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

[TheCosmicKid]

But...that’s literally how roads work.

As long as you're going to Rome, anyway.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Perhaps because I myself don’t understand your perspective. You say that I have changed the rules. From my perspective, it is not clear that I changed any rules.
So, to clarify, what rules do you think I’ve changed?

Edit: From your initial response, my impression was that you thought I had instituted a “No Oath of Vengeance Paladins rule”. I did not. My reply to your response was based on that impression. Read
my initial response with this in mind.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In another thread, on another board, the fluff/mechanics distinction was used to treat fluff as secondary and justify restrictions that the poster felt would make the character “weaker”, specifically, the druid’s restriction to non-metal armor. (It can’t be mechanics, no consequences are described if you don’t adhere to the restriction. Also, “won’t” is weaker than “can’t”).

However, given the language used in the PHB, it is clear to me that the designers did not intend patrons to be a constant presence in the lives of warlocks nor all oath of vengeance paladins to be morally ambiguous ‘90s antiheroes. (What the h*** was wrong with us in the ‘90s?)

At some point, you have to consider that by shutting the door on those who would abuse the system (personal and subjective take on people who argue that druids should wear armor, there are other threads to argue this), you are also shutting the door on a bunch of really cool concepts that fit the theme of the game and would be super fun to play. (Staying on the druid theme, I’m toying with a follower of Anansi, access to thorn whip, spider climb and web, plus spider wild shapes).

 

[Captain Panda]

I'm very much of the Treantmonk mindset here. I really don't understand how some can view fluff as core to the rules as crunch. Crunch is math, change it and the system starts to buckle and fail. Fluff, within reason and at the discretion of the DM, can be changed much more easily. Crunch is harder to change, and in my experience most gamers who try to homebrew entirely new classes to suit their vision are just not very good at homebrew and would have been better suited reflavoring something that exists already. It's much easier to adjust the flavor than the math, and it allows a lot more fun at the table.

Obviously there are bounds of reason, someone shouldn't bring a Jedi or the Terminator to a table where that sort of thing isn't welcome, but there is a clear distinction between fluff and crunch and an obvious reason one would tweak fluff in lieu of trying to master game design and homebrew your own unique idea.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Backgrounds already do this.

Backgrounds don't try to explain your class mechanics. Whether you're a Noble or a Hermit, neither of those try and explain where your Paladin or Wizard powers come from. They exist to add depth to a character, instead of anyone just being their class. They don't change the lore behind the class mechanics, though.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why do you insist that we are changing lore?

If I make a barbarian with the background of knight, what lore am I changing? Must all barbarians be semi-literate savages who eschew the comforts of civilization? I still rage, I still am using the barbarian mechanics, after all, barbarians get access to medium armor and shields, using those and a longsword are completely within the realm of possibility.

Barbarian comes with quite a bit of baked-in lore, which goes to explain how and why they are able to rage. If you use your Knight background to replace that lore, rather than supplement it, then you are changing how the world works in regard to raging. You are saying that there is a new path within the world, which manifests in this way, where previously that path did not exist.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The real world is complicated, and similiar skills can arise from vastly different experiences. And, in the game, a similiar skill is reflected by the exact same mechanics.

And as far as skills are concerned, that makes perfect sense. There's a difference between knowing how to sew a wound closed, though, and knowing how to channel eldritch energies in order to make your sword more dangerous to undead while simultaneously wearing heavy armor and generating a healing aura.

There are a lot of ways to bake a cake, but there's only one way to make an iPad.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Backgrounds don't try to explain your class mechanics. Whether you're a Noble or a Hermit, neither of those try and explain where your Paladin or Wizard powers come from. They exist to add depth to a character, instead of anyone just being their class. They don't change the lore behind the class mechanics, though.

True they don't expand your class but they do expand your character, which supports "you class is not your character" since if "your class is your character" you should get nothing from your background. You do get skills, tool proficiencies, and a special feature that informs your character regardless of your class. I will admit, sometimes a player has little more than bonus skills, but other times it completely changes the personality and play style of a character. A good example might be my human variant Urchin The Great Old One Patron Pact of the Tome Warlock scout. He and Observant from human variant, stealth and thieves tools from Urchin and was essentially the party Scout sniper with Devil's sight and Agonizing Blast. He hide and sniped like a ranger and scouting, searching for traps, and unlocking doors like a rogue (Had gloves of thievery). 100% pure warlock so it was not a munchkin and when we built the party we choose roles not classes and I choose party scout. That was my job in the party so I was stepping on no ones toes from session 1 to the end of the campaign. I simply chose to do it in a different way, which actually worked very well. Darkness + Devil's sight while in the dark is kind of like casting invisibility that doesn't fail if you attack. I also means I was completely obscured so I could hide literally anywhere, but I didn't even need to do that to have advantage on attacks from being unseen and enemies attacks on me at disadvantage for blind firing at a heavily obscured opponent.

