D&D 5E Fluff & Rule, Lore & Crunch. The Interplay of Class, System, and Color in D&D

Classes, what do you think?

  • 1. Classes are designed to reflect both a certain set of rules as well as lore.

    Votes: 63 63.6%
  • 2. Classes are designed to reflect a certain set of rules, but all lore is optional.

    Votes: 26 26.3%
  • 3. I have some opinion not adequately portrayed in the two options and I will put in the comments.

    Votes: 7 7.1%
  • 4. I have no idea what this poll is about, even after reading the initial post.

    Votes: 3 3.0%

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I think the issue is that a class's fluff/lore is meant to evoke a particular archetype, which has thematic "room" for differing takes on that particular implementation (e.g. "wizard" could conceivably be used for Merlin or Harry Potter).

The reason that's an issue, as I see it, is that this "broad range" runs up against problems because it not only requires niche protection against other archetypes (which usually isn't that hard to do, so long as the archetypes are sufficiently different in their general presentation), but virtually invites specialized classes that sacrifice breadth for greater specificity in what they're trying to evoke, all while still sitting at the same mechanical level as other classes. Hence getting a "Potter" class and a "Merlin" class both sitting alongside the more generic "wizard" class.

Given that there's no real way to quantify issues of thematic breadth vs. depth, I'm not sure there's an easy answer for this within the context of the class-based system of character development (as opposed to, say, point-buy). Certainly, having customizable features that exist apart from class-design (e.g. feats) helps, but they seem like an imperfect answer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Classes seem to represent certain archetypes but, once you’ve played through all those archetypes, classes can become the chassis for any concept you can imagine. Which is why I’m perfectly happy with core phb classes and feel no desire to venture into strange home brew or new ‘official’ classes that seemed to be designed to fill some niche that isn’t included in the core rules. Example: you I don’t need an artificer class to play an artificer character.

(edited)
 
Last edited:

How about this. Run a simple test. Grab 20 people walking in a downtown area, and show them a picture of Conan, King Arthur, and Boromir. They don't even have to be labelled. Ask them which one is a barbarian? I bet you 20/20 get it right.
Depends on which pictures one uses, surely. A Conan wearing the crown of Aquilonia...

RGA_conanbarbarian460.jpg


VS Viggo Mortensen in slightly-grubby full Strider outfit...

aragorn2.jpg


Would surely make it a significantly tougher call than 20/20. King Arthur is of course a harder call, since there isn't a single actor or performance to whom one can point and get a "yes, THAT man is Arthur!" like you can with Viggo or Arnold. But, surveying the first few images from a simple Google image search, using "King Arthur actor" (no quotes in search) to avoid all the much older paintings and illuminated manuscripts of him, this one pops up from an apparently forgettable 2004 film...

MV5BODMyMDczMTA2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzUyODIzMDI@._V1_.jpg


Seems to me like those would be a lot harder to distinguish from one another. They all look like Fighters to me. And for a younger audience that may not recognize Conan the Barbarian if he isn't shirtless and carrying his Atlantean sword (remember, the Arnold film came out in 1982; anyone under 45 today could not realistically have seen it in theaters), it seems extremely overconfident to assume that 100% of people in a random sample from the street would instantly know he's a Barbarian and not a Fighter or even a Paladin. Heck, I wasn't even trying to do this, but I accidentally ended up giving Conan the only plate armor in the group!

My point being: your test is not as reliable as you think unless you heavily bias it with primed images. Those images may evoke certain archetypes, sure, and those archetypes are relevant. But they are not absolutely determinate. Further, as I'm sure some folks will note, it is somewhat humorous that you go all in for "Aragon is Fighter, Arthur is Paladin" when from a purely literary perspective it should actually be the reverse: Aragon actually DOES have some magical talents, albeit usually mediated through herbs or magical substances, while Arthur is never shown to have any magical abilities in his lore (given "is the son of the king" is not magical itself, just recognized by magical things like the sword in the stone.)

