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

[Hussar]

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).

That is the point though. What is "in line with the PBH"? Considering the ahem interpretations of the PHB that I've seen in this thread alone, that's not exactly the easiest thing to follow. But, my point is, in what way is my cleric with a criminal background who has a drug dependency out of line with the rules? And, since we're straying pretty far from "your class is not your character", how does having a given class preclude a given way of depicting that class?

Since a given class can be depicted in multiple and often contradictory, ways, how can it be claimed that your class MUST be the driving force behind the depiction of your character.

It's funny. I've suggested multiple times in the past that the character's race should have a big impact on how the character is played, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong and that I was badwrongfunning folks for even suggesting that a dwarf or an elf should be played differently from a human.

And, I'm pretty sure that at least one of those folks is in this thread telling folks that changing how a class is portrayed is home brewing and breaking the rules.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

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.

I see the 2 parts (mechanical and role play) as integrated. One sits down and role plays their character. Now and then the game requires that one use dice to decide the outcome of the choices made during the role play. Odds are good that one has made choices during role play that play to the mechanical strengths of the character. The outcomes from the mechanical test can then inform your next RP decision. RP leads into mechanics leads back into RP. Due to the limits of language I am having to describe this as distinct parts moving back and forth but this is not how I feel it is happening at the table. It's much more integrated.

I completely agree that the theme is the game. I think we disagree on how the theme is set.

I don't much care what the rule books say about characterisation, whether based on class or race. Now don't get me wrong - this is an attitude I came to over time. Back in the early 80's I was as guilty as everyone else for thinking that Paladins MUST be played as described in the PHB. But I eventually decided that that way of doing things was too restrictive for the games I wanted. If someone wants to be a Paladin of Chaotic Good I'm happy to let them. If someone wants to play a character that has smiting and healing and decent melee bonus, but has no interest in playing them a champion of any ethos, that's cool too. Just let me know ahead of time so I don't come in with incorrect assumptions.

I DO care about what my table says about characterisation. We need to be on the same page (Thematically, setting-wise, tone, etc.) when playing the game. And that's something we sort out in session 0 when setting campaign assumptions. Obviously, in real life, there will be misunderstandings and disagreements later at the table. That's cool, we'll sort them out as they come up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That would only be true if you assume the model involves a one-to-one correspondence between fluff and crunch. A model with a many-to-one correspondence, however, could also satisfy your criterion that the crunch accurately reflects (models) the fluff, yet wouldn't lead to your conclusion that changing the fluff requires changing the crunch.

While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.

If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.

If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So you changed some rules and now some character concepts are possible and others are not.

Sounds right to me?

No, it isn't. The problem was never that a player chose to play an Oath of Vengeance paladin: the problem was that the Oath of Vengeance paladin that he proposed to play (and which was 100% compatible with the PHB as described) was completely tonally and storywise inconsistent with the campaign.

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it suggests that you believe that there are very few ways to play an Oath of Vengeance paladin, and that the player choosing to do so was violating an unspoken rule. To me, this is a very restrictive way of looking at the archetypes made available by the PHB. I would go every further: applied strictly, I'm not sure it would be even possible to multiclass at all using this interpretation.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.

If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.

If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.

You will never have a thousand different origin stories in a single campaign. We are talking about one or two players in a party who want to have a character that is a bit unorthodox. That is both easy to justify within a setting and adds little to the complexity of the setting (and it won't be hard at all for the players to process since they are the ones who came up with it).

 

[ClaytonCross]

An interesting thread ….
"your class is not your character" vs "your class is your character" both being a problem and inconsistent not only between players/GMs but also with one player/gm and different classes.

Problem defined as agreement trying to resolve "The rules of the game create a shared expectation." pointing to the PHB as source of resolution.

Then redefined by the simple fact that different settings have different fluff for races, classes, and subclases. The choice of setting is the GMs to make and players just agree to play in it or not join the game. So Fluff is basically at GM discursion for character choices.

That introduces the source of conflict as GMs changing Fluff after a games starts or not introducing in a session 0 before players have settled on and invested in a character, breaking the shared expectations that fluff is intended to create.

The resulting lesson I get from this discussion is two rules:

1. In order to ensure those shared expectations GMs should write setting fluff rules down and present them on session 0 for players to build within that they as GM are willing to except, then not change them until they start a new campaign so that they don't stick it to a player whos expectations based on presented GM setting Fluff rules allowed a build, then the rules changed preventing them from playing as they wanted. This session 0, also allows player collaboration in defining setting rules removing, adding, or adjusting to what degree the GM can except after discussion points are made. After player argument are made, the GM holds final say and players get a chance to walk or play with a copy of these rules. (My current GM did this, and I thought it was novel but I didn't really understand how much trouble he avoided with this and one player declined to play under the setting rules, while another got the GM to loosen a rule with week long debate by adding a specific condition being basically if you cause the problem I am trying to avoid, your character will die a sudden and immediate death... that player character has had a few near death experiences, lol)

2. Single exception for changing the rules during a campaign would be a player deliberately causing table disruption such as power gaming or munchkin builds that steal a character role from an existing party member (not filling and empty role) or "poking the bear" with direct conflict to players or the GM like a player multi-classing to cleric of raven queen in a party with a Palor Paladin who's back story is to hunt down the followers of the Raven Queen. Alternatively yes you could kick a player form your game, however I find in most cases a group vote to add a rule that prevents a specific action causing conflict tends to be sufficient and usually your playing with friends and don't want to kick anyone you unless a rule like this doesn't work as sufficient deterrent / warning.

