PDA

View Full Version : Keeping the Flavor Consistent



UrsusMimas
2014-11-27, 06:43 PM
(Now as an aside I must confess that this player was part of a gaming group that I wish I never had. I constantly felt stressed to run a fun game and make sure that they were happy even if I wasn't but they never seemed to like anything I did. If I gave them more freedom than they never did anything but run in and start a fight. If I gave them less freedom than they complained that they didn't get the chance to talk their way out. Nothing I did was ever good enough and they never communicated what was wrong even if I asked them to tell me.)
I at one point had a player who played a D&D Warlock.
When I dropped a story hook about his demonic contract had been traded to the king of devils he immediately said that his character had not made any sort of deal. According to the player his character had just learned to control the magic within himself without any help.
As the player had picked a Warlock which fluffwise must make a deal with well something if not a demon I became somewhat irritated.
I actually found the idea itself interesting and it raised potential questions about where this power came from. The problem is this was never hinted at by this player. For two or three months the player had never said anything about his alternative "power source".
This player always had big story ideas for his characters that he would never share with me and would be pissy when I never set up a way for him reveal his story.

My question is: How much of the core rules and truths of the world should you enforce if players want to suddenly change them well after your campaign is underway.
Is it ok to say that your fantasy wizard gets his power from science and technology ok if its only being revealed 6 months into a game or should that only be possible if communicated before the campaign starts?

PendragonSpirit
2014-11-27, 07:25 PM
Truthfully, I would have pointed out to the player that one a warlock's defining characteristics IS they have made a bargain or contract of some sort. "Learned to control the magic within himself" sounds far more like a sorcerer.

And no, I would probably not allow a player to suddenly up and decide they get their power from a source which is entirely at odds with the very CONCEPT of that class. A wizard would not get magical power from science or technology; they would be a technomage, at best, using technology to REPLICATE magic.

Just my opinion, of course.

Sidmen
2014-11-28, 12:56 AM
"Oh, how unfortunate, your character doesn't remember where that power he's learned to tap came from? No wonder he hasn't been fulfilling his part of the agreement."

No, if a player doesn't share something with the DM about his character, that aspect never existed in the game world. While, yes, you should try to work with a player when your background aspects don't jive with how he envisions his character - not mentioning that he uses vastly differing fluff, only to pull it out AFTER you work it into the story, is completely unacceptable. Its like someone not mentioning he has been a prince all along - until you mention that the king died and the prince was throned.

Knaight
2014-11-28, 01:28 AM
I'm just going to say this, as a GM:

If you want to have big story ideas for your character that actually come up in play, tell me about them. Seriously. It is way easier to engineer opportunities for those character aspects to come out and be relevant if I know ahead of time that they are there and that the player cares about them in particular. If I am given information to the effect of "here's this big, character defining secret", I can make it relevant because of potential leaks, and maybe even eventually have it get leaked and have the fallout of that be relevant. If that secret is entirely in your head, that's not happening.

If the GMing is actively adversarial, then maybe keeping a bunch of secrets is a good idea. On the other hand, if the GMing is actively adversarial there's a better idea - it's called leaving. For a GM that isn't adversarial, share the information.

Anyways, soapbox moment over.

Jay R
2014-11-28, 12:43 PM
1. There is no plot relevant event in a PC's background that the DM does not know.
2. There is no rules exception that the DM has not specifically granted.
3. A PC's powers work exactly as in the book unless and until the PC & DM have talked out any deviations.

The DM is not an adversary you hide things from, he or she is the referee who makes all rulings about the game.

The following statements are equivalent:
"My character's a warlock, but I decided that he just learned to control the magic within himself without any help."
"My character's a fighter, but I decided that he just learned to cast magic."
"My character's a wizard, but I decided that he just learned to wear armor without encumbrance or magic penalties."

No. Just no. The rules apply, until the DM and nobody else grants an exception.

My introduction to the game I'm currently running included the following. "Reasonable exceptions to these rules are allowed, within certain bounds. I won’t necessarily explain the bounds to you. (If I plan to have you carried off by Vikings, I won’t tell you why your character can’t speak Old Norse, for instance.) Ask for exceptions. Your character should be an exception to the general rules in some way, and I’m prepared to modify PC rules to let you play something unique. I want you to have a character you will enjoy, but who won’t mess up my plans or overshadow the other characters."

Every character currently has at least one exception. But we talked about them and agreed to them.

