Roles in Roleplaying Games

[billd91]

So choice of class would limit what personal actions a character takes? That sounds like much worse of a limitation than anything anyone has assigned to the game so far.

Based on that it sounds clear to me that you really don't get the point of behavior-based archetypes like paladins or good rangers or samurai. Some classes and the archetypes they represent are supposed to channel your decisions as part of the challenge of playing them.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, I'd talk about house-ruling but I don't enjoy it myself and it always seems to invoke an even stronger negative reaction than reskinning.

Hmm, interesting. My group has always accepting houseruling if it helps accomplish a player's goal, and shied away from reskinning most of the time.

It models the Fighter mechanically. The Fighter can copy its mechanics. The concept drives the look of that 18 STR Fighter from buff pro-wrestler body to scrawny geek. That's it. It requires no rules adjustments. I understand this may not be a satisfactory answer to some, but when its seems those that are unwilling to reskin are also unwilling to house rule, then it seems unreasonable to me to expect the designers of the game to cater to all your wants in the game.

Yes, The Fighter can mimic the mechanics of base attack, HP, etc., but the Wizard cannot mimic the mechanics of spells with no components, unlimited reactive spells, spells that work extensively in antimagic fields, etc. That is, if these are spells, they are unique in that other spells cannot copy the mechanics. Thus the hiccup in internal consistency, from my point of view.

I can only speak to my own preferences. I prefer to offer consistency most of the time to the players. But, since their characters are in the bright spotlight, I have no issue with breaking expectations for a unique concept. Exception-based design speaks directly to rules, not concepts.

Well, allowing a Wizard to be a Fighter is ignoring the current rules (in your 3.X example), and thus houseruling. It's not massive, but the "martial spells" that you're casting are breaking some pretty major rules, and you're ignoring those.

In 4e, the "exception-based design" approach is pretty exclusively for things outside the PCs. It's for things that the PCs interact with. Yes, you can definitely use it for PCs, but that approach itself seems to have been designed for the PCs to interact with, not to help shape potential or conceptual PCs.

I would hope few tables would have a problem with a player choosing Barbarian and choosing to be from a civilized city. Anything else outside of special campaigns would be too restrictive for my tastes.

I know that a lot of groups functioned from the standpoint of what the PHB says: "Civilized people call them barbarians" is the very beginning of the second sentence in 3.5 (which is where you made your character). The 3.5 PHB gives some details about them, and they're definitely men from the wilds, away from civilization. The fluff is embedded in the class.

Yes, you can reskin and strip the given fluff away, and there's nothing wrong with that, but players following the basic guidelines that the PHB explicitly states does not seem outrageous to me. It seems like these people see the Barbarian class as representing something specific in regards to D&D, and attempting to change that is "not playing the game."

Just like you don't like being confined, some groups don't like disrupting the perceptions of the setting, as that helps them immerse, connect, or gives them a sense of what the internal consistency of the setting looks like.

Like you say, though, it's preference. Neither way is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. On that note, I don't think either preference seems overtly unreasonable or overly restrictive, either.

No matter what table? Then you say certain groups. I'm confused by alot of what you and Imaro are saying. I'm arguing the absoluteness that the two of you are projecting. If you're dealing in less than absolutes then I have only a matter of scope to argue. And since I only have anecdotal evidence of the tables I've played at and their expectations, that endeavor would be pointless.

If you don't want to have a conversation based on anecdotal evidence, you can stop discussing things with me. That's the basis of most conversations, and I'm not about to shy away from using my experience to color my opinions.

As far as me saying that "no matter what table I sit at, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender", I stand by that in concept. There probably are a few exceptions, but they're probably inexperienced or heavily houseruled.

However, when I generalize by saying "when you play a class labeled Leader, people will expect you to play a Leader," I feel like my meaning should be clear. If it's not, I apologize, but arguing the semantics of "every table" while not addressing the point I'm trying to make feels very unproductive to me.

I've said multiple times I think both you and Imaro have great ideas and I hope WotC continues to work towards these goals. But I also like working with the current toolset to see what I can make work for me. And I enjoy sharing my ideas with others. You and Imaro may think my ideas are crap, but I'm sure some think their gold, while others just wish we'd all just shut up.

Of course? I don't see any objection to the above. I don't think your ideas are crap, but I feel like you're giving the impression that groups that don't accept most reskinning are somehow overly restrictive, and I'd disagree with that assessment.

I think I do. Hopefully I've gotten mine across as well and don't come off as discussing dishonestly.

