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

man I like how you had to reach all the way into a completely different genre (and franchise!) to find a "step too far".

FWIW swordmage in 4e felt like a Jedi, at least in terms of combat abilities.

I can easily come up with a lot that is too far for me. That's not the point.

And it's also not too far for everybody. Someone out there is playing D&D as a Jedi.

That doesn't mean I want to play in that group. It also doesn't mean that the way I like to play is invalid.

The point is that players are not free to make whatever character they want. They need approval of the group they are playing with. If that character is in line with the PHB that approval should be expected unless the rules have been advertised as changed (such as with a setting).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Let's be clear - I never said that changing rules is a bad thing.

I have gotten the feeling that some people who have been getting very upset with me about this are putting intentions to me that I do not represent.

Apologies if you felt singled out. The entirety of my point was that there's room in the game for varying table styles, on many axes. There's room for varying opinions on this, even at the same table, and finding common ground for play is possible.
 

Let's be clear - I never said that changing rules is a bad thing.

I have gotten the feeling that some people who have been getting very upset with me about this are putting intentions to me that I do not represent.
My biggest takeaway from this thread is going be that I remember that @ad_hoc and @Maxperson have a very different idea of what "rules" are than I do. Your stance, that fluff is indistinguishable from rules, isn't one that I would have expected to encounter because the concept is so foreign to how I have viewed D&D (and games in general) in the too many years I have been playing them.

I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong...because it is an opinion after all, but I do hope you realize that it is one that may not (and I would be confident saying is not) be reflective of "The Average ENWorld User".

With that in mind it seems strange that what I do would be considered "changing the rules" by you when I 100% do not change anything that, in my mind, I consider a rule. I very strictly limit myself to changing anything EXCEPT the rules because I value the balance that went into giving each class each power and each spell.
 

I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong...because it is an opinion after all, but I do hope you realize that it is one that may not (and I would be confident saying is not) be reflective of "The Average ENWorld User".
It's interesting to consider how the average contributor to these forums may differ from the average person playing the game. I think that a lot of us here are probably current or former rules-lawyers, simply because that's the kind of person who would seek out an online community to back them up on things. (Or at least, they would have, back in 2001.)
With that in mind it seems strange that what I do would be considered "changing the rules" by you when I 100% do not change anything that, in my mind, I consider a rule. I very strictly limit myself to changing anything EXCEPT the rules because I value the balance that went into giving each class each power and each spell.
I'm sure you're being very sincere about this, but honestly, the balance of existing classes is probably not something you should place too much value in. You could increase the efficiency of any class by twenty percent, and its relative performance would still depend mostly on the players and the table. And that's before you start getting into optional rules.
 

I must say I find the whole conversation weird. Fascinating but weird. From years of playing HERO system and other non-class based systems I just don't think in terms of game mechanics being that strongly related to fluff. For me it's a case of decide the character you want to play, think of a way to model it using the game mechanics, re-skin game mechanics as you wish to fit with the campaign and feel of the game.

The third point is the most important to me. If someone wanted to play a Jedi in my bog standard DnD in Greyhawk game I'd ask "In what sense a Jedi?" Coz if they want someone who can mechanically do a pile of Jedi stuff - suggestion, missile deflection, a little light telekinesis - I'd say "Okay, no wakkas. How can we model that with the game mechanics? :-)" 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."

The problem for me in this scenario is that the fluff the player wants to bring does not mesh with the fluff I have already set for the campaign.* The game mechanics is just how we're going to roll dice during those parts of the game where we are going to roll dice.

So, I guess in relation to the OP I'm gonna have to say class does not have to inform the fluff. (Clearly it does for some folks, and that's fine.) Class is just game mechanics that we use to make sure we're all playing the mechanical part of the game by the same (hopefully balanced) rules.


*Don't worry, I do my best to get player input for tone, style, genre, etc. before sitting down to set the campaign guidelines. I then ask for feedback on them. yada yada yada.
 

That's exactly the point. To find something everyone would agree was a step too far. So we can all agree that there are limits, here is an example of one (which, of course, someone argued against anyway).

This will be the last time I explain this.

But your step too far doesn't make sense in context of the discussion.

No one was talking about reflavoring characters in a way that would disagree with the game setting (at least not that I saw), so you have come in and created and extreme position that did not exist before to find a line in the sand.

It would be like discussing how best to organize your pantry and someone chiming in with "Getting a solid gold bathtub is out of the question.", you've come so far out of left field that we were left trying to figure out why you were even standing over there.

And, since you were so far out of the way, people thought you must have meant something else, and tried to figure that out, leading to the various bits about Kensai being close and such, because they were thinking you meant a mechanical jedi, because that is the only context which your example seemed relevant to the discussion.


The point is that players are not free to make whatever character they want. They need approval of the group they are playing with. If that character is in line with the PHB that approval should be expected unless the rules have been advertised as changed (such as with a setting).