Even if they have no idea who Conan is. Now ask them which one is a paladin. Provided they know the word's definition, I bet you 20/20 get it right, even if they do not know who King Arthur is. Now ask them which one is a fighter, and I bet 20/20 get it right. That is because words have connotation, and connotation is attached to tropes, and tropes are attached to lore. You could do the same thing with wizards and witches.

You are correct, Gandalf is different than Potter in a few instances. Most of the time they are the same.
Where's this "few" thing coming from?

Gandalf is still inherently magical even without his staff, it's just a useful tool. Harry Potter literally cannot use magic without a wand (learning to do so is an extremely advanced skill that almost no one can master). Essentially all Potterverse magic is spoken with specific incantations (again, it is a highly advanced skill to cast wordless magic in HP, neither skill is learned by any main characters, with only Dumbledore demonstrating either in any serious capacity), while Gandalf is almost entirely wordless and freeform. Magic in HP follows ironclad rules about what it can and cannot do (e.g. it can duplicate food that already exists or teleport food from somewhere else but it cannot make food just appear from nowhere), while Gandalf's powers are pretty much whatever he would like to achieve, limited only by his Istari oath to act only as an advisor and helper (as broken by Saruman, or even Sauron, who is the same class of being as Gandalf). Magic in Harry Potter is a purely bloodline effect, with the muggle-born wizards and witches being canonically born from squibs (essentially "wizard-born muggles," people who carry the "wizarding" gene but can't actually use magic) marrying into muggle families due to prejudice against them in the Wizarding world, while magic in LOTR is basically the exclusive province of incredibly powerful immortal beings (maiar, elves that actually visited Valinor) or the setting equivalent of liches (Ringwraiths). Even visual comparisons are weak; Radagst the Brown is clearly a Druid in D&D terms, and there's a pretty dramatic difference between Gandalf the Grey and Saruman the White, while HP characters all evoke a slightly cleaned up version of the black cloak/peaked black hat of stereotypical European witches. There is no even moderate possibility of a child using magic in LOTR, while in HP it is not only commonplace, demonstrations of instinctive magic as extremely young children are the hallmark of actually being a witch, and are looked for most earnestly by parents who fear their children might be squibs.

Are you talking about characterization? If so, then I agree, you can have a spectrum. But that doesn't negate a class's connotated trope, which contains lore.
Characterization is certainly part of it, yes. I'm referring to the whole package: visuals, behaviors, themes, context, in-setting mechanics, all of it. The best you can argue is that there's a bundle of stuff associated with each term, and that various different properties or works instantiate some particular subset of that bundle. There aren't enough universal elements that perfectly signify what's a "barbarian." There are a lot of components that can work, sure. But many folks would identify William Wallace from Braveheart as a Barbarian (woad, bit grimy, rugged, light armor) when he's much more a Fighter or even a Warlord in his actions and context. Gandalf (the White, anyway) is much more like a 5e Light Cleric than a 5e Wizard, and the other Istari "Wizards" we meet similarly fail to conform fully to the whole list of D&D wizard tropes. If there were a wand based Warlock patron, I would actually say HP witches and wizards are more like that than they are like any version of D&D wizards (except maaaaaybe 4e), what with so many of them having what are clearly familiars (Hedwig, Scanners even if he turned out to be a person in disguise, Neville's toad, Crookshanks, etc.) and Hermione being so obviously a Tome Warlock.

Yes, there are bundles of ideas, and yes, these ideas matter. But even in your example cases, there's a huge amount of ambiguity and difficulty. Conan is a Barbarian in fiction, but he behaves more like a Fighter (and certainly in old school D&D would have been a dead ringer for Fighter as someone who was crowned by his own hand...even though many aspects of the Barbarian class were inspired by him!) King Arthur to you is clearly a Paladin, but to me he's more clearly a Fighter, since he never really practices magic in any of the stories I grew up with, that was always Merlin's job, or maybe a job for an actual priest. And Aragorn surely is a clearly iconic character who helped inform the bundle of characteristics associated with a class...but that class is Ranger, not Fighter, and yet of the three you've cited he is the one that most clearly fits Paladin in my eyes.