I definitely think you're trying to discuss this with me honestly. I'd rather not get involved in your and Imaro's argument, since I like how well our talk is going. I feel it's definitely going somewhere, if slowly (the unfortunate effect of a text-based medium). So, thanks for the discussion thus far

As always, play what you like

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Based on that it sounds clear to me that you really don't get the point of behavior-based archetypes like paladins or good rangers or samurai. Some classes and the archetypes they represent are supposed to channel your decisions as part of the challenge of playing them.

Did you miss the part where Miko is a paladin, yet her "special training" and "behavior-based archetype" still allowed for her to follow the wrong path? She thought she wa doing the right thing. The class did not hold control over her actions.

Hmm, interesting. My group has always accepting houseruling if it helps accomplish a player's goal, and shied away from reskinning most of the time.

Just upthread the complaint from others was that "just houserule it" was an unsatisfactory answer. It seems from my experience here that more people decry that solution than reskinning. And even so, reskinning has less rigorous constraints IME. The reskin must pass the suspension of deisbelief factor of the DM, while houseruling opens up many questions and issues as you pointed out with the examples above.

Well, allowing a Wizard to be a Fighter is ignoring the current rules (in your 3.X example), and thus houseruling. It's not massive, but the "martial spells" that you're casting are breaking some pretty major rules, and you're ignoring those.

They are not breaking any rules. The rules for the hypothetical "martial mage" exactly mimic the fighter rules. The only thing that changes is that a scrawny-looked guy has a high Strength and learned to fight a different way than other fighters. There are no rules for what your Strength score makes you look like. There is descriptive fluff that tells you what someone with a high strength looks like. There are no rules for how you gained your training to be a fighter. There is descriptive fluff that tells you how fighters normally train.

In 4e, the "exception-based design" approach is pretty exclusively for things outside the PCs. It's for things that the PCs interact with. Yes, you can definitely use it for PCs, but that approach itself seems to have been designed for the PCs to interact with, not to help shape potential or conceptual PCs.

I can only agree with you since I was never advocating use of exception-based design for character concepts. What I mean about player expectation is that when they meet something like a mind flayer or a dragon they know generally what to expect. I may create the occasional exception, but that will be a focal point in the campaign. PCs, OTOH, I don't mind reskinning outside the normal parameters because they are the stars of the show. In the fighter example that borrows from Chuck. Chuck is the only Intersect for the majority of the show. And that's OK with me because he's one of the main characters.

Yes, you can reskin and strip the given fluff away, and there's nothing wrong with that, but players following the basic guidelines that the PHB explicitly states does not seem outrageous to me. It seems like these people see the Barbarian class as representing something specific in regards to D&D, and attempting to change that is "not playing the game."

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the basic fluff of any class. But insisting that others do the same every time? That's where my problem lies.

Just like you don't like being confined, some groups don't like disrupting the perceptions of the setting, as that helps them immerse, connect, or gives them a sense of what the internal consistency of the setting looks like.

Another player shouldn't even be looking at the classes listed on my sheet. Once I explain my concept and capabilities that should be enough, IMO.

Like you say, though, it's preference. Neither way is "right" or "wrong" in any objective sense. On that note, I don't think either preference seems overtly unreasonable or overly restrictive, either.

I do feel that forcing players to use the default fluff of a class is too restrictive. And I don't believe the intent of the game from its beginning was to limit players to the ideas printed in the book.

If you don't want to have a conversation based on anecdotal evidence, you can stop discussing things with me. That's the basis of most conversations, and I'm not about to shy away from using my experience to color my opinions.

As far as me saying that "no matter what table I sit at, it's expected that my Cleric be a Leader, or my Fighter be a Defender", I stand by that in concept. There probably are a few exceptions, but they're probably inexperienced or heavily houseruled.

However, when I generalize by saying "when you play a class labeled Leader, people will expect you to play a Leader," I feel like my meaning should be clear. If it's not, I apologize, but arguing the semantics of "every table" while not addressing the point I'm trying to make feels very unproductive to me.

My anecdotal evidence suggests that beyond the basic healing capabilities of the Cleric and the basic marking ability of the Fighter that the classes automatically gain, the player is welcome to devote his attention to fulfilling whatever role he wants. Despite others claims, I've seen Clerics play very capably as controllers, conditional strikers, and even OK defenders. I've seen Fighters played as effective controllers and strikers. There is alot to each class beyond what the basic role allows.

Of course? I don't see any objection to the above. I don't think your ideas are crap, but I feel like you're giving the impression that groups that don't accept most reskinning are somehow overly restrictive, and I'd disagree with that assessment.

