Is fluff from different editions canon? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

gogogome

2014-12-26, 07:42 PM

One of players brought in 5e fluff, saying it's the same universe, and 5e is an update in lore.

My biggest disagreement is, after giving 5e a brief read-through, they don't allow clerics with no deities, so that's a no in my opinion.

What do you think?

Specifically, he wanted the "The touch of a demon", "the dragon who put a drop of its blood into your veins", and "the lich who created you as an experiment" fluffs for the origin of sorcerer powers, but the 3.5 PHB said sorcerers powers are inborn, innate, develops at puberty, and part of the sorcerer's soul. I have a hard time believing any of these physical interactions can affect the soul.

Furthermore, 4e had some weird fluff about sorcerers having 2nd souls inside them. I'm saying "no, 5e is a different game, so fluff doesn't transfer over. Creators wanted sorcerers to be born with draconic blood (or similar), so tough luck. If you want to gain magic powers after birth, play a wizard."

I am right now saying "the origins of your powers is unclear, and your theories maybe wrong" as the official origin of his character's powers, and just went on with the game, but am I wrong in this?

Also, how about dragon magazine? He said in the dragon compendium fey creatures kidnap babies and raise them, which turns them into sorcerers, saying sorcery can be obtained after birth. I saw that article and it was about fey bloodline powers. Dragon magazine has too many crazy stuff so I don't allow any of it, ever, but is the stuff there official updates of the game?

I know it wouldn't hurt to let him pick the origin of his character as he wants, but I am a bit of a nerd, so I don't want to change the universe to fit his whims.

But that aside, is fluff from different editions canon?

edit:changed topic question to be more accurate of what I'm asking.

Gracht Grabmaw

2014-12-26, 07:51 PM

First of all, if you like clerics without deities, you're bad at clergy.
Secondly, anything written in the books is there to serve your game and you don't have to stick to it. If something doesn't suit you or your players, change it. You're the DM, it's your call.

Vhaidara

2014-12-26, 07:53 PM

Very much. Fluff is fluff. As long as it remains fluff, and therefore has no mechanical impact on the game, I am generally okay with my players doing whatever they want. In fact, I am generally all for going AGAINST established fluff. Established fluff is for normal members of the class. The PCs, pretty much by definition, aren't normal.

Hell, one of my favorite races is one where I make a massive change to the premise of the fluff: Warforged. By the official fluff, they are a very new race, just coming into its own. I personally prefer my warforged as relics of an ancient time (minimum age 1000)

Also, for the sorcerer thing, consider this: Everyone has the potential to be a sorcerer (just like any other class). Those events (kidnapped by fey, touched by a demon, experimented on by a lich) could have been what awakened that potential. If it has an RP effect, like the lich one being more prone to necromancy or the demon one being more prone to Evil magic, then it makes sense. The event that awakened their potential influenced the nature of that potential.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-12-26, 07:58 PM

Uh, the 3.X sorcerer fluff is left deliberately open to interpretation. The dragon's blood is very much presented as a possibility, not a requirement.

Fluff isn't rules. It has to line up with the rules, but if you want your sorcerer to get his powers from a metaphysical scar left by a powerful magical entity when he was a baby, that can work fine.

Things can get even more non-standard. I can make a warforged warlock that is actually a human whose body was rebuilt with magitech, and now one of his arms can turn into a variety of magic tools that fire off his warlock powers. It's not what is presented in warforged fluff or warlock fluff, but it works.

Edit:

First of all, if you like clerics without deities, you're bad at clergy.

What? I'm not playing a cleric. I'm playing a faith warrior. It just happens to have the same stats.

gogogome

2014-12-26, 08:04 PM

Things can get even more non-standard. I can make a warforged warlock that is actually a human whose body was rebuilt with magitech, and now one of his arms can turn into a variety of magic tools that fire off his warlock powers. It's not what is presented in warforged fluff or warlock fluff, but it works.

I know it doesn't make a difference mechanically, but I wouldn't allow this. Changing a human into a construct would make you at best an Iron half-golem with like 10 limbs re-attached, and you gained your warlock powers by making a pact with a devil, but I wouldn't allow a scientist reconstructing a human into a warforged and creating a warlock powersource inside him.

Again, it doesn't make a difference mechanically, it may work in your modified d&d universe, but not the universe the game creators made. I'm a bit of a nerd with OCD when it comes to this stuff.

3.x sorcerer fluff doesn't have to be draconic, I'll give you that, but it does say you have to be born with it. The backgrounds, the adventuring reasons, and even other books (complete mage if I remember correctly).

For one of his characters, he said mnemonic enhancer's material component is black dragon blood, so his character is going to buy one at negligible cost since it's less than 1gp, and then inject himself with it to become a sorcerer. Again, I have trouble believing that this physical change affects his soul. PHB clearly said sorcerer's power is part of his soul.

Also, for the sorcerer thing, consider this: Everyone has the potential to be a sorcerer (just like any other class).

I don't quite believe this. If in a barbarian tribe a guy becomes a sorcerer, why can't the jealous guys also become sorcerers? Demographics suggest sorcerers are extremely rare, there is even mention of only 1 sorcerer being born in every generation for a particular dragon ancestry, but by your logic anyone jealous of a sorcerer can try real hard and become a sorcerer, skewing the demographics.

First of all, if you like clerics without deities, you're bad at clergy.

I'm not saying I like clerics without deities. I'm saying it's allowed in 3.5, but not in 5e, therefore those two editions are different games with incompatible fluff.

Vhaidara

2014-12-26, 08:21 PM

I don't quite believe this. If in a barbarian tribe a guy becomes a sorcerer, why can't the jealous guys also become sorcerers? Demographics suggest sorcerers are extremely rare, there is even mention of only 1 sorcerer being born in every generation for a particular dragon ancestry, but by your logic anyone jealous of a sorcerer can try real hard and become a sorcerer, skewing the demographics.

Because it's random if your power is awakened or not. You don't choose to be a sorcerer IC, it is something that happens to you. Remember: the PCs are the exception to the rule. They are the one in a million chance. They are different from the normal.

Also, by your reasoning, a Warforged sorcerer is impossible. The fact that Warforged can become sorcerers is evidence that blood has nothing to do with it. And since it is debated whether or not Warforged have souls, but it is undeniable that they can become sorcerers, it extends that the soul has nothing to do with being a sorcerer.

Forrestfire

2014-12-26, 08:39 PM

I know it doesn't make a difference mechanically, but I wouldn't allow this. Changing a human into a construct would make you at best an Iron half-golem with like 10 limbs re-attached, and you gained your warlock powers by making a pact with a devil, but I wouldn't allow a scientist reconstructing a human into a warforged and creating a warlock powersource inside him.

Again, it doesn't make a difference mechanically, it may work in your modified d&d universe, but not the universe the game creators made. I'm a bit of a nerd with OCD when it comes to this stuff.

3.x sorcerer fluff doesn't have to be draconic, I'll give you that, but it does say you have to be born with it. The backgrounds, the adventuring reasons, and even other books (complete mage if I remember correctly).

For one of his characters, he said mnemonic enhancer's material component is black dragon blood, so his character is going to buy one at negligible cost since it's less than 1gp, and then inject himself with it to become a sorcerer. Again, I have trouble believing that this physical change affects his soul. PHB clearly said sorcerer's power is part of his soul.

I don't quite believe this. If in a barbarian tribe a guy becomes a sorcerer, why can't the jealous guys also become sorcerers? Demographics suggest sorcerers are extremely rare, there is even mention of only 1 sorcerer being born in every generation for a particular dragon ancestry, but by your logic anyone jealous of a sorcerer can try real hard and become a sorcerer, skewing the demographics.

While I doubt that merely injecting yourself with dragon blood would work to give sorcerer powers (off the top of my head, the best example of giving someone such an ability in 3.5 is by using magic to alter their body in the womb, as shown by the Bazareene family of Manifest), I find it a bit sad that you're so inflexible on, say, Warlock, when even in 3.5, Warlocks could get their powers from a wide variety of things. Complete Mage introduces the ability to be powered similarly to Favored Souls (warlock powers granted by a chaotic god) as well as warlocks who gained their abilities from fey blood or a pact with a fey.

There are examples (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070328) of elven warlocks who have no pact or blood, and merely gained their abilities from being born in a period of magical turmoil, as well as those who are empowered by eladrin or elemental blood. Eberron introduced a race of drow whose warlocks gain their power through a connection to a well of spiritual power called the Umbra. There are likely few others I didn't get to digging up to use as examples.

Not only that, but changing a human into a warforged is something that's definitely doable, albeit through a combination of powerful abilities or a prestige class. There are also warforged grafts, and anyone who is good enough at using magic items can utilize warforged components. It's not hard to imagine that a character's backstory might involve them, or some other fluff. It's doable mechanically and fluffwise, so why not let a hypothetical player who wants to play a warforged fluffed as a cyborg use their idea? It just doesn't make sense, to me, that if you're such a stickler for fluff, you'd ignore the fact that the fluff for it already exists.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-12-26, 08:40 PM

Brookshw

2014-12-26, 08:56 PM

Huh, the cleric question is almost half crunch rather than fluff. In general though I'm more than happy to use old fluff, I definitely draw heavily on 1e & 2e fluff, especially if I dislike newer fluff or it was never updated.

Zanos

2014-12-26, 09:03 PM

Outside of extreme cases*, I let people fluff their character as they please. I've always felt that the game should be about enabling character concepts as long as they fit your game world.

Your ancestor being a powerful lich that (used transmutation magic?) to have a child, devil/dragon/demon/daemon/angelic/whatever blood, being born amid a magical battle, etc. all seem like pretty valid reasons for a character to have a natural inclination to arcane magic to me.

You should just ask yourself if allowing the concept breaks the established fluff of your setting. I've found that in most cases*, it's fine.

There are good mechanical reasons, however, to disallow clerics without a deity, since it allows domain cherrypicking that tends to make certain very cheesy builds function better. But again, if it's appropriate in your setting to have a cleric of something other than a deity, go for it.

*I've seen things you people wouldn't want to believe.

gogogome

2014-12-26, 09:17 PM

Edited title to make it more clear what I'm asking. Sorry for the misunderstanding :smallbiggrin:

Your ancestor being a powerful lich that (used transmutation magic?) to have a child, devil/dragon/demon/daemon/angelic/whatever blood, being born amid a magical battle, etc. all seem like pretty valid reasons for a character to have a natural inclination to arcane magic to me.

Those are all valid reasons.

But 5e says:
1. Touch of a demon can give you sorcery
2. Drop of a dragon's blood into your blood can give you sorcery
3. Lich experiments on you and creates a sorcerer out of you.
4. You drink water from a magical spring (fey forest?)

I find these hard to accept with the PHB descriptions of sorcerers.

There are examples (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070328) of elven warlocks who have no pact or blood, and merely gained their abilities from being born in a period of magical turmoil, as well as those who are empowered by eladrin or elemental blood. Eberron introduced a race of drow whose warlocks gain their power through a connection to a well of spiritual power called the Umbra. There are likely few others I didn't get to digging up to use as examples.

Yes, I find those acceptable. I need something at least from an official source supporting your claims.

I also never said warlock packs have to be devilish. It can be demonic, fey, etc.

Jeraa

2014-12-26, 09:17 PM

gogogome

2014-12-26, 09:19 PM

Even if you require sorcerers to be born with their powers, you can always fluff them as only activating once something has been done.

The character always had the capability of being a sorcerer, but his powers were latent and didn't manifest until he was "touched by a demon", or "a dragon puts a drop of its blood into your veins". The power was always there, it just hadn't awoken yet.

Yes, i would accept that, because it's perfectly reasonable with the official fluffs, but the person in question wants a person born as a commoner to attain sorcery through his own effort. That's why he brought in 5e.

Vhaidara

2014-12-26, 09:20 PM

Okay, the answer to your new question.

IIRC, technically, they are. I think I remember hearing something about WotC updating the settings with each edition.

In practice, however, hell no.

gogogome

2014-12-26, 09:23 PM

In practice, however, hell no.

What do you mean in practice? If it is canon then you can just adjust all the campaign settings to fit whatever game edition you want, and you can use whatever fluff from any edition.

Forrestfire

2014-12-26, 09:25 PM

Yes, i would accept that, because it's perfectly reasonable with the official fluffs, but the person in question wants a person born as a commoner to attain sorcery through his own effort. That's why he brought in 5e.

When you think about it, there's probably diluted magic blood in almost everyone in 3.5. The bloodlines go back dozens of generations, and there's supernatural pairings all over the place. If Ghengis Khan had so many children that about 1 in 200 people are related to him, it might be that a 1200-year-old black dragon wyrm way in the past had a similar amount, and nowadays it's diluted to the point where it wouldn't show up as 'black dragon bloodline' if you looked at it with some sort of magical DNA analysis, but for this character in particular, injecting himself with black dragon blood, combined with a perfect storm of other factors (born under the right stars, recessive and dominant genes just right, natural force of personality), it worked for him.

At which point you have a commoner who basically got sorcerous powers through his own effort and luck, rather than someone who was born with it.

Vhaidara

2014-12-26, 09:26 PM

What do you mean in practice? If it is canon then you can just adjust all the campaign settings to fit whatever game edition you want.

No one actually pays attention to it. For example, by the fluff of 5e, clearly things like Incarnum and martial adepts (Tome of Battle) doesn't exist. Should that mean that they no longer exist in a 3.5 setting? Not at all.

The big one is that I heard they removed Psionics in the 4e->5e transition by literally having everything psionic die. Does that mean everything Psionic is dead? Not at all.

gogogome

2014-12-26, 09:29 PM

No one actually pays attention to it. For example, by the fluff of 5e, clearly things like Incarnum and martial adepts (Tome of Battle) doesn't exist. Should that mean that they no longer exist in a 3.5 setting? Not at all.

The big one is that I heard they removed Psionics in the 4e->5e transition by literally having everything psionic die. Does that mean everything Psionic is dead? Not at all.

I agree with you about those stuff.

Instead of thinking "If it works in 3.5, will it work in 5e?" I'm thinking "If it works in 5e, will it work in 3.5?"

What you're saying is if it works in 3.5, but not in 5e, it still works, just that no one knows how to use it. I agree.

But from what you're saying, you're saying 5e fluff works in 3.5, so I should allow the player to have his fluff about a demon's touch giving him sorcery, or finding a fey creature and trying his/her best to appease it for sorcery.

Do you have some sort of official statement that newer editions are updates to the game world? That will shut me up for good.

