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

[Maxperson]

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, I greatly appreciate it. I don't agree with your interpretation of class lore, and I'm not sure I see a practical difference between calling someone wrong and calling them mistaken. But you've helped me to better understand your position. Thanks!

No. thank YOU. This is how a discussion should be. Not the bitter misrepresentations a few here have been throwing my way constantly. I appreciate the civility and honesty you have shown in this discussion. It's refreshing and rare here.

 

[Fenris-77]

Neither are the mechanices.

Well, actually no, the mechanics are very much the class. To quote the PHB, a class broadly defines your character's vocation (p 11). On the same page the PHB even mentions unconventional characters that step outside the norm. 'Broadly define' means to define generally or in general terms, and a vocation is a calling or "thing that you do". Again on the same page the PHB tells you what happens when you pick a class, which is that you record the mechanics - class features and abilities. The mechanics of the class define what the character can do, but it is not prescriptive about who that character has to be.

I think bitter misrepresentation might be a little bit dramatic. Your take on lore isn't the standard one, there's nothing wrong with your take on it, but you aren't 'correct' in some kind of way that puts you in a position to tell other people how to play the game. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but that's what it looks like. Perils of online communication I suppose.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, actually no, the mechanics are very much the class.

Go to a game convention and poll D&D players. Ask them what a barbarian is. I'm willing to be that 0 of them will answer, "rage, fast movement, unarmored movement, etc." Instead you will get an overview of the fluff. The theme I've been talking about. That's what they will tell you when you ask what a barbarian is. If you then ask what a barbarian gets, they will answer with the mechanics. The fluff is more the class than the mechanics are, but both are intertwined.

I think bitter misrepresentation might be a little bit dramatic.

I wasn't speaking about you.

 

[abirdcall]

Well, actually no, the mechanics are very much the class.

If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.

Just give the list of mechanics.

The thing is, if the PHB was only 'mechanics' and all the fluff was removed there would be no game there.

A 'fluffless' RPG can't work.

The fluff can be removed from chess and it would still be a game.

Remove all that identity, narrative, theme, etc. from an RPG and all that is left is a bunch of nonsense math.

 

[Coroc]

@Maxperson - can I play a Gnome Barbarian according to your interpretation of the rules? After all, there is no "specific" in this case. Gnomes do not live anywhere that you find barbarians, so, is a Gnome Barbarian home brewing or not?

I am not @Maxperson and this is not a poll but you brought the Gnome topic up. You said the magic word.

A Gnome barbarian, is that like in WoW when you saw this big sword running around and thought to yourself: "Oh how come that sword can run on its own? That looks ridiculous."
And then you took a closer look. And thought to yourself: "Oh my that sword looks really big, even on my Taureen character it would look a little to large to be aesthetic".
And then you moved even more close to the sword. And then you zoom in your screen.
And then you see it: " Oh my, there is a pink haired gnome attached to that sword!"


(I really like Gnome characters, for FR and GHK they are much better fitting than halflings in most places.
but please do not ever approach me with Gnoman the Gnymerian, it just breaks my make believe feeling, even for a game where dragons fly around and characters hurl fireballs)

Seriously, when I DM and I allow small folk in my campaign then I prefer when they play illusionists, rogues, maybe a cleric or even a fighter of some sort. But a Gnome barbarian? That is worse than a Gnome Paladin dual wielding Rapiers!

 

[Hussar]

Yes you can, as I've said more than once here.

Sorry, I didn't realize that gnomes had been brought up. I did see dwarves, and you answered that specific trumps general. Fair enough.

So, what specific element of gnome lore, in your view, allows for a gnome barbarian by the rules?

If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.

Just give the list of mechanics.

The thing is, if the PHB was only 'mechanics' and all the fluff was removed there would be no game there.

A 'fluffless' RPG can't work.

The fluff can be removed from chess and it would still be a game.

Remove all that identity, narrative, theme, etc. from an RPG and all that is left is a bunch of nonsense math.