I would expect a group to work with the player to come to a character concept that works for the group. Not just shoot someone's idea down outright because it messes with one's expectations of what a barbarian should be.

 

[billd91]

Did you miss the part where Miko is a paladin, yet her "special training" and "behavior-based archetype" still allowed for her to follow the wrong path? She thought she wa doing the right thing. The class did not hold control over her actions.

Nor would playing a class-based samurai schooled in bushido control her actions either. Which makes me wonder if your statement about class limiting actions had a point to it all or if you were just being contrarian.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just upthread the complaint from others was that "just houserule it" was an unsatisfactory answer. It seems from my experience here that more people decry that solution than reskinning. And even so, reskinning has less rigorous constraints IME. The reskin must pass the suspension of deisbelief factor of the DM, while houseruling opens up many questions and issues as you pointed out with the examples above.

Ah, but the topics have changed. When it comes to my group, houseruling is more acceptable than reskinning most of the time. Earlier, houseruling was not acceptable in the context of game design.

The thing with houseruling not being very palatable in game design is that it's saying, "if you don't like the rules, change the rules." In a discussion on how to design the game, that's not helpful. In the context of what's acceptable to my group (or your group), we can speak of houseruling and reskinning as solutions in an entirely different context. The former is theoretically future game design, while the latter is a particular group's preferences to current game design.

They are not breaking any rules. The rules for the hypothetical "martial mage" exactly mimic the fighter rules.

No, the Fighter doesn't cast any spells. Saying he does is breaking rules (again, though, it's not massive from a rules standpoint).

The only thing that changes is that a scrawny-looked guy has a high Strength and learned to fight a different way than other fighters. There are no rules for what your Strength score makes you look like. There is descriptive fluff that tells you what someone with a high strength looks like. There are no rules for how you gained your training to be a fighter. There is descriptive fluff that tells you how fighters normally train.

By this token, you could have a Strength of 18 and be 5'10" and 130 pounds. You'll look pretty scrawny, but be strong. Why not use the already existing rules to model this?

I can only agree with you since I was never advocating use of exception-based design for character concepts. What I mean about player expectation is that when they meet something like a mind flayer or a dragon they know generally what to expect. I may create the occasional exception, but that will be a focal point in the campaign. PCs, OTOH, I don't mind reskinning outside the normal parameters because they are the stars of the show. In the fighter example that borrows from Chuck. Chuck is the only Intersect for the majority of the show. And that's OK with me because he's one of the main characters.

I still hold that a "wizard" that uses Fighter mechanics is breaking the rules. So, I can't agree with your assessment here. Maybe it's best to agree to disagree on this point?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the basic fluff of any class. But insisting that others do the same every time? That's where my problem lies.

Even for their group? I mean, I shouldn't insist that your group does, but I don't see how you could reasonably say that my group should accept your preferences some of the time, either.

It's really a social contract issue, as I've previously mentioned. Depending on what the players want to get out of the game, they're going to have different priorities, and different preferences or deal-breakers. That's just the way it is.

Another player shouldn't even be looking at the classes listed on my sheet. Once I explain my concept and capabilities that should be enough, IMO.

I think once you use your first Rage people will figure it out, yeah? Also, people shouldn't be looking at your sheet in your opinion. This is yet another social contract issue that will vary greatly from table to table, and your view on it is by no means universal.

I do feel that forcing players to use the default fluff of a class is too restrictive. And I don't believe the intent of the game from its beginning was to limit players to the ideas printed in the book.

Well, those two sentences mean very different things. Saying, "your druid should always be nature-oriented" is exceptionally different from "you can only do something if it's in a book somewhere saying you can." You know what I mean?

And, once again, if you think that it's too restrictive, that's cool. Again, it's a social contract thing, and it'll vary from group to group.

My anecdotal evidence suggests that beyond the basic healing capabilities of the Cleric and the basic marking ability of the Fighter that the classes automatically gain, the player is welcome to devote his attention to fulfilling whatever role he wants. Despite others claims, I've seen Clerics play very capably as controllers, conditional strikers, and even OK defenders. I've seen Fighters played as effective controllers and strikers. There is alot to each class beyond what the basic role allows.

Oh, this is definitely true (in spirit, at least... I'm actually hazy on the mechanical details of the system). But, your cleric is an "OK defender" instead of a good defender, and only a "conditional striker" instead of a good striker. See the obvious objection I'll have?

I would expect a group to work with the player to come to a character concept that works for the group. Not just shoot someone's idea down outright because it messes with one's expectations of what a barbarian should be.