In your position, I think you have two options:
1. The player is out of the game for cheating. (Not recommended unless this is a pattern.)
2. The demon who's been helping him without his knowledge shows up to claim payment. The PC can now sign an agreement, or die and be taken to eternal torment. (When this happens, make it clear to the player that he will play a warlock by the rules or not at all.)

But the player cannot annul the rules for personal benefit. Just ... no.

Milodiah
2014-11-28, 01:40 PM
Sometimes these things are debatable. Some entry rules for PrCs, for example...I personally find it counter-intuitive that an Assassin, whose job is to kill for profit or a higher purpose, must kill someone just to kill someone like some gangland initiation myth. And I remember getting into a long, drawn-out argument with someone about whether or not someone could suddenly multi-class into wizard with no background in magic and with no instructor or even how-to book in the middle of a trail seems insulting to the wizards who spend their lives learning this stuff from centuries-old institutions and orders that a PC would learn magic just because it 'clicked' and become a wizard rather than a sorcerer).

But this is not one of those cases. Warlocks make deals with entities for their power. I'll point out it doesn't have to be a demon, per se, or even an Evil outsider. It can happen with any similarly powerful extraplanar force, but it has to have an extraplanar force backing it. That's the catch here. It's the equivalent of making a Paladin who can't Fall and therefore doesn't even have to act like a Paladin if he/she doesn't feel like it.


On a semi-related note, would a Cleric dedicated to the cause/concept of atheism still be able to cast divine magic?

Lanaya
2014-11-28, 02:06 PM
The following statements are equivalent:
"My character's a warlock, but I decided that he just learned to control the magic within himself without any help."
"My character's a fighter, but I decided that he just learned to cast magic."
"My character's a wizard, but I decided that he just learned to wear armor without encumbrance or magic penalties."

One of these is clearly not like the others. There's an enormous difference between refluffing and giving yourself free mechanical bonuses, and it's absurd to act like the two are equivalent.

Milodiah
2014-11-28, 02:09 PM
One of the relatively mechanical downsides of the Warlock class is that the DM has access to story-impacting material with which to affect you. Also, I'm not sure if it's purely RAW or not, but the way I've always seen Warlock played is that there are several obstacles to overcome if attempting a Resurrection, namely that they sold their soul. The only clean way to bring one back at the tables I've played with is a Wish/Miracle.

PersonMan
2014-11-28, 03:13 PM
One of the relatively mechanical downsides of the Warlock class is that the DM has access to story-impacting material with which to affect you. Also, I'm not sure if it's purely RAW or not, but the way I've always seen Warlock played is that there are several obstacles to overcome if attempting a Resurrection, namely that they sold their soul. The only clean way to bring one back at the tables I've played with is a Wish/Miracle.

I've never seen this done before. There's some vague mention of selling their souls for power or similar, but that's all. There's no (see the Dragon Magazine Mounteblanc class for this) Sold Your Soul For Power class feature - and therefore, no rules on them needed to do weird things because of their class.

Similarly, I could say the Cleric has the massive bureaucracy of the church hanging on his every move, the Fighter has constant demands to join this fight or that patrol when he's on a mission, etc. But there's nothing written into the rules that says this is necessary.

If the DM applies in-game 'balances' (in this case it's nonsense because a Warlock isn't even a very powerful class) for certain characters, they need to say so in advance. Assuming everyone plays by your rules is an easy thing to do, but it will eventually result in issues that could be resolved by a simple explanation pre-game.

As for Sorcerer vs Warlock: I'd say the issue here is DnD's classes-bound-to-fluff thing. If I want to play someone with an inner well of magic that never drains, I don't want to be shackled to spell slots just like a Wizard. Shooting lasers and using my magic 24/7 sounds perfect for a character who is meant to be someone who has a never-ending stream of power they don't truly understand on a deep level. Of course, it'd be best if the player says 'hey, DM, I'd like to use Warlock because [explanation], but not use its fluff - is that alright?', but life isn't perfect.

---

In this case it sounds like the problem is a communication issue and should be resolved as such. DM and player need to talk out not just the specifics, but actually address the underlying issue of 'I think that it's fine to change stuff like this, but you don't' (from the player's perspective here), which is honestly more important than the specific case as it could easily become an issue that stretches over multiple campaigns if not dealt with.

jedipotter
2014-11-28, 03:29 PM
My question is: How much of the core rules and truths of the world should you enforce if players want to suddenly change them well after your campaign is underway.
Is it ok to say that your fantasy wizard gets his power from science and technology ok if its only being revealed 6 months into a game or should that only be possible if communicated before the campaign starts?

