Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6675601" data-attributes="member: 1879">No, no it's not. A GM is not a dick for not allowing refluffing. In my experience there are usually two reasons for a GM not allowing refluffing. 1) They are a novice GM and want to see how things work as written before they tinker, which is understandable.2) They have a strong vision for their world and you cannot refluff a Warlock as a rogue puppeteer who throws animated care bear dolls instead of eldritch bolts because no such thing exists in their world. Which I'm delighted to see frankly as I usually find campaigns without a strong vision on the part of the GM get unfocused and fade away as soon as some new shiny appears. To assume you can refluff without hindrance shows a player entitlement attitude, and to claim there is no valid reason not to allow refluffing beyond the GM being a dick furthers that assumption. Many problems here. 1) A GM who demands a story is not a dick. I've played in a campaign where it took 2 years for a player to give his character a name. It did not make him easier to work with. 2) You are ignoring the second sentence of my post. New players often find it easier to create than to rewrite.3) You are ignoring the last paragraph of my post. More pieces is equal to more work. Period. Can I rewrite Steven King's "The Stand" to be a light hearted romp about gummi bears and race cars? Sure, but why the hell would I? It would be much easier to start with a blank slate if what I wanted was that different from the source material. Hooks to build off of are helpful for writing a story. Mechanically supported class features stop being hooks and become obstacles the more of them you have to account for. 4) Why are you insisting that a characters story must spring from his sub-class of all places? Class is what you do. Sub-Class is how you prefer to do it. Your characters back story is not about what they do, but why they do it. And for that things like race and (especially) background are at least as important as a sub-class. No. No, it's not. A Bechamel sauce is flavorless white goo. It's also referred to as a "Mother sauce" because hundreds of wonderful things can be made by adding to it. That would not be possible if it started with a base of rosemary or habenero, because then the choices you could make would be constrained by the existing structure.One of the more common complaints I've seen about 5e is how few non-spellcasting classes there are. If stripping things out or refluffing them were as simple as you claim none of those complaints would have been made. Everyone would have simply cried "Oh, no worries, I'll just refluff my rangers spells as herbalism and woodlore." And yet complaints were made.Actually no one here is saying inherent flavor is always bad. The argument is that it doesn't have to be mandatory. You seem to be arguing that simplicity is bad, inherently. There should be no vanilla option because you can always pick out the chocolate chips. It is really that offensive to see one tub of vanilla next to all the rocky road and moose tracks?</blockquote>

Verification