THAT is the problem I'm pointing to. People can easily look at exactly the same character and come to different conclusions about which class they are or should be. And even within a single class, people may not agree on which characters actually count as representative examples, even if in their own settings they're explicitly called by the same name.

Which leaves us where I said: yes, there are tropes and archetypes etc., and yes, those things DO matter, but they are rarely if ever so clean cut and ironclad that they exclusively determine one and only one way things should be represented. Instead, these things are polysemous, they are vast and contain multitudes, their borders are porous and their link to the use in fiction is often muddled or inconclusive. That does not, in ANY way, mean that these tropes and archetypes don't matter. They do. Sometimes a lot! But they also cannot be treated as inviolate barriers, because people don't use them that way. Not in fiction, and not in TTRPG play.

Instead, they are treated much more like the rules of fashion or music composition or writing: useful guidelines, starting points, patterns that stand the test of time, but which cannot be relied upon to guarantee the best results always without question or thought. There is no formula for great writing, there is no algorithm for mellifluous music. That same structure is how class tropes and archetypes work; they are very functional and identifiable baselines that can, and should, be defied if doing so produces better roleplay. Which makes things messy and unclear. It makes judgment calls like "is King Arthur a Paladin or a Fighter? Is Conan still a Barbarian if he never rages? Are HP characters really 'Wizards' if their magic comes from their blood inheritance, with no amount of training able to install it in an ordinary human?" difficult and personal, something that cannot have objective answers because the answers are about what you believe or find the most utility in.

And it would seem that WotC is with me on this one. Consider the Barbarian and its subclasses. The Totem Warrior, Zealot, and Beast are all radically different takes on what it means to be a Barbarian, and they only loosely touch on what Conan does or looks like. The various "blend fighting with magic" options (like Valor/Swords Bards, Eldritch or Rune Knights, Bladesinger/War Wizards, arguably all Paladins, Bladelocks and especially Hexblades) show that there's not a sharp separation between those archetypes, even though most people intuitively feel the separation between them. (Indeed, I would argue that the very fact that people DO feel such a clean separation is why there are so many hybrid options, while there's far less of a felt separation between Fighter and Rogue, and hybrids between those are much less notable or prolific.)

Classes have implied tropes and themes. People actively modify, ignore, or replace those themes pretty much constantly. Even when people aren't doing that, there are often disagreements about which tropes or themes belong to a given class, and even more disagreements about which characters in fiction correspond to specific classes via those tropes and themes.
 

deganawida

Adventurer
d. But, surveying the first few images from a simple Google image search, using "King Arthur actor" (no quotes in search) to avoid all the much older paintings and illuminated manuscripts of him, this one pops up from an apparently forgettable 2004 film...

MV5BODMyMDczMTA2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzUyODIzMDI@._V1_.jpg
That's actually Mads Mikkelson as Tristran in the film. Arthur is played by Clive Owen and is dressed a bit more like a Roman centurion. My wife ranks it as her second favorite Arthurian movie, after Legend of the Sword. I liked both, but she can't stand Excalibur, whereas I think Excalibur is fantastic. Amazing how we've stayed together so long with such different tastes.
 

Classes seem to represent certain archetypes but, once you’ve played through all those archetypes, classes can become the chassis for any concept you can imagine.
On this, we agree 100%. I might even go further, there is no need to fully explore all the nooks and crannies first. It is perfectly good to say "I know what <class X> has as its default theme, I am going for something else instead" with your very first character, if that's what calls to you. Producing good roleplay (however one chooses to define "good roleplay") is a perfect defense here, so long as breaking the archetype or trope actually does produce good roleplay!

Which is why I’m perfectly happy with core phb classes and feel no desire to venture into strange home brew or new ‘official’ classes that seemed to be designed to fill some niche that isn’t included in the core rules. Example: you don’t need an artificer class to play an artificer character.
But here we diverge. You have used an inappropriate standard. You do not "need" anything in a TTRPG. Ever. Nothing, not a single thing, is so vital that it cannot be removed or rewritten. Diceless games, games with no GM, freeform games--hell, despite the name, a tabletop is wholly unnecessary! To demand that an option justify the need to be there is not only unfair, but actively biased.