Jeraa

2014-12-26, 09:31 PM

What one edition says ultimately has no impact on any other edition. And ultimately, fluff is meaningless. It is mechanics that is important. Fluff tends to vary from setting to setting. Mechanics, no so much.

Side Note: Psionics can still work in 5e. With the Spell Point variant in the DMG, you can fluff that as power points. Spell points are used to buy spell slots when casting a spell, and a spells effects are dependent on the spell slot used now. Depending on how you look at it, 5e spellcasting is basically 3.5e Expanded Psionics Handbook mechanics converted to spell slots. (And with the Spell Point variant, back to power points).

Hiro Protagonest

2014-12-26, 09:36 PM

Instead of thinking "If it works in 3.5, will it work in 5e?" I'm thinking "If it works in 5e, will it work in 3.5?"

But 3.5 fluff isn't a monolithic thing. Not even close. Some kinda Greyhawk/Points of Light setting exists in 3.5 as the default. Forgotten Realms is pretty similar, I guess, but there's no rules for the Mythal or whatever. Then there's Eberron. Then there's those people who want to play in Dark Sun using 3.5 rules, or Golarion, or Spelljammer, or some homebrew setting in a primordial era close to the dawn of time.

The question is not "will it work in 3.5?". Of course it works in 3.5. How the sorcerer gets his powers doesn't matter, they act like 3.5 sorcerer powers. The question is "will it work in this setting?".

Vhaidara

2014-12-26, 09:37 PM

No, I don't have a source. But the fact that fluff is fundamentally mutable and can therefore be anything you want favors the argument of allowing the player.

Examples:
A Warforged character who used Incarnum. I refluffed it as mechanical additions that he rerouted power to.

Another Warforged, this one a Soulknife. Instead of making a blade of psychic energy, he used a minor psionic creation effect to produce small wrist mounted knives (think the Hidden Blade from Assassin's Creed). They dissipated quickly when away from him (allowing him to throw them without giving him infinite material to sell)

Mehangel

2014-12-26, 09:42 PM

Do you have some sort of official statement that newer editions are updates to the game world? That will shut me up for good.

How official are we talking about? What I mean to say is that if you look at the Campaign Setting for Forgotten Realms, it is very clear that the transition from 3.5 to 4th edition really updated the game world. Just look-up Spell-plague and 4th edition... But I personally am never one to deny another player the chance to fluff out his character to make it "unique" to that particular world. I honestly dont care if it breaks every "rule" of the setting, just as long as it doesnt have any mechanical effect on the game. There are plenty of reasons why a character may have awakened his sorcery talent outside the norm, some of which are very easy to dismiss as "Your parents are from Sigil and are thus not subject to ALL the laws of the game world setting."

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2014-12-26, 09:47 PM

gogogome

2014-12-26, 09:55 PM

Each new edition has had its own stories and its own fluff. This could be viewed as the events which caused magic and physics within the game world (i.e. the games' rules) to change. None of that has come to pass if you're still playing 3.5, so none of that is present in the current game. Those events and fluff are just one possible future for the game.

In this specific case, that doesn't matter. I don't think anything can change sorcery, or wizardry, or even warlock stuff. They're all pretty similar across editions.

But according to you, then yes, it's all canon and the player's origin of sorcery powers is all official and canon in 3.5. Those editions are the future, it hasn't happened yet, but if it's possible in the future it's possible here too, since there is no technological or magical knowledge gap. Especially true for sources of magic.

jedipotter

2014-12-26, 10:11 PM

But that aside, is fluff from different editions canon?

Guess it depends what you mean by ''canon''. Are there flying dwarves? Well, you won't find them in any rule book. So does that mean you can't have them in your game, just as they are not in any book?

Each edition is utterly another game from any other edition. For D&D: 1 to 3 kinda flowed together, but 4 went off the rails and 5 is back, but on a bumpy road.

the 3.5 PHB said sorcerers powers are inborn, innate, develops at puberty, and part of the sorcerer's soul. I have a hard time believing any of these physical interactions can affect the soul.

So someone scribbled down a couple words to vaguely describe sorcerers. Is there some reason you feel so bound and following this? Why does the scribble matter? Sure, the PHB says All sorcerer's gained their powers during puberty. So your taking this single line to be absolute fact? You can't say ''there are lots of ways to become a sorcerer?''. Too bad the writer did not write something like ''most sorcerers develop powers during puberty'' or even ''there are dozens of ways a sorcerer can have gained the power of magic in their blood, and lots of sorcerers are unique''.

If you want some rules fun, try this: A character can take any class at any time. So a 15th level fighter, who is 30 years old and has absolutely no history of 'magic that formed when he was in puberty', can take a level in sorcerer. So how to you handle that fluff? He never had the puberty magic, but he is now a first level sorcerer.

I don't see a problem with ''a demon touched me'' or ''I got dragon blood'' or a ''lich experimented on me'' or ''you drank from the magic spring''. I would allow any for the fluff of a sorcerer . It does not ''hurt'' the class for me. I like the idea of some random, unique sorcerers. Though I'd make it so a demon can't just ''touch a town and turn them into sorcerers'', I'd add a bit more like ''the demon must graft bits of itself on to the organs of the person in a magical ritual that takes weeks. Same way you can't just ''drink dragon blood'', you need to ''undergo the dragon blood ritual''. But I do like the magic spring, so that is fine....drink from the spring and you can take a level in sorcerer is just fine with me.....but the spring would have other effects too.

Your not ''changing the universe'' your ''making the universe more interesting and amazing''.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2014-12-26, 10:26 PM

In this specific case, that doesn't matter. I don't think anything can change sorcery, or wizardry, or even warlock stuff. They're all pretty similar across editions.

But according to you, then yes, it's all canon and the player's origin of sorcery powers is all official and canon in 3.5. Those editions are the future, it hasn't happened yet, but if it's possible in the future it's possible here too, since there is no technological or magical knowledge gap. Especially true for sources of magic.

Not necessarily. If something about the game world changes that drastically changes the nature of how magic works, i.e. 3.5 to 4e to 5e, then the possible sources of magical power will also change. Since the nature of how magic works has not changed across those editions yet, the sources of magic from those editions are not yet valid.

TypoNinja

2014-12-26, 10:57 PM

Okay, the answer to your new question.

IIRC, technically, they are. I think I remember hearing something about WotC updating the settings with each edition.

In practice, however, hell no.

Yea, if memory serves its basically an evolving story, and each edition adds to it. Though lately they've done some really stupid **** to their setting to try and explain massive rules changes, so I'd say stay away from fluff from an edition you don't play. 4th edition gave us the spell plague and all kinds of ****, if you are in 3rd you are essentially now playing in the past as far as lore is concerned. 4th and 5th edition lore is stuff that hasn't happened yet in the context of a 3rd game, so it may be appropriate to disallow it, because the reasons for it existing at all aren't there yet.

Sir Chuckles

2014-12-26, 11:47 PM

The beautiful thing about being the DM is that it means that you also happen to be the author and that all that is written in the books, especially when it comes to fluff, has been written by your co-authors.

Vhaidara

2014-12-26, 11:49 PM

BWR

2014-12-27, 12:06 AM

First of all, if you like clerics without deities, you're bad at clergy.

Say what?
Elemental priests, philosophy priests, priests of the Great Unknown, being able to cast 2nd level cleric spells on your own without any external power source and everyone who's ignored gods for their clerics and had fun disagree with you.

Re the OP: even moreso than mechanics, fluff is what the DM says it is. If you don't like a particular piece of fluff for a setting or backstory or specific game mechanic, don't feel obliged to bring it in just because a player wants it. A player can ask for something. A player shouldn't expect the DM to allow new fluff or change existing fluff willy-nilly simply because it's in a book. A DM should, in general, consider the proposed changes and see if it messes with the game too much to allow. If it does, discard it without a second thought. If all the changes do is be somewhat annoying, consider how important it is to the player to have it vs. it is for you to not have it. If it's just a momentary annoyance which has no real impact on the game, is it a big deal to allow it?

The problem I've had with wanting to change or add to existing fluff, especially the fluff tied to mechanics, is that this is usually tied to special snowflake characters.

Mando Knight

2014-12-27, 12:12 AM

Specifically, he wanted the "The touch of a demon", "the dragon who put a drop of its blood into your veins", and "the lich who created you as an experiment" fluffs for the origin of sorcerer powers, but the 3.5 PHB said sorcerers powers are inborn, innate, develops at puberty, and part of the sorcerer's soul. I have a hard time believing any of these physical interactions can affect the soul.

Furthermore, 4e had some weird fluff about sorcerers having 2nd souls inside them. I'm saying "no, 5e is a different game, so fluff doesn't transfer over. Creators wanted sorcerers to be born with draconic blood (or similar), so tough luck. If you want to gain magic powers after birth, play a wizard."

I think you're misunderstanding magic. Magic is as magic does, and "soul" and "lifeblood" are metaphysically intertwined (as in, "heart and soul"). The "Dragon Soul" of a 4e Dragon Sorcerer isn't a second soul, but the sorcerer's soul is one imbued with the magical power of a dragon.

It's similar to one's vitae in Vampire, where consuming the entirety of another's blood allows you to devour their soul as well, giving you a portion of their power to add to your own.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-27, 12:22 AM

http://archive.wizards.com/Dnd/Print.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120821

says it right there, 2nd arcane feral soul trapped in your body.

Mando Knight

2014-12-27, 12:43 AM

http://archive.wizards.com/Dnd/Print.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120821

says it right there, 2nd arcane feral soul trapped in your body.

Except that's not what made it to print. What's in the Player's Handbook 2 and Arcane Power is back to the more standard "magic is in your blood" stuff.

Forrestfire

2014-12-27, 01:12 AM

Don't you mean you are the Authyr?

pleasedon'tkillme

Basically, yes

Psyren

2014-12-27, 01:18 AM

Except that's not what made it to print. What's in the Player's Handbook 2 and Arcane Power is back to the more standard "magic is in your blood" stuff.

This is correct:

"Power Source: Arcane. Arcane magic is in your blood, as a touch of either ancient draconic power or untamed chaos energy, and you unleash it through sheer force of will and physical discipline."

"They gain their power not through rigorous study of esoteric tomes, but by harnessing magic in their blood, waiting to be tapped and shaped."

RoboEmperor

2014-12-27, 03:37 AM

This is correct:

"Power Source: Arcane. Arcane magic is in your blood, as a touch of either ancient draconic power or untamed chaos energy, and you unleash it through sheer force of will and physical discipline."

"They gain their power not through rigorous study of esoteric tomes, but by harnessing magic in their blood, waiting to be tapped and shaped."

But the PHB in 3.5 says sorcerer's magical power is part of his soul. Blood affects soul? XD. For such a popular game, I thought they'd have massive amounts of lore books, especially compared to normal video games like elder scrolls. But no, instead, they have the occasional paragraph. I guess they intentionally left it vague so you can be whatever you want.

Boon for creative people, bane for people like the OP of this thread.

Forrestfire

2014-12-27, 03:40 AM

Actually, yes, it does. Blood definitely affects the soul, as evidenced by the Planetouched, half-Outsiders, and those with the Otherworldly feat. All three of those owe their specialness to varying amounts of outsider in their bloodline, and it causes their soul to be fundamentally different from that of a normal humanoid. There are examples of races with what amount to physical disabilities as a result of their bloodline being tainted by unlife, whose souls ping on detect spells as Undead. They are still Humanoids, and are otherwise treated as such. Blood is very much related to soul in D&D; the body and soul are technically separate units but very closely linked.

While there aren't generally mechanical effects related to dragon souls, it's not a large leap of logic to get from that to dragonblood in sorcerers affecting their soul. After all, dragons are the magical creature in D&D...

EDIT: Also, D&D does have massive amounts of lore books, it's just that they're generally based on something more substantial than elaborating on an open-ended character background hook from the Player's Handbook. Lords of Madness, Libris Mortis, the two Fiendish Codices, a few other books... On top of the dedicated theme books, every book has extra fluff tidbits, they're just scattered.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-27, 04:01 AM

EDIT: Also, D&D does have massive amounts of lore books, it's just that they're generally based on something more substantial than elaborating on an open-ended character background hook from the Player's Handbook. Lords of Madness, Libris Mortis, the two Fiendish Codices, a few other books... On top of the dedicated theme books, every book has extra fluff tidbits, they're just scattered.

Except none on how sorcerer's magic works XD

Forrestfire

2014-12-27, 04:07 AM

Psyren

2014-12-27, 04:12 AM

RoboEmperor

2014-12-27, 04:12 AM

Hence, none on said open-ended character background hook. There are small pieces of fluff for sorcerer power sources scattered (fey heritage, outsiders of all types, elemental, genetic engineering, planar effects, weirder stuff), but most of them agree that it's based on the blood or something happening to the blood, which as noted, would probably affect the soul.

Wait... what? Genetic engineering! Give me a source on that! I wanna read about it! And the weirder stuff. I'm sure the OP is interested too. Any method that might allow a sorcerer to gain its powers rather than be born with it.

As I told you last time you posted that link above, that's a 4e article. But as Mando told you, the text in that article never made it to the 4e books.

None of it has anything to do with 3.5.

OP said he read that article in the 1st post, and why he says he doesn't think fluff is valid across editions. Just quoted it for reference.

Forrestfire

2014-12-27, 04:30 AM

In the Ghostwalk campaign setting, there's a noble family in Manifest who uses a spell to alter their children in the womb, granting them sorcerous potential and the ability to take a pair of feats that increase their spell save DCs (it also makes their eyes green).

The specific weirder stuff I was thinking of was some ACFs for EberronDr351, where your sorcerer's power comes from having the "blood of" Khyber/Eberron/Siberys... The issue being that those are landmasses (or a ring of dragonshards/the sky) that either used to be dragons (before there was anyone to descend from) or are just named after some. There's also getting more power by worshipping BoccobDr357, being connected to Mystra (Blessed of the Seven SistersPGtF), or learning to be a jester (Jester's MagicWaterdeep). You can also be any humanoid with no weird blood at all, and when turned into a DragonspawnDLCS, you get a level of the class' spellcasting.

Sorcerers are pretty varied, really.

Madhava

2014-12-27, 04:32 AM

I'm not saying I like clerics without deities. I'm saying it's allowed in 3.5, but not in 5e, therefore those two editions are different games with incompatible fluff.

I see the Clerics-need-a-deity thing to be related moreso to setting, rather than related to edition. It behooves any character to choose a diety if you're playing Forgotten Realms, truly. If one does not choose a deity, then Very Bad Things may happen, unless you are very good at never dying ever. And I want to say that it's been this way ever since 2E? I could be wrong about 2nd. But it was definitely true in 3rd.

