Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8589071" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I do wish there were more options in the poll, as there is a best-fit option for me (#2) but it is only a partial fit.See, the thing is, classes are designed with a default fluff. And that default fluff is usually something that informed how and why the class has the mechanics it has. That fluff is not absolutely inviolate though. Indeed, I would argue that there is and has always been a strong trend toward creative re-imagining of the fluff, just to varying degrees. Otherwise, you would not have all the different possible origin stories that Fighters can have, because they'd all have to be very similar in their descriptive elements.But it's not as simple as &quot;fluff can just be ignored&quot; or &quot;fluff is inherent.&quot; There's a complex, fluid relationship between thematics, mechanics, and actual play. Reskinning--by various names--has been with us since at the very least 2nd edition. And in very early D&amp;D, where you could potentially recruit sapient opponents as new retainers (e.g. &quot;convince the orc soldiers to fight for you instead of their awful boss who mistreats them&quot;), as soon as those monsters became part of the party they would lose characteristics like darkvision or their knowledge of the dungeon's layout because that would be too much of an advantage. Meaning, neither fluff nor crunch could strictly determine how things would cash out in play, because higher considerations, things in some sense &quot;above&quot; the direct mechanics, would override.So...I agree with both #1 and #2. I don't agree with the (implied) most strident version of #1, which is that fluff is just as important as rules and should only be changed in equally serious situations. I also don't agree with the most strident version of #2, where fluff is an unimportant side issue. Neither of those positions is correct. Both things are important, both can determine some things, both can yield to other considerations. #2 is the closest position as written for &quot;all of these things matter yet none of them are absolute.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8589071, member: 6790260"] I do wish there were more options in the poll, as there is a best-fit option for me (#2) but it is only a partial fit. See, the thing is, classes [I]are[/I] designed with a [I]default[/I] fluff. And that default fluff is usually something that informed how and why the class has the mechanics it has. That fluff is not absolutely inviolate though. Indeed, I would argue that there is and has always been a strong trend toward creative re-imagining of the fluff, just to varying degrees. Otherwise, you would not have all the different possible origin stories that Fighters can have, because they'd all have to be very similar in their descriptive elements. But it's not as simple as "fluff can just be ignored" or "fluff is inherent." There's a complex, fluid relationship between thematics, mechanics, and actual play. Reskinning--by various names--has been with us since [I]at the very least[/I] 2nd edition. And in very early D&D, where you could potentially recruit sapient opponents as new retainers (e.g. "convince the orc soldiers to fight for [I]you[/I] instead of their awful boss who mistreats them"), as soon as those monsters became part of the party they would lose characteristics like darkvision or their knowledge of the dungeon's layout because that would be too much of an advantage. Meaning, neither fluff [I]nor[/I] crunch could strictly determine how things would cash out in play, because higher considerations, things in some sense "above" the direct mechanics, would override. So...I agree with both #1 and #2. I don't agree with the (implied) most strident [I]version[/I] of #1, which is that fluff is just as important as rules and should only be changed in equally serious situations. I also don't agree with the most strident version of #2, where fluff is an unimportant side issue. Neither of those positions is correct. Both things are important, both can determine some things, both can yield to other considerations. #2 is the closest position [I]as written[/I] for "all of these things matter yet none of them are absolute." [/QUOTE]

Verification