"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[abirdcall]

I'm already pretty booked, thanks.

I never offered and why do you care about what someone on the internet thinks? Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.

 

[TwoSix]

I never offered and why do you care about what someone on the internet thinks? Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.

Oh man, you're taking your ball AND going home? What will I play now?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I never offered and why do you care about what someone on the internet thinks? Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.

You can't point to any rules though, just your own assumptions of what the rules mean, and when confronted about those not actually being the rules, you dismiss what we are saying.

 

[abirdcall]

Oh man, you're taking your ball AND going home? What will I play now?

wut?

 

[TwoSix]

wut?

I can see how your lack of facility with metaphor might correlate with a preference for literal reading of concepts like classes.

 

[Captain Panda]

Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.

Well that's a straw-man if ever I've seen one.

Again, allowing people to reskin, as Crawford expresses, is not the same as ignoring all rules. Hell, the overwhelming majority of people here arguing against you acknowledge the importance of mechanical rules and maintaining their integrity. The point of contention is that the system does not break if fluff is changed, and as such reskinning is a totally reasonable and even intended feature of the game, and generally makes the game more fun.

The head developer seems to agree with that sentiment. Have the quotes on hand of him saying reflavoring fluff is mush? Because I am starting to suspect you are wildly overstating his point and twisting it to mean what you want it to and not what he actually meant. Crawford is very open to refluffing if you've actually listened to him speak. So are most reasonable DMs and players, for that matter. Sometimes reasonable people can disagree about where the line of reasonable refluffing is drawn, but treating fluff as concrete, enforceable rules? It's not really in the spirit of a game about imagination.

Note, and this is critical, that that does not mean that any reskinning is acceptable, it doesn't mean anything goes. Playing a noble who has anger management issues as a barbarian is not the same as trying to bring Darth Vader to the Forgotten Realms.

 

[abirdcall]

Well that's a straw-man if ever I've seen one.

Again, allowing people to reskin, as Crawford expresses, is not the same as ignoring all rules. Hell, the overwhelming majority of people here arguing against you acknowledge the importance of mechanical rules and maintaining their integrity. The point of contention is that the system does not break if fluff is changed, and as such reskinning is a totally reasonable and even intended feature of the game, and generally makes the game more fun.

The head developer seems to agree with that sentiment. Have the quotes on hand of him saying reflavoring fluff is mush? Because I am starting to suspect you are wildly overstating his point and twisting it to mean what you want it to and not what he actually meant. Crawford is very open to refluffing if you've actually listened to him speak. So are most reasonable DMs and players, for that matter. Sometimes reasonable people can disagree about where the line of reasonable refluffing is drawn, but treating fluff as concrete, enforceable rules? It's not really in the spirit of a game about imagination.

Note, and this is critical, that that does not mean that any reskinning is acceptable, it doesn't mean anything goes. Playing a noble who has anger management issues as a barbarian is not the same as trying to bring Darth Vader to the Forgotten Realms.

People are literally arguing that class doesn't have to have anything to do with a character's identity. That's not me making a strawman. (Besides, it wasn't even an argument, just a series of snide remarks which won't be repeated as I have now ignored them.)

But what do those 'mechanical' rules mean if they don't represent anything?

We're just left with a crummy dice based strategy game. No thanks.

If 'anything goes' is too far for you then you would agree that class helps create character identity yes? Then what are you arguing against me for?

I said it's fine to change rules - you're the one who's creating a strawman here. I have never said that rules cannot be changed.

I have never said that rules cannot be changed.



I have never said that rules cannot be changed.

I don't think these 'mechanical' rules are in as tight a balance as other people seem to think. It's an open cooperative game with unlimited numbers of variables, it can survive a number change or added or removed ability here and there. What it can't survive is taking away narrative and thematic meaning from the rules.

And yes, you don't have to believe me about Crawford. It's fine. I don't need an argument from authority for my point. But he did say it, at length. It's in a video (and probably said it elsewhere too as he had a lot to say about it).

 

[Chaosmancer]

People are literally arguing that class doesn't have to have anything to do with a character's identity. That's not me making a strawman. (Besides, it wasn't even an argument, just a series of snide remarks which won't be repeated as I have now ignored them.)

I've never argued that class does not have anything to do with identity.

I'm arguing it isn't the end all and be all their identity.

Not all bards are traveling musicians who sleep with any creature they can get away with. Some of them are sages who prefer the deep recesses of a library. Some are Captains, belting out anthems and marching songs to keep up the vigor of the troops. Some are wandering swordsmasters looking for a proper challenging fight. Some are assassins in it for the coin.

All of these are viable. A class is more than one trope. And the background can be as important or more important to that character. A soldier might be more soldier than whatever their class is, following military regulations and preferring a crisp hierarchy to any sort of free-form governance. Everyone might interact more with a character as a pious follower of a god of light and peace, dealing with their beliefs and how they were raised as opposed to what they do in combat. A sage might be seeking ancient knowledge, and that defines them more than being a rogue or a ranger at home in the wilds and dangers of the world. A Guild Artisan might be seeking inspiration for their work, taking up adventuring only as a means to pay for their travel expenses and the supplies they need to create their masterpiece.

Throwing all of it away and demanding that class takes precedent over every other aspect of the character is what we are arguing against, not that class is meaningless, but that class is not absolute.

 

[Captain Panda]

And yes, you don't have to believe me about Crawford. It's fine. I don't need an argument from authority for my point. But he did say it, at length. It's in a video (and probably said it elsewhere too as he had a lot to say about it).

It's not a matter of trust. You made a claim about what someone said and now you can't source it, and a source actually presented here seems to state the opposite. It's possible he contradicted himself, but I'd want to see the evidence.

Throwing all of it away and demanding that class takes precedent over every other aspect of the character is what we are arguing against, not that class is meaningless, but that class is not absolute.

That's actually a really good summation of my opinion.

 

[Hussar]

Right and the Noble background is a background.



Yes. The example which has been repeated is a character who is a Noble only and the character's class, Barbarian, has no effect on who the character is. It's just there because they needed a class.

Nobles don't adventure.

/snip

Possibly the most mistaken statement I've seen on En World for a long, long time. That's just not even close. But, in case you need evidence, let's provide some:

Knights of the Round table - Grail Quest
King Conan - one of the very earliest Conan stories has an adventuring barbarian king.
Lord of the Rings - Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli are all nobles.
Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander
Narnia Chronicles
1e D&D - Name level allowed you to become a noble and still expected you to adventure.
Multiple questing nobles in Grimm fairy tales.

That's just off the top of my head.