The cool thing about The Great Old One patron is that my GM at the time was a "You class is your character" GM for warlock and cleric (and nothing else), so he originally tried to tell me I could not play a non-evil warlock then I showed him this, "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it." So as I said before you have to form some level of agreement with your GM if the two of you disagree about "You class is your character" or "You class is not your character", I did this by excepting my GMs stance and picking a sub-class that specifically says that is ok. This still came up around level 8 because despite my background explaining how I got my pact without the Great Old One knowing about me, My GM made my patron become aware of me then tried to force a conflict between my patron and the Deity of the Party Paladin. I sided with the Paladin which surprised and Angered the GM, not because of PHB fluff or because it didn't fit the story (my character was established as the very loyal second in command to the party leader/paladin due to mutual suffering at the hands of the same cult that started both our paths). No, he was made because it was not how he would have played it or wanted me to play it. He had agreed to my character at level one, after me showing the PHB fluff but as it turned out his "You class is your character" stance on warlocks extends to Celestial Warlocks being evil because they turned to a creature for power, which says to me "You class is your character" really means "I have this personal stance on what a class is in D&D and I want to enforce my stance on your character design and play using "fluff" I create and if you have "fluff" that counters it I will still change the world to make you wrong and push you into playing the way I want because I am GM and my desire is your law" …. I played a that table a while more but this kept coming up. I would create a character, he would approve it, then when I played it he didn't like how, then he would alter the world and claim innate fluff to force me to play my character a specific way that suited him. After a few short campaigns, I told him "I am not an NPC" to which he basically said "yes you are! you all are! this is my world! My story! In my world my story is the only thing that matters! I just let you tag along! Play your part!" … I left the group after that.

As a result of this I have learned 3 things.
1. Fluff is more often an excuse for a GM to control player style than not. That is not always the case but it often seems that way to the player, true or not. So anytime I see a GM pushing fluff, I can't say they are wrong and I recommend players and GM working it out between them. I also, try to keep this in mind when I GM, so that I don't use fluff to attempt to trap my player into my personal feelings even if its subconscious. (That doesn't ignore all since, it means the player needs to work on background that brings something around that I want to no to, bringing it fare enough I can bare to say yes to it. I will then hold them to that background)

2. You know if the GM is "You class is your character" or not if they are presented with fluff from the rules they argue your going against the proves they are wrong or that you can make a character that does not have the quality they are saying you must have, then alters their setting/story to make themselves right, this is not a debate about fluff. You just have a Narrator instead of a GM. If your GM constantly says "story comes first" that is also a good indicator of this. Run from this table if you don't want to be an NPC in there story. When I GM, I try to remember the concept of role playing games is a shared story. To me that means, the story a player wants to tell is just as important as what the GM wants to tell. The GMs job is not to narrate, but mediate the rules and give the game direction through story hooks when players don't have a direction. If a player drops a story hook that players or the GM want to grab, that's is completely expectable. My current GM is really good at that. I need work on it, since I get a bit frantic and cough up in keeping track of things when I run games. So I try to listen more to the players when its not "my turn" the way I expect them to listen to me when I am describing a scene or feeding a story arch. I also try to listen to feedback desires in conversations between sessions.

3. I am jaded about being controlled like an NPC as player and so I don't want to do this to my players. If the book says I can choose and option that my patron is not a nuisance and a GM tries to force Patron nuisance on me despite my background, player choices of subclass, and conversations explaining what I am trying to avoid, then I am done at their table. At the same time, that means reading players back grounds and knowing that sometimes backgrounds are empty because players don't want to look back but move forward. Sometimes they clearly cut of allies and hooks and I need to respect that the way I want it respected when I play. Sometimes a player who has played a warlock leave a juicy hook to their patron in their back ground so I as GM will run that story while other times they have done that and they just want to be a warlock class without the patron drama so they have fulfilled their pact with their patron before the game started.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Maybe something that sets me apart is that I am glad D&D isn't just generic fantasy. I like the cohesive writing of the books.

When people seek to 'refluff,' 'retheme,' or minimize the effects of things Crawford warns them against turning the game into a 'mush'.

Take for example the idea of removing powers or stats or what have you from races. I've seen people suggest this as it would 'allow for more choices of races for character ideas' but the downside of doing this is that the races become more of a mush. They lose much of their identities.