The only time a player in my game can ''change'' or ''create'' something would be during Character Creation.

1. DM tells the character you need a backstory and goes into details like ''your a warlock you need to pick where your power came from'' or ''add where you did your fighting training'' or ''where you went to school''. The DM provides suggestions and more so things to look up and read.

2. The player get a week to think something up. The DM is around online so the player can ask the questions like ''is there a god of fire'' or ''what is a good magic school''.

3. Before the game backstories are due. The DM looks them over and makes all sorts of notes. The story is then sent back to the player with the notes. some notes are much change ones ''The School of Arcane was only founded in 1350, and the game is set in 1300...you must pick another school'' or ''You picked an Eberron non-god, you must pick a Realms god'' or ''no you can't be the lost 13th Chosen of Mystra, try again.'' Some notes are suggestions ''you picked Bast for your bloodthirsty god, Malar works much better''. And so on. Often the DM and player will chat or talk at this point.

4. Player submits the final backstory. DM checks it over again and approves it.

5. Game starts with everyone on the same page.

PersonMan
2014-11-28, 03:34 PM
That's a very good method of doing things - it puts the burden of communicating on both parties, and ensures that mishaps like this don't occur.

Doing this mid-campaign might be awkward, but I'd recommend doing something like it just in case there are other issues lurking beneath the surface.

A Tad Insane
2014-11-28, 04:05 PM
He literally has a fey/demon in him. He "mastered" the magic (literally) in him.
But on a serious note, you should not withhold world information from the master of the world, even if that info is about your character.

Jay R
2014-11-28, 04:14 PM
One of these is clearly not like the others. There's an enormous difference between refluffing and giving yourself free mechanical bonuses, and it's absurd to act like the two are equivalent.

All three have clear mechanical bonuses, as is made clear by the problem we're discussing. The DM was going to use one of the requirements of the class for a story hook.

The fact that the mechanical effects of what you choose to call "fluff" don't affect most games is immaterial. In all games I've played except one, the fact that wizards must carry spellbooks was pretty much fluff, but one DM introduced a thief who stole books, and when we leveled up in a small town, we couldn't get 5th level spells immediately, because we couldn't create magic books. Suddenly, what we had always thought of as fluff had a clear mechanical effect. The wizard player couldn't merely say, "Well, I think carrying spellbooks is just fluff, so my character doesn't need them."

And by the way, I disagree with not just your facts, but also your thesis. The player has no right to unilaterally change or annul any rule. If the player doesn't like the rules for the character class, then he or she should negotiate with the DM. Whether the player has decided that this rule is mere "fluff" is not at issue, since that's just another change the PC has no right to unilaterally make to the DM's world.

Lanaya
2014-11-28, 05:30 PM
All three have clear mechanical bonuses, as is made clear by the problem we're discussing. The DM was going to use one of the requirements of the class for a story hook.

Which is not in any way, shape or form a mechanical bonus. You don't get any bonuses on any rolls for having developed inner power as opposed to making a deal with some magical entity. It is purely a roleplay-related bonus, the exact opposite of a mechanical one, and is therefore on par with saying that your character has a lot of childhood friends, not saying that your wizard can cast in full plate.


The fact that the mechanical effects of what you choose to call "fluff" don't affect most games is immaterial. In all games I've played except one, the fact that wizards must carry spellbooks was pretty much fluff, but one DM introduced a thief who stole books, and when we leveled up in a small town, we couldn't get 5th level spells immediately, because we couldn't create magic books. Suddenly, what we had always thought of as fluff had a clear mechanical effect. The wizard player couldn't merely say, "Well, I think carrying spellbooks is just fluff, so my character doesn't need them."

And that isn't fluff. The class entry for a wizard makes it very clear with all kinds of crunchy rules that wizards start with a spellbook, must inscribe their spells in a certain manner, spend a certain amount of gold to add new ones, gain two per level, can replace it for a set amount of money if it's lost or damaged, can protect it through various means, etc. It's not fluff any more than paladins being able to smite evil is fluff.


And by the way, I disagree with not just your facts, but also your thesis. The player has no right to unilaterally change or annul any rule. If the player doesn't like the rules for the character class, then he or she should negotiate with the DM. Whether the player has decided that this rule is mere "fluff" is not at issue, since that's just another change the PC has no right to unilaterally make to the DM's world.