 

[Fenris-77]

Huh. Having that Palor Paladin and a Cleric of the Raven Queen in the same party mostly sounds pretty awesome to me. Conflict builds story. Those two characters trying to find common ground would be really interesting. Voting people off the island for making a strong character or story choice seems ... off to me. The idea of a group veto seems to imply a pretty huge lack of trust at the table, which in turn indexes a whole host of other potential issues. I mean, sure, if someone's doing that just to piss another player off that sucks, but why are you playing with that jerkwad anyway would be my first question.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You will never have a thousand different origin stories in a single campaign. We are talking about one or two players in a party who want to have a character that is a bit unorthodox. That is both easy to justify within a setting and adds little to the complexity of the setting (and it won't be hard at all for the players to process since they are the ones who came up with it).

Why, though? Why insist on adding something to the setting, beyond what's already there? Why do you even want to play in that setting, if you don't want its rules to apply to your character? Why not play in some other setting, where your new lore is the law of the land?

You already get to be a rad adventurer who saves the world. You don't need to be some unique figure who defies categorization on top of that.

 

[abirdcall]

I see the 2 parts (mechanical and role play) as integrated. One sits down and role plays their character. Now and then the game requires that one use dice to decide the outcome of the choices made during the role play. Odds are good that one has made choices during role play that play to the mechanical strengths of the character. The outcomes from the mechanical test can then inform your next RP decision. RP leads into mechanics leads back into RP. Due to the limits of language I am having to describe this as distinct parts moving back and forth but this is not how I feel it is happening at the table. It's much more integrated.

I completely agree that the theme is the game. I think we disagree on how the theme is set.

I don't much care what the rule books say about characterisation, whether based on class or race. Now don't get me wrong - this is an attitude I came to over time. Back in the early 80's I was as guilty as everyone else for thinking that Paladins MUST be played as described in the PHB. But I eventually decided that that way of doing things was too restrictive for the games I wanted. If someone wants to be a Paladin of Chaotic Good I'm happy to let them. If someone wants to play a character that has smiting and healing and decent melee bonus, but has no interest in playing them a champion of any ethos, that's cool too. Just let me know ahead of time so I don't come in with incorrect assumptions.

I DO care about what my table says about characterisation. We need to be on the same page (Thematically, setting-wise, tone, etc.) when playing the game. And that's something we sort out in session 0 when setting campaign assumptions. Obviously, in real life, there will be misunderstandings and disagreements later at the table. That's cool, we'll sort them out as they come up.

Maybe this comes from your earlier comment about playing non-class based games.

D&D is a class based game and I think if you try to turn it into one that isn't you're losing out.

Classes are packaged themes that strongly marry different design components together into cohesive themes. The classes as a whole provide a solid thematic framework to create characters, parties, and as a result, campaigns from.

I think if you are going to play a class based game you should embrace it. Square pegs for square holes.

I think 5e did many great things one of which was the inclusion of subclasses and relegating multiclassing to an optional rule. Smashing chassis and archetypes together with multiclassing is a mess. Subclasses work with the class based system to expand upon the base chassis/framework that is the class. Subclasses are the way to do multiclassing right.

We agree about needing the group to be on the same page. It is a collectively played game. I don't think people are free to create and play their characters however they want. Not if it diminishes the fun of others in the group.

These discussions come up in forums regularly but I've only had 1 situation come up in real life in the last 6 years. Everyone else I've played with has seen their choices, read about the classes and races and designed characters from what it says in the books. And many were creative and interesting characters. Different tastes of course but I tend to find the gimmick and exotic race characters less interesting in general as players tend to just rely on the gimmick and 'newness'.

Anyway, to the issue. The player wanted to play a Cleric but had no interest in being religious. At all. I tried to work with her. I said, well, she can worship the divine essence or ideal of the domain and the appropriate deity will step in to get her, her powers. She even wanted the Trickery Domain which makes total sense to not have direct worship with such a deity. But nope, she just wanted her character to have those powers and abilities.

So I said no. That character was incompatible with the game we were playing.

Whether or not you would say no for whatever game you imagine playing, is that not a reasonable stance to take on some character concepts?

I think it is a strength of the game to have classes create a large part of the identity of a character. There is a lot of room there for how and why that manifests and for many other characteristics outside of class.

No, it isn't. The problem was never that a player chose to play an Oath of Vengeance paladin: the problem was that the Oath of Vengeance paladin that he proposed to play (and which was 100% compatible with the PHB as described) was completely tonally and storywise inconsistent with the campaign.

You've lost me. How is this not agreeing with me?

Like, I don't see a problem with your game, but you have a problem with me not having a problem with it?

You changed some rules to allow some characters and not allow others and there is nothing wrong with that.

Why should people see something wrong with that?

I'm confused.

 

[prabe]

Why, though? Why insist on adding something to the setting, beyond what's already there? Why do you even want to play in that setting, if you don't want its rules to apply to your character? Why not play in some other setting, where your new lore is the law of the land?

In some instances, this is because the GM has left room in the setting for the players to add stuff. Or, the player pitched it to the GM as something that might fit, and the GM agreed.

You already get to be a rad adventurer who saves the world. You don't need to be some unique figure who defies categorization on top of that.

I would be inclined to expect adventurers who save the world to be unique figures that defy categorization. Seems more likely than Devotion Paladin #5298004.