Roles in Roleplaying Games

I see this argument often, and I always wonder, "So what?"

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R? Does it do what you want? Yes? Then what's the issue?

There's a legitimate issue in that sometimes the thing you want to do isn't represented by any current class. But that you cannot make a thing that happens to be named in the rules as "fighter" that does what you want I think is a weak critique indeed.

There's a second-order critique that folks who are just starting out will have their ideas kind of pigeon-holed for a while, I suppose. That's a theoretical problem that I haven't seen be a major issue in practice, myself. I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.

Because maybe he doesn't want to be a ranger? Maybe the paladin doesn't want to be an avenger?

Sure, you can reskin, but that's about as satisfying an answer as house-ruling other design issues you don't agree with. Individuals can and should do it, but nobody really likes messageboarders recommending it when the issue is raised as a reason the game doesn't agree with us.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Because maybe he doesn't want to be a ranger? Maybe the paladin doesn't want to be an avenger?

Sure, you can reskin, but that's about as satisfying an answer as house-ruling other design issues you don't agree with. Individuals can and should do it, but nobody really likes messageboarders recommending it when the issue is raised as a reason the game doesn't agree with us.

My point would be that there is a major difference between reskinning and house-ruling. Reskinning is a creative process that I believe should be imbraced. In past editions I had to imagine my character as a nordic barbarian, in the current edition I might have to imagine my ranger as a fighter archer. Often, as long as you are not changing fundamental truths about the setting or creating story elements that don't fit the ton of the game, a player should not, IMO, be cut off creatively from making the character concept he wants within the rules.

House-ruling changes the rules of the game and should only occur with approval from the DM. Changing Magic Missile to key its attack and damage off of another statistic holds rules ramifications. Changing your character's magic missiles to rabid pink bunny rabbits has no effect of the rules (although obviously many would balk at the tone).

Me deciding that my 3E Barbarian is actually a noble-born city-dweller who summons the strength of his dragon-blood heritage does not change any rules related to the 3E Barbarian, but it gives me the concept I envision for my character. This is not hyperbole or a thought exercise, this is a real-world example of what I'm referring to.

It's frustrating for those of us who suggest it too. I honestly don't understand why when someone says "I can't do X with my character" and another person suggests a plausible alternative that people react so negatively. I understand that this is most likely one issue out of many that you do not prefer the system that I do, but I do enjoy positing solutions to the problem even if I know in the bigger pictre that you most likely have other reasons you've decided to play another system. I'm not trying to convert anyone and never would, but I can focus on solutions to particular problems. If nothing else I'm sharing my ideas that maybe someelse can poach no matter what system they play. I've certainly picked up on ideas from ENWorlders who play various editions and games.
 

I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.



Rich Baker brought it up in his column as problematic. Building your "role" right out of the box, rather than waiting until a class is released that is designed to it, seems like an objective they are exploring. This thread is for the discussion of that and people are welcome to discuss it annecdotally, theoretically, or any way they please that doesn't violate board policies, no matter whether you think their opinions are "legitimate" or "weak" or any other pejorative you wish to toss around.
 
Last edited:

I see this argument often, and I always wonder, "So what?"

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Who cares whether the class name is specifically F-I-G-H-T-E-R? Does it do what you want? You can fight, you can uses axes, you can toss them around effectively and impressively? Yes? Then what's the issue?

It's not just a name though. There are weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, skills, powers, class abilities, hit points, healing surges, etc. all tied up in "class".


There's a legitimate issue in that sometimes the thing you want to do isn't represented by any current class. But that you cannot make a thing that happens to be named in the rules as "fighter" that does what you want I think is a weak critique indeed.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion... though I think it's a pretty strong critique if you were able to do this in previous editions of D&D... moreso it was a strong enough ctritique to be brought up and admitted in a Rule of Three article. But YMMV of course.

There's a second-order critique that folks who are just starting out will have their ideas kind of pigeon-holed for a while, I suppose. That's a theoretical problem that I haven't seen be a major issue in practice, myself - I find gamers to be far too free-willed and creative to be stuck in ruts for long. I'd like to see someone present more than anecdote that it is a major issue with the design.

How can someone present more than anecdote? We're all dealing in anecdotes... now again there is the admission of the 4e developers/designers that this is a problem in Rule of Three but beyond people's anedotal evidence and the designer/developers commentary... what more can be provided to pass youre test?
 

Because maybe he doesn't want to be a ranger? Maybe the paladin doesn't want to be an avenger?
Maybe I don't want to game with people so persnickety so as to get hung up on the label used for their package of mechanical abilities. Wait, change that to "definitely".

Sure, you can reskin, but that's about as satisfying an answer as house-ruling other design issues you don't agree with.
It's a house rule to call something in the game's fiction by a different name than the one used in the rule books?

So calling a fighter something other than fighter, say "person-at-arms", or "armiger" or "brigand", or "bravo", or "sell-sword" is a faux pas? Doesn't this imply the RAW nomenclature should apply to all campaign settings, and not just as metagame terms, but used throughout the in-game fiction as well?