Necessity is not what is relevant in RPG play or design. Utility is. And utility is, at least to some extent, subjective. You don't need or desire these things, they have no utility for you. Others see great utility in them.

That's actually Mads Mikkelson as Tristran in the film. Arthur is played by Clive Owen and is dressed a bit more like a Roman centurion. My wife ranks it as her second favorite Arthurian movie, after Legend of the Sword. I liked both, but she can't stand Excalibur, whereas I think Excalibur is fantastic. Amazing how we've stayed together so long with such different tastes.
Ah, thank you, my apologies for giving the wrong character. Bit annoying given that was like the third image for "king Arthur actor" in Google...

Getting the correct image, it should have been...

MV5BMTEzNDYxNzMyMTZeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU4MDQ4Njc1MjIy._V1_.jpg


Which, admittedly, a significant step up in the knightly-looks department. But I would be very hesitant to assume that this man definitely IS a Paladin. Especially if the question were asked in a more neutral way (e.g. "Please label this character as either a Barbarian, a Fighter, or a Paladin," separately asked for each character individually, rather than all three being shown and saying "please identify which one of these men is the Paladin," since that primes the audience by knowing that one of them definitely IS a Paladin.)
 

Depends on which pictures one uses
Of course it depends on which picture you use! Here is Harry Potter:
1648751575833.png

No one would suspect he is a wizard with this picture. But if you use the correct picture (which is the entire point of my example, you will get everyone answering the same. It is not an argument over the semantics of pictures or the varied approaches pictures can take - it is an argument that classes contain connotation, connotation contains tropes, and tropes are attached to lore. That was my claim.
And for the record if you hold up two pictures, and ask 20 people which one is a barbarian, 20/20 get it right.
1.jpg
View attachment Viggo-Mortensen-as-Aragorn-in-Lord-of-the-Rings.webp
Where's this "few" thing coming from?
The few things I already mentioned - the ones that let everyone who knows the definition of wizard knows a wizard is doing wizardly things: Wiggling fingers or holding wands or a staff, casting spells, using lore or knowledge, usually being depleted when they cast a bunch of spells. All trademarks of a wizard.
Characterization is certainly part of it, yes. I'm referring to the whole package: visuals, behaviors, themes, context, in-setting mechanics, all of it. The best you can argue is that there's a bundle of stuff associated with each term, and that various different properties or works instantiate some particular subset of that bundle. There aren't enough universal elements that perfectly signify what's a "barbarian."
For your visualization of a barbarian that may be true. But the word barbarian comes with a trope, and that trope has lore. Just because you see a broader picture doesn't make D&D classes exempt from their connotative meaning.
Have you ever taught someone new to fantasy and roleplaying to play D&D? If so, then you will understand what I mean. I can literally just say the word barbarian, wizard, thief, ranger, and add a one sentence descriptor or single example, and they say, "Oh, I know what that is." As much as your broad paint strokes may fill the room size canvas of a class's definition, the words still force you to use the same primary colored paint.
 


Have you ever taught someone new to fantasy and roleplaying to play D&D? If so, then you will understand what I mean. I can literally just say the word barbarian, wizard, thief, ranger, and add a one sentence descriptor or single example, and they say, "Oh, I know what that is." As much as your broad paint strokes may fill the room size canvas of a class's definition, the words still force you to use the same primary colored paint.
I have. Their already existing ideas of what classes are obviated any need. Because these things exist outside of tabletop gaming.

And you know what? His ideas didn't conform to the classes and archetypes of D&D, because his experience was elsewhere. His grounding was Fire Emblem and DOTA and Warcraft. Were there similarities? Sure, but similarities is a far cry from the "you know what this is, it's one and only one thing" you were pushing earlier.