Umm, to be fair, most class' fluff is summed up in a couple of paragraphs. If we're going to talk about "so many pages", well, those pages are almost entirely mechanics and not flavor description. The barbarian (to stay with that example) takes up 5 pages of the PHB. 1/2 a page is a picture of a human barbarian and the other 1/2 page is the flavor text for the barbarian (plus a smidgeon on the next page). The next 4 pages are entirely mechanics.

Note, I agree that a "fluffless" RPG doesn't work. Fortunately, no one here is advocating that. After all, the knightly barbarian example above isn't "fluffless". It's full of flavor. Almost bursting at the seams. It just isn't following the flavor in the PHB.

Different flavor isn't "no flavor".

 

[Aldarc]

If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.

Just give the list of mechanics.

The thing is, if the PHB was only 'mechanics' and all the fluff was removed there would be no game there.

A 'fluffless' RPG can't work.

The fluff can be removed from chess and it would still be a game.

Remove all that identity, narrative, theme, etc. from an RPG and all that is left is a bunch of nonsense math.

I don't think that anyone is advocating for a fluffless game, so I'm not sure why you keep falling back to this farcically shallow argumentum ad absurdum; however, in my estimation, most people in this thread do not regard class fluff as prescriptive, but a generalized line-of-best-fit description meant to serve as a starting point for character generation: the fluff is there to inspire and not constrict.

 

[abirdcall]

Sorry, I didn't realize that gnomes had been brought up. I did see dwarves, and you answered that specific trumps general. Fair enough.

So, what specific element of gnome lore, in your view, allows for a gnome barbarian by the rules?



Umm, to be fair, most class' fluff is summed up in a couple of paragraphs. If we're going to talk about "so many pages", well, those pages are almost entirely mechanics and not flavor description. The barbarian (to stay with that example) takes up 5 pages of the PHB. 1/2 a page is a picture of a human barbarian and the other 1/2 page is the flavor text for the barbarian (plus a smidgeon on the next page). The next 4 pages are entirely mechanics.

Note, I agree that a "fluffless" RPG doesn't work. Fortunately, no one here is advocating that. After all, the knightly barbarian example above isn't "fluffless". It's full of flavor. Almost bursting at the seams. It just isn't following the flavor in the PHB.

Different flavor isn't "no flavor".

That's not accurate. There is 'fluff' throughout the class descriptions.

Every ability has 'fluff'.

They all represent things. Strip that away to just the 'mechanics' and it doesn't actually take up that much space.

Instead of Barbarian picture 'class A'. Then imagine just having 'ability 1, ability 2, etc.' Instead of 'Rage' it just says what it does 'Bonus Action for +2 damage...'.

It's hard to do because the 'fluff' is so integral to the game as you agreed. And if you change it you are no longer playing the class you are playing something else. Another way to say that is 'not following the PHB'.

 

[abirdcall]

I don't think that anyone is advocating for a fluffless game,

Read what I quoted.

Someone literally said 'class is just mechanics'.

 

[Coroc]

Read what I quoted.

Someone literally said 'class is just mechanics'.

Class (name) is fluff. And only fluff.

The underlying mathematics e.g. "Fighter" class getting extra attack, "wizard" has got vancian spell progression is crunch.

We tend to intermingle mechanics with names given to things, because that is easier to remember.

And with names we associate other things if it comes to D&D.

Let us assume following:

You tell a kid who knows nothing about D&D but does know Harry Potter of a D&D wizard. The kid would most certainly expect a D&D wizard to use a wand as a casting focus for most of his spells and own a flying broom.

Then assume you tell the kid about different wizard schools and wizard guilds being a thing in D&D. The kid would assume that you mean whatever the school in the Harry Potter movie is called and for the guilds that you are referring to Hufflpuff and what ever these are called in H.P., and would be very confused that you are referring to evocation nor conjuration instead and the red wizards of Thay.

All of this is fluff, but some of this is attached to certain D&D mechanics e.g. the wizard specialists subclasses.

Still the wizard class as such and the rules would not be corrupted the slightest if you refluff your D&D wizard in your homebrew by having a wand as a mandatory spell focus but need no spellbook, and all wizards mandatory attend a Harry Potter style wizard college in their prime, and good aligne wizards to be Hufflpuffs and evil aligned Slitherins or whatever.
It is just refluffing stuff and adding some prose.