Otherwise, what's the big deal using Avergers to represent a order of paladins, or as a specific member of a paladin order?
 
Last edited:

My point would be that there is a major difference between reskinning and house-ruling. Reskinning is a creative process that I believe should be imbraced. In past editions I had to imagine my character as a nordic barbarian, in the current edition I might have to imagine my ranger as a fighter archer. Often, as long as you are not changing fundamental truths about the setting or creating story elements that don't fit the ton of the game, a player should not, IMO, be cut off creatively from making the character concept he wants within the rules.

See this is where I'm getting a little confused...

Imagining your "character" as a nordic barbarian vs. making a ranger when what you want is a character with the hit points, healing surges and skills of a fighter isn't just a matter of reskinning, it has real mechanical effects outside of your combat role. Again there is a lot tied up in class and by attaching combat role to it in 4e they just added one more thing your class dictates... which means less flexibility and less customization.

House-ruling changes the rules of the game and should only occur with approval from the DM. Changing Magic Missile to key its attack and damage off of another statistic holds rules ramifications. Changing your character's magic missiles to rabid pink bunny rabbits has no effect of the rules (although obviously many would balk at the tone).

Emphasis mine: This is why I find permeton's houserule it all solution unsatisfactory.

As to the rest of this paragraph... we are very much talking houseruling because reskinning different classes doesn't give you other things tied up in them. If I'm looking to make a fighter class archer then I am very much looking to create an archer that has greater durability, wider range of armor, no woodland skills or associations, fighter skills, etc.

Me deciding that my 3E Barbarian is actually a noble-born city-dweller who summons the strength of his dragon-blood heritage does not change any rules related to the 3E Barbarian, but it gives me the concept I envision for my character. This is not hyperbole or a thought exercise, this is a real-world example of what I'm referring to.

So wait, your "noble-born", "city-dweller" has the following as class skills...
Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).

I guess you could squint really hard and come up with some reason he's missing alot of the skills most people would consider trademarks of being born in the city or as a noble... though it's definitely not the skill set I would have pictured for him... Diplomacy, Knowledge(anything), Sense Motive, Speak Language, Profession. Of course since 3.x is a little more flexible picking a different class to represent him won't necessarily dictate your combat role as well. Which is the point that seems to be getting lost in the archer vs. melee fighter debate. It's not about weapon, but about combat role.

It's frustrating for those of us who suggest it too. I honestly don't understand why when someone says "I can't do X with my character" and another person suggests a plausible alternative that people react so negatively. I understand that this is most likely one issue out of many that you do not prefer the system that I do, but I do enjoy positing solutions to the problem even if I know in the bigger pictre that you most likely have other reasons you've decided to play another system. I'm not trying to convert anyone and never would, but I can focus on solutions to particular problems. If nothing else I'm sharing my ideas that maybe someelse can poach no matter what system they play. I've certainly picked up on ideas from ENWorlders who play various editions and games.

Because what you consider "plausible" isn't to some people... why is that so hard to understand. Your Barbarian above is not, IMO, a plausible solution for creating a city-dweller, noble-born, character... no matter how much you "reskin" the Barbarian. The ranger, IMO, is not a plausible hard-as-nails, mercenary archer who grew up in the tent towns of a major city. No matter how much you reskin him. They have actual mechanics that work against the concept.
 


It's a house rule to call something in the game's fiction by a different name than the one used in the rule books?

That's in no way what he stated... he stated that it's as satisfying an answer as telling someone to houserule it.

So calling a fighter something other than fighter, say "person-at-arms", or "armiger" or "brigand", or "bravo", or "sell-sword" is a faux pas? Doesn't this imply the RAW nomenclature should apply to all campaign settings, and not just as metagame terms, but used throughout the in-game fiction as well?

Who claimed this?

Otherwise, what's the big deal using Avergers to represent a order of paladins, or as a specific member of a paladin order?

Because an Avenger doesn't wear heavy armor, has less hit points and healing surges than a Paladin, different weapon and armor proficiencies, different skills, no lay on hands, etc, etc.
 

Who in this thread asked you to?
Heh... perhaps I was being a little snarky. I'll rephrase.

What is the tangible benefit of maintaining a direct correspondence between a metagame class term and its name within the game narrative?

Can a DM rename paladins "Chevaliers du Orlais" in their homebrew?

If so, can they use Avengers to represent (some or all) of them?

What about swashbucklers? Should they be fighters? Rogues? Their own distinct class?

How much does nomenclature matter? Why does it matter?

Feel free to answer any of this. But if you're going to respond with snark or wit, at least try to funny.
 

Heh... perhaps I was being a little snarky. I'll rephrase.

What is the tangible benefit of maintaining a direct correspondence between a metagame class term and its name within the game narrative?

Can a DM rename paladins "Chevaliers du Orlais" in their homebrew?

If so, can they use Avengers to represent (some or all) of them?

What about swashbucklers? Should they be fighters? Rogues? Their own distinct class?

How much does nomenclature matter? Why does it matter?

Feel free to answer any of this. But if you're going to respond with snark or wit, at least try to funny.

I'll try to funny...;)
 

Remove ads

Top