Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7921917" data-attributes="member: 6880599">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.</blockquote>

Verification