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

[Coroc]

That's untrue. A rule that you have to roll dice in front of the players is a rule without mechanics. There can be lots of rules that don't have associated mechanics. An example from 5e is the rule that the players describe what they want their PC to do and the DM narrates the results. Those are both explicit 5e rules with no mechanics. Other mechanics may or may not play a part in-between the declaration and narration, but those mechanics are not a part of those two rules.

Yea you are right it was no meant to be exclusive, of course dice roling, the six attributes and other stats are also fixed rules.
I just wanted to point out the difference between some of the ruleset and pure fluff like class or background.

 

[Aldarc]

Broadly describes indicates what I've been saying. It describes the general nature of the class fluff. Barbarians are uncivilized(the general fluff). The specific way that your barbarian is uncivilized is up to you.

No. The language of the 5e PHB is that barbarians might, often, or can be uncivilized NOT that they are. Your position here that "barbarians are uncivilized" is prescriptive and not descriptive or a generalization. Your view seems antithetical to the actual language and spirit of 5e, which, on the whole, is exceptionally skittish about dictating how things are in your game, table, or setting.

I have no hardline view.

It seems like you are arguing pretty hardline view to me, Max. There does not seem to be much room for compromise from your. As per usual, it's either your opinion or nothing.

 

[Coroc]

... language and spirit of 5e, which, on the whole, is exceptionally skittish about dictating how things are in your game, table, or setting.

...

Actually not, the examples for gamplay in the rulebook are just that. And it says you can housrule all you want except for AL or such. But here we are not talking about altering the rule, we are talking about altering the fluff or lack of fluff for another fluff which is not a (mechanical) rule.

 

[abirdcall]

Challenge accepted.

I take a class named A (mechanically the barbarians class) A background Y based on the criminal background.

There is no class, no Barbarian, no background, and no criminal.

Remember, we have thrown out that 'fluff'.

Now i do the mechanics (Translation in paranthesis):

Player1 character X is a level 1 A with a dexterity of 16 and the Y background allowing him to apply skill U with +6
(means e.g. he could use his background to pick locks with +3prof+3dex=+6 skill based o nhis background)

DM: X you approach a Z. you can apply skill U DC 12. Player 1 rolls 15 +6= 21. DM you resolved Z
(Player 1 your character finds a lock, you can try and pick it. Player rolls more than 12 and picks the lock)

There are no skills and no locks.

There are only abilities and obstacles or challenges.

It's hard to imagine an RPG without fluff because it couldn't work. It just wouldn't be an RPG.

 

[Boendal2]

We are going to start a new campaign and one of my players told me her cleric won't heal other players, because the WotC books state that a domain of the death cleric sees "death as a part of life". Therefore no healing for the group. Also she wanted to tell the paladin that he has to fit his alignment with the party (basically hers), as everything else will cause problems for the group. also anything else than lawful good wouldn't fit the paladin class anyway.

I intervened immediatley and told her she can play her character as she likes, but we won't play RAW at my table. She seemed really surprised by me mentioning that alignment is "a mere guideline for RP".... I think she never even thought about it that way. Explains why I felt so out of place in the campaign she was GMing. Also makes me a bit sad, when you realise how one-dimensional her character creations must have been so far....

So in a word: yes. yes, I encountered a player (and even GM) like this lately ;-)

 

[abirdcall]

Actually not, the examples for gamplay in the rulebook are just that. And it says you can housrule all you want except for AL or such. But here we are not talking about altering the rule, we are talking about altering the fluff or lack of fluff for another fluff which is not a (mechanical) rule.

People keep saying that they can define something as 'fluff' and then therefore it is not a rule.

Firstly, how do we define something as fluff in the first place? Where in the rules does it say how we determine that?

Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?

I've seen lots of people on the internet argue that a 'Druid won't wear metal armour' is fluff. Is it? How do we determine if something is actually a rule or not?


I brought up an example of playing a Jedi and people lost it.

Well is it against the rules to play a Jedi? If it is against the rules, then there are rules. If there are no rules then it is perfectly fine for a player to come to a table with a character choosing the Elf race, Rogue class, and Guild Artisan background but the character is actually a human Jedi from the Star Wars universe.

There are either rules that forbid that or there aren't.