Well, if you doing so ruffles the feathers of the group, shouldn't you be willing to change it? I mean, it's about fun for everyone, right? So, if a particular group has a mindset that makes what you're doing be a fun dampener, shouldn't it be okay to point that out?

I get what your personal views on this are, but to think that they should somehow be universal is to deny the massive variances in play style for all gamers out there. Ideally, yeah, every group you play in will match up with your play style, but I cannot for a second support the idea that every group should embrace your style or be labeled "too restrictive", as you indicated earlier about class fluff (and possibly on this issue). It's just too OneTrueWay for me. Sorry.

As always, play what you like

 

[Imaro]

I meant that as examples of how the barbarian skill list, used as is, can still fit a city-dweller. I don't honestly remember exactly what skills I chose for my character 4-5 years ago beyond Intimidate and buying off Illiteracy. I most likely spent some resources outside of the class (like cross-class skills) to accomplish my full concept.

It wasn't an example of anything because there were no parameters set and no defining of the city-dweller or noble-born concepts. That means any and every skill could fit under "city-dweller" or "noble born" so then the question becomes how do those sklills in any way flesh out that particular concept when that concept doesn't actually mean anything?

IMO for a concept to be meaningful it has to have things it includes and things it doesn't... that's the whole point of a concept. As an example most peoples idea of a swashbuckler concept does not include a heavily armored warrior on a horse with a lance... but would you argue they are just pigeonhling a swashbuckler? You have, for all practical purposes, defined city-dwelling and noble-born as so wide they are meaningless.

My point was that city-dwelling does not necessitate the skills you demand be present for mechanical support. If the skills you believe are important were important to my concept then I would have either spent resources in cross-class skills or feats or chosen a different set of classes.

No city-dwelling doesn't necessitate the skills I brought up... but it also can't encompass any and every skill, ability, etc. as you seem to be arguing... or it becomes so diluted that as I said above...for all purposes as a concept it is now meaningless.

You've presented an argument and yet your answers and examples are extremely vague. Even in the paragraph above you talk about spending resources but again only in a vague, hand-wavey manner that doesn't present any evidence that this character fulfilled the concept as you presented it (which seems purposefully un-defined so then anything and everything could fit it).

Who are you to declare what would be expected by most? You speak for all of gamerdom? No. I gave one example to your snarky comeback that took me all of a minute to construct mentally. I said your concept would take work, but it wouldn't be impossible by any means. Of course if you're inflexible on conceptual matters and disallow unique ideas because they don't fit your preconceived notions of how the game world works, then any concept you don't consider 'the norm' will fail.

It wasn't snarky it was showing that you have presented no evidence that you fulfilled this concept in any mechcanically meaningful way. It's not about "disallowing unique ideas" it's about showing how sometimes re-skinning and mechanics just don't line-up. Due to the nature of magic in 3e... a fighter being re-skinned as a wizard just doesn't add up... the reasons have been expressed, probably much more fully and clearly than I could have, by others in this very thread... Unless of course, like with your city-dwelling noble... the concept is so un-defined and mutable that it really isn't a concept at all.

It's easy to declare failure on my part. It requires no creativity. At least I'm testing the waters of concepts through creative means.

That's great but you should also be willing to accept that re-skinning doesn't always work well and isn't the one size fits all answer for many.

Most people I know would be totally dissatisfied if their concept was a city-dwelling, noble-born scion with the power of dragons in his blood... and they had to use the mechanics of the barbarian class from 3e to represent this... just starting out illiterate and having to spend resources to correct that is a pretty big cost.

For many people mechanical weight is important to their concept and the classes in D&D have their own mechanical weight that backs up certain concepts under their archetypes far better than a concept that isn't under the archetype they are based on.

Now the original problem I was presenting was that the problem is exacerbated when one attaches combat role to this as well. It can now create a conundrum where you may have to sacrifice concept for combat gameplay or combat gameplay for concept if they don't match up. Mechanics are kinda the whole point.

I am discussing my honest opinion of how concepts can be molded. I can't read your mind to discover what parameters you consider normal, so if stepping outside your box is dishonest, then I geuss I'm dishonest.

Well then why didn't you set the parameters since it was your concept? I put a box down because you didn't. How can we discuss a concept without having definition of that concept. Lacking your specifics I went with the stereotypical idea of said concept which is what I think most people do when presented with an idea to discuss.