5E default setting = Forgotten Realms, and so it follows.

The big one is that I heard they removed Psionics in the 4e->5e transition by literally having everything psionic die.
:smallconfused: I think any remaining mote of curiosity I'd had about 5E has just died.

Knaight

2014-12-27, 04:50 AM

One of players brought in 5e fluff, saying it's the same universe, and 5e is an update in lore.

My biggest disagreement is, after giving 5e a brief read-through, they don't allow clerics with no deities, so that's a no in my opinion.

What do you think?

They are different games, there's no particular reason that they would apply. With that said, I'm generally of the opinion that the official canon fluff can safely be ignored. The actual examples all seem like fun character origins, and unless they conflict with something important enough in the actual setting in use to shoot down, I wouldn't do so.

Sure, the suggested sorcerer fluff is that it was inborn. The mechanics just reflect the absence of book learning seen in wizards. Including the 5e stuff isn't even a real contradiction, as it doesn't remove the inborn power. It does have a bit of a kitchen sink feel, but unless you're going way away from the default setting D&D is having a kitchen sink feel regardless.

:smallconfused: I think any remaining mote of curiosity I'd had about 5E has just died.
The default setting is an irrelevant and easily ignored side note anyways. This can be blown off, and I fully expect to see a psionic splat at some point.

Ashtagon

2014-12-27, 05:03 AM

As long as the fluff of a PC is compatible with the existingcampaign setting fluff with no need to stretch established lore, it can go in without question.

If it stretches things, that's a GM call. If it would require the PC to be a designated bad-guy race, introduces powers that canonically don't exist in the setting, or contradicts existing setting geography, it's almost certainly a no-no.

Coidzor

2014-12-27, 05:04 AM

4e and 5e fluff are non-canon to 3.5 games unless the DM wishes it to be so.

AD&D fluff, on the other hand, depends completely upon what setting the DM is playing in as to whether its fluff is canon.

If you're playing in a custom setting then obviously no fluff is canon save what the DM indicates for that setting.

If you're playing a Planescape game, well, 90% of the fluff you're using is from AD&D Planescape and the fan community.

If you're playing a Dark Sun game, again, the vast majority of the fluff is stuff from AD&D with mechanics having been adapted by the group or other fans.

Forgotten Realms has several books just for fluff which are still canon save where they've been contradicted by later sources and which are largely accurate up till the Time of Troubles which is the dividing line between AD&D and 3rd Edition, IIRC.

Greyhawk similarly has the vast majority of its fluff covered in AD&D with most of its 3e stuff being basically collated or mined and reprinted in an abridged form.

Eberron has no fluff prior to 3e unless you count Keith Baker's personal notes.

Birthright and other settings which have just not been updated to 3e leave one having to go back to AD&D for the fluff without anything beyond some scattered efforts that fans who have gone before have done.

That said...

One of players brought in 5e fluff, saying it's the same universe, and 5e is an update in lore.

5e is an entirely separate game system. If you were playing 5e and wanted to feel like you had a metanarrative then you could accept some headnods towards the idea of such, but 5e is 5e, 4e is 4e Essentials, 3e is 3.5, 2e is AD&D, and 1e is OD&D. :smalltongue:

My biggest disagreement is, after giving 5e a brief read-through, they don't allow clerics with no deities, so that's a no in my opinion.

Don't look at me. I haven't a clue as to why Forgotten Realms is so popular either.

Specifically, he wanted the "The touch of a demon", "the dragon who put a drop of its blood into your veins", and "the lich who created you as an experiment" fluffs for the origin of sorcerer powers, but the 3.5 PHB said sorcerers powers are inborn, innate, develops at puberty, and part of the sorcerer's soul. I have a hard time believing any of these physical interactions can affect the soul.

You don't even need to bring in fluff from 5e for those to be plausible origin stories for an S-Man.

Sneezing funny or reading a mis-printed bazooka joe comic strip such that one utters words of power are also plausible origins for sorcerous power.

It's quite open-ended like that. :smalltongue:

(Though, generally speaking, being sexually molested by a demon probably should not be encouraged as an origin story for a PC, unless you're going for a very specific type of game.)

Furthermore, 4e had some weird fluff about sorcerers having 2nd souls inside them. I'm saying "no, 5e is a different game, so fluff doesn't transfer over. Creators wanted sorcerers to be born with draconic blood (or similar), so tough luck. If you want to gain magic powers after birth, play a wizard."

You started out so well and then went in the wrong direction entirely. :/ It doesn't matter that the creators had a fetish for dragon blood.

I am right now saying "the origins of your powers is unclear, and your theories maybe wrong" as the official origin of his character's powers, and just went on with the game, but am I wrong in this?

That's basically what the game ends up leaving the general origins of sorcerous power. There's a lot of theories and some may be correct in some cases and not in others and some may be completely incorrect but they sound fun and make a good story.

Also, how about dragon magazine?

There have been supplements to canon in both Dragon Magazine articles as well as on the WOTC website. Keith Baker had a series called Dragonshards, IIRC, that fleshed out Eberron.

He said in the dragon compendium fey creatures kidnap babies and raise them, which turns them into sorcerers, saying sorcery can be obtained after birth. I saw that article and it was about fey bloodline powers. Dragon magazine has too many crazy stuff so I don't allow any of it, ever, but is the stuff there official updates of the game?

Official updates of the game? :smallconfused: I think you've got entirely the wrong idea here. Granted, being married to canonocity while playing D&D is also kinda missing the point of being able to change the game to suit the needs and taste of those playing. :smallconfused:

But that aside, is fluff from different editions canon?

No, and the idea that it's "just an update to the lore" is a silly one that misses the entire point of metanarratives and the nature of giant crossover events in comics.

I know it wouldn't hurt to let him pick the origin of his character as he wants, but I am a bit of a nerd, so I don't want to change the universe to fit his whims.

That's, uh, that's not being a nerd. Or really even changing the universe, necessarily. What setting are you even playing in? :smallconfused:

gogogome

2014-12-27, 07:59 AM

Thanks for your input everyone.

I might be able to work out a compromise.

I still need something.

Does anyone know anyway a commoner who for a fact has no extraplanar blood in his ancestry gain sorcery?

Is there a creature with a specific example of bestowing sorcery? Fey has been mentioned a lot.

Wish seems powerful, but I'm having trouble how a mere child (since people start adventuring at 16) have access to a glabrezu or pit fiend.

Warlocks seem simple, they make pacts with magical beings, but can they opt to go for sorcery instead? An example of this would completely solve everyone's problem. It might not be a huge jump to say that creatures who bestow warlocks their powers can also bestow sorcery.

Re-reading warlock fluff from complete arcane and mage, devils/demons/fey/celestials/slaadi empower them by giving them fragments of their strength, so why can't that end in sorcery?

Warlocks skip spells and directly throw magical energy. Can they opt to not skip spells and use spells to direct their magical energy? So like instead of casting invocations, they ignore that method and focus on spells.

There seems to be a lot of magical stuff not characterized by spells, like the devil's pacts. How do they bestow those benefits without a spell saying so? How does a dryad bless anything when they don't have that spell?

a pact made with powerful entities that permanently changes the individual's interactions with the supernatural.

So why can't it be a pact that permanently changes the individual's interactions with the supernatural in a sorcerer-like way?

If I'm just grasping at straws, tell me with some reasoning. Then I'll be able to tell my player "sorry, it's not official, but I'll allow it since you want it so much.". Otherwise it's "there is this method. Is this good for you?"

Invocations are a bit confusing. Complete mage says they're in between prepared spells (wizards) and innate spells (sorcerers, creatures, etc.). But in complete arcane says they utilize raw magic energy directly and spells are just a medium, so in this sense invocations are the most pure form of magic.

Depending on your responses, I might just accept his fey background story. To summarize, a child, who wanted to learn how to use magic, searched for fey. Once he found them, he tried his absolute best to befriend them, even helping then fight against loggers (although he was useless). Eventually the fey grew fond of the child after the child got seriously hurt fighting the loggers, so they gave him sorcery and taught him how to use it.

Milo v3

2014-12-27, 08:28 AM

Does anyone know anyway a commoner who for a fact has no extraplanar blood in his ancestry gain sorcery?

Take a level in sorcerer, it has no prerequisites.

paperarmor

2014-12-27, 09:17 AM

lots of stuff

Dude, you are way overthinking this. you there is not nor has there ever been a big deal about FAW (fluff as written) the backstory the layer came up with is fine to justify his sorcerous powers and a damn sight more than I've ever gotten out some of my players for stuff they want to do... as has been said upthread fluff is meaningless except I worldbuilding/RP personally I like this one as it gives additional plot hooks rather than the just OMG IM SO SPECAIL!!11 that is usually gotten from sorcerers .

gogogome

2014-12-27, 09:28 AM

Dude, you are way overthinking this. you there is not nor has there ever been a big deal about FAW (fluff as written) the backstory the layer came up with is fine to justify his sorcerous powers and a damn sight more than I've ever gotten out some of my players for stuff they want to do... as has been said upthread fluff is meaningless except I worldbuilding/RP personally I like this one as it gives additional plot hooks rather than the just OMG IM SO SPECAIL!!11 that is usually gotten from sorcerers .

Well, the player is making this a big deal, so I feel it is my responsibility to treat it as a big deal. This is the first time I got worked up by fluff. My other sorcerer players just went with born special or didn't address it at all.

Knaight

2014-12-27, 12:07 PM

Well, the player is making this a big deal, so I feel it is my responsibility to treat it as a big deal. This is the first time I got worked up by fluff. My other sorcerer players just went with born special or didn't address it at all.

The various chance events that happen to give magic are fantasy staples. It's working exactly as it does in fantasy literature, it just happens to be outside of the spell system explicitly spelled out, and instead is a sort of natural wild magic. Problem solved.

Psyren

2014-12-27, 12:11 PM

Does anyone know anyway a commoner who for a fact has no extraplanar blood in his ancestry gain sorcery?

Yes - Pathfinder has a ton of ways, each of which has at least one bloodline associated. You can be born during a celestial event, or your coming prophesied in some way. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/destined-bloodline) Your relatives (not necessarily ancestors) could have been talented wizards. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/arcane-bloodline) You could have been exposed to a powerful elemental force (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/elemental-bloodline) - struck by lightning as a child perhaps and lived, or caught at a storm at sea while you were a baby, or your family was forced to flee a volcanic eruption near their remote village. You could have been exposed to a magical plague (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/pestilence) either as a child or in the womb. You could have been stillborn briefly. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/undead-bloodline) Or it could simply be unexplained. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/impossible-sorcerer)

Note that "bloodline" is just a game term - as the examples above show, fluffwise they don't have to involve your ancestors at all, they can all be the result of events that act upon you directly (both before and after being born.)

Elkad

2014-12-27, 12:25 PM

3.x sorcerer fluff doesn't have to be draconic, I'll give you that, but it does say you have to be born with it. The backgrounds, the adventuring reasons, and even other books (complete mage if I remember correctly).

Consider this option. Everyone is born with it. Most have latent powers and will never know, until something awakens that power. Bloodline is just one of many ways (if you have the bloodline it WILL awaken at puberty). Every superhero origin story also works. Or any of the 5e ones.

gogogome

2014-12-27, 06:00 PM

Yes - Pathfinder has a ton of ways, each of which has at least one bloodline associated. You can be born during a celestial event, or your coming prophesied in some way. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/destined-bloodline) Your relatives (not necessarily ancestors) could have been talented wizards. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/arcane-bloodline) You could have been exposed to a powerful elemental force (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/elemental-bloodline) - struck by lightning as a child perhaps and lived, or caught at a storm at sea while you were a baby, or your family was forced to flee a volcanic eruption near their remote village. You could have been exposed to a magical plague (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/pestilence) either as a child or in the womb. You could have been stillborn briefly. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/undead-bloodline) Or it could simply be unexplained. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/impossible-sorcerer)

Note that "bloodline" is just a game term - as the examples above show, fluffwise they don't have to involve your ancestors at all, they can all be the result of events that act upon you directly (both before and after being born.)

If we were playing pathfinder then we wouldn't have a problem. Pathfinder has a lot of acquied bloodlines. D&d however doesn't...

Consider this option. Everyone is born with it. Most have latent powers and will never know, until something awakens that power. Bloodline is just one of many ways (if you have the bloodline it WILL awaken at puberty). Every superhero origin story also works. Or any of the 5e ones.

The thread was asking whether 5e ones are valid in 3.5, and the impression I got was no, it was a different game. He is using 5e fluff. If 5e fluff is canon with 3.5, then I'd accept his backstories and we wouldn't have a problem.

I have considered that option, but the player in question said for a fact his character has no latent powers and acquired it later.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-12-27, 06:03 PM

If we were playing pathfinder then we wouldn't have a problem. Pathfinder has a lot of acquied bloodlines. D&d however doesn't...

Uh, if anything, D&D's sorcerer features are more generic and open to interpretation, not less.

gogogome

2014-12-27, 06:05 PM

Uh, if anything, D&D's sorcerer features are more generic and open to interpretation, not less.

It is vague, but it is also clear that you have a special ancestor. So it doesn't have to be draconic, but you gotta have a special ancestor.

5e says you can acquire it. 3.5 says you can't, you gotta be born with it. If 5e fluff is valid in 3.5, then everything is fine. If not (which I think most of everyone here is saying), then he gotta have special ancestors. Unless that warlock stuff holds up.

Even the most extreme cases have baby modification in the womb, not after.

edit: :smallannoyed: I really do sound like a rules nerd...:smallfrown:

Vhaidara

2014-12-27, 06:13 PM

It is vague, but it is also clear that you have a special ancestor. So it doesn't have to be draconic, but you gotta have a special ancestor.

5e says you can acquire it. 3.5 says you can't, you gotta be born with it. If 5e fluff is valid in 3.5, then everything is fine. If not (which I think most of everyone here is saying), then he gotta have special ancestors. Unless that warlock stuff holds up.

The thing you miss is that EVERYONE in a standard DnD universe is going to have someone special in their bloodline. Someone earlier brought up the fact that about 1 in 200 people in the modern world are somehow descended from Ghengis Khan. Consider that Ghengis has absolutely nothing on your average succubus/incubus (onger lifespan, doesn't bother with the fighting and conquering). Consider that the Abyss contains an infinite number of said succubi and incubi. Consider that this doesn't account for dragons, vampires, celestials, slaadi, or anything else.

Yeah, somewhere along everyone's bloodline is something.

