Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6769422" data-attributes="member: 16814">So it's okay to 'reinterpret' fluff if it suits your needs to accept a character concept or new class build?  Recall this is FR we're talking about, so you're doing more than reinterpreting the loose fiction in class descriptions and instead deciding the fiction on a whole race in a well defined setting is open to such.  That's some unstable ground you're staking there.Yes, the setting of the FR says how Dwarves are organized.  I've been very constant that the DM always retains veto power when any refluff violates setting fictions.  You're making the argument that setting fictions can be refluffed to match class fictions, and I'm already on record disagreeing that class fictions are binding, much less over setting fictions that I do see as binding (on the DM's say-so, at least, I wouldn't slavishly follow FR fiction if I ran it, but I'd be very, very clear as to where my game diverged).  So, yeah, it's 'out of court altogether' because it's just an attempt to rehash a matter and courts looks down on rehashing matter that's already fully argued.It was pretty easy given you, yourself, said that you didn't like it but you'd make room for it in your game because it was in SCAG.  Perhaps that was rhetorical flourish, but you can't get all offended that someone took you that way.  And you did 'refluff', your refluff was just of the setting fiction on dwarves, not the class.  Again, I don't think moving the target of the refluff from the class to the setting fiction on dwarves leaves you on stable ground.To step away from the sidetrek of possibly barbaric dwarves, the main differences between us seem to be:1) where we draw the line on refluffing material.  You're more 'by the book', I'm a bit more freeform.  Neither are wrong.2) you desire to create a world by tying mechanics intimately to the fiction.  I don't, and prefer to build worlds ignorant of mechanics.  Both are valid and attempt the goal of providing a sufficiently self-contained and coherent fiction that players can engage and achieve buy-in.  Neither is particularly more effective or better, and both work.3) you prefer to create mechanics than to refluff fiction.  I prefer to create fiction to refluff mechanics.  I don't see anything wrong with either approach.  For me, creation of mechanics is the more tedious and unfun of the two options -- I'd prefer new fiction over new mechanics.  In summary, I think that personal preference isn't a good reason to get into an internet slap fight over who's way is better/more right.  I gladly cede the ground on my way being any better or any more right than yours.  Each works, respectively, and that's great for everyone.  My entire point for this thread wasn't to 'win' but to find out if my perspective, which I had not previously questioned, was common or not.  To that end, this thread has been a tremendous success, as I've found out that the two approaches are pretty evenly split, with a very healthy middle ground meaning that it's a spectrum, not a binary.  I've seen great examples on both sides, and I'm truly happy for everyone, including you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />, that they get some much joy and passion from their games.  My only complaint is how many times I (and others) were told that not treating class as fiction is the wrong way to play (frex, "If you do that, you should play a classless system").  That wasn't optimal, but, in context of the rest of the great posts in this thread, only a minor annoyance.Thanks for playing, everyone! (pun(s) fully intended)</blockquote>

Verification