 

[Captain Panda]

Maybe it's time to hit reset a bit and try to actually understand where everyone is coming from. So, at MaxPerson, Saelorn, Ad_Hoc, I have a few cases I want to run by you and genuinely get your opinion on. I have a few hypothetical characters here, ranging in the scale they alter fluff:

Example 1: A barbarian, mechanically, who is a rural peasant who flies into a rage and fights with exceptional vigor on behalf of the lower class, and harbors a hatred of the nobility. I'd call this a minor refluff.

Example 2: A bard, mechanically, who is flavored as a mage with no musical skills at all. They have a keen interest in magical theory and see themselves as an unconventional wizard sussing out the secrets of magic from many traditions. Basically a bard who is flavored like a more traditional caster. The two are fairly close mechanically to begin with, so I'd call this a moderate refluff.

Example 3: A druid, mechanically, who is played in the style of Radagast, complete with a bunny sled. Radagast is more of a wizard who is attuned to nature than a druid, so I'd call this a moderate to high refluff.

Example 4: A monk, mechanically, who is a hobbit farmer who brawls and hits people with his hoe and utilizes old family fighting traditions ("Aunt Winnifred's Crotch Punch" for stunning strike, as an example). This departs pretty drastically from the monk flavor, so I'd call this a heavy refluff.

Example 5: A paladin, mechanically, who is flavored to be a mechanical assassin who unleashes surges of energy through his weapons in the form of energy blasts on a hit (to replace smites), and who swears no oath. I'd call this an extreme reflavor.

Now in all cases the underlying integrity of the mechanics is unchanged. All that has changed is the aesthetics, the flavor. Flavor and aesthetics can be important. That said, I'd allow everything from 1-4 and still consider it in the spirit of the game. Even 5 could fit at some tables, depending on the setting, and might make sense for a warforged paladin in Eberron.

Would you be opposed to allowing these examples? If yes to some and no to others, at what point do you think the refluffing has gone too far? If no to all of them, do you not see why that position is an unpopular one?

I argue that reflavoring a class (within reason, and suited to the setting) is not only in the spirit of the rules, but is a player actively showing initiative and putting effort into the game. I've seen a lot of people who threw a character together and just played Generic Monk#17 (which is not to say every monk who is very close to the PHB flavor does that, but it does happen), but someone who takes the time to redefine all the fluff to make sense for a rural hobbit is someone who has taken time to really delve into their character and put work in. As a DM, I wish every player would do that. Making a character your own is a good thing.

Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?

That's actually one of the lines I do draw in the sand. You can't just look like one existing race and use the stats of another. If someone wants to be something unique, however, and they have what I judge to be a good reason, I'm willing to let them use the existing stats of a race that resembles their idea.

 

[Don Durito]

Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?

I've seen lots of people on the internet argue that a 'Druid won't wear metal armour' is fluff. Is it? How do we determine if something is actually a rule or not?


I brought up an example of playing a Jedi and people lost it.

Well is it against the rules to play a Jedi? If it is against the rules, then there are rules. If there are no rules then it is perfectly fine for a player to come to a table with a character choosing the Elf race, Rogue class, and Guild Artisan background but the character is actually a human Jedi from the Star Wars universe.

There are either rules that forbid that or there aren't.

This has always been the issue with reskinning in WOTC D&D. It's always been a matter of table negotiation to work out what you can do and the extent to which you can do it. And of course, just because a DM allows something, it doesn't mean that making things that other players assumed were concrete limitations into fluff won't impact their enjoyment of the game.

Take the Samurai subclass, I would assume that if I want to play the subclass I don't have be an actual Japanese style samurai - yet it wouldn't be hugely surprising to find a table where the assumption was that "yes, of course you do, that's what the subclass is for".

 

[abirdcall]

We are going to start a new campaign and one of my players told me her cleric won't heal other players, because the WotC books state that a domain of the death cleric sees "death as a part of life". Therefore no healing for the group.

What is the problem with that?

Also she wanted to tell the paladin that he has to fit his alignment with the party (basically hers), as everything else will cause problems for the group.

It is perfectly reasonable to have expectations about how the party will interact and be composed of as a player at the table.

I don't want to play in a game with evil characters for example.

also anything else than lawful good wouldn't fit the paladin class anyway.

Well she is just in error.

Also makes me a bit sad, when you realise how one-dimensional her character creations must have been so far....

So in a word: yes. yes, I encountered a player (and even GM) like this lately ;-)

This is just a lack of imagination. Creating characters using the building blocks given by the books does not necessitate 'one-dimensional' characters.