In fact, your color analogy is great because color is so hugely subjective. What's purple? Well, we can often say what it isn't, but everything from fuchsia to maroon to violet to indigo might get labelled "purple." We know it isn't green or orange, sure, but there's such an enormous variation--to the point that you literally cannot even specify whether it needs to contain any blue or red specifically!--that it is really not very useful as a guide of any kind.

Like...look. Here's what you said earlier.

A class's name has a built in connotation, as does their subclass name. This automatically means they carry some lore. A wizard can be many different things. We can picture Merlin or Gandalf. We can also picture Harry Potter or Dr. Strange. But, there are thematic pieces, ie. lore, that are universal. They get their power from knowledge. They wiggle their hands or speak magic. They run out of magic or it drains them. This is part of lore.
The problem is, you can't actually point to anything universal that is always carried, the way you claimed here. Harry Potter magic does not in any way involve "draining" yourself, all the loss of energy comes from taking magical hits or getting worn down through the exertion of duelling. Even heavily exhausted characters can perform comparatively powerful feats. Special knowledge is only at absolute best tangential to Gandalf or Galadriel, and outright irrelevant in many other stories. Personal potency often matters a great deal, e.g. the Wheel of Time channelers would be kinda sorta Wizards except again you have the "it's in the blood" thing and some people are just really powerful while others are really weak overall but skilled in one specific area, and others still are just weak in general. Merlin, for example, is usually held to be a wizard because he's a cambion; yes, he accrues knowledge, but his magic doesn't come from that knowledge.

Not all "barbarians" rage, or wear minimal armor, or fight with mighty thews—and many look indistinguishable from "fighters." Not all "wizards" need teaching. There are common elements, features that are broadly applicable, but there are always exceptions and caveats that riddle the alleged universality with holes. The best you can do is saying you know things that definitely aren't Wizards, and common traits most Wizards have. You'll run into false positives and false negatives all the time, things that don't have the "universal" characteristics but that intuitively ping as Wizards, things that are called Wizards but fail quite cover everything. (Consider, for example, Diablo III: in that setting, Sorceress or Sorcerer refers to the studious, formal, rigid, rule-abiding way of doing things, and "Wizards" are looked down upon for their brashness, their wild abandon, their untrained willpower as their conduit to magic, even though Blizzard openly stated that the D&D wizard was their inspiration for the Diablo III Wizard, and they even directly copied some spell names,such as magic missile.)

"Green" covers nearly half the visual spectrum because humans are bad at distinguishing hues of green. We can usually identify what it isn't, but "teal" and "lime" are radically different colors even though they both read as "green." And that doesn't even get into things like color in other languages, e.g. Japanese, where a basal color is "ao," which covers everything English speakers would call blue AND green (but not yellow or violet). Or, for an actual English example, up until Middle English, the word "orange" did not exist; we called it "yellow red." Nowadays, it is its own distinct color, and also considered distinct from brown, even though brown is just dark orange, and even though we do not make exactly the same distinction between what Spanish calls azul (dark blue or "navy") from what it calls cielo (literally "heaven," aka sky blue). English speakers do not consider cyan a "color of the rainbow," even though it is (and may have been what Newton meant by "blue," with "indigo" being what we call "blue" today).

The archetypes can grow or subdivide, or merge together. Different cultural perspectives can lead to seeing a difference others don't, or not seeing a difference others do. It is incredibly subjective and extremely difficult to make anything like universal claims about what will or won't count as a particular color or archetype; yes, we can usually identify when something definitely is not that archetype or color. And we can usually identify when it indefinitely IS that archetype or color. But there are so many subtle variations at the edges, so many exceptions and nuances, that it is a fool's errand to try to limit what might qualify based on any kind of "universal" rules. Especially because archetypes are a hell of a lot more complicated and debatable than colors!
 
Last edited:


Classes are designed by the designers with lore in mind and a certain set of rules. But the player only has to follow the rules with the lore being optional, and if they manage to make things that are outside the realms the designers had thought of then this is a good thing.
100% agreed.

