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

[Coroc]

These threads are fascinating to me. The game is so flexible that you can have people who have such wildly different attitudes on how the game should be played.

with that being said, I am currently playing a barbarian shaman to the great snow leopard. He’s a barbarian 1/bard2/sorcerer 1/ warlock 1. I have a 13 or 14 in every stat but intelligence. He’s super fun And i reskin everything. Heck, I am a long tooth shifter mechanically but just say I am human an all the race abilities are a product of my connection to the snow leopard.

Most here have no attitude how "the game should be played". It is looking like that sometimes when the discussion gets heated up but:

1. There is no badwrongfun.
2. Everybody has his own preferences.

Most explain why they have these and those preferences in their game, and why they like it.
You can do Gestalt characters with 5e like in your example, the rules are absolutely flexible enough for that. But if you like such kind of classless systems, maybe try out DSA (The black eye) i bet you like it. I do.

 

[NotAYakk]

If my character isn't my class, what's the point of playing a Bard if I can't sing a musical number during the game?

What stops you from singing a musical number?

If my character isn't my class, can I be a multi class Bard/Fighter and call myself a Warlord?

Yes? Others might be confused because "Warlord" usually refers to the leader of an army.

You could also call yourself "kermit".

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes. There is enough complexity within the setting already, without you trying to play something that isn't covered yet. There's no benefit to allowing your concept into the setting. All it does is dilute our knowledge about how the world works, so that now we know less than we did before.

With this one clear example we can safely say that our two gaming styles are world's apart. As a player and GM I allow and expect to be able to use any fluff I want as long as the end result is that there crunch I am using is something already in a book.

I have played swashbuckling pirates who were mechanically monks. I have played devil's possessing a statue using rules for warforged artificers. I have Tarzan-like natives who were monks. I have played a wolf turned sentient as a shape hanging druid.

All of these concepts fit in "the world" just fine. Maybe not in your game, but they do in ours.

 

[Charlaquin]

With this one clear example we can safely say that our two gaming styles are world's apart. As a player and GM I allow and expect to be able to use any fluff I want as long as the end result is that there crunch I am using is something already in a book.

I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between this and what Saelorn is suggesting. Personally, I am happy to allow reskinning, but I wouldn’t want to hand my players free reign to use any fluff they want as long as the mechanics match something in the book. Your character should still make sense within the setting, and I’m willing to be flexible, but let’s work together to find something that satisfies what you want to play in a way that fits into the setting’s lore.

 

[prabe]

I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between this and what Saelorn is suggesting. Personally, I am happy to allow reskinning, but I wouldn’t want to hand my players free reign to use any fluff they want as long as the mechanics match something in the book. Your character should still make sense within the setting, and I’m willing to be flexible, but let’s work together to find something that satisfies what you want to play in a way that fits into the setting’s lore.

I think I'm probably closer to this than to @Sabathius42 in most ways. I have some pretty strong ideas for the setting, and I want characters that don't contradict those, and I usually have something in mind for at least the start of the campaign, and I want characters that at least can fit in with those. If someone wants something completely re-fluffed/reskinned, I'm willing to make an effort, but I don't make any promises. That (I hope obviously) doesn't make what @Sabathius42 is doing wrong, but it doesn't make what I think @Saelorn or @Maxperson are describing wrong, either.

 

[Maxperson]

I think I'm probably closer to this than to @Sabathius42 in most ways. I have some pretty strong ideas for the setting, and I want characters that don't contradict those, and I usually have something in mind for at least the start of the campaign, and I want characters that at least can fit in with those. If someone wants something completely re-fluffed/reskinned, I'm willing to make an effort, but I don't make any promises. That (I hope obviously) doesn't make what @Sabathius42 is doing wrong, but it doesn't make what I think @Saelorn or @Maxperson are describing wrong, either.

So first, I don't think anyone here is wrong. Whether you go by the book, use house rules, home brew, reflavor or a combination of those things, as long as the group is having fun it's all good.

Second, when I'm here, unless I'm explicitly saying what it is that I do in my game, don't assume it's what I do in my game. Most discussions here are about the the game in general, which means as written, so I discuss what I view the rules to be and mean. As an example, some time ago there was a discussion about what happens to a druid who gets hit by a disintegrate while wildshaped and hits 0 hit points. I argued(correctly) that the specific rule in disintegrate that dusts a creature who hits 0 triggers and turns the druid to dust, even if that druid has more hit points waiting in his true form. That is RAW. However, that is not what I would do to a druid in my game. I would go with what later was verified by Crawford to be the RAI of the game and allow the druid to revert first.

In my game re-flavoring to small degrees is in player control. I don't care if an ice themed PC wants Coldball and Cold Hands, though there are mechanics tied to that as well, or if they want their magic missiles to look like leering skulls. They can make those decisions, but they do have to let me know in advance what they are going to do. More major re-flavoring takes my approval, but will often happen. I try to accommodate reasonable requests, unless they will be disruptive to the game in some way.

 

[prabe]

So first, I don't think anyone here is wrong. Whether you go by the book, use house rules, home brew, reflavor or a combination of those things, as long as the group is having fun it's all good.

Second, when I'm here, unless I'm explicitly saying what it is that I do in my game, don't assume it's what I do in my game. Most discussions here are about the the game in general, which means as written, so I discuss what I view the rules to be and mean.

Fair enough. Apologies if I misunderstood.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I think I'm probably closer to this than to @Sabathius42 in most ways. I have some pretty strong ideas for the setting, and I want characters that don't contradict those, and I usually have something in mind for at least the start of the campaign, and I want characters that at least can fit in with those. If someone wants something completely re-fluffed/reskinned, I'm willing to make an effort, but I don't make any promises. That (I hope obviously) doesn't make what @Sabathius42 is doing wrong, but it doesn't make what I think @Saelorn or @Maxperson are describing wrong, either.

I subscribe to "play the way you want" pretty strongly, however, I do say that there is always a solid "As long as the GM says it's OK" that is implied.

In my current campaign players can't be Gnomes for story purposes, but they could be Gnomes (as in using the rules for gnomes in the PHB to make their character) if they want. They would just have to come up with an alternate story for their PC.

Could be a brownie or some other fey or a halfling with a weird magical backstory, or anything else they can think of.

There are setting expectations sure , but they are only as strict as necessary because I view the PCs as "the strange band that bucks the trend".

 

[Jd Smith1]

You think the Emerald Enclave HQ is being staffed solely by temp workers and interns?

I think the entire Waterdeep situation in Faerun is silly. I don't use it.

 

[ad_hoc]

So fluff is the same as rules? Even if nothing changes about how something plays, mechanically?

Yes.

All that stuff that people call 'fluff' is, actually, rules.

If you remove that from the game it ends up being a very lengthy and poorly thought out cooperative combat game.

A board game would make for a much better implementation of such a game.