And no one, not a single person, had brought up doing this sort of refluffing against the DMs permission. So, while you are correct, changes to a concept should be approved by the DM and other players if it is warranted, playing a pious rogue isn't exactly something I feel like I need to go and discuss with everyone, unless you must discuss all choices a player makes and get them approved by the DM.

Again, you seem to have a different idea of what was being discussed than was actually being discussed.
 

So, I guess in relation to the OP I'm gonna have to say class does not have to inform the fluff. (Clearly it does for some folks, and that's fine.) Class is just game mechanics that we use to make sure we're all playing the mechanical part of the game by the same (hopefully balanced) rules.

Do you see an RPG as having 2 distinct parts? There is the time when you're doing the mechanics of the game; and then there is the time when you're doing the story part?

Not trying to assume things, actually asking for clarification.

For me everything is integrated.

In contrast, I don't feel that way for many boardgames. The theme in many of them could be replaced or changed and it wouldn't matter. What I'm there for is the challenge of the game and how the mechanics create interesting tactical and strategic decisions.

For me, in an RPG the theme is the game. They are fully intertwined. There are no 'mechanics' to be separated from 'theme' that can make sense on their own. The descriptive passages in RPG rulebooks are essential to me to explain what things are and why they are. That knowledge is important to know how interactions work and how to resolve things.
 

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.
 
Last edited:

Do you see an RPG as having 2 distinct parts? There is the time when you're doing the mechanics of the game; and then there is the time when you're doing the story part?

Not trying to assume things, actually asking for clarification.

Not addressed to me, but i'll provide an example. I am cut-and-pasting from the Earth Elemental entry in the freely downloadable Basic Rules. Everything in black is a rule (from my definition). Everything in red is fluff (from my definition).

**
Earth Elemental Large elemental, neutral
Armor Class 17 (natural armor)
Hit Points 126 (12d10 + 60)
Speed 30 ft., burrow 30 ft.
STR 20 (+5)
DEX 8 (−1)
CON 20 (+5)
INT 5 (−3)
WIS 10 (+0)
CHA 5 (−3)
Damage Vulnerabilities thunder
Damage Resistances bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks
Damage Immunities poison
Condition Immunities exhaustion, paralyzed, petrified, poisoned, unconscious
Senses darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft., passive Perception 10
Languages Terran
Challenge 5 (1,800 XP)
Earth Glide. The elemental can burrow through nonmagical, unworked earth and stone. While doing so, the elemental doesn’t disturb the material it moves through.
Siege Monster. The elemental deals double damage to objects and structures.

Actions

Multiattack. The elemental makes two slam attacks.
Slam. Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 14 (2d8 + 5) bludgeoning damage.

An earth elemental plods forward like a walking hill, club-like arms of jagged stone swinging at its sides. Its head and body consist of dirt and stone, occasionally set with chunks of metal, gems, and bright minerals.
**

Therefore, with the red items being "fluff" I can freely adjust the description of the Earth Elemental as not plodding if I want (it has a speed of 30, just like most PCs), no having club-like arms...or even arms at all. Its body being only dirt, or only stone, and not having any chunks of metal, gems, or bright minerals. It could be 100% made of worked stone and look like an animated statue. It could be made of dripping mud and shoot out tentacles. It could just look like a big walking rock that just charges into you.

Note that none of the changes mentioned above in the description of the earth elemental changes its abilities in combat. It strictly changes how I describe it at the table. Once I begin changing how it works "in combat" by changing something written in black then I am starting to "homebrew" the rules.
 

That doesn't mean I want to play in that group. It also doesn't mean that the way I like to play is invalid.

The point is that players are not free to make whatever character they want. They need approval of the group they are playing with. If that character is in line with the PHB that approval should be expected unless the rules have been advertised as changed (such as with a setting).

We are entirely in agreement here. Your arguments was that "The rules of the game create a shared expectation" and you asserted that "They're all rules. Saying some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong." seemed/seems like your saying that some of your personal preferences are based on undisputable math making it sound like your saying your opinion is based on undisputable logic so is fact not openon. So this post says your completely reasonable while other posts read as though your imposing opinion on others. This is not me putting words in your mouth or intent in your language, this is people reading your posts and trying to interprets your meaning which is how all information on forums is passed. So you point of view in text form may just be open to interpretation you didn't intend by people (to include me) who look at things from a different prospective angle. So all everyone arguing against you and whom you are arguing against may very well be saying the same thing just between person inflection added by the reader and wording that can be interpreted two different ways... because English is that way, we are missing each other making the same points.

The dispute here seems to be what "in line with the PHB" means. Mechanical, we all fallow the book. Fluff, tends to create a lot of in between rules like the warlock/cleric muti-class not being ok, even though there is no fluff or mechanical statement in all of the PHB that prevents it. "Fluff" then is always a matter of setting which uses the same PHB in every setting. So Homebrew, forgotten Realms, etc... ultimately that means ask the GM about fluff and come to some agreement, since no "fluff" in the PHB is universally static and is instead setting dependant.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top