Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6764951" data-attributes="member: 6799649">I disagree. Characters are both fluff and crunch, and they should each make sense in relation to the other.When I make a PC, I don't do the crunch first, then do fluff, then finish. Nor do I do fluff first, then crunch, then finish. For me, both fluff and crunch are informed by one another, bouncing ideas back and forth, until I'm finally happy with both.At the end of this process, the final fluff (which is made up by me) has to explain the crunch (which are the game rules).The DM can certainly say, "No monks in my game", and if he does then I won't make a monk and expect to play it in his game. But if he does allow monks (meaning: the game mechanic of the monk class), and my monk's abilities are at least as plausible as 'I was taught these techniques in a monastery', then job done. The DM has already allowed these techniques to be taught and learned, and it's frankly preposterous to claim that such techniques can only be learned from people who live in a monastery and impossible to learn from individuals that don't live in that kind of building.</blockquote>