established control of the setting and fluff prior to play does not mean the players have no creative control once actual play begins. Once play begins, my players direct the flow of the game. And even before that, they have control by creating backgrounds that fit within the set parameters (e.g., existing pc races, cultures, deities (including domains and tenets, etc., existing classes).

My only limitations after play begins are a) don't be evil (I won't run for evil characters) and b) there are certain parameters that can't be changed (e.g., the only outer planes are the spirit world, a heaven plane, a hell and/or abyss plane, and the fey world) . Otherwise characters have free reign to chase their characters goals, change the world through their actions. I have had players establish and bring down corrupt NPCs, become heads of major organizations, and rulers of clans. However, they did by keeping within established fluff of the world and its cultures when creating their backgrounds and then pursuing their goals. I have also had players start a civil war, turn what were supposed to be one-shot minor NPCs into major plotlines and enemies, ditch midadventure certain plotines they established and were pursuing for entirely new ones. Hell if they want to become bakers and run a bakery, I will run it, because it is possible within the setting.
So, please tell me again how my players have no influence and that I am writing fanfic by establishing the setting and its fluff .

 

[Shasarak]

So, please tell me again how my players have no influence and that I am writing fanfic by establishing the setting and its fluff .

So then what do you call it if your world can not even handle, for example, having an "alternate" Monk character in it or a Dragon Sorcerer "Warlock"?

If I was feeling particularly obstinate then I would just insist on describing my character exactly the way that I wanted just to see how long it took the DM to crack but on the other hand I do not know any DMs like that in real life.

 

[Greg K]

Of course the flavor is true to the character and is real in-world. Nobody's arguing otherwise.

What we're arguing is that the flavor given in the PHB is just one of the options/possibilities. The flavor is real, but isn't necessarily that flavor (or only that flavor).

I agree that the flavor can be one of possible options. The caveat is that, for some classes, those other possible flavor options depend upon the setting and, by default assumption of the game, if the DM is going to allow a change from the default flavor. On the other hand, I disagree with a few posters that the player and not the DM gets to decide if the changed flavor exists if the class itself exists.

 

[Remathilis]

So then what do you call it if your world can not even handle, for example, having an "alternate" Monk character in it or a Dragon Sorcerer "Warlock"?

Consistent.

If I was feeling particularly obstinate then I would just insist on describing my character exactly the way that I wanted just to see how long it took the DM to crack but on the other hand I do not know any DMs like that in real life.

If I had a player try to test me like that, I'd refluff balors as a "kobolds" and see how long it took them to leave, but on the other hand I don't know any players like that in real life.

 

[Shasarak]

Consistent.



If I had a player try to test me like that, I'd refluff balors as a "kobolds" and see how long it took them to leave, but on the other hand I don't know any players like that in real life.

You could not do that because it would not be consistent.

Or if you did, then you would be stuck with "Kobold" Balors which would still be a win my book.

 

[Greg K]

So then what do you call it if your world can not even handle, for example, having an "alternate" Monk character in it or a Dragon Sorcerer "Warlock"?

A DM with a consistant vision of the tone and flavor of the setting. Setting is not story. Story is what happens by the characters through their actions in the setting. Two different things that your are conflating.

Furthermore, just because the game includes something does not mean they exist in every campaign. It is stated, explicitly, in the Player's Book tells players to talk with the DM about the setting he or she is running. The reason is that there are way too many influences that people can bring. Some people are influenced by Arthurian tales, some by classic swords and sorcerery (REH, Leiber, Moorcock), others visions are influenced by Lord of the Rings, others still by 80's fantasy movies (Archer and the Sorceress, Conan, Dragonslayer, Excalibur, and/or Ladyhawk), others by anime, others by videogames (Final Fantasy, Everquest, and Warcraft), and still others by more modern fantasy or even specific rpg settings). With these influences come certain expectations as to what should be included and what is not. However what is included and excluded influences the feel of the setting. Therefore, not everything can be included if the DM is going for a specific style/tone of fantasy. All of the different influences is also why it is usually not enough for a DM to say, "Hey, I am running D&D make up a character and come play".

So, f what you want included is left out, tt does not mean the DM is telling a story and the player has no influence. It means that you and the DM most likely have different influences want something completely different in tone/style from one another in play .

 

[Greg K]

If I had a player try to test me like that, I'd refluff balors as a "kobolds" and see how long it took them to leave, but on the other hand I don't know any players like that in real life.

I wouldn't even bother. If someone tried to test me like that, their only choice would be the door. Just because I play D&D and another person plays D&D does not entitle them to play in a game that I am running. We both want something different out of the game so we are better not wasting one another's time.