"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[Chaosmancer]

I think this long rambling discussion has kind of glossed over an important point.

You walk into a bar. In the corner sits an old elf, scribbling a series of notes from an Ancient Tome (Lore Bard, background Librarian). On the stage a young woman dances with flames leaping from her hands, patrons whisper about how the finally is "memorable" (Evoker Wizard, background Entertainer)

At a table across the way a sullen halfling in armor (Fey Warlock, background Folk Hero) talks to a dwarf in priests robes with an iron book (GOO Warlock, background Charlatan) and a Dragonborn Knight in halfplate (Barbarian, background Knight)

Ect Ect Ect.

These are all characters I have made for one-shots. Their class is important, but they are also more than their class. And that I think is the point being made. Sure, wizards study magic. How do they study, why do they study, how does it manifest, what are their goals.

I have a wizard transmuter who is a thief, using his magic to break into safes by transmuting the base material. I have my entertainer who is obsessed with fire and studies magic to be able to use and explore fire. I have a diviner who is more of the classical sage, stuck in his books and doing it because he can and he wants to see how far he can take his gift.

Their class is not the sum total of their character. And, like my Barbarian who is a Knight, or another Barbarian who is a tribal shaman, their character can be at odds with what people perceive to be what the class requires.

 

[ad_hoc]

There are a few people who seem to be arguing that this is not the case.

Then they can say that?

Depends on what you mean by fighter - in fiction, that's anyone who uses a weapon - which many warlocks do.

Fighter is defined under Fighter in the PHB. In D&D 5e a Fighter is not just anyone who uses a weapon. Fighter has the least well defined identity of all the classes so it wasn't the best example.

Do you not know what I mean? Or do you and you're being pedantic?

If someone sat down with me and said they are taking the Warlock class but they don't have a patron, and they don't want their spells described as spells but maneauvers instead, etc. I would not want to play with them.

I don't accept the cry of 'it's just fluff, the mechanics are what matters'.

All the rules are important.

In most games, yes, although a Kensei is pretty close.

No, I mean a Jedi.

A type of character from Star Wars.

The player sits down and says 'my character is a Jedi from the Star Wars Universe'. I will use X class to represent them but their character is that they are a Jedi.

The table says, no we are playing D&D and our game doesn't have Jedi. So the player says 'well it's my character and you can't decide who they are'.

It's true that it is their character but that doesn't mean the table must play with them.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

No, I mean a Jedi.

A type of character from Star Wars.

The player sits down and says 'my character is a Jedi from the Star Wars Universe'. I will use X class to represent them but their character is that they are a Jedi.

The table says, no we are playing D&D and our game doesn't have Jedi. So the player says 'well it's my character and you can't decide who they are'.

It's true that it is their character but that doesn't mean the table must play with them.

That's utterly ridiculous, and far, far beyond the scope of this topic. It should be obvious that's not what the people in favour of flavour adjustments are advocating for. I can't tell whether you're arguing in bad faith or if you have so bad players that your perception of the normal play experience is warped.

 

[ad_hoc]

I'm not the thread OP, but this Reddit thread is gonna make the heads of some people here explode lol:
Amazing how wide a gulf there is between the player base.

Why would my head explode because 1 more person is saying something I disagree with?

Because it is on Reddit? Yelling and ranting on Reddit doesn't make what they are saying have more weight.

The idea of 'fluff' and 'hard rules and mechanics' as separate things is wrong. The idea that one is mutable while the other is not is doubly wrong.

 

[ad_hoc]

That's utterly ridiculous, and far, far beyond the scope of this topic. It should be obvious that's not what the people in favour of flavour adjustments are advocating for. I can't tell whether you're arguing in bad faith or if you have so bad palyers that your perception of the normal play experience is warped.

If you're going to respond to me then go back and read my post.

Stop being ridiculous.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Why would my head explode because 1 more person is saying something I disagree with?

Because it is on Reddit? Yelling and ranting on Reddit doesn't make what they are saying have more weight.

