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.
So re-read my post, I didn't ascrib any characteristic to you, PsyzhranV2 did and was saying that his response was not out of place as he could reasonably think that based of your supper out of place example (which I will explain below). But while I can agree with him that it looks that way, I never claimed to
know how you feel I am point out that when you make examples that don't even track with the topic but are outside of game complaints it sounds like a highly emotional charged complaint based on personal grievances you have that might or might not have anything to with D&D. This is where
the impression of Jaded comes from. So PsyzhranV2 says you have I emotional response, you say "Stop being ridiculous." , I said I can see why PsyzhranV2 would feel that way based on your statements. That said, I can see your extra step, in me taking a defensive of his comment as being as entire agreement with his position. Your doing the same thing to me that he did to you, that garnered, "Stop being ridiculous." to. I am saying in both cases its not being ridiculous, is making reasonable jumps
right or wrong based on context.
--
I get your point and I don't entirely disagree. Each person has there own line and players have to agree to play behind that line or move to a different game. I have said as much before.
This is a matter of personal preference and opinion to which each person is entitled.
Where I disagree is that there is some rule about playing classes a specific way. Clearly that is not intent in design when Wizards of the coast is building a fighter subclass which they say is intended to be a "Darth Vader like character option". Wizards, has said this kind of thing many times and Wizards the creators of the rules have continually pushed in videos and articles that these fluff limits are only guides not rules.
The reaction causing the "extreme" response is not to someone wanting to play a type a character, but using an example of someone wanting to play
a different game entirely and force it at a D&D table.... that doesn't track with the character choices "your class is your character" or "your class is not your character" debate. No one on this thread has suggested that you a player should be able to come to the table with a STARWARS RPG book build a jedi and play in a D&D game. That would be a break in mechanics, ignore class features, and ignore mechanics. Since the debate is on using the class features and mechanics to play while not being tied to an undisclosed fluff like warlock and paladins can multi-class even though their is not rule against it or even fluff that says other wise. You specifically said, your not adapting a D&D character at all, they ARE a jedi from a different game.
That's not a character choice, that's a universe choice being pushed on a GM who sets the universe. I get that you want to analog all player choices to adapting the world the GM has created, but that's not the same thing as changing preconceived "rules" in D&D that don't exist in any book.
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.
I re-quote you here again, because your position of Fluff, hard rules, or mechanics being all rules, but some mutable while others aren't. Other
aren't for who? Everything is pretty mutable as GM. GMs control the setting, the whole world, players control only their character but your saying "fluff rules" that don't fit your math as GM like Warlock + Cleric = not allowed, your limiting those choices players choices and saying the are not mutable or changeable in the least because GM word is law.
Here is the thing, I don't think that is entirely wrong. If your GM you have to be able to live with the characters at your table, however, I think you have to very very careful of not over stepping "how you would do it" or "how you think is should be done" into controlling your Players characters like NPCs. When you say in the same quote above rules are rules, but they change, but some don't change... its important to say for who and why. If the answer is GM preference every time then I have to ask
do you write down these rules and hand them out to new players at the table? As I have said multiple times where this creates conflict is when these rules show up after 5 sessions and character investment or because the GM decided after last session he doesn't like how one character is built or being played.
These "fluff rules" are rarely written down and so do not create shared expectations because they are not shared before hand. I mentioned this iin previous post as why I like session 0 (I bring a list of things I ask, such as an thing you don't allow such as paladin/warlock mutli-classing etc). I have never had a GM that didn't say "your class is not your character" but thin did not have at lease one class where they enforced "your class is your character" (usually warlock, paladin, cleric, or druid because of religious over tones and that they receive power from out side).
So I am not advocating that your opinion is wrong (I actually mostly follow it and agree), only that your opinion is an opinion and doesn't over rule any one else's opinion. My conflict point with you is not that players and GMs have lines of tolerance, I have said is much in many posts on this thread already, it is "
some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong" which is an assertion (as far as I can tell) that somethings just don't make since to anyone any where because they don't add up. However,
that is an opinion trying to draw on the imagery of the absolutes of math to pretend its universal and unarguable fact. Warlock + Cleric = not allowed, is not true at every table. Arch Fey Warlock with a Nature Domain Cleric for example is completely reasonable to many people, and 100% I can write a background for perceived fluff conflict.
Example: Fiend patron Warlock of Orcus + Life Cleric of Parlor multi-class = Repentant Soul who made a "deal with the devil" and then having to acknowledge the existence of "the devil" and regretting this mistake turns to the light (because if good exists then so does evil), Turing against his master... Marvel Comics has Ghost Rider, Image Comics has Spawn, and another strange example might be the Orginal Green Power ranger. I am sure there are multiple and older examples.
Not everyone is ok with that. Its not going to be allowed at every table. That's fine. However, when ever someone says "It doesn't add up so you can't do it" That's simply opinion and not factually correct. The example above is as about as opposite as you can get but of the top of my head I know 3 examples of it in stories where it was pretty awesome. Which is why a player may want to do this.
" But if they say "I am a representative of the Galactic Council trying to bring balance to the Force." I'm gonna have to say "Ain't no Galactic Council in these here parts."