Try making a character without a gimmick. Create a character with a strong archetype. Then use your imagination and creativity to make that character memorable during play.

Playing against what the books say isn't a mark of imagination. It's trying to use a crutch to be remarkable.

 

[abirdcall]

Would you be opposed to allowing these examples? If yes to some and no to others, at what point do you think the refluffing has gone too far? If no to all of them, do you not see why that position is an unpopular one?

I must have said at least 20 times so far that I'm not against changing things.

The rules give a baseline that people expect when they sit down to play the game. Any change can be good or bad, that is it can make the game more fun or less fun for others.

For the examples, it will be my own taste. The most important thing to me is that the player is acting in good faith. They're hard rules to codify so the honour system must be used.

A brief character description will often lack the nuance necessary.

Example 1: A barbarian, mechanically, who is a rural peasant who flies into a rage and fights with exceptional vigor on behalf of the lower class, and harbors a hatred of the nobility. I'd call this a minor refluff.

I suppose it depends on the subclass? But largely it would be on how the character is played. I would expect to see traits from the Barbarian class represented. (which I am going to guess people will read as 'that is only what the character is'. No, characters are a lot of things. Class traits are just one aspect.)

Example 2: A bard, mechanically, who is flavored as a mage with no musical skills at all. They have a keen interest in magical theory and see themselves as an unconventional wizard sussing out the secrets of magic from many traditions. Basically a bard who is flavored like a more traditional caster. The two are fairly close mechanically to begin with, so I'd call this a moderate refluff.

Bards cast with Charisma. Their magic comes from the strength of their performance, which does not need to be musical. Being a good performer often means a lot of study. It is a step too far if they insist on the way they cast the spells to be the same as a Wizard.

I once played a Great Old One Pact of the Tome Warlock. She communed with her patron by reading and uncovering ancient secrets in texts. So yes, she resembled a Wizard in that respect. Her power came from harnessing the power of an Elder God through learning its secrets and her casting came through her force of personality to make it happen. So, still a Warlock.

Example 3: A druid, mechanically, who is played in the style of Radagast, complete with a bunny sled. Radagast is more of a wizard who is attuned to nature than a druid, so I'd call this a moderate to high refluff.

I don't know Radagast. They are largely an invention of the movies right?

While Druids are varied, they also have a specific narrative place. They all know Druidic and won't wear metal armour for a reason.

Playing a scholarly Druid would be fine though if that is what you're asking?

Example 4: A monk, mechanically, who is a hobbit farmer who brawls and hits people with his hoe and utilizes old family fighting traditions ("Aunt Winnifred's Crotch Punch" for stunning strike, as an example). This departs pretty drastically from the monk flavor, so I'd call this a heavy refluff.

No, that's not a Monk. It's pretty easy to make that character concept work, they just need to spend some time learning to be a Monk in there somewhere.

They scared the rest of the village in their younger days by being too rough and tumble so the halflings contacted a monastery to take them in. They learned how to channel Ki from the Monks but their rough and tumble nature never left them, the life of a Monk was just not for them so they ultimately set off on adventure. Now they don't outwardly look or have the demeanour of a Monk type to most but they still have the Wisdom and training that was taught to them that they utilize when the time is right.

Example 5: A paladin, mechanically, who is flavored to be a mechanical assassin who unleashes surges of energy through his weapons in the form of energy blasts on a hit (to replace smites), and who swears no oath. I'd call this an extreme reflavor.

Yeah, definitely not a Paladin.

I argue that reflavoring a class (within reason, and suited to the setting) is not only in the spirit of the rules, but is a player actively showing initiative and putting effort into the game. I've seen a lot of people who threw a character together and just played Generic Monk#17 (which is not to say every monk who is very close to the PHB flavor does that, but it does happen), but someone who takes the time to redefine all the fluff to make sense for a rural hobbit is someone who has taken time to really delve into their character and put work in. As a DM, I wish every player would do that. Making a character your own is a good thing.

I think changing the rules is inherent and core to RPGs. They're made to be malleable. They must be.

That's actually one of the lines I do draw in the sand. You can't just look like one existing race and use the stats of another. If someone wants to be something unique, however, and they have what I judge to be a good reason, I'm willing to let them use the existing stats of a race that resembles their idea.

Everyone has their own line. The point, is that there is a line.