It's not a rule. It is very clearly presented in the fluff section, which is clearly separate from the section discussing rules. It is, in fact, presented in the same section that says warlocks serve the same role in the party as a wizard or sorcerer. Would that make it rule breaking to make a warlock who heals people? And it's not even a fluff change to have a warlock who hasn't made such a pact, considering they're explicitly allowed to instead have ancestors who made such a pact and would therefore have no dealings with any magical beings.

Gavran
2014-11-28, 06:51 PM
Maybe it's the edition I started with, but I am shocked and hugely put off by the inflexibility displayed in this thread.

Some of my favorite unique character concepts build on similar fluff mutability:

The agnostic paladin whose power comes from the fact that he does Good and something approves, but he doesn't know or particularly care what because he just wants to do Good
The cleric who worships not any specific god but all the forgotten gods
A warlock I played who feigned wizardry. Plot hook city but man would it suck if the DM blew it by deciding "no, you're obviously a warlock your power obviously comes from a demon".
The cleric who "worships" an idea and draws their power from the belief others have in that idea

Do you really think vanilla LG paladin or power mad warlock is objectively better than having those options?

Now, I do agree that a break from the traditional fluff should be discussed on character creation but like... clearly you've either made or demanded no effort on that front at all. How does someone write a warlock background that doesn't either a) mention the details of their pact b) mention the lack of a pact. And if you didn't require some kind of background, why are you trying to base plot hooks on them? Hell, I don't and haven't played 3.5 but I find it hard to believe "demon" is the only potential warlock Patron in it even if you do follow the strictest fluff/RAW.

Essentially what I'm getting at here is: your problem isn't refluffing, and refluffing can be really awesome. Your problem is poor or non-existent character background/concept communication.

Jay R
2014-11-28, 07:26 PM
Which is not in any way, shape or form a mechanical bonus.

Call it what you like. It's in the rules, and a player cannot overrule the rulebook without even informing the DM.


Maybe it's the edition I started with, but I am shocked and hugely put off by the inflexibility displayed in this thread.

What inflexibility? Nobody has suggested that exceptions can't happen. Just that a player cannot change the rules to suit himself without even informing the DM. Here are people suggesting flexibility

"I actually found the idea itself interesting and it raised potential questions about where this power came from. The problem is this was never hinted at by this player."

"I would probably not allow a player to suddenly up and decide they get their power from a source which is entirely at odds with the very CONCEPT of that class."

"No, if a player doesn't share something with the DM about his character, that aspect never existed in the game world. While, yes, you should try to work with a player when your background aspects don't jive with how he envisions his character"

"Every character currently has at least one exception. But we talked about them and agreed to them."

"Sometimes these things are debatable."

"Often the DM and player will chat or talk at this point."

Everybody supporting the DM had left open the possibility of being flexible. But in the case we're discussing, flexibility and working things out together were made impossible by the player refusing to tell the DM the rule change he made for his character.

A Tad Insane
2014-11-28, 07:57 PM
Maybe it's the edition I started with, but I am shocked and hugely put off by the inflexibility displayed in this thread.

No, we just don't like people who change the rules without telling anyone, whether it's a dm or player.

D&d is a cooperative game. Even in "player vs dm", the only time people are happy is when both parties agree to the same rules.

Gavran
2014-11-28, 08:00 PM
What inflexibility? Nobody has suggested that exceptions can't happen. Just that a player cannot change the rules to suit himself without even informing the DM. Here are people suggesting flexibility.

Some apology here. I seem to have injected a more negative tone to the thread than is really there. This internet connection is frustratingly bad and the holidays are stressful, but that's all beside the point really. After a second read-through, the worst offense I can really take in this thread is actually your suggestion that refluffing is equivalent to ignoring the rules to make your character better. I don't think anyone refluffs to make their character better, I think they refluff to make their character more interesting. Or just more in line with what excites them to play. And of course, while I don't really have a problem with someone who wants to respect the fluff as law, it is by nature far more mutable than the crunch is. How many people play in original settings? More than not, I think, especially when one considers that even if you're playing a FR campaign you're playing your version of it which is likely significantly different in some ways.