Taveena

2014-12-27, 07:11 PM

gogogome

2014-12-27, 07:13 PM

Milo v3

2014-12-27, 07:19 PM

It is vague, but it is also clear that you have a special ancestor.
No. That is just a theory.

Question, do you force every wizard cast minor spells all the time? Because that is mentioned as part of the wizard fluff.

137beth

2014-12-27, 07:21 PM

Guess it depends what you mean by ''canon''. Are there flying dwarves? Well, you won't find them in any rule book. So does that mean you can't have them in your game, just as they are not in any book?

Each edition is utterly another game from any other edition. For D&D: 1 to 3 kinda flowed together, but 4 went off the rails and 5 is back, but on a bumpy road.

So someone scribbled down a couple words to vaguely describe sorcerers. Is there some reason you feel so bound and following this? Why does the scribble matter? Sure, the PHB says All sorcerer's gained their powers during puberty. So your taking this single line to be absolute fact? You can't say ''there are lots of ways to become a sorcerer?''. Too bad the writer did not write something like ''most sorcerers develop powers during puberty'' or even ''there are dozens of ways a sorcerer can have gained the power of magic in their blood, and lots of sorcerers are unique''.

If you want some rules fun, try this: A character can take any class at any time. So a 15th level fighter, who is 30 years old and has absolutely no history of 'magic that formed when he was in puberty', can take a level in sorcerer. So how to you handle that fluff? He never had the puberty magic, but he is now a first level sorcerer.

I don't see a problem with ''a demon touched me'' or ''I got dragon blood'' or a ''lich experimented on me'' or ''you drank from the magic spring''. I would allow any for the fluff of a sorcerer . It does not ''hurt'' the class for me. I like the idea of some random, unique sorcerers. Though I'd make it so a demon can't just ''touch a town and turn them into sorcerers'', I'd add a bit more like ''the demon must graft bits of itself on to the organs of the person in a magical ritual that takes weeks. Same way you can't just ''drink dragon blood'', you need to ''undergo the dragon blood ritual''. But I do like the magic spring, so that is fine....drink from the spring and you can take a level in sorcerer is just fine with me.....but the spring would have other effects too.

Your not ''changing the universe'' your ''making the universe more interesting and amazing''.
I...agree with pretty much everything jedipotter wrote here. Is this an alternate reality?

Don't you mean you are the Authyr?

pleasedon'tkillme
Oh, yes, I see it basically is an alternate Reality.
Just remember, because you are asking the forum for advice, you are not longer an Exclusive Authyr!

FAW (fluff as written)
:smallsmile:

jedipotter

2014-12-27, 09:59 PM

I still need something.

I'm not sure you do. Just say magic is a strange, unknown, mysterious thing that no one understands. Say it three times. Then just say ''Zorm the sorcerer got his powers when he drank from The Fey Spring of Eternal Seasons.'' And your done.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-27, 10:47 PM

1. Fluff is valid across editions. 2e, 3.5, 4e, they're all connected by time of troubles and spell plague. Deities are the same even if a few died. Only thing that changed is the mechanics. 5e says you can gain sorcery, that means you can gain sorcery in 3.5 by drinking magical water.

2.

You are one of the Sherem-Lar, magically altered in the womb to enhance your potential as a sorcerer.

So complete commoners can be magically altered in the womb. It's debatable whether they become sorcerers, or the procedure merely enhances a would-be sorcerer. Either way, mortal magic can strengthen or give sorcerers their power

3

Humanoid sorcerers, who often claim their magical powers stem from a dragon ancestor, usually do not develop any magical aptitude until after puberty. Some scholars take this as a sign that no connection at all exists between sorcerers and dragons. Other scholars dismiss the disparity as an inevitable result of the vast differences between draconic and humanoid life cycles.

This supports PHB. There maybe no ties at all. WotC is intentionally saying, dragons are canon but you can make it anything else you want.

4. Dragonspawns are proof that you can turn anyone into a sorcerer.

So you see, there are magical stuff that is not limited to spells. You just need the guy to be infused with magical energy.

Renen

2014-12-27, 10:54 PM

I find it INCREDIBLY silly to stick to fluff like its the word of god. Just because something is fluffed like "born with magic", why SHOULDN'T you be able to say that you got it some other way? Just because one of your players became a sorcerer by falling into a vat of radioactive goop, instead of having his great grandmother sleep with a dragon, doesn't harm the game in any way.

I know alot of people dislike psionics and say "oh no, I hate the fluff". My (and 90% of other people's) answer is to just refluff.
Dont like tome of battle? Refluff
Dont like paladins needing super duper strict code? Refluff
Dont like wizards needing to be much older than most classes, to represent the time they spent studying? Refluff (and say a failed mindrape attempt gave you the knowledge possessed by your attacker, who was a great wizard)

Refluffing: its not the end of the world.™

DeltaEmil

2014-12-27, 11:07 PM

Dont like paladins needing super duper strict code? RefluffAt least in 3.x, the paladin code is actually a rule, albeit a terrible one, because it tells you how you must play the character, and the "act with honor" part is way too open in a negative way, because it often leads to the GM and the player having different ideas what acting with honor means.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-27, 11:41 PM

Sherem Transformation
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M, F
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Target: One unborn human (see text)
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw:Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
You enhance the abilities of an unborn human child, giving the child exceptional sorcerous ability (if female) or exceptional clarity of mind (if male). Upon reaching adulthood, the child may select the Kihu-Sherem Guardian or Sherem-Lar Sorcery feats. While the spell affects an unborn child, it is targeted at the pregnant mother, who may resist the spell with a Will saving throw. If the mother is bearing multiple children, the spell randomly affects one of the unborn (in these cases, the spell is usually cast multiple times in order to affect all of them). If the mother is from an unbroken line of sherem-lar sorcerers at least ten generations long, a female child born of this spell may choose the Sherezem-Lar Sorcery feat. This spell is normally used on only Bazareene nobles, and most nobles consider it a crime to use the spell on anyone but a noble. Conversely, most people outside of Bazareene consider magically altering an unborn child to be a repugnant act and would never allow it.
Focus: A flawless emerald worth at least 1,000 gp.
Material Components: Blood from a Bazareene sorcerer of at least 6th level, an iron ring that has touched lava, and three golden spheres worth 50 gp each.

My mistake. It gives a female child sorcerer ability. That means

A MORTAL MAGIC SPELL GRANTS SORCERY TO ANY COMMON HUMAN. A LEVEL 6 SPELL AT THAT

So... fey/demons/devils/celestials/slaadi, who are superior to humans in every way in terms of magical power, why would you possibly think they can't grant sorcery to an ordinary human child?

So by this spell alone, everything in 5e fluff about sorcery is valid. Dragons can grant sorcery to a person by sharing a drop of its blood. Liches can experiment with a similar spell on a child. A dryad's blessing on a baby grants sorcery, but no reason she can't bless a child, especially with the help of other fey creatures.

Renen

2014-12-27, 11:57 PM

At least in 3.x, the paladin code is actually a rule, albeit a terrible one, because it tells you how you must play the character, and the "act with honor" part is way too open in a negative way, because it often leads to the GM and the player having different ideas what acting with honor means.

Yeh... but you can still tweak it. And by that I mean just take the less restrictive reading of it.

lsfreak

2014-12-28, 12:47 AM

I really can't believe it hasn't been said yet, but your question is really a non-sequitur. There IS no "canon" and "non-canon" when it comes to non-setting-specific material. There are merely collections of ideas presented by the authors, even less set in stone than the rules (which are you invited, by the books, to decide what you do and don't want to include, add additional rules, and so on). Decide you like his idea and let it fly, or decide you don't like his idea and don't. Or decide you like his idea but it's contradictory to the setting you've created, so he needs to wait until you switch settings. Just like you would if you wanted to decide there really is a daggerspell organization, and how it operates, and if players have to join the organization in order to gain the prestige class, or decide if Cas the moose-god of revenge is too silly to include or if he's a widely-worshiped deity instead of little-known.

Knaight

2014-12-28, 01:27 AM

Sian

2014-12-28, 02:26 AM

while the default setting is vaguely defined, its defined enough to be clear that its Greyhawk in 3e (and earlier), some wierd bastard child in 4e, and something looking remotely like Forgotten Realms in 5e,

Hence the Default settting in one edition aren't always the same default setting when looking at another edition, even within an edition (even even outside of Settingspecific books)

Forrestfire

2014-12-28, 02:34 AM

In 3.5, I think the Planar Handbook and Manual of the Planes point towards the default setting being Planescape without the name.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-28, 04:07 AM

Doesn't matter. Unless magic complete changed (fluff wise not mechanically :P), 5e's origins of sorcery is valid in 3.5.

I always got the impression Forgotten Realms was the default setting, especially since their deities got the most history stuff. Isn't spell plague and time of troubles forgotten realms?

Forrestfire

2014-12-28, 04:18 AM

Sadly, I'm only really familiar with 2e and 3e fluff. I know that the nature of magic, fluffwise, changed in the changeover from 2e to 3e (see Die, Vecna, Die! for details on that), so I had assumed that it did the same sort of thing for the other edition changes.

Vhaidara

2014-12-28, 04:29 AM

I always got the impression Forgotten Realms was the default setting, especially since their deities got the most history stuff. Isn't spell plague and time of troubles forgotten realms?

FR is popular, yes, but not default. 3.5 defaulted to Greyhawk (hence the gods from the Player's Handbook), and 4e kind of did its own thing

Coidzor

2014-12-28, 04:33 AM

Doesn't matter. Unless magic complete changed (fluff wise not mechanically :P), 5e's origins of sorcery is valid in 3.5.

You're not really going to gain much traction with an argument that would mean we'd have to include the spellplague in our games if playing in Forgotten Realms, even though we're playing 3.5, not 4e. :smallconfused:

I always got the impression Forgotten Realms was the default setting, especially since their deities got the most history stuff. Isn't spell plague and time of troubles forgotten realms?

I thought that too for a while and I know some people who still believe that despite having seen all of the evidence to the contrary, but I find the most direct example is that in the PHBs for 3e and 3.5, you find Oerthian deities rather than Torilian ones, aside from the racial deities that are common across ~90% of settings anyway.

hamishspence

2014-12-28, 04:37 AM

Yup. FR got more support in 3.0-3.5 than Greyhawk - a huge campaign setting book rather than a thin pamphlet - but Greyhawk was still the default.

yoshi67

2014-12-28, 04:51 AM

I really hate to tell someone their fluff doesn't work but...

I think we can agree that sorcerers get their powers by either being inherently magical or by some event that triggers their spontaneous magic.

If he wants to play a commoner who learns magic or wills themselves to becoming magical, that sounds a lot more like a wizard. It's kinda like a player wanting to play a Fighter but fluffing it as someone who lives off the land, uses TWF and a bow, is really good at tracking, hiding, listening and spotting, and takes the feat to gain an animal companion because he likes animals, but swears its a Fighter. Yeah you can allow it, but it really fits another class better.

So if he is asking if a random event can make him a sorcerer, then I say definitely. If he wants his character to make himself a sorcerer, I don't think they work that way. Ultimately though, it's whether or not you feel it's worth it to ask him to modify his fluff or class over something that probably doesn't matter.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-28, 06:19 AM

Sherem transformation + warlock fluff is enough evidence for me that fey, devils, demons, and the like can grant sorcerers their powers.

The definition of Fey is after all, incarnation of wild magic.

Ashtagon

2014-12-28, 06:22 AM

RoboEmperor

2014-12-28, 06:35 AM

Sherem transformation is a Ghostwalk- specific. canonically, it doesn't exist in other settings, and the feat is tied to the GW fluff.

That said, in any campaign, the GM ultimately make the rules and decides what is canon. If the GM decides that being scratched behind the ear at exactly one month old is a sufficient catalyst to enable those so inclined to become sorcerers, so mote it be.

It's not about using Sherem transformation. It's about an official source showing that magic, a spell, can infuse a baby with sorcerer power, which means other sources of more powerful magic can do that too, even after birth. Fey, demons, devils, are all more powerful than mortal magics, especially devils since they got that whole deal thing setup.

If DM denies this then what he's doing isn't canon, and is just rules of his world.

5e supports this too.

So different settings, but same universe so same magic laws and such.

Ashtagon

2014-12-28, 07:05 AM

It's not about using Sherem transformation. It's about an official source showing that magic, a spell, can infuse a baby with sorcerer power, which means other sources of more powerful magic can do that too, even after birth. Fey, demons, devils, are all more powerful than mortal magics, especially devils since they got that whole deal thing setup.

If DM denies this then what he's doing isn't canon, and is just rules of his world.

5e supports this too.

So different settings, but same universe so same magic laws and such.

Canon? Well, canonically, DMG in chapter five pretty much says to make your fluff from whole cloth.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-28, 07:08 AM

Canon? Well, canonically, DMG in chapter five pretty much says to make your fluff from whole cloth.

I'm not arguing that DM has complete control over fluff, or that WotC encourages that. Just that OP seems concerned about "official" fluff, so I'm sharing my views on "official" fluff on sorcerers gaining their powers.

jedipotter

2014-12-28, 02:05 PM

If you have ever read a D&D novel, you might notice most writers ignore fluff and crunch. Why? To tell a good story.

One novel has an Undead God. Ok, go find some fluff or crunch for that.....

Some authors have apprentice wizards casting like 20th level spells that like stop time and trigger six other 10th level spells and have all metamagic feats applied to them.

And so on.

And no editor ever told them ''no''.

Vhaidara

2014-12-28, 02:11 PM

One novel has an Undead God. Ok, go find some fluff or crunch for that.....

Agree on the rest of the post, but on this point
Vecna is a god and a lich. He is given the Undead type.

Knaight

2014-12-28, 02:29 PM

If you have ever read a D&D novel, you might notice most writers ignore fluff and crunch. Why? To tell a good story.

They blow off the fluff and crunch, and the stories are better for it. I'm not sure I'd be so generous as to call any D&D novel a "good story". "Passably mediocre" is one thing, "good" another.

BWR

2014-12-28, 05:33 PM

They blow off the fluff and crunch, and the stories are better for it. I'm not sure I'd be so generous as to call any D&D novel a "good story". "Passably mediocre" is one thing, "good" another.

I think there are several which qualify as 'good'.

jedipotter

2014-12-28, 07:35 PM

Agree on the rest of the post, but on this point
Vecna is a god and a lich. He is given the Undead type.

Eh, silly Greyhawk setting specific stuff. Now I don't have any Greyhawk stuff, so I don't know much about the setting.