I've also seen people say that it is a failing of D&D that it isn't supportive of all types of fantasy. People think it is designed to be a general fantasy game, probably because it is the most popular one.

Crawford? I do not know this thing.

I should point out that no-one (no-one on pages 1-2 or pages 16-18 anyway) is suggesting changing mechanics. A poster above (Sorry, too lazy to check who. But you know who you are and I think it's a great idea!) suggests that one can play a knight using barbarian mechanics. That's not changing mechanics. That's just saying "Lady Smashalot is known for the great rages that come over her." Assuming the setting has knights then one wouldn't even need to change any campaign background to accommodate that.

I think we're agreeing on a lot but showing differing taste.

All I've been saying I think, is that it is not wrong to take a game and mold it into something else. I just think people shouldn't assume that's what everyone wants and is okay with doing that. If everyone sits down to play a game of 5e the baseline is what is in the book.

Anything can be changed by a group. I don't buy into a 'fluff' and 'mechanics' delineation where the 'fluff' can be discarded and changed at will by any player of the group. All changes should be made with concern about what is being gained and what is being lost.

I think people are more likely to think hard about a change to whether a character gets a +1 in this or that than they are about a change that shapes what it means to be a class. And that can be to the detriment of the game. The latter likely having more impact than the former.

Yeah, I think we agree. For instance I agree that the the fluff-stuff in the rule book can be a good baseline. From there a table can change it or not, as works for that table. And I think that's all anyone here is saying: that one CAN change fluff, not that anyone SHOULD change fluff.

Peace Out!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Barbarian comes with quite a bit of baked-in lore, which goes to explain how and why they are able to rage. If you use your Knight background to replace that lore, rather than supplement it, then you are changing how the world works in regard to raging. You are saying that there is a new path within the world, which manifests in this way, where previously that path did not exist.

I generally don't like just saying people are wrong, but I can't see what point you think you are making here. What lore am I changing?

I'm not even trying to be obtuse here, you are saying I'm changing how rage works, but I'm explicitly not. The knight still "come alive in the chaos of combat" they still "enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience "

I have changed none of that. All I've changed is the part about hating cities, and feeling like polite society is a sign of weakness. The Barbarian doesn't have to be a tribal warrior, does it? Do only people who do not build roads have the capability of raging? How does that make any sense? If a tribe of nomadic humans settle down and Ungrak plants a garden, do all the barbarians of that tribe suddenly lose their powers? Does the Zealot following the gods of war and battle suddenly lose their blessings because their sister who traveled across the sea learns medicine?

Because, if the culture of the society determines whether or not my character can rage and fight, instead of the individual... then if my society changes, I lose my abilities.

Or, are you trying to say that someone raised on an estate, can't muster the primal urges neccessary? Does something about good food and fine clothing remove the capability of rage? IF you dress a barbarian in silks are they powerless?

This all seems ridiculous, but those are the details I've changed. A nobleman, with the title of knight, but still having the rage of a barbarian. Yet, you are telling me I am fundamentally changing how rage works, that rage cannot manifest in a nobleman. Why? Why must a barbarian be a tribal warrior who eschews civilization?

And as far as skills are concerned, that makes perfect sense. There's a difference between knowing how to sew a wound closed, though, and knowing how to channel eldritch energies in order to make your sword more dangerous to undead while simultaneously wearing heavy armor and generating a healing aura.

There are a lot of ways to bake a cake, but there's only one way to make an iPad.

Sure, only one type of ipad.

The ipad, the ipad II, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 surface, surface pro, pro, mini, air,

And those of course are completely unlike the Nook, The Kindle, Kindle Fire, Kindle Fire XL, and whatever tablet chrome has released.

And what is wearing heavy armor if not a skill? You can even take a feat chain to get it, or be a mountain dwarf. In fact, a valor bard can channel eldritch energies into their sword, create a healing aura and wear heavy armor.

Your argument falls apart because there are always multiple ways to get to the same place. And, if their are multiple mechanical ways, why can't there be multiple thematic ways to reach the same goal. After all, lots of superheroes who can fly, shoot energy beams, and are super strong and tough, and a lot of them do not have the same explanation for their powers. Why must DnD fantasy be so strict as to allow only one possible interpretation of a cleric, or a bard?

I should point out that no-one (no-one on pages 1-2 or pages 16-18 anyway) is suggesting changing mechanics. A poster above (Sorry, too lazy to check who. But you know who you are and I think it's a great idea!) suggests that one can play a knight using barbarian mechanics. That's not changing mechanics. That's just saying "Lady Smashalot is known for the great rages that come over her." Assuming the setting has knights then one wouldn't even need to change any campaign background to accommodate that.

That was me