And as I said, this (probably) isn't a player willfully declaring your plot void because "oh wait nope I'm not that kind of warlock after all!" but rather a failure to communicate the background/concept on both parts. Or it is that, but in that case the thread seems to assume the concept of refluffing is as bad as that. That would be a player problem, not a refluffing problem.

Though I should note here that the OP's post especially comes across as inquisitive, not accusatory. I definitely got overly defensive here.

chaos_redefined
2014-11-28, 08:26 PM
My question is: How much of the core rules and truths of the world should you enforce if players want to suddenly change them well after your campaign is underway.
Is it ok to say that your fantasy wizard gets his power from science and technology ok if its only being revealed 6 months into a game or should that only be possible if communicated before the campaign starts?

As stated by others, if the player was always a self-made magic user, and it just never came up, then this is a communication issue.

If it is being changed 6 months after character creation, then there is a problem.

And as long as there is no mechanical effect, then I wouldn't have a problem with that kind of change. (And no, this does not count as a change that has a mechanical effect)

Jay R
2014-11-28, 08:31 PM
Some apology here. I seem to have injected a more negative tone to the thread than is really there.

No problem. An internet discussion at its finest starts with misunderstandings that are then cleared up. For example:


After a second read-through, the worst offense I can really take in this thread is actually your suggestion that refluffing is equivalent to ignoring the rules to make your character better.

Yeah, that would offend me too. But I'm not upset with "refluffing". I'm upset with "refluffing" without telling the DM, and then getting upset with the DM because he planned an adventure in good faith based on what you told him your character was, and he won't let your "re-fluff" make your character better.

Actually, that's just what made the changes obvious. Mostly, I'm upset with changing the rules in any form, including what some people call "re-fluffing", without telling the DM.

But yes - ignoring the rules while hiding it from the DM is equivalent to ignoring the rules while hiding it from the DM. It's just not true that rules that don't have numbers in them cease to be rules. Proposing a change in good faith by negotiation with the DM is very different from hiding your personal rule change from the DM.

I'm currently running a 2E game with a priestess of Athena with an owl familiar, a human mage/fighter, a human wizard using a bow, a bard with an innate feel for magic and an at-will invisibility, and a wizard who never needs material components. I believe in making exceptions for a fun character. But you don't make one for yourself without telling the DM.

Gavran
2014-11-28, 08:35 PM
I definitely agree there. :) The GM is your best co-conspirator! Whether that's in making your character's secrets come out in fun ways, or in enabling your neat character idea to really come to fruition.

Lanaya
2014-11-28, 09:41 PM
Call it what you like. It's in the rules, and a player cannot overrule the rulebook without even informing the DM.

Not everything contained within one of the many rulebooks of the game is a rule. Would it be cheating to play a male dwarf who doesn't like having a beard, thus clearly violating the rules that specifically state they value beards highly? Am I breaking the rules by playing an elf who didn't pick their name some time after their hundredth birthday? Is playing a barbarian who comes from a civilised society (in direct violation to the bit in the PHB saying they're all savages) equivalent to giving myself double skill points, and are all warblades required by RAW to be arrogant? I would ask the DM before doing any serious refluffling of a class I'm going to take, but comparing said refluffing to adding an extra few points of BAB to your character because you want to be more powerful is absurd. Especially since warlocks are explicitly not required to have made a pact with anything, so even the actual fluff of the class doesn't support your argument.

Zale
2014-11-29, 02:51 AM
So I heard people mentioning my favorite class.

So, which warlock are we talking about? I'm assuming we're talking about D&D, just to narrow things down. Now that leaves the 3.5e, the 4e and the 5e Warlocks.

So, I know most about the 3.5 one, some about the 5e and nothing at all about the 4e one.

Here's what I do know though.

The 3.5 Warlock has no requirements that the character make a pact with dark beings for power- at all. There are no class features that demand fealty to a demon, or ones where you have problems being brought back to life (There are PrCs like that in some books, but Warlock isn't one of them.) The background section, which can be ignored if desired as it has no mechanical impact on the game, says this:


Warlocks are born, not made. Some are the descendants of people who trafficked
with demons and devils long ago. Some seek out the dark powers as youths, driven by ambition or the desire for power, but a few blameless individuals are simply marked out by the supernatural forces as
conduits and tools. The exact nature of a warlock’s origin is up to the player to decide..

Which rather neatly disproves all of the objections of how having a Warlock who's magic comes from within is a violation of rules.

Now, if this is a 4e game, I could be completely wrong. But 3.5 has no stipulation set forth.