But to get down to the details, Vecna is not an undead god. He is a god that chose an undead type avatar. Right? He is not a god that died and came back as undead. He was already a lich when he became a god. Right? And the lich is a type of undead mortals turn into, not gods.

I don't have the stats for Vecna in any book I own, as I don't have Greyhawk stuff.

Thrice Dead Cat

2014-12-28, 07:41 PM

Well, there's also the fact that one of the options out of Deities and Demigods is that said god can take a quality to change its type, undead being one of said options. Thus, Vecna is both a god and undead.

Taveena

2014-12-28, 07:53 PM

Just as Bahamut and Tiamat are godly Dragon types. Tenebrous was also an Undead God, while he was a thing. Y'don't NEED to be an Outsider to be a god.

Milo v3

2014-12-28, 08:03 PM

Eh, silly Greyhawk setting specific stuff. Now I don't have any Greyhawk stuff, so I don't know much about the setting.

But to get down to the details, Vecna is not an undead god. He is a god that chose an undead type avatar. Right? He is not a god that died and came back as undead. He was already a lich when he became a god. Right? And the lich is a type of undead mortals turn into, not gods.

I don't have the stats for Vecna in any book I own, as I don't have Greyhawk stuff.

You don't have the players handbook? :smallconfused:

SaintRidley

2014-12-28, 08:17 PM

goto124

2014-12-28, 10:14 PM

I get what you're saying, but the player is stubborn and says his character has no special ancestor, whatsoever, and gained sorcery through his own effort.

So can't say everyone has special ancestors, and only those special has the powers awakened through some event.

The player and character can believe that. Doesn't make it actually true.

There, problem solved.

That... sounds like bad DMing. If the player keeps his no-special-ancestor backstory, will it break the game for whatever reason? Unless the game is heavily dependant on the ancestors thing, there could be a way to include the player into the plot. Maybe he's just one of the few people who earned their magic. Adjust powers as necessary so that he's not underpowered/underpowered.

jedipotter

2014-12-28, 10:40 PM

You don't have the players handbook? :smallconfused:

My Players Handbook does not have the God stats of any god. Mine only has a tiny paragraph on these Grayhawk gods.

That... sounds like bad DMing. If the player keeps his no-special-ancestor backstory, will it break the game for whatever reason? Unless the game is heavily dependant on the ancestors thing, there could be a way to include the player into the plot. Maybe he's just one of the few people who earned their magic. Adjust powers as necessary so that he's not underpowered/underpowered.

Sounds like good DMing to me.

Sometimes a player will insist that they must have a back story. And often the DM can just get on with the game and say ''ok, as far as your character knows that story is true, but it may not be true for real in the Official DM created and Controlled Reality. This is often more then enough to make a player happy and they will drop it.

Though if the game goes on long enough, the player might try to use...or abuse...their backstory. And that is where the DM steps in and breaks the glass....and tells the player ''oh, your backstory was fake all along...here is your real backstory''.

goto124

2014-12-28, 10:47 PM

Though if the game goes on long enough, the player might try to use...or abuse...their backstory. And that is where the DM steps in and breaks the glass....and tells the player ''oh, your backstory was fake all along...here is your real backstory''.

Did you mean 'we agreed to let you use your backstory as long as you don't abuse it, but then you did abuse it, so I'll have to change your backstory'?

Also, any ideas on how a player could potentially abuse his backstory?

Vhaidara

2014-12-28, 10:48 PM

Though if the game goes on long enough, the player might try to use...or abuse...their backstory. And that is where the DM steps in and breaks the glass....and tells the player ''oh, your backstory was fake all along...here is your real backstory''.

And this is the point where they are no longer playing their character. This is the point where you are telling them what they are going to play, and this is the point where I would walk, because I am generally proud of the character I write, otherwise I wouldn't be playing them. When you then tell me that I am not playing the character I wrote, I am no longer proud of what I made and am playing.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-12-28, 10:50 PM

And that is where the DM steps in and breaks the glass....and tells the player ''oh, your backstory was fake all along...here is your real backstory''.

And then the next time he tries to draw his sword or cast a spell he ends up doing the exact motions of the Orcus-summoning dance.

goto124

2014-12-28, 11:05 PM

And this is the point where they are no longer playing their character. This is the point where you are telling them what they are going to play, and this is the point where I would walk, because I am generally proud of the character I write, otherwise I wouldn't be playing them. When you then tell me that I am not playing the character I wrote, I am no longer proud of what I made and am playing.

This was why I considered it bad DMing- because the DM takes control of the PC away from the player himself. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389463-Is-it-okay-to-ask-for-a-new-character-for-RP-reasons) A summary of what happened:

Then the next session, my DM informs me that my character is egyptian without consulting me. At all. Things start going down hill from here.

If there's reason to change the backstory especially after the game has started, the DM should talk it over with the player, not force the new backstory upon the PC. Also, what possible reasons could there be anyway? I myself can't imagine any.

Vhaidara

2014-12-28, 11:11 PM

Also, what possible reasons could there be anyway? I myself can't imagine any.

The only one I can really think of is if the player pulls a Henderson. If you're unfamiliar with the term, look up the tale of Old Man Henderson, it's a good read. The relevant part is that the player provided a backstory that was around 500 pages and was written partially in German (Call of Cthulhu campaign) Because there was no way the GM was going to read it all, he could go back and edit things in if he needed a new talent/piece of info.

Oneris

2014-12-28, 11:17 PM

Also, any ideas on how a player could potentially abuse his backstory?

There's a certain D&D and Harry Potter crossover where the main character retconned into his background that every member of the currently-Dominated town guards trying to kill him just happened to be his relatives, thus granting them all a second save.

Ashtagon

2014-12-29, 11:31 AM

As a DM, I would be quite happy to overrule any PC back-story that is directly contradictory to establish setting material (eg if it had been established as a campaign setting feature that all sorcerers must have had a special ancestor).

If it merely expands the existing material (e.g. everyone "knows" that sorcerers must have had a special ancestor), that remains a GM call.

The only back-stories that are automatically acceptable are those that don't exp[and the campaign setting features.

However...

What the character *believes* is within the control of the player (as long as the character remains playable and non-disruptive to everyone else's enjoyment, of course).

Assuming this example under discussion falls into the expansion rather than contradictory category...

If the character merely believes, in direct contradiction to established wisdom of community elders everywhere, that sorcerers have a special in their ancestry, the player needs to explain in his back-story how he deals with communities who automatically assume he has a special ancestry.

If I were a GM in that campaign, I'd seriously consider putting in a "tomato moment". Perhaps in order to activate a magic artifact, only someone who has the blood of an angel (the natural way, natch) can activate it and save the world. And our sorcerer character tries to use it... and it doesn't work. Instead it works for some random character at the scene instead, who had the blood and never knew it. This will leave the player with the back-story he wanted and reinforced as true, and create a couple of plot twists that can be used later.

jedipotter

2014-12-29, 02:17 PM

Did you mean 'we agreed to let you use your backstory as long as you don't abuse it, but then you did abuse it, so I'll have to change your backstory'?

Also, any ideas on how a player could potentially abuse his backstory?

It's more like ''the DM agreed for your character to believe whatever they want, but it's not real in the game.''

Abuse a backstory....I could make a thread of 50 pages no problem. Right at the top is ''dad gave me a magic item/artifact for my 18th birthday''. Followed by ''my family is famous so everyone is friendly and gives me free stuff'. More wild ones like the character will say she has ''ghost blood'', and then at random say ''oh my character can become intangible''.

And this is the point where they are no longer playing their character. This is the point where you are telling them what they are going to play, and this is the point where I would walk, because I am generally proud of the character I write, otherwise I wouldn't be playing them. When you then tell me that I am not playing the character I wrote, I am no longer proud of what I made and am playing.

Well, it's rare I allow a ''silly cool'' backstory anyway. I mostly have to agree with the backstory or that character does not get played in my game.

If there's reason to change the backstory especially after the game has started, the DM should talk it over with the player, not force the new backstory upon the PC. Also, what possible reasons could there be anyway? I myself can't imagine any.

I don't agree. But I don't agree with or follow the rule of ''Player Characters are special and the DM can not touch them''.

Take a fun twist: I want to make some fun with a half elf character and have them think they might be half drow. Now telling the player ''this is false, but your character does not know that, so keep playing like your character does not know'' ruins it before it starts. Few players have the ability or will to ''fake play something''. But if the player thinks that it is ''real'' then they will have the character act like it's ''real''. Having the player and character both driven to discover the truth is much better then a player just saying ''oh, um, yea my character like wants to discover the truth..."

Vhaidara

2014-12-29, 02:24 PM

Well, it's rare I allow a ''silly cool'' backstory anyway. I mostly have to agree with the backstory or that character does not get played in my game.

Irrelevant. What we are talking about is a backstory that I showed you and that you let me use. And then, halfway through the game, you told me that you changed it because you didn't like it. If you object to a backstory, tell the player that initially instead of lying to them and saying they can use it.

jedipotter

2014-12-29, 02:36 PM

Irrelevant. What we are talking about is a backstory that I showed you and that you let me use. And then, halfway through the game, you told me that you changed it because you didn't like it. If you object to a backstory, tell the player that initially instead of lying to them and saying they can use it.

Well, I'm talking about a backstory where I as the DM said ''this backstory is fine for your character to believe, but it's not exactly the real truth in the game''

So then a couple games later when the character meets his father he is not ''ghost dad'', he is ''just'' a necromancer.

The same way the backstory says ''my dad is a rich merchant'', but when the character goes to visit he finds old dad in debt and not so rich.

Vhaidara

2014-12-29, 02:40 PM

So then a couple games later when the character meets his father he is not ''ghost dad'', he is ''just'' a necromancer.

This may or may not be acceptable. If the "ghost dad" meant a Eugene Greenhilt style "The ghost of my dad contacted me", then this is (for hopefully obvious reasons) completely unacceptable. I'm actually really not sure what else "ghost dad" could mean.

The same way the backstory says ''my dad is a rich merchant'', but when the character goes to visit he finds old dad in debt and not so rich.

Again, this depends. The player could have had rich family that has fallen on hard times, but if you are saying "your family never was rich", that isn't acceptable.

Arkhaic

2014-12-29, 02:48 PM

It seems that "ghost dad" implies a bloodline or something of the sort where the father was a ghost at the time of conception. The answer to the player should be "Fluff does not have a mechanical effect if you didn't invest resources in said effect", not "Suprise! Your father wasn't a ghost!" (This assumes that being "part ghost" is an acceptable background in the first place, of course...)

jedipotter

2014-12-29, 02:48 PM

This may or may not be acceptable. If the "ghost dad" meant a Eugene Greenhilt style "The ghost of my dad contacted me", then this is (for hopefully obvious reasons) completely unacceptable. I'm actually really not sure what else "ghost dad" could mean.

Again, this depends. The player could have had rich family that has fallen on hard times, but if you are saying "your family never was rich", that isn't acceptable.

So are you saying a DM can chance a backstory or not?

Like: Players Backstory: ''My family is rich and my parents try to buy my love with lots of expensive gifts''.

So with this backstory does the DM absolutely have to have the characters family rich at all times? And the character has to get tons and tons of really expensive gifts every time he goes home?

Can the DM change things up, like have the family be hit by hard times so they have no money or have mom and dad fighting or have a new baby on the way?

And you seem to say its ok for the DM to say ''the families gold mine has run dry'', but the DM can't say ''your family was always poor and your dad bought everything on credit to make things look rich to you''.

Arkhaic

2014-12-29, 02:56 PM

Personally, in that case I would just cut back their WBL from loot and have it come from the family instead. Alternatively, the sort of expensive gifts that family members give someone don't tend to overlap much with the sort of stuff that adventurers want or need. Especially family members intent on buying love.

If the backstory was put in those words I can't say I wouldn't shoot it down during discussion, but the game can still be made to function mechanically without problem.

Vhaidara

2014-12-29, 02:58 PM

So are you saying a DM can chance a backstory or not?

Things in the backstory are decided by the player. If you don't like it, tell them to change it

Like: Players Backstory: ''My family is rich and my parents try to buy my love with lots of expensive gifts''.

For example, this sounds like an attempt to get a mechanical benefit from fluff. Unless there is a future piece where they lose their personal wealth/left it behind, this would be a part that I tell the player to change.

I've actually played alongside a character who was a noble. He had an estate in one of the cities where he had a broken WBL in the form of backup gear. The GM gave him that on the condition that he not abuse it. He didn't. It was awesome and flavorful.

So with this backstory does the DM absolutely have to have the characters family rich at all times? And the character has to get tons and tons of really expensive gifts every time he goes home?

If they are still wealthy on return, sure. Expensive doesn't mean useful, and the GM can account for that with the character's WBL. And if your parents find out that you're pawning their presents, they probably won't be happy.

Can the DM change things up, like have the family be hit by hard times so they have no money or have mom and dad fighting or have a new baby on the way?

Entirely. This is not changing the backstory, however. This is introducing a plot/character development point.

And you seem to say its ok for the DM to say ''the families gold mine has run dry'',

Yes

but the DM can't say ''your family was always poor and your dad bought everything on credit to make things look rich to you''.

Dad managed that for 15+ years (assuming human) without raising any suspicion? If you're able to pull off explaining how Dad debt-hopped long enough, sure

zergling.exe

2014-12-29, 03:14 PM

If they are still wealthy on return, sure. Expensive doesn't mean useful, and the GM can account for that with the character's WBL. And if your parents find out that you're pawning their presents, they probably won't be happy.

Expensive also doesn't always equate to level 15 expensive or such. Maybe 'expensive' means this like fine wines or jewelry, things that cap out at around 2k max most of the time. Thus 'expensive' gifts that don't tip WBL too much.

Vhaidara

2014-12-29, 03:23 PM

Expensive also doesn't always equate to level 15 expensive or such. Maybe 'expensive' means this like fine wines or jewelry, things that cap out at around 2k max most of the time. Thus 'expensive' gifts that don't tip WBL too much.

Eh, that's more dependent on what level you are. At low levels it drastically changes things, and the goal would be to avoid that.

Hell, I could make a party out of this. You've got the spoiled noble brat who gets an allowance, and the bodyguards who get paid and who loot the bodies of people trying to kill the spoiled brat. So the brat character doesn't get any loot, rather he just gets money from his parents.

jedipotter

2014-12-29, 05:03 PM

Ok....so let me get this right.

For a DM to have an event happen, good or bad, that changes the backstory is ok.

But for the DM to change the backstory for an event is wrong.

Even though both have the exact same effect. That makes no sense.

How is ''your rich family is in money trouble because of the war any different then ''your family is not as rich as you though they always were''?