You see, IMO, the dishonesty is in saying that my parameters aren't valid... but still not defining your own. It prevents any type of true discussion on how well or how badly you were able to fulfill the concept.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You see, IMO, the dishonesty is in saying that my parameters aren't valid... but still not defining your own. It prevents any type of true discussion on how well or how badly you were able to fulfill the concept.

Then I wasn't clear. I don't think your parameters are invalid, I just don't believe they are the only parameters. And I did define my parameters: the character lived in a city instead of the wilds and was the son of a minor noble. Neither of those parameters requires specific skill support.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should approach concepts the way I do. I just find it off-putting that so many people would shoot down a, IMO, reasonable concept just because I chose to use Barbarian to model it. I found the costs worth it.

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] - The social contract is fine if it is just that - social. If it just ends up being a dictatorship of ideas then I don't see a social contract as something that can be achieved.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You see, IMO, the dishonesty is in saying that my parameters aren't valid... but still not defining your own. It prevents any type of true discussion on how well or how badly you were able to fulfill the concept.

Then I wasn't clear. I don't think your parameters are invalid, I just don't believe they are the only parameters. And I did define my parameters: the character lived in a city instead of the wilds and was the son of a minor noble. Neither of those parameters requires specific skill support.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should approach concepts the way I do. I just find it off-putting that so many people would shoot down a, IMO, reasonable concept just because I chose to use Barbarian to model it. I found the costs worth it.

[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] - The social contract is fine if it is just that - social. If it just ends up being a dictatorship of ideas then I don't see a social contract as something that can be achieved.

 

[LurkAway]

So I was reading a review of the One Ring RPG, which lists classes (or "Callings") as Scholar, Slayer, Treasure Hunter, Wanderer and Warden.

I don't own the RPG but I'm only using these examples to try to get beyond our comfort zone of D&D classes.

The names inspire vague archetypes, and I was wondering what the class rules are like. Also, are they pigeon-holing -- can't you have a scholarly treasure-hunter or a wandering scholar?

But apparently, they're called Callings (ie. a profession or trade), which implies to me that you can create a scholarly treasure-hunter or treasure-hunting scholar using either the Treasure-Hunter or Scholar but that the Calling (metagame) you choose is the same as the career or way of life the PC chose in the fiction (in-game). Hopefully, there are Traits and/or multiclassing to allow you to move outside that definition a bit.

I can see how you can have a suburban Barbarian, if class means your background but not if class means a way of life. I can see how you can have a barbarian Suburbanite, if the class means your way of life but not your background.

I can also see that a barbaric Barbarian and suburban Suburbanite are the most common options, but would feel pigeon-holed if they were hardwired to be the only two options, but it really depends on what Barbarian and Suburbanite actually means.

I'm guessing for Vyvyan Basterd and others, that suburban Barbarian and barbarian Suburbanite are interchangeable?

For me, that's only true as much as the rules allow for it with sufficient ease, and I don't feel that I'm 'fighting' against system conventions (ie houserules, non-playtested issues, fictional inconsistencies) to make it work.

And I think the foundation for that is whether or not the game designers cared (and thus accounted for) that there are players out there who want class design rules to reflect the various nuances of fictional characters that aren't just cookie cutter outlines of their metagame counterparts.

 

[Imaro]

Then I wasn't clear. I don't think your parameters are invalid, I just don't believe they are the only parameters. And I did define my parameters: the character lived in a city instead of the wilds and was the son of a minor noble. Neither of those parameters requires specific skill support.

And I guess this is the crux of the matter. I agree that one can call one's character anything in the game... but for me and many of the players I know there's nothing to that chosen name if there is no mechanical support for it. If your city-born noble has no mechanical support for the concept then for all practical purposes he could just as easily be a wild-born slave or a seafaring pirate... and each concept will have the same amount of mechanical impact when it comes to the actual playing of the game... which is to say none.

Another problem I see with this method, as exemplified by the fighter as wizard example, is that certain things work in a particular way in the fiction of the world... in other words the mechanics have discernable rules that have an impact on the fiction. In 3.x & 4e(for PCs) magic works a certain way and has certain rules that have an impact on the world and narrative. By allowing a fighter to "re-skin" as a wizard... he breaks many of the rules and conventions that magic works on in the game world. This is where house-ruling vs. re-skinning starts to blur.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should approach concepts the way I do. I just find it off-putting that so many people would shoot down a, IMO, reasonable concept just because I chose to use Barbarian to model it. I found the costs worth it.

Well I find it off-putting that you can't understand why the way you approach concepts would be unsatisfactory for many players because of a lack of actual mechnical support for the concept and/or the amount of cost inherent in fulfilling the mechanical weight they want for the concept.