However, 5e definitely states that your character has some sort of Patron they made a deal with. But- It doesn't state any sort of mechanical difficulties you suffer because of this. It does however state in the background paragraph that your patron expects some compensation though, so I could find it completely understandable to be upset at a player ignoring that.

But it heavily depends on the system in question in the end. I am, however, always in favor of refluffing to fit character concepts better. I once played a Nixie Warlock who used the exact same explanation as the player in the first post- She was refining and sharpening her innate magical powers, which I felt better fit warlocks than sorcerers. (Since there are so many invocations that so wonderfully mesh with fey concepts- you have inhuman charisma, flight, illusions, turning people into animals, DR/Cold Iron, tricking magical items.)

hamishspence
2014-11-29, 03:11 AM
Now, if this is a 4e game, I could be completely wrong. But 3.5 has no stipulation set forth.

However, 5e definitely states that your character has some sort of Patron they made a deal with. But- It doesn't state any sort of mechanical difficulties you suffer because of this. It does however state in the background paragraph that your patron expects some compensation though, so I could find it completely understandable to be upset at a player ignoring that.

4E's is pretty much the same as 5e - a Patron - but no roleplaying limitations.

jedipotter
2014-11-29, 04:26 AM
Not everything contained within one of the many rulebooks of the game is a rule. Would it be cheating to play a male dwarf who doesn't like having a beard, thus clearly violating the rules that specifically state they value beards highly? Am I breaking the rules by playing an elf who didn't pick their name some time after their hundredth birthday? Is playing a barbarian who comes from a civilised society (in direct violation to the bit in the PHB saying they're all savages) equivalent to giving myself double skill points, and are all warblades required by RAW to be arrogant?

It's not just the rules, it is the setting. And this is where it gets tricky, as far too many players think ''the DM is just a player'' and ''players are equal to DMs'' in some weird communal game. Some players actuialy think they can just randomly say ''all dwarves are pirates and love the water and don't have beards and then Force the DM to change the setting it fit their whim or crazy rant.

But in a normal game the DM makes the setting. And while the player has the freedom to make a character's fluff, the DM does not have to change the setting. So a player might want a happy dwarf that likes pink and uses a staff and has no beard....but that character won't fit in with like 75% of the dwarves of the world.

The same way...too many times...a DM has to say something like ''Ok, you can be a drow.....but understand that 99% of the people in the world think drow are evil and will run away or attack on sight. Very few people are just going to be ''oh and evil with dark skin, i will judge him by his actions''. And the tons of players that just ignore this and say ''OK-Day''. Then ten minutes in the game they are all shocked when the towns folk slam closed their doors when the drow approaches.

But if a player wants to add fluff, and not effect the world or their character at all, then it does not matter and they can do it all day long. So Billy can be all happy with is crazy story of how his character ''caught a spirit frog inside him and the frog made him into a warlock''. But it has no game effect.

Jay R
2014-11-29, 09:45 AM
Not everything contained within one of the many rulebooks of the game is a rule. Would it be cheating to play a male dwarf who doesn't like having a beard, thus clearly violating the rules that specifically state they value beards highly?

Not as long as you tell the DM. Otherwise, if the smooth-chinned pirates shoot everyone with a beard, don't complain that you got shot.


Am I breaking the rules by playing an elf who didn't pick their name some time after their hundredth birthday?.

Not at all. But it's not part of the game until you tell the DM. If he invents a childhood friend who doesn't recognize your name, it's your fault, not his.


Is playing a barbarian who comes from a civilised society (in direct violation to the bit in the PHB saying they're all savages) equivalent to giving myself double skill points, and are all warblades required by RAW to be arrogant?

If you tell the DM, fine. But if you try to use the barbarian's civilised background, when the DM doesn't know about it, then yes, you're giving yourself an advantage. Warblades are assumed to be what the rules say unless you explicitly say otherwise - to the DM.


I would ask the DM before doing any serious refluffling of a class I'm going to take, ...

Then we are not in disagreement on any major point. Despite all of your attempts to pretend otherwise, I've said that any change to the rules must go through the DM.


... but comparing said refluffing to adding an extra few points of BAB to your character because you want to be more powerful is absurd.

Changing things that might affect gameplay is affecting things that might affect gameplay.