The idea of 'fluff' and 'hard rules and mechanics' as separate things is wrong. The idea that one is mutable while the other is not is doubly wrong.

My linking that Reddit post was more to show that the dominant metanarrative, if you will excuse my use of the term, leans more towards the mechanics and the lore not being synonymous, and open for change as setting creators and even players see fit. It's not universal - there's plenty of disagreement about it in that thread - but it is, in my view, further evidence that the position you are expressing is a minority one.

I am aware that this disagreement in the ideology and methodology of game design is probably irreconcilable, but that doesn't stop me from breathing fire and wanting to smash my computer about how far your head appears to be up somewhere unmentionable. Because I find that you are being very sanctimonious about how obviously right you must be and how stupid all of us must be. If you were in charge, my House Vadalis agent who wields Druidic power but couldn't give a darn about living in harmony with nature, instead viewing it as a resource to be controlled and exploited, wouldn't be valid, despite the idea being endorsed and even originated from Eberron's creator, a professional game designer who has worked with WotC in the past. So screw that.

If you're going to respond to me then go back and read my post.

Stop being ridiculous.

We are not arguing for tearing settings apart so that we can roleplay as time displaced Jedi. I have no idea where you got that idea. That's stupid. Everybody in this thread would agree that it's stupid. It's stupid.

If we were talking about a game with a single, well-defined setting integrated into the rules, such as Deadlands or Eclipse Phase or Exalted or Shadowrun, I'd actually be agreeing with you on this topic. But Dungeons and Dragons is a system that lacks that. That's not to say that it is a truly generic system - go to GURPS for that - but the core rules are built so as to be able to be used in multiple settings without snapping in half. The Forgotten Realms, Ravnica, Eberron, and the upcoming Wildemount; the 5e system supports mechancially supports those settings despite them having wild amounts of differences between each other, to the point that the "default" presented in the PHB and the splats surely can't be one-fits-all. For Dungeons and Dragons to be able to support more than one setting, its mechanics and its "default" fluff must be able to be dissociated from each other to some extent, so that the mechanics can support the various settings released for it without irreparably contradicting one another.

Not to mention that vast number of third party settings on the market - Midgard, Primeval Thule, Mists of Akuma, Odyssey of the Dragonlords, the list goes on and on. Hell, the Ptolus Kickstarter launch is on the front page of ENWorld right now! And it goes even farther when we get to the personal worlds of every DM creating a homebrew setting for themselves. Are those worlds using the 5e system a violation of some axiom of game design? Is playing them sacrilege against a cold, uncaring god? If it is, then let me be the devil.

 

[ad_hoc]

We are not arguing for tearing settings apart so that we can roleplay as time displaced Jedi. I have no idea where you got that idea. That's stupid. Everybody in this thread would agree that it's stupid. It's stupid.

Why are you arguing that I am?

I won't be responding to you anymore.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Why are you arguing that I am?

I won't be responding to you anymore.

I would appreciate if you responded to the bolded part about D&D supporting multiple settings and thus a rules system being tightly integrated with one specific setting's fluff being counterproductive.

But eh. Screw you too.

I'll go support Monte Cook's Kickstarter just to spite you. Though Ptolus does look genuinely interesting.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If someone sat down with me and said they are taking the Warlock class but they don't have a patron, and they don't want their spells described as spells but maneauvers instead, etc. I would not want to play with them.

I don't accept the cry of 'it's just fluff, the mechanics are what matters.

I guess you will never get to play with my Githzerai Psionic Warrior (who is a reskinned bladelock). It's a shame you and/or your table shuts out creativity and misses out on many interesting characters because you and/or your group has the inability to separate the fluff from the rules in the books.

 

[prabe]

I guess you will never get to play with my Githzerai Psionic Warrior (who is a reskinned bladelock). It's a shame you and/or your table shuts out creativity and misses out on many interesting characters because you and/or your group has the inability to separate the fluff from the rules in the books.

That sounds like a really free-wheeling table/game. I'm not at that point with the tables I'm DMing, but I applaud your creativity and the trust you and your DM clearly share.