Designers design things with lore in part because that's the point of design. We don't buy games just to get a bare spreadsheet (not even EVE Online!) We want some good lore to go with it. But once we have the game in hand...who can tell you not to re-purpose bladelocks as Jedi? Or, to use some examples from my favorite campaign I ever played in, repurposing a Shaman as a dronesmith summoning defensive drones from P-space, and a Bard as a cyborg commando specifically designed for coordinating squadrons?

Those two things have nothing whatsoever to do with the default lore of Shaman or Bard. But they were two of the genuinely best characters I've ever had the pleasure to fight beside. That is what I mean by "sure, patterns exist, but they're nowhere near binding." They are at best somewhat-useful starting points. You not only can, but should defy them if it leads to something cool by doing so.
 

On this, we agree 100%. I might even go further, there is no need to fully explore all the nooks and crannies first. It is perfectly good to say "I know what <class X> has as its default theme, I am going for something else instead" with your very first character, if that's what calls to you. Producing good roleplay (however one chooses to define "good roleplay") is a perfect defense here, so long as breaking the archetype or trope actually does produce good roleplay!


But here we diverge. You have used an inappropriate standard. You do not "need" anything in a TTRPG. Ever. Nothing, not a single thing, is so vital that it cannot be removed or rewritten. Diceless games, games with no GM, freeform games--hell, despite the name, a tabletop is wholly unnecessary! To demand that an option justify the need to be there is not only unfair, but actively biased.

Necessity is not what is relevant in RPG play or design. Utility is. And utility is, at least to some extent, subjective. You don't need or desire these things, they have no utility for you. Others see great utility in them.
I was speaking for myself which is why I said, “I don’t need to delve into” things beyond the base books.
 

I was speaking for myself which is why I said, “I don’t need to delve into” things beyond the base books.
While that is fair, you did switch to saying (emphasis added), "Example: you don’t need an artificer class to play an artificer character." Perhaps I was reading too much into it, but the switch from "I" to "you" communicates a generalization. Speaking for the "generic you," as in anyone who might be playing.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
You didn't need an artificer to play and artificer character because the DM would throw a big fit over inventing things not being something they did in the Middle Ages, kick you from the game, then post about how 'An Anime That Guy Ruined the Game' on Reddit for asking.
 

While that is fair, you did switch to saying (emphasis added), "Example: you don’t need an artificer class to play an artificer character." Perhaps I was reading too much into it, but the switch from "I" to "you" communicates a generalization. Speaking for the "generic you," as in anyone who might be playing.
I can see why there was a misunderstanding. It’s why I don’t work in marketing or politics
 

You didn't need an artificer to play and artificer character because the DM would throw a big fit over inventing things not being something they did in the Middle Ages, kick you from the game, then post about how 'An Anime That Guy Ruined the Game' on Reddit for asking.
Yeah that is...a more extreme version of stuff I have personally seen. I wrote some homebrew for 5e, in part because people talked up how much better 5e was due to being so much easier to write homebrew for.

Guess how many DMs have approved me to use it, when I was very up front with them that I wanted to do some playtesting to ensure it was balanced?

Three. Out of the couple dozen games I've applied for, only three. And not one of them actually accepted my application in the end. (I don't hold that against them, they had lots of applications, there are many reasons why mine might not have been accepted.)
 



I have. Their already existing ideas of what classes are obviated any need. Because these things exist outside of tabletop gaming.

And you know what? His ideas didn't conform to the classes and archetypes of D&D, because his experience was elsewhere. His grounding was Fire Emblem and DOTA and Warcraft. Were there similarities? Sure, but similarities is a far cry from the "you know what this is, it's one and only one thing" you were pushing earlier.

In fact, your color analogy is great because color is so hugely subjective. What's purple? Well, we can often say what it isn't, but everything from fuchsia to maroon to violet to indigo might get labelled "purple." We know it isn't green or orange, sure, but there's such an enormous variation--to the point that you literally cannot even specify whether it needs to contain any blue or red specifically!--that it is really not very useful as a guide of any kind.

Like...look. Here's what you said earlier.


