Roleplaying Rules

[ad_hoc]

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

It's right there in the PHB. I was taken aback that some people didn't think it was possible for me to be serious about this. I have even seen a few people say something along the lines of "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you. There are a multitude of things you can try to do which your group with respond with "no" then you can either retract it, or leave.

One category of behaviours are ones which are socially unacceptable. The most common one to come up in play is probably attacking of other characters. It could be anything though including racism, etc. You're just not allowed to do that because the group doesn't accept it.

Then we have things which are deemed 'roleplaying rules'. These include the Barbarian example above but also include plenty of things which are unspoken. For example, most groups would probably find it unacceptable if you decided that your character suddenly believes they are from 18th century earth in a standard D&D game. Some might, but generally that sort of deviation from the setting is enough to derail a game so would be against the rules. An offshoot of this might be a character who knows the inner workings of all of the dungeons and such because the player has decided to read the adventure.

The argument I have seen against these 'roleplaying rules' is that it constricts creativity. I disagree. I think creating a unique character/story within the rules is the creative part.

I liken this to improv games. If an improv actor broke the rules/constraints of the game to do something unique it wouldn't be seen as creative, quite the opposite, it would be seen as lazy or unsporting.

D&D is a game of fantasy tropes. I think it is fun to create something unique using those tropes. Breaking them is lazy and the game suffers as a result.

Plus, that special character you made who goes against their archetype isn't as unique or interesting as you think they are. We've seen it all before. The interesting and creative moments happen during play with the collaboration of the group, just like in improv.

Of course, play with whatever 'roleplaying rules' you wish. Houserule the ones in the PHB if you like. Do keep some though, as they are important and enrich the game.

[Lombra]

It's called 'roleplaying' and not 'ruleplaying' for a reason: I can roleplay a barbarian as the paladin of a tribe or even a city, the book suggests typical tropes that you could follow, there are no rules on roleplaying by the definition of roleplay.

[Arkhios]

It's called 'roleplaying' and not 'ruleplaying' for a reason: I can roleplay a barbarian as the paladin of a tribe or even a city, the book suggests typical tropes that you could follow, there are no rules on roleplaying by the definition of roleplay.

Indeed. Flavor part of character classes are more like guidelines to help you flesh out your character if you needed the help, not hardcoded rules you absolutely must abide to.
There's absolutely nothing in the rules that prevents a Paladin having the Uthgardt Tribe Member background and be played as a "barbarian". Likewise, nothing prevents a Barbarian having the acolyte or even sage background and being faithful or intelligent beyond the trope.

Also, weirder things have happened than someone believing they are from 18th century earth. In Forgotten Realms, that's actually quite possible, considering that Mulhorand was populated by Ancient Egyptians brought from Earth by the Imaskari Empire.

[Nonah_Me]

Yeah but I think I know what Ad_Hoc is getting at. If you decided to call your self a Paladin of your tribe, why use the word Paladin? The tropes associated with that image is not likely what you're going to play, at least in practice.

That being said, as a DM, if a player gives good enough reason (or even a half way decent reason) I'll allow a lot of things. An honorbound barbarian whose rages they decided to call a tranquil fury, righteousness streaming from his every muscle? Paladin like, sure. I don't know, however, if the reverse could be true. Could there be a savage barbarian from an outlander tribe who follows the Oath of the Ancients? Maybe, if the refluff was something around "Beauty is emotion, and in my states of deep meditative rage I can see the beauty in every strike."

In both cases NPCs would see the character as not just another adventurer (as far as that trope would get you, anyway; most adventurers are special in my games) but someone even weirder than normal. Assuming they knew what it meant to be a paladin or a barbarian, anyway.

I think some classes are definitely easier to refluff than others.

Then again, Lombra did say there were no mechanical roleplay rules in place to force a certain persona. That is 100 percent true.

[JellyPooga]

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

Yeah, just no.

MY Barbarian is a city-rat half-breed Urchin who grew up in the slums of the big city. Due to his large size, he was soon muscling his way to the top of the street gangs and was later picked up by The Guild as an Enforcer. His feral cunning is the smarts of the street, his towering rages the desperation of one used to fighting for his life. The city is his turf and he knows it like the back of his hand, from sewer to rooftop. Where is this guy uncomfortable? It's certainly not when surrounded by walls; the walls are his home.

MY OTHER Barbarian is a Dwarf Battlerager and has fought against the encroaching Goblin menace deep below the surface of the world for almost his entire life. He has seen the sun only a handful of times in his life. He's a tunnel-fighter, a cave-dweller...where does he feel uncomfortable?

Shall I continue with just how mistaken using the suggestions offered about each Class as hard and fast rules is? Do you insist that every Bard is a fop minstrel? Every Rogue be a greedy criminal? Every Warlock be a sinister cultist? If you do, you're missing out on opportunities and only doing yourself a disservice.

[mig el pig]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

Rulebooks are for describing the mechanics. Everything needs a name for convenience's sake. Otherwise we wouldn't know what the hell we're talking about. These names however are only for talking about the rules themselves. Although the name offers guidelines these aren't written in stone and are, during gameplay, subordinate to the setting/world/background.

A game setting/world has titles and "labels", which come with certain expectations.

If someone enter the town screaming "the barbarians are coming from the river, hide your kids, hide your wife and hide your husband because they are killing everyone out there!" it means foreign invaders, who might be considered wild and or uncivilised are descending on the town. Their class doesn't have be barbarians.

The same goes for the title paladin. If a group announces themselves as Paladins of Soepapeke, i'm expecting people alligned with a certain "Order" who follow a certain philosophy, goal, tenet. If the group consists of a Warlock, a Rogue and a Monk I wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Edit: or just look at JellyPooga's post: Both use the Barbarian game mechanics but have a completly diffrent vibe in the settting.