If you introduce beardlessness when the DM says that your dwarf's beard got caught in the underbrush, ...
If you first mention that the barbarian grew up in this city when the DM assumed you don't know the city streets, ...
If you first say that your elf chose a name differently from other elves after he introduces a childhood friend who doesn't know your current name, ...
If you announce that your Warlock doesn't have a Patron after the DM introduces a plot about your Patron, ...
Then you are changing the game without telling the DM.

And in all four cases, you're mentioning it specifically to give your character options he won't have without it.


Especially since warlocks are explicitly not required to have made a pact with anything, so even the actual fluff of the class doesn't support your argument.

Then why are you arguing with me, when your disagreement is with the OP, who stated that "As the player had picked a Warlock which fluffwise must make a deal with well something if not a demon ..."? We haven't been told what edition it is, so we have to assume the rules as described by the DM. I've played enough different versions that I would never claim I knew what the rules were before asking what edition is being played.

I was replying to the question the OP asked:

How much of the core rules and truths of the world should you enforce if players want to suddenly change them well after your campaign is underway.

My answer is that the player cannot unilaterally change anything after the game started and without talking to the DM about it first. Not "fluff", and not "mechanics". A player cannot change the DM's world without telling him

If a player wants to change some fluff - a beardless dwarf, an elf with a childhood name, a Warlock without a patron, a humble Warblade - at some time when it has no effect on the plot, I'm very easy about it. I even go out of my way to allow some real mechanical improvements. One of my players is a priestess of Athena with an owl Familiar. But if you try to introduce it, without the DM's knowledge or consent, when it will change the immediate moment, then no, I won't allow it.

That's the issue as described by the OP. A player assuming he can introduce a change in the rules for his character's background at a moment when it will affect the plot to the player's benefit, without discussing it with the DM.

If you want to discuss that issue, I will be happy to do so. But I will not waste any more time on your side-issue about fluff and mechanics.

The point isn't about fluff and mechanics. The point is about telling the DM. Despite all your attempts to make my point something else, my main point is you have to tell the DM before you decide something - anything - in the rulebooks doesn't apply to your character..

Knaight
2014-11-30, 06:36 AM
Changing things that might affect gameplay is affecting things that might affect gameplay.

If you introduce beardlessness when the DM says that your dwarf's beard got caught in the underbrush, ...
If you first mention that the barbarian grew up in this city when the DM assumed you don't know the city streets, ...
If you first say that your elf chose a name differently from other elves after he introduces a childhood friend who doesn't know your current name, ...
If you announce that your Warlock doesn't have a Patron after the DM introduces a plot about your Patron, ...
Then you are changing the game without telling the DM.

And in all four cases, you're mentioning it specifically to give your character options he won't have without it.

With that said, a fair few of these make sense as what brings the detail out to begin with - it's a minor character detail that probably wouldn't come up. Beardlessness is a big one here, where it's the sort of detail that could easily go unnoticed unless the character's physiological description was specifically provided, which is more group preference than anything.

Milodiah
2014-12-01, 11:28 AM
With that said, a fair few of these make sense as what brings the detail out to begin with - it's a minor character detail that probably wouldn't come up. Beardlessness is a big one here, where it's the sort of detail that could easily go unnoticed unless the character's physiological description was specifically provided, which is more group preference than anything.

Reminds me of a game I played where individual height beyond species' Size classes came up in a confined underground cavern. The one player who had previously established that his character was very tall went in first, and the DM started describing how difficult it was for him to squeeze through because of how big he was.

Then everyone but me got retroactively shorter, since that guy and I were the only people who had previously ascribed actual numbers to our characters' physical dimensions. It's one of the things affected by what's called "Schrodinger's Gun". In a work of fiction (especially collaborative fiction like D&D) nothing is concrete except what has been previously established. Different people put different amounts of work into concretely setting things beforehand, but something always gets missed.

Psyren
2014-12-01, 12:04 PM
First off OP you're actually mistaken - a Warlock's ancestor can also be the the one to have made the pact. But this actually works fine with the player's concept too. He may have learned to "control the magic within himself" - but that doesn't mean he knows where it came from, nor does it mean that he personally doesn't owe anything to an external power despite not having made any deals himself. It's quite possible to make a deal that binds ones descendants - just ask Roy Greenhilt.

But ultimately this comes down to a failure of communication. Moreso on him than you, because if he is using a very specific variant of {class X fluff} then its his responsibility to make that known to you, just like I would not merely assume you knew my cleric is a cleric of an Ideal or that my druid venerates the concept of Death unless I told you so.