How about if the player says the parents are X and Y, can the DM ''drop a bombshell'' and say your adopted?

Vhaidara

2014-12-29, 05:25 PM

For a DM to have an event happen, good or bad, that changes the backstory is ok.

No, things have changed since backstory happened. Backstory covers until the campaign starts. In the time it took you to go from level 1 to level 10, things happened back home

But for the DM to change the backstory for an event is wrong.

As explained above, it is wrong to change a backstory event.

Even though both have the exact same effect. That makes no sense.

The effects are different. If you change the backstory, you are modified the player's writing. If you have something happen after the backstory, you are adding to the end. The backstories are the prologues to your story.

How is ''your rich family is in money trouble because of the war any different then ''your family is not as rich as you though they always were''?

Honestly, I was being generous with the debtor parent idea. It's on the border of acceptable where I might be kay with it if it was done well and with the player's permission.

How about if the player says the parents are X and Y, can the DM ''drop a bombshell'' and say your adopted?

Depends. Are they lying? If they're lying, fine. If not, again, you are changing someone else's story without their consent.

As an addendum, for any modifications, if the GM asks the player ahead of time and they work the details of the change/reveal out, that is perfectly acceptable when done with the full knowledge, cooperation, and agreement of the player

atemu1234

2014-12-29, 05:35 PM

RoboEmperor

2014-12-29, 05:38 PM

Hah! FAW (fluff as written) is now a bit more important eh? At least then you can shove it in the DM's face.

But you guys aren't talking about FAW stuff, rich merchant can be anyone's background.

Anyways I agree that DMs can't change character's backstories once the game starts. Unless the DM says "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I didn't know how much of your backstory was going to alter the game", I'd say absolutely no backstory changing.

SiuiS

2014-12-29, 05:50 PM

RoboEmperor

2014-12-29, 05:57 PM

The creators of 3e did not want sorcerers with draconic blood. They specifically left the origins up in the air, conjecture, and different per sorcerer. It was not until later in the reboot of 3.5 that both kobolds and sorcerers got "sure, yeah, dragons. Let's go with that" as a more solid explanation. Before that kobolds were goblin mongrels who wanted a tie to dragons they likely didn't have — even in 3e.

Huh? I'm looking at the 3.0 PHB right now, and it's identical to the 3.5. Dragon Blood, but may not be true. Draconimicon or Races of dragon also says this. Sorcerer powers develop at puberty, which is why sorcery is not connected to dragon blood, or the difference between humans and dragons is why it develops at puberty, or something like that.

So I think the 3.0 guys had dragons in mind. Draconomicon or Races of dragon maybe 3.5 but, I'm saying 3.0 and 3.5 fluff about maybe dragons is the same.

Coidzor

2014-12-29, 06:51 PM

jedipotter, a rough order of operations for this sort of thing would be like the following:

1. Player(s) & DM discuss the setting and planned game.

2. Player creates backstory and runs it by the DM.

3. DM gives feedback and either approves backstory or rejects it.
If accepted > Go to playing the game.
If rejected > Discussion of said feedback and any rejections would follow soon after.

4. If the player isn't comfortable with any of the options for revising the backstory to fit after discussion and negotiation then they choose to either not play or to create a new backstory.
If they choose not to play > Go to reading a nice book.
If they choose to come up with a new backstory > return to step 2.

Rather than what you indicate to be what you think is the Right and Proper Order of the Universe, which would appear to be "Player says something and then the DM declares what their backstory is, subject to change on the DM's whim without notice or even informing the player in a timely fashion after the DM decides upon the change."

DMs have the ability to veto a backstory, they don't have the ability to just assign a backstory unless the players agree that they want to play a game like that, such as a game testing out an adventure that hinges upon premades or other characters with a common element in their backstories tying them together.

SiuiS

2014-12-29, 07:37 PM

But the PHB in 3.5 says sorcerer's magical power is part of his soul. Blood affects soul? XD. For such a popular game, I thought they'd have massive amounts of lore books, especially compared to normal video games like elder scrolls. But no, instead, they have the occasional paragraph. I guess they intentionally left it vague so you can be whatever you want.

Boon for creative people, bane for people like the OP of this thread.

Yes. Blood affects soul. And body. And body affects soul. And soul affects body. Remember, this is a mystic game of mysticism. Your paltry human science is flawed here.

Except none on how sorcerer's magic works XD

That's intentional. It's supposed to be vague and mysterious and mythical. "Descended from dragons" could be literal, a spiritual ancestry, an adoption and slow commingle, having dragons feature prominently In your people's racial mythology. It isn't always or even necessarily often "a dragon banged your G-G-mum". And that's all if your "ancestry" is draconic instead of divine, demonic, angelic, fey, or simply residual magic from your parents having a charmed life.

Huh? I'm looking at the 3.0 PHB right now, and it's identical to the 3.5. Dragon Blood, but may not be true. Draconimicon or Races of dragon also says this. Sorcerer powers develop at puberty, which is why sorcery is not connected to dragon blood, or the difference between humans and dragons is why it develops at puberty, or something like that.

So I think the 3.0 guys had dragons in mind. Draconomicon or Races of dragon maybe 3.5 but, I'm saying 3.0 and 3.5 fluff about maybe dragons is the same.

The 3.0 guys had ideas about latent power, hence puberty. They weren't married to dragons enough to make them a rule, and even the existence of all the "this is how draconic sorcerers are" stuff is only about draconic sorcerers, not all sorcerers, leaving design space for other methods of power sitting open in the blind spot of most folks.

Draconomicon, dragon magic. Races of the dragon and all that came in three point five, and was when they decided to make some things more overt.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-29, 08:00 PM

Draconomicon, dragon magic. Races of the dragon and all that came in three point five, and was when they decided to make some things more overt.

I was just saying even draconomicon said sorcerer's powers may have absolutely nothing to do with dragon blood, which means you're right. Dunno bout 3.5 "marrying" sorcerers to dragons (I still think 3.0 and 3.5's intent on sorcerer dragon stuff is the same), but doesn't matter.

Faily

2014-12-29, 08:12 PM

I blame Dragon Disciple for making people take the Sorcerer -> Dragon connection. :smalltongue: Should've been more Fey Disciple, Celestial Disciple, Demonic Disciple, Aberration Disciple, etc...

Personally, I'm more fond of a fluff where people like Sorcerers (but also other unique classes) have something special about them, which is either from having parents who were spellcasters, mother being close to a magical/hallowed/unhallowed during pregnancy or birth, mother being affected with a lot magic during pregnancy or birth, an ancestor got close to outsiders or dragons, the character being subjected to a special ceremony as a baby to make him/her into a powerful spellcaster, or something along those lines. I like things magical and mystical. Could also be that the character was just born with a special talent for it (for reasons unknown to him), and that's how he managed to pick it up. Though I'd probably, as a DM to maintain the fluff of the setting I would run, refuse something that was completely "nope, nothing special at all, I just decided one day I too wanted to be a sorcerer and I just put some effort into it".

I also maintain that as a DM you have the right to say no, because it does not fit the setting you are using.

jedipotter

2014-12-30, 01:48 AM

Rather than what you indicate to be what you think is the Right and Proper Order of the Universe, which would appear to be "Player says something and then the DM declares what their backstory is, subject to change on the DM's whim without notice or even informing the player in a timely fashion after the DM decides upon the change."

I disagree.

Though if a player said ''don't touch my backstory'' I'm not against ignoring it. So all the other players will get Nice Things from their backstories as they change and evolve during the game. And ''don't touch'' player gets nothing.

Renen

2014-12-30, 02:01 AM

I disagree.

Though if a player said ''don't touch my backstory'' I'm not against ignoring it. So all the other players will get Nice Things from their backstories as they change and evolve during the game. And ''don't touch'' player gets nothing.

Theres a difference between changing a players backstory, and evolving it.

Lets say my backstory is: I was adopted by a pair of humans even though im half orc.

How it can be changed by DM (bad): Well actually... you werent adopted but instead were brainwashed by an evil lich, to make you think you had a past.

How it can evolve (totally acceptable): You know that goblin army that was marching north that you didnt stop? Well they stumbled on your village and your mother died.

jedipotter

2014-12-30, 02:15 AM

How it can be changed by DM (bad): Well actually... you werent adopted but instead were brainwashed by an evil lich, to make you think you had a past.

Yea, but you see ''change'' and ''evolve'' as somehow too separate things. And both are vague. So a DM can do ''this vague thing'' but not ''this vague thing''.

Lets take a sorcerer example. The player writes a little backstory that is ''grew up on a farm and discovered my powers at 13'' with no real detail.

So later in the game the DM can't have a plot like ''the farm folks were not your real parents, they adopted you as a baby.....your real dad is Bad Guy X.''.

Well, I say that takes away from and ruins the role play.

Vhaidara

2014-12-30, 02:18 AM

So later in the game the DM can't have a plot like ''the farm folks were not your real parents, they adopted you as a baby.....your real dad is Bad Guy X.''.

You can. If you check with the player and they say okay.

If I wanted a twist like that, I would include it in by backstory. Hell, that particular twist is actually in my most used character base. Hell, the bad ended up becoming THE Bad.

Renen

2014-12-30, 02:36 AM

In my example, changing things that happened before the game started is a bad thing. Changing things after game started, and especially as a result of player actions is acceptable.

If I make a character and say my parents were a pair of humans, then by god they were. Just because I didnt write down every single thought on them and share it with DM, doesnt mean DM can change it.

Maybe in my backstory I say that I had a dragon ancestor. I dont take the time to write out that the dragon was actually this really really evil one, but I DO use it as a guideline to my character having a short temper or something. So dont you tell my my dragon ancestor was the paragon of good. Maybe aske me 1st, and I might agree to it for the sake of the story, but not before.

jedipotter

2014-12-30, 02:48 AM

You can. If you check with the player and they say okay.

If I wanted a twist like that, I would include it in by backstory. Hell, that particular twist is actually in my most used character base. Hell, the bad ended up becoming THE Bad.

I'd never check with a player....that is the worst idea ever.

Almost as bad as the fake plot where the player says ''OK DM you make my aunt the evil bad and my character will kinda sort of pretend not to know''.

I just don't get checking with the player.

Renen

2014-12-30, 02:53 AM

I'd never check with a player....that is the worst idea ever.

Almost as bad as the fake plot where the player says ''OK DM you make my aunt the evil bad and my character will kinda sort of pretend not to know''.

I just don't get checking with the player.

If I was a player playing with you, id expect you to either:
1) Not mess with my characters backstory
or
2) Ask me even if its vaguely.

Like: Say... can I feature your grandmother in the story as one of the villains? You wont know which one or what she is doing, but when your character first encounters her, you'll see that she is evil.

Sure, it requires that the first introduction of the villain is an open one, but its not hard to pull off.

If you were my DM and messed with my characters story, then id either kill of my character and start a new one that has a veeery similar story, except different names, and the exploited hole patcher up; or id just walk out.

jedipotter

2014-12-30, 03:04 AM

If I was a player playing with you, id expect you to either:
1) Not mess with my characters backstory
or
2) Ask me

I'd do 1).

How would you feel about all the other players, that agree the DM can do whatever, characters getting all sorts of things from their backstories....While your character got nothing?

Renen

2014-12-30, 03:09 AM

Id be totally fine with it. Id sit there, watching them cringe every time their backstory gets buchered by the DM, while my character is safe in the knowledge that he/she knows their own past.

And id know that unless the DM is bitter and is specifically trying to not involve my backstory at all (even if he can do so without making changes to it) that id still have some interaction with people in my backstory. Id just know that my characters sanity wont be at risk, because they suddenly found out that their parents were dead since they were a kid, and were infact zombies controlled by some devil.

Milo v3

2014-12-30, 03:23 AM

I'd never check with a player....that is the worst idea ever.
How? I understand you prescribe to the concept of GM can do as they wish since they are running the game, but what is the point of the player writing a backstory if you just change it without any consultation?

RoboEmperor

2014-12-30, 06:30 AM

How? I understand you prescribe to the concept of GM can do as they wish since they are running the game, but what is the point of the player writing a backstory if you just change it without any consultation?

+1 to this. If someone changed my backstory like that, i will walk and never play his games. If a DM wants to be that controlling of his story then he should say so upfront so players who hate that don't join his game.

Ashtagon

2014-12-30, 07:39 AM

+1 to this. If someone changed my backstory like that, i will walk and never play his games. If a DM wants to be that controlling of his story then he should say so upfront so players who hate that don't join his game.

As a GM, once a back story is approved, I won't change it. However, I will point out that the back story is what the character believes to be true, not necessarily what is actually true. 99% of the time, it will be. I would, however, ask the player permission before introducing a plot twist where their back story is critical to the twist, although if player knowledge would damage that twist, I won't specify what part of the back story is getting twisted. The player still gets a veto on that, however.

Knaight

2014-12-30, 07:50 AM

Yea, but you see ''change'' and ''evolve'' as somehow too separate things. And both are vague. So a DM can do ''this vague thing'' but not ''this vague thing''.

The difference is pretty stark. One of them involves a rewriting of events already recorded to be something else. The other involves more things happening. Sure, both change the status quo afterwards, but that's about it as far as similarities go.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-30, 08:23 AM

As a GM, once a back story is approved, I won't change it. However, I will point out that the back story is what the character believes to be true, not necessarily what is actually true. 99% of the time, it will be. I would, however, ask the player permission before introducing a plot twist where their back story is critical to the twist, although if player knowledge would damage that twist, I won't specify what part of the back story is getting twisted. The player still gets a veto on that, however.

If you wanted to do something that with me, then you'd tell me that my back story maybe up for change. Then I'd ask you if you would change ___, ___, or ___, and if it's none of those, then I'd happily play. I generally don't mind if my father was actually someone else, or if I suddenly had a brother, or if my heritage is crazy, but if my character spent 5 years chasing various sources of magic and finally learned wizardry by bearing the bullying of the local wizardry students in exchange for a few hours with their textbooks and material components, changing that part in anyway would result in great anger from me. The bullies could secretly be demons. I don't care about that, but my wizard earned his magical powers as an orphan, so no changing that!

But generally speaking, I never had a problem with background fluff with any of my DMs except for the sorcerer origins. Some DMs are dead set on magic ancestors instead of fey/demon/devil infusions >_>

Ashtagon

2014-12-30, 09:27 AM

If you wanted to do something that with me, then you'd tell me that my back story maybe up for change. Then I'd ask you if you would change ___, ___, or ___, and if it's none of those, then I'd happily play. I generally don't mind if my father was actually someone else, or if I suddenly had a brother, or if my heritage is crazy, but if my character spent 5 years chasing various sources of magic and finally learned wizardry by bearing the bullying of the local wizardry students in exchange for a few hours with their textbooks and material components, changing that part in anyway would result in great anger from me. The bullies could secretly be demons. I don't care about that, but my wizard earned his magical powers as an orphan, so no changing that!

