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

[ClaytonCross]

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

Stop being ridiculous.

So @PsyzhranV2 was saying sure magic wielding fighter with no armor and magic sword that can stop and redirect ranged projectile at the person shooting at the is a Monk Kensai. In fact, the Psychic Warrior Fighter Class UA by Wizards of the coast was made with Jeremy Crawford saying "More Darth Vader". That link to it in his own words.

Wanting to play a Kensai Monk/Wizard mutli-class with a magic flaming sword, mage hand, jump spell, ,telekinesis spell, haste spell, and who can stop and redirect projectiles back at attackers (monk Deflect Missiles) as targets stylized after a Jedi like order is a more realistic response. Just as I have seen players want to come to the table with an Artillerist Artificer with an urban bounty hunter back ground basically playing a character based of the Mandalorian series. We allowed it. The player was not called a Mandalorian and the GM used Criticial Role's "Slayer's Take" as template for them to take their back ground front and center. A monk with magic could easily be played as a sect of mystics BASED of the Jedi but still well with in the fantiacy world of D&D. In part because STARWARS is actually fantasy in a science fiction setting not true science fiction. Gorge Lucas has said so many times. It is not abnormaly for players to want to play a character created form any number of other non-D&D fantacy sources. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, STAR WARS, the Wheel of time series, The Shannara Chronicles, Game of thrones, He-man, or even Power rangers with there dino mounts and improved Pact of the Blade Weapons. I don't know a single GM that never steels from sources out side of D&D.

I read your posts and actually think @PsyzhranV2's reply makes since. Players can deviate from the normal style of a D&D character without pulling form another universe. So you example does seem like a jaded extreme response that does not reflect the topic of playing "Your Class is Not Your Character" style. You have moved beyond that to "I am playing a different game at your table and you have no choice" that is huge leap from the argument from the argument your trying to contrast. I don't see player "bulling GM's" this way. Arguing for a style of character based on something else, though is both common and expected.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

It's not really a stretch. Githzerai exist and have a set of official race rules. They have a preexisting history of being psionicists throughout DnD editions. There aren't any psionic rules that are official...so the trick is to pick the next closest thing mechanically.

You can, by choosing warlock powers that have also traditionally been psionic abilities , come close to replicating a Psionic Warrior.

The trick is to not optimize, but instead choose things that feel "psionicy" so no fireballs or other clearly arcane feeling things. Instead Expeditious Retreat or Charm Person.

If nothing else just see how far you can go off the reservation as a thought process. It's actually very fun yet challenging to create an entire in-world retheme like that.

 

[prabe]

It's not really a stretch. Githzerai exist and have a set of official race rules. They have a preexisting history of being psionicists throughout DnD editions. There aren't any psionic rules that are official...so the trick is to pick the next closest thing mechanically.

You can, by choosing warlock powers that have also traditionally been psionic abilities , come close to replicating a Psionic Warrior.

The trick is to not optimize, but instead choose things that feel "psionicy" so no fireballs or other clearly arcane feeling things. Instead Expeditious Retreat or Charm Person.

If nothing else just see how far you can go off the reservation as a thought process. It's actually very fun yet challenging to create an entire in-world retheme like that.

Oh, I get how to bend the rules for it. I'm just playing in one really limited game (PHB only, for the luvvagawd) and in my setting I haven't allowed the Gith races yet (though the Githzerai are more likely than the Githyanki, because reasons), so just seeing that kind of thinking feels like a breath of fresh air.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, our current group has an orc bard that doesn't realize that he's casting spells. He just thinks that he is really, really persuasive and people just naturally want to do what he says. It really is a blast watching him play.

Guess I couldn't see that at other tables. Seems a shame really.

 

[ad_hoc]

So you example does seem like a jaded extreme response that does not reflect the topic of playing "Your Class is Not Your Character" style. You have moved beyond that to "I am playing a different game at your table and you have no choice" that is huge leap from the argument from the argument your trying to contrast. I don't see player "bulling GM's" this way. Arguing for a style of character based on something else, though is both common and expected.

You're putting meaning where it isn't there.

You're also ascribing characteristics to me which I don't appreciate. I'm not making an 'extremely jaded response', I'm just posting in a thread about D&D. Come on now.

I gave an example of something very minor - changing the colour of firebolt.

Then I gave an example of something extreme - Wanting to play a Jedi.

The point is that the majority of players are going to fall somewhere in between that for what they find is acceptable. The point of that is that there is a line somewhere for most people. It's not just 'everything is fluff' do what you want. People do have expectations about what things mean in the game.

This is evidenced by people here getting actually angry about the notion of playing a Jedi and calling it an extreme thing that no one would ever do.

My position is that I don't think there can be a delineation of "fluff" and "hard rules" or "mechanics" in an RPG.

They're all rules. Saying some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong. If a table wants to change a rule then they're allowed to do so.

The rules of the game create a shared expectation. Everyone at the table is there to have fun and should be playing within the rules in good faith. If the table wants to change the rules then do so. If they want to add a new book like Xanathar's or a setting book then do so. It's not a big deal.

I fail to see how my view is extreme at all or jaded.

Side note though - I personally find the most creativity comes from creating something within boundaries or parameters. When I watch improv I want them to have rules on their games that limit what they're able to do. I'm then entertained when they come up with creative and imaginative things within those rules. I would be bored if the improv troupe just started talking about whatever it was they were thinking about. That's not really improv then, it's just poorly thought out writing. Using an exotic race isn't more creative than using a human, and is usually less so.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Bravo. When I get players like you who understand the rules are there to be bent like that, it makes me want to cry tears of joy.

 

[prabe]

So, I think it's easier to have the trust needed for more-thorough reskinning if the DM and player know each other outside (or before) the game. The campaigns I'm running are in game stores, specifically because I wanted to expand the circles of people I game with, so I ended up not knowing half the people at my tables before sitting down to game with them. This isn't a problem--in fact it's worked out well--but I wouldn't have been as willing to do some of the more-radical reskinning that's come up in this thread (like what @Sabathius42 has mentioned) because the ones I didn't know I didn't trust, and I wouldn't have wanted to show favoritism toward the ones I know. (Also, it turns out I'm possessive enough about the setting that writing-in player requests can leave me cranky. That's on me.)

 

[Xetheral]

The rules of the game create a shared expectation. Everyone at the table is there to have fun and should be playing within the rules in good faith. If the table wants to change the rules then do so. If they want to add a new book like Xanathar's or a setting book then do so. It's not a big deal.

I think the clearest take-away from this thread is that the text of the game does not create a shared expectation. Perhaps it was intended to, or perhaps not, but evidentally it fails to do so in practice.

Accordingly, I think "playing within the rules in good faith" in this case requires asking the DM outright whether they expect characters to adhere to the class descriptions in the book. Some DMs think the default is "yes" and some DMs think the default is "no", so asking is the only way to be sure.

 

[Umbran]

... 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.

But eh. Screw you too.

Mod Note:

Somewhere, you got the idea that this was acceptable behavior. Please allow me to disabuse you of this notion.

You are done in this thread.

 

[Azzy]

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.

And, yet, both the DMG and Eberron show that fluff is mutable.