The problem is, you can't actually point to anything universal that is always carried, the way you claimed here. Harry Potter magic does not in any way involve "draining" yourself, all the loss of energy comes from taking magical hits or getting worn down through the exertion of duelling. Even heavily exhausted characters can perform comparatively powerful feats. Special knowledge is only at absolute best tangential to Gandalf or Galadriel, and outright irrelevant in many other stories. Personal potency often matters a great deal, e.g. the Wheel of Time channelers would be kinda sorta Wizards except again you have the "it's in the blood" thing and some people are just really powerful while others are really weak overall but skilled in one specific area, and others still are just weak in general. Merlin, for example, is usually held to be a wizard because he's a cambion; yes, he accrues knowledge, but his magic doesn't come from that knowledge.

Not all "barbarians" rage, or wear minimal armor, or fight with mighty thews—and many look indistinguishable from "fighters." Not all "wizards" need teaching. There are common elements, features that are broadly applicable, but there are always exceptions and caveats that riddle the alleged universality with holes. The best you can do is saying you know things that definitely aren't Wizards, and common traits most Wizards have. You'll run into false positives and false negatives all the time, things that don't have the "universal" characteristics but that intuitively ping as Wizards, things that are called Wizards but fail quite cover everything. (Consider, for example, Diablo III: in that setting, Sorceress or Sorcerer refers to the studious, formal, rigid, rule-abiding way of doing things, and "Wizards" are looked down upon for their brashness, their wild abandon, their untrained willpower as their conduit to magic, even though Blizzard openly stated that the D&D wizard was their inspiration for the Diablo III Wizard, and they even directly copied some spell names,such as magic missile.)

"Green" covers nearly half the visual spectrum because humans are bad at distinguishing hues of green. We can usually identify what it isn't, but "teal" and "lime" are radically different colors even though they both read as "green." And that doesn't even get into things like color in other languages, e.g. Japanese, where a basal color is "ao," which covers everything English speakers would call blue AND green (but not yellow or violet). Or, for an actual English example, up until Middle English, the word "orange" did not exist; we called it "yellow red." Nowadays, it is its own distinct color, and also considered distinct from brown, even though brown is just dark orange, and even though we do not make exactly the same distinction between what Spanish calls azul (dark blue or "navy") from what it calls cielo (literally "heaven," aka sky blue). English speakers do not consider cyan a "color of the rainbow," even though it is (and may have been what Newton meant by "blue," with "indigo" being what we call "blue" today).

The archetypes can grow or subdivide, or merge together. Different cultural perspectives can lead to seeing a difference others don't, or not seeing a difference others do. It is incredibly subjective and extremely difficult to make anything like universal claims about what will or won't count as a particular color or archetype; yes, we can usually identify when something definitely is not that archetype or color. And we can usually identify when it indefinitely IS that archetype or color. But there are so many subtle variations at the edges, so many exceptions and nuances, that it is a fool's errand to try to limit what might qualify based on any kind of "universal" rules. Especially because archetypes are a hell of a lot more complicated and debatable than colors!
classes contain connotation, connotation contains tropes, and tropes are attached to lore. That was my claim.
Are you arguing against my claim?

No offense, but it is very difficult to tell. Everything I say, supports my claim. I do note there is a slight variance, but overall, I stand by my claim.
 

Are you arguing against my claim?

No offense, but it is very difficult to tell. Everything I say, supports my claim. I do note there is a slight variance, but overall, I stand by my claim.
TL;DR:

Tropes etc. may exist, but every trope etc. has glaring exceptions. Any "inherent" fluff is a useful suggestion: it can, and should, be ignored whenever and wherever doing so produces better RP.
 

TL;DR:

Tropes etc. may exist, but every trope etc. has glaring exceptions. Any "inherent" fluff is a useful suggestion: it can, and should, be ignored whenever and wherever doing so produces better RP.
So you agree with my claim, and I agree with you - tropes can be ignored. I may not go so far to say "whenever and wherever doing so produces better RP." But, I agree they are just useful suggestions.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top