But generally speaking, I never had a problem with background fluff with any of my DMs except for the sorcerer origins. Some DMs are dead set on magic ancestors instead of fey/demon/devil infusions >_>

Depending on the plot point, I might not want to reveal exactly where the twist lies. (In Star Wars, it would kind of spoiled the plot if Luke's player had known Darth Vader was his father). But I'd happily negotiate and confirm that certain items weren't part of the twist.

But yeah. If you'd spent five years intensely pursuing a course of training, certainly your character will believe that. And I can't think of many ways in which your character could believe something pursued so intensely would not actually be for real. I wouldn't try to twist (or retcon it out of existence) that part of a background.

Vhaidara

2014-12-30, 12:05 PM

I'd never check with a player....that is the worst idea ever.

Everyone who has not met Jedipotter before, I was kind of expecting this several pages ago. Logic is also bad, compromise is one of the worst things you can do (especially in relationships), and players are fundamentally untrustworthy unless they are saints. These are all things JP has said.

Almost as bad as the fake plot where the player says ''OK DM you make my aunt the evil bad and my character will kinda sort of pretend not to know''.

fixed that for you. Because I know how to do this thing called "Roleplay". It's where my character doesn't know everything I know

Also, it's more "Hey, GM, here's a potential plot hook in my backstory. Feel free to use it if you want.". I've seen these become redemption stories, major villains, minor villains, comic relief villains, not villains, and everywhere in between. When run by a competent GM.

Dgrin

2014-12-30, 12:27 PM

I guess we should stop derailing the thread or we may accidentally summon Orcus :smallamused:

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-30, 02:06 PM

I'd never check with a player....that is the worst idea ever.

That's a bit hyperbolic isn't it? How could one even create a scale for ideas in which there is an absolute best and an absolute worst?

atemu1234

2014-12-30, 02:25 PM

I guess we should stop derailing the thread or we may accidentally summon Orcus :smallamused:

I'm worried about different red text, to be honest.

Renen

2014-12-30, 02:31 PM

Well... we are discussing DMs ability to change the "fluff" of a character. Seems close enough to the original topic.

137beth

2014-12-30, 04:07 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2014-12-30, 04:09 PM

So at the beginning of the thread, Jedipotter said stuff that everyone but the OP agreed with.
Now, we have reverted to our earlier condition of arguing with Jedipotter. It's like we fell for a Jedipotter mind trick or something.

Well, at the start, his points were reasonable, but I still saw his attitude in there - he was arguing for DM agency against following the books to a T. I had a desperate hope that it wouldn't turn into the usual arguments of DM power vs player agency.

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-30, 04:14 PM

137beth

2014-12-30, 04:28 PM

Well, at the start, his points were reasonable, but I still saw his attitude in there - he was arguing for DM agency against following the books to a T. I had a desperate hope that it wouldn't turn into the usual arguments of DM power vs player agency.

Pretty much. At the beginning, he was arguing for changing stuff in the books that I (and most of the rest of the forumites, it seems) prefer to change. Now, he is arguing for changing something (not part of the books) that I (and most of the rest of the forumites, it seems) prefer for the DM not to change as much as Jedipotter is advocating.

Hmmmm... I'm a toydarian. Those aren't supposed to work on me.

Your racial immunities protect you from jedi mind tricks, but not from Confundus charms:smalltongue:

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-30, 06:09 PM

Your racial immunities protect you from jedi mind tricks, but not from Confundus charms:smalltongue:

I was under the impression that LITERALLY only money worked me.

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 12:50 AM

How? I understand you prescribe to the concept of GM can do as they wish since they are running the game, but what is the point of the player writing a backstory if you just change it without any consultation?

I really don't get the My Characters Backstory is carved in adamatiumum and can not be changed.

To me it is like a player saying My Characters Hit Points are Set and Can Not Go Down

+1 to this. If someone changed my backstory like that, i will walk and never play his games. If a DM wants to be that controlling of his story then he should say so upfront so players who hate that don't join his game.

See this just sounds like your the type of player that wants your characters backstory ignored.

The difference is pretty stark. One of them involves a rewriting of events already recorded to be something else. The other involves more things happening. Sure, both change the status quo afterwards, but that's about it as far as similarities go.

I still don't get the differences your pointing out. Maybe you can use an example?

Milo v3

2014-12-31, 12:56 AM

I really don't get the My Characters Backstory is carved in adamatiumum and can not be changed.

To me it is like a player saying My Characters Hit Points are Set and Can Not Go Down

Except My Characters Backstory is carved in adamatiumum and can not be changed was never our position. You are creating a strawman.

I still don't get the differences your pointing out. Maybe you can use an example?

One is altering the backstory before the game starts, the other is changing it mid-game.

Vhaidara

2014-12-31, 12:58 AM

I still don't get the differences your pointing out. Maybe you can use an example?

Okay.
Base Story: You are a half orc raised by humans. Your birth-mother (human) died giving birth to you after being raped by an orc
Change: You return home and your aunt, who raised you, reveals that she is actually your mother
Evolve: You return home and find your aunt and uncle brutally murdered. Tracks reveal that they were killed by orcs. Later, when you track down the orcs, it turns out that their leader is your father.

In the Change, you have taken part of the backstory and arbitrarily changed it.
In the Evolve, something has occurred since the backstory. The entire backstory is still valid, as written, and things have happened because of it. You have added onto the end.

As I said earlier, player backstories are the prologue, already published by another author, to the main story of the campaign, which is being written. If something has been published, you cannot go back and change it without the permission of the original author.

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 01:02 AM

As I said earlier, player backstories are the prologue, already published by another author, to the main story of the campaign, which is being written. If something has been published, you cannot go back and change it without the permission of the original author.

Ok....that makes sense:

You see the players of equal power as the DM and I think The DM is all powerful.

afroakuma

2014-12-31, 01:04 AM

To further what's been said, if you as DM want to make adjustments to the PCs' backstories, you should stipulate that when asking for those backstories. If you say "yes, I accept this" to what they have written, then you should actually be accepting it. You don't need to tell them "this is what I want to do," but you do need to say "I'd like this element here to be open-ended so that we might have the opportunity to build on it later" or something to that effect. It's quite possible that some or all of these elements will never be picked up on, but it creates organic opportunities for you (the DM) that the player has already been able to give some degree of input on.

In the worst case, tampering with backstories without player consent reduces or eliminates player investment.

• DM tells Duke Player that the BBEG is going to be revealed as Duke's father. Player agrees.

"Duke, I am your father!" "No! That's not true... that's impossible!"

• DM doesn't tell Player anything, springs it on him in-game without checking.

"Duke, I am your father!" "Nah." *shoots to kill*

Vhaidara

2014-12-31, 01:05 AM

Ok....that makes sense:

You see the players of equal power as the DM and I think The DM is all powerful.

Beyond that, I feel the DM has a responsibility to the players to not be a ****ing ******* be a halfway decent human being.

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 01:31 AM

In the worst case, tampering with backstories without player consent reduces or eliminates player investment.

Well, I'm just an Old School DM. I think the players should role-play out whatever happens, without any foreknowledge, consent, sneak peaks or approval.

• DM tells Duke Player nothing....

*My kind of Player, takes everything that happens during a game session as pure and true reality...to the story, so far..more or less.

"Duke, I am your father!" "No! That's not true... that's impossible!"

The player, not knowing if this is true or not, is free to have their character believe it or not. But nothing the player does or says or thinks will effect the plot the DM set out(well, unless the DM wants to change it).

*The Other kind of player

"Duke, I am your father!" "Nah." *shoots to kill*

This player is ignoring any role play or story elements they did not personally approve as Co-DM, and just has their character act however they want them too.

afroakuma

2014-12-31, 01:38 AM

Well, I'm just an Old School DM.

Casting aspersions on my tribe, eh?

I think the players should role-play out whatever happens, without any foreknowledge, consent, sneak peaks or approval.

So you think that if you hit a nerve or cross a line, the player should sit there and keep roleplaying rather than ask you to drop it? That's a rather bizarre and frankly wrongheaded perspective from a simple social standpoint. On the other hand, given that you're you, I don't know why anyone here is bothering to debate you at all. We're correct from the standpoint of what the activity is intended to be, and you're... catering to your own unusual tastes, I'll say. Which, whatever, but I can't understand why you talk like the rest of us are doing it wrong.

Renen

2014-12-31, 01:44 AM

Ok....that makes sense:

You see the players of equal power as the DM and I think The DM is all powerful.

The DM IS all powerful. But its not about power, its about respect.

As a DM you expect your players to respect your rules, and respect the story YOU tell.

As a player, I expect the DM to respect the story I tell.

Your example would only work if the player is a terrible role player, and would have his character kill someone who might be his father without any further info gathering.

If as DM you twist my story to fit your needs, then as a player I will twist your story to fit my needs? Why? Because as a human being I am entitled to the same respect as you. Sure, you can kick a player out, OR all the players can just leave because you messed with their characters, and you are left DMing empty air.

I can't understand why you talk like the rest of us are doing it wrong.

Afro has a point. Most everyone here doesnt agree with that form of DMing. Sure... you can claim that thats how you do it, but if everyone here was a potential player, and you could only pick one of us, youd have no one to DM.

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 01:50 AM

Beyond that, I feel the DM has a responsibility to the players to not be a ****ing ******* be a halfway decent human being.

Everyone can be human and not be a Co-DM.

Casting aspersions on my tribe, eh?

I prefer Society.

So you think that if you hit a nerve or cross a line, the player should sit there and keep roleplaying rather than ask you to drop it? That's a rather bizarre and frankly wrongheaded perspective from a simple social standpoint.

Well, I'm not sure how some role playing would ''hit a nerve'' or ''cross a line''. Are you talking like ''the players parents died in a car crash'' and now 15 years later they feel it's all ''crossing the line'' if one night during a role playing game a DM says ''your character's father...comes back as a ghost to haunt your character!''.

Well, I'm a very lucky DM.....as that does not happen. My players understand ''it's just a role playing game'' and All characters and events depicted in this work of fiction are entirely fictitious. Any similarity to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

I even had a laminated sign that said that once....hum, wonder what happened to it.

Renen

2014-12-31, 01:56 AM

atemu1234

2014-12-31, 01:57 AM

Everyone can be human and not be a Co-DM.

I prefer Society.

Well, I'm not sure how some role playing would ''hit a nerve'' or ''cross a line''. Are you talking like ''the players parents died in a car crash'' and now 15 years later they feel it's all ''crossing the line'' if one night during a role playing game a DM says ''your character's father...comes back as a ghost to haunt your character!''.

Well, I'm a very lucky DM.....as that does not happen. My players understand ''it's just a role playing game'' and All characters and events depicted in this work of fiction are entirely fictitious. Any similarity to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

I even had a laminated sign that said that once....hum, wonder what happened to it.

But people like to keep their backstories theirs. Again, no one is complaining about the ghost showing up, because it happened after-the-fact. If my entire backstory changes, however, simply because you agreed to it earlier and changed your mind, I'll be pissed.

afroakuma

2014-12-31, 02:00 AM

Well, I'm not sure how some role playing would ''hit a nerve'' or ''cross a line''.

Of course you're not. I really must find this robotics corporation and invest.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-31, 02:20 AM

I think I understand jedipotter's view. He likes having campaigns where the character's entire lives are involved, so in order to do that he needs to be able to alter a character's back story. Significantly if need be.

Now the problem everyone has with this (including me) is that he refuses to ask the player for permission and is exhibiting traits of a railroading DM. If I play with this guy I can't have a backstory I'm fond of, and make a pliable, alterable background story I can have fun with.

So again, an upfront declaration of intentions before the game starts is required, so the player can choose whether or not to let the DM alter his backstory that he worked hard on and loves, or to make a backstory that is designed to be pliable for these types of campaigns.

"I like integrating the character's entire history into the game, so i'm gonna be changing everyone's backstories a lot if need be, so if you want to play my campaign, don't bring a background story you're incredibly fond of, because i will most likely alter it significantly."

Unless I misunderstood. Then jedipotter is an enigma to me.

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 02:24 AM

So question: ever had a following (or similar happen)?

Have a player play a pious character devoted to (lets say) Pelor. After everything goes nice and well, you reveal that pelor is the burning hate and the characters whole belief system is a lie. The character then commits suicide because they have been worshipping evil this whole time and just cant handle it. The player then decides that they dont want to reroll another character, as not to have a similar experience, which they found upsetting.

Yes.

As a DM you expect your players to respect your rules, and respect the story YOU tell.

As a player, I expect the DM to respect the story I tell.

I don't expect payers to ''respect my rules'' or ''respect the story''. They do not make sense it me. How does one ''respect'' something artificial like a ''story''?

If as DM you twist my story to fit your needs, then as a player I will twist your story to fit my needs? Why? Because as a human being I am entitled to the same respect as you. Sure, you can kick a player out, OR all the players can just leave because you messed with their characters, and you are left DMing empty air.

Again your use of ''respect'' confuses me. The DM controls the RPG world and can do whatever they want, that is very RPG 101. How does a player ''twist'' a story? Sure a player can have a character take any action they would like...but that is not ''twisting'' a story.

Afro has a point. Most everyone here doesnt agree with that form of DMing. Sure... you can claim that thats how you do it, but if everyone here was a potential player, and you could only pick one of us, youd have no one to DM.

Yes, I am One Gamer, Alone

Luckily the GitP forum poster are not the only gamers in the world....

afroakuma

2014-12-31, 02:30 AM

Yes, I am One Gamer, Alone

Thoroughly unsurprising.

Milo v3

2014-12-31, 02:31 AM

How does one ''respect'' something artificial like a ''story''?

...

0_0

0_0

0_0

Renen

2014-12-31, 02:57 AM

Yeh. I think this discussion is finished. Jedipotter shown that the was he plays is very very different from everyone in this thread. And not in a good way sadly.

#wouldntplaywithJP

Also, JP apparently has no repect for works of countless authors, artists, and so many other people that created "artificial" things. Those things are artificial, and thus cant be respected. I think ill sig that quote or something.

gogogome

2014-12-31, 02:59 AM

How does one ''respect'' something artificial like a ''story''?

Ok... this is um...

Some people are really fond of their characters, and want to see their characters immersed in a setting the player didn't design. They don't want you to touch their characters because they spent a lot of time designing them, and what you're doing is completely trashing them.

