Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7927261" data-attributes="member: 6993955"><p>Abilities have names right? And they're rules. Changing the names might be confusing, and it sounds like an enormous amount of work for the player. I'm guessing this isn't a serious example, but if a player of mine really wanted to I'd consider it, sure. Changing the names of rules isn't the same as changing descriptive fluff though, so there's a part of this example that's very apples and oranges. Renaming every spell on the cleric list really isn't same thing as ignoring four lines of Barbarian fluff in a whole bunch of ways.</p><p></p><p>The oath is the subclass, you can't play without one. If you mean the description of the oath then no, I don't really care as long as the player has a cool alternative. And no, it doesn't make more sense to change a bunch of rules. </p><p></p><p>There are no rules of 'who the character is' by the way, just what they can do. The player decides who the character is.</p><p></p><p>There are countless examples you can make that are very different either in scale or in kind? I bet there are. Not a single example in your post was a reasonable comparison to the Barbarian fluff though. In fact, all of them were about rules, not fluff. So there's that.</p><p></p><p> When it comes to where to draw the line, everyone is different. Personally, I don't care about fluff, it's not a rule so it won't affect game balance and it's important that a player end up with a character they are excited to play. I mostly avoid changing rules without serious consideration and maybe some play testing. I treat rules and fluff differently because they aren't the same thing.</p><p></p><p>I think you'll find that upon consideration my approach is actually very lenient, rather than hard core. I want players to have as much freedom as possible to build a character they are excited about. Getting bent out of shape about changing color text, on the other hand, sounds pretty hard core to me.<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 7927261, member: 6993955"] Abilities have names right? And they're rules. Changing the names might be confusing, and it sounds like an enormous amount of work for the player. I'm guessing this isn't a serious example, but if a player of mine really wanted to I'd consider it, sure. Changing the names of rules isn't the same as changing descriptive fluff though, so there's a part of this example that's very apples and oranges. Renaming every spell on the cleric list really isn't same thing as ignoring four lines of Barbarian fluff in a whole bunch of ways. The oath is the subclass, you can't play without one. If you mean the description of the oath then no, I don't really care as long as the player has a cool alternative. And no, it doesn't make more sense to change a bunch of rules. There are no rules of 'who the character is' by the way, just what they can do. The player decides who the character is. There are countless examples you can make that are very different either in scale or in kind? I bet there are. Not a single example in your post was a reasonable comparison to the Barbarian fluff though. In fact, all of them were about rules, not fluff. So there's that. When it comes to where to draw the line, everyone is different. Personally, I don't care about fluff, it's not a rule so it won't affect game balance and it's important that a player end up with a character they are excited to play. I mostly avoid changing rules without serious consideration and maybe some play testing. I treat rules and fluff differently because they aren't the same thing. I think you'll find that upon consideration my approach is actually very lenient, rather than hard core. I want players to have as much freedom as possible to build a character they are excited about. Getting bent out of shape about changing color text, on the other hand, sounds pretty hard core to me.🤷♂️ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?
Top