I guess you're the type of person who would take and destroy a little girl's teddie bear and feel nothing of it.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-31, 03:03 AM

Yeh. I think this discussion is finished. Jedipotter shown that the was he plays is very very different from everyone in this thread. And not in a good way sadly.

#wouldntplaywithJP

Yeah, me too. I guess he's the type of guy who just plays video games solely for the gameplay. He doesn't play a RPG for the story, he plays it to bash stuff and couldn't care less whether there's a story or not. I can picture his games now.

Bunch of monsters appeared.
Party kills them
x100

That was a fun game. I want to bash the monsters differently next time.

Vhaidara

2014-12-31, 03:06 AM

You know, I've seen this argument from the inside. I think it will be fun to see it from the outside.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eO8o9_rI154/Tw4x1NQg0EI/AAAAAAAAAnk/QeUJsEsqgMg/s1600/gus-psyche-popcorn.gif

zergling.exe

2014-12-31, 03:10 AM

Yeah, me too. I guess he's the type of guy who just plays video games solely for the gameplay. He doesn't play a RPG for the story, he plays it to bash stuff and couldn't care less whether there's a story or not. I can picture his games now.

Bunch of monsters appeared.
Party kills them
x100

That was a fun game. I want to bash the monsters differently next time.

No, it's HIS story HIS way. Anything in the way is banned/removed/pre-filtered out. Jedipotter has made this abundantly clear over the last few months. Players exist solely to create both stories to change as desired and locomotion through his world.

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-31, 03:11 AM

I think I actually might agree with JP on one point. I'm not sure how I respect something.

I mean, I think that I respect things and I seem to act in a certain manner towards things for which I have respect but I'm not sure HOW I have respect.

Renen

2014-12-31, 03:13 AM

None of us do. Human psychology is still a very much a developing field. :biggrin:

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-31, 03:17 AM

I think I'm going to fluff my ability to have respect for things as a divine gift from the Goddess Respectia.

Renen

2014-12-31, 03:21 AM

Is it Ex or Su ability? Because you might turn into "you know who" if its Su and you walk into an AMF

RoboEmperor

2014-12-31, 03:28 AM

No, it's HIS story HIS way. Anything in the way is banned/removed/pre-filtered out. Jedipotter has made this abundantly clear over the last few months. Players exist solely to create both stories to change as desired and locomotion through his world.

How can he have a story if he doesn't give a sh*t about stories? It puzzles the mind. Surely if he cared about his stories then he would understand why other people cares about theirs. But he doesn't, therefore he has no stories.

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-31, 03:32 AM

Is it Ex or Su ability? Because you might turn into "you know who" if its Su and you walk into an AMF

Whoa that's kinda a cool backstory for a BBEG. His divine gift for compassion was ripped away from him by careless magic.

EDIT: wait, this was initially my personal fluff, does that mean this is my backstory?!? Quick, someone ask me a tough respect-based question to see if I still carry Respectia's blessing!

zergling.exe

2014-12-31, 03:34 AM

How can he have a story if he doesn't give a sh*t about stories? It puzzles the mind.

Not respecting something doesn't mean you don't care about it. How often do villains totally disrespect a protagonist, yet still flip s**t about things they do? They care about them, but don't respect them. Note care is used to mean showing emotion towards something in this instance.

Same with jp it seems, cares about his story but doesn't show it respect.

Edit: (Un)Inspired, do you respect your mother and father, as well as the rules of the forum?

Renen

2014-12-31, 03:35 AM

Whoa that's kinda a cool backstory for a BBEG. His divine gift for compassion was ripped away from him by careless magic.

You're welcome :D
Though that somehow sounds familiar...
Did something like this happen in one of old childrens fairytales I read long ago?

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 03:39 AM

Some people are really fond of their characters, and want to see their characters immersed in a setting the player didn't design. They don't want you to touch their characters because they spent a lot of time designing them, and what you're doing is completely trashing them.

I guess you're the type of person who would take and destroy a little girl's teddie bear and feel nothing of it.

Sure, some players make perfect characters and laminate them and hang them on the wall. The same way some people get a brad new ATV or dirt bike but don't want to take it out of the garage as they ''don't want to get it dirty''. Well...I'm the one who is outside: Well it's bulls and blood, It's dust and mud, It's the white in his knuckles, The gold in the buckle, It's the ropes and the reins And the joy and the pain......BewwBewww

Yeah, me too. I guess he's the type of guy who just plays video games solely for the gameplay.

No video games for me....unless you count Hay Day and Star Wars Commander and Angry Birds as ''video games''

Players exist solely to create both stories to change as desired and locomotion through his world.

Everybody is doin' a brand new dance, now
(Come on baby, do the Loco-motion)
I know you'll get to like it if you give it a chance now
(Come on baby, do the Loco-motion)

Arkhaic

2014-12-31, 03:40 AM

...Jedipotter, do you happen to tattoo a specific symbol onto your player's arms? :smalltongue: I know it's you. Tom.

Renen

2014-12-31, 03:43 AM

With a long poker that is flat on one end and has rested on a fire for last few minutes to make it very hot.

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 03:44 AM

...Jedipotter, do you happen to tattoo a specific symbol onto your player's arms? :smalltongue:

Nope, tattoos are against my life philosophy.

To quote Magneto: I have been marked once, my dear and let me assure you, no needle shall ever touch my skin again.

How can he have a story if he doesn't give a sh*t about stories? It puzzles the mind. Surely if he cared about his stories then he would understand why other people cares about theirs. But he doesn't, therefore he has no stories.

Well I don't understand how one ''respects'' or ''cares'' about a story.

(Un)Inspired

2014-12-31, 03:45 AM

Edit: (Un)Inspired, do you respect your mother and father, as well as the rules of the forum?

Yes... Yes, I think so. (Whew!) Respectia be praised.

zergling.exe

2014-12-31, 03:46 AM

Well I don't understand how one ''respects'' or ''cares'' about a story.

Yeah, I have no idea about jedipotter and stories anymore.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-31, 03:48 AM

Sure, some players make perfect characters and laminate them and hang them on the wall. The same way some people get a brad new ATV or dirt bike but don't want to take it out of the garage as they ''don't want to get it dirty''. Well...I'm the one who is outside: Well it's bulls and blood, It's dust and mud, It's the white in his knuckles, The gold in the buckle, It's the ropes and the reins And the joy and the pain......BewwBewww

Nah, your analogy fails.

Making the dirt bike with custom parts over a month is creating the character.

Riding the dirt bike is playing the character in a campaign. Doesn't matter if it gets dirty, because of my custom engine designs, my dirt bike can function even when it's upside down for long periods of time. Sure some efficiency dropped, but it's durability increased and that's my choice.

What you're doing is ripping out my engine and shoving some rusted piece of crap and then telling me to ride that through your track. I'm open to suggestions, like painting the bike another color, or making some design changes to make it fit better in the environment I'm gonna drive through, but nope. Not you, since you're going to trash my hard work for whatever reason and say I'm a weirdo for trying to protect this artificial thing I spent months customizing.

Renen

2014-12-31, 03:49 AM

Tell me Mr Potter (Snape voice) do you also move your players chacharacters for them? And by that I mean have them talk, and act in certain way in your narration, instead of having a player controlling their own character?

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 04:05 AM

Nah, your analogy fails.

Your comparing ''changing a fictional characters fictional backstory by just saying something'' to ''destruction of physical property?''

And if a did own a track, it's well with in my rights to say what can and can't be brought onto the track, and even what and how you can do things on the track.

So your analogy needs a little work.....

Tell me Mr Potter (Snape voice) do you also move your players chacharacters for them? And by that I mean have them talk, and act in certain way in your narration, instead of having a player controlling their own character?

You do know you should ask another poster before you quote them and put it in your signature....it's a way of showing respect.

Nope, a character is free to do anything they wish to do in the game world(with in the limits of the character, the rules and the DM's whim).

Snape, Snape, Severus Snape Snape...Snape, Snape, Severus Snape Snape

Milo v3

2014-12-31, 04:31 AM

And if a did own a track, it's well with in my rights to say what can and can't be brought onto the track, and even what and how you can do things on the track.

Except aren't you more saying yes, you can come onto the track with that, and then you change their parts without telling them?

RoboEmperor

2014-12-31, 04:46 AM

Your comparing ''changing a fictional characters fictional backstory by just saying something'' to ''destruction of physical property?''

A fictional character is someone's intellectual property. You're wrecking it.

And yes, you can choose what's allowed on your track but I agree with Milo. Instead of refusing my bike on your track you're allowing it and then out of nowhere smashing it and giving me a crap bike to ride the rest of the way, at which point I'm just gonna airlift right out.

I've been constantly saying if you want to trash the player's bike, say so upfront so they get to decide whether or not to participate in your race, not spring it on them midway so that instead of bringing a bike they're fond of, they can just bring some used crap they don't care about so when you do trash it, they won't care. But you seem absolutely adamant that players shouldn't give a crap about their characters. So I agree with gogogome's teddie bear example. You believe shredding a girl's teddie bear is ok because a little girl shouldn't be so attached to something artificial like a stuffed animal and if she cries, she's a weirdo since she cares so much about a stupid toy.

jedipotter

2014-12-31, 04:57 AM

Except aren't you more saying yes, you can come onto the track with that, and then you change their parts without telling them?

See your analogy does not work as no you can't ''sneak over'' and say change the tires on or paint someone else private physical property without their permission.

A fictional character is someone's intellectual property. You're wrecking it.

Except that is not how ''intellectual property'' works. R2-D2 is ''intellectual property'' and I can write a story about how he falls in love with an Easy Bake Oven and has a Baby Teddy Ruspin. And I can post the story online and it does not ''wreck'' the character....

And yes, you can choose what's allowed on your track but I agree with Milo. Instead of refusing my bike on your track you're allowing it and then out of nowhere smashing it and giving me a crap bike to ride the rest of the way, at which point I'm just gonna airlift right out.

Again ''smashing'', or ''violent destruction of private physical property'' is not a good analogy here...

I've been constantly saying if you want to trash the player's bike, say so upfront so they get to decide whether or not to participate in your race, not spring it on them midway so that instead of bringing a bike they care about, they can just bring some used crap they don't care about so when you do trash it, they won't care. But you seem absolutely adamant that players shouldn't give a crap about their characters. So I agree with gogogome's teddie bear example. You believe shredding a girl's teddie bear is ok because a little girl shouldn't be so attached to a stuffed animal and if she cries, she's a weirdo since she cares so much about a stupid toy.

Well, the ''destruction of private physical property'' makes no sense....

But why would I harm a Teddy Bear? I love cute and fuzzy things. I would not harm a Teddy Bear....

Milo v3

2014-12-31, 05:04 AM

See your analogy does not work as no you can't ''sneak over'' and say change the tires on or paint someone else private physical property without their permission.

Um, you can.... :smallconfused:

Knaight

2014-12-31, 05:19 AM

I really don't get the My Characters Backstory is carved in adamatiumum and can not be changed.
...
I still don't get the differences your pointing out. Maybe you can use an example?

Sure, some players make perfect characters and laminate them and hang them on the wall. The same way some people get a brad new ATV or dirt bike but don't want to take it out of the garage as they ''don't want to get it dirty''. Well...I'm the one who is outside: Well it's bulls and blood, It's dust and mud, It's the white in his knuckles, The gold in the buckle, It's the ropes and the reins And the joy and the pain......BewwBewww

The dirt bike actually works decently as an analogy here. It has certain specifications, it is built in a particular shape from particular materials, so on and so forth. A back story is the same way. The dirt bike can be ridden through a bunch of mud, crashed into a tree at high speed, and left to rust. By that point, it's a different bike. The shape is likely different in some major way, the material composition has changed due to the oxidation and the effects of gas left in the tank for however long, etc. However, there's a continuity there. The old bike is still something that existed at some point, and specific changes brought it to its new state. The alterations everyone is fine with are the same way. The back story is a true snapshot of a particular moment in setting time, it's not necessarily so relevant now.

What you're suggesting is more like having that bike spontaneously transform into a different model in the garage. That's just now how things work.

RoboEmperor

2014-12-31, 07:03 AM

Look, there's nothing else to discuss.

Us: People care about their characters. They worked hard to create unique backstories for them, and don't like it when people change that.

Jedipotter: No, they don't care.

Us: Yes they do

Jedipotter: Nope, they don't, so I can trample on them as much as I want and no one gets hurt or cares

Us: They do care, and they will walk if you do that

Jedipotter: Nope, they won't walk, except you guys because you are all freaks. People don't care about their characters at all.

Us: Wow...

Jedipotter: I only understand material stuff. Dirt bike trashing =/= character trashing because character's aren't real. If no monetary damage is involved, there is no damage. It doesn't matter if a person spends a week discussing and researching to fine tune his story to his exact liking, it didn't cost him a dime so me taking a sh*t on it won't hurt the guy's feelings, cause you know, it's not a material thing. Except you guys, cause you're all freaks.

So no point in arguing anymore. I genuinely think he's just trolling.

afroakuma

2014-12-31, 11:45 AM

You do know you should ask another poster before you quote them and put it in your signature....it's a way of showing respect.

The implications should speak for themselves.

Anyway, the best advice I can give everyone in this thread is the same advice that should always be given when jedipotter comes around. When sharing your opinion comes secondary to lining up new shots for someone who disagrees with you to take, then there's no longer any point in discussing with them. jedipotter disagrees with the way we play the game, what we like, how we think and I'm pretty sure he sent something back in time to kill Sarah Connor.

jedipotter, your worldview saddens me. I'd like to say your take on the game is alien to me but it's clear that you simply don't take it as a game. It seems that you've failed to evolve from DM Stage 1, apparently in response to not figuring out how to cope with players who did things you didn't like. Yes, I'm sure I'll see a response post about how "I did learn to cope, the DM is all powerful!" but that's not coping, You don't understand how people can care about story, yet you obsess over players breaking yours. You don't understand how personal emotions can get involved in the game. You missed the boat, and there is nothing anyone can do for you. It would be in the best interest of everyone for you to stop pretending you want to discuss these things when all you really want to do is tout the supposed superiority of your extremely narrow range of experience. Again, I expect a response about how amazingly broad your experiences are and how you've played with so many people and this many players say your way is the best way but in making that response you will be emphasizing just how much you fail to get it. Find a better use of your time than elaborately telling a bunch of strangers just how glad they are to not have to play with you.

Good luck to you, and to the rest of you... I think the thread's now fully off-topic enough that it's time to move on.