[Addaran]

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.


Most of your examples have nothing in common with each others. Something like no racism is not a fluff "rule" it's part of the players' contract become some would be uncomfortable. Not having a character who believe he's from the 18th earth century might be impossible because the 18th earth doesn't exist in that multiverse. Memorizing the adventure has nothing to do with the character, it's just cheating.


For your barbarian example however, you're just wrong. There's no rule about it, it's just suggestion. I'll refer you to the warlock section to show how those "roleplaying rules" contradict each others.

From worn and hebolden: "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."
From the Great Old One: "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it."

So by those "rules", you can choose that the patron is unaware of your existence BUT you need to have made a pact with It.


Yeah but I think I know what Ad_Hoc is getting at. If you decided to call your self a Paladin of your tribe, why use the word Paladin? The tropes associated with that image is not likely what you're going to play, at least in practice.


From the OP, he doesn't seem to be talking about that but the class the player choosed. If your mechanical class is barbarian, you absolutly need to be uncomfortable hedged in walls and in crowds.

What your saying seems more like a player picking barbarian for his samurai character and refluffing rage as extreme focus and willpower. In-game, the character would never say he's a barbarian, because he's a samurai not an uncivilized brute. But for ad_hoc, that's not allowed.

[Naanomi]

Some setttings may have characters 'in a box' more than others; and one should not always assume they can 'refluff' everything without some discussion with the GM... but anything outside of the 'clearly rules' part of the text is background and guidance, not rules unless the GM says otherwise (and this is ok if they do for setting or story reasons)

Do RP rules still exist? A few... Paladin Oaths, Cleirc Gods via divine intervention, Druid armor restrictions, some mechanical aspects of alignment (particularly of magical alignment change) and mind-influencing Magic... but they are few and far between, and the 'flavor text' of class descriptions isn't (in my opinion) anywhere close to binding in that way

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

"Specific beats general" is also codified in this game. A specific barbarian's background or personality (such as JellyPooga's) can and should overrule the generic guidelines of the class.

[Naanomi]

Meh I think there has always been some degree of understood separation between description and mechanics (though not as firm a one as arose in the 3e mindset)... especially when they two disagree that it is clear that 'mechanics win' in some way. If a monster is described as 'tough' and 'hard to kill'; but has low AC and not much HP to speak of and no trait that shows particular endurance... then the 'tough' and 'hard to kill' was 'just description' and shouldn't be expected to influence anything at the table except perhaps (false) monster reputation; it isn't a sign that I need to add a secret toughness ability to the monster as a GM

[Steampunkette]

Roleplaying Rules?

http://giant.gfycat.com/BothLongAstrangiacoral.gif

The segue into what the table will tolerate socially was a nice move, though, to drum up tacit support for an unconnected idea. Didn't work out that well, though.

[Hathorym]

I disagree with the OP. As a DM, I allow the players in my games to have a wide latitude when building the background and personality of their characters. Fluff is just that, something easily swept away. As long as the mechanics support their concept, then by all means, color it how ever you choose.

As to the barbarian and walls example, that's completely in the purview of the player and the concept. I would no sooner enforce that than I would that druids don't eat meat, all rogues steal, or all wizards are weak nerdy types.

Honestly it sounds all arbitrary and smacks of stereotyping and there's enough of that in the real world.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

The question is, is it a guideline / suggestion, or roleplaying rule. (Edit: and to be clear, in this particular case I believe it is implicitly a suggestion, because for races it is explicitly a suggestion, and it's the same preliminary section as races have.)

Because roleplaying rules are actually restrictive in some way, albeit often very broadly. For example, Paladin Tenets and the Druid armor restriction, both of which have had their own 20 page threads recently, are roleplaying rules. The reason those threads went to 20 pages is that roleplaying rules don't sit well with the "everything is fluff or mechanical" crowd. They can't handle any restrictions on their roleplaying choices, and feel what a character believes is completely up to them. Unfortunately for them, this is demonstrably false via various baked in roleplaying rules in all RPG systems, but also specifically in every edition of D&D including 5e.

I feel things that come before the Class Features section are more toward the suggestion/brainstorming side of things, but even if someone does consider them more binding, "specific beats general" should apply either way. A city urchin barbarian is way more specific than a generic barbarian.

I didn't participate in the Paladin Oaths thread because I figured that depends on how both the player and DM incorporate them into the game, which isn't a very helpful opinion. I guess this is another instance of that.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

It has nothing to do with rules. In the past editions some classes roleplayed for you (paladin, druid). That's gone now.

The important thing is allowing as much player agency as possible. A dm shouldn't tell me how my character feels any more than he should tell me what my character does. This is railroading.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Hate to break it to you, but both Paladins and Druids have embedded Roleplaying Rules in 5e.
Sure, Palladian tenets are oaths you have take and druids can't wear metal armor but you aren't forced to be good or lawful or whatever. there aren't alignment restrictions that dictate my character's worldview. Rules like this don't even dictate how characters feel about such rules.

Players Having total control of how their characters think and act within the framework of the rules is how players participate in the collective storytelling experience.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

I feel that they are suggestions too. Because in the Races section, it explicitly says so. I think it's implicit in the classes section.

That is helpful. Many rules depend heavily on how they are incorporated into the game. Especially suggestions, setting rules, and even frequently roleplaying rules.

But IMO this isn't comparable to various roleplaying rules, including Paladin Tenets, Druid Armor, or even Necromancers creating undead. Because it's implicitly not an actual restriction nor a statement of fact, but rather a suggestion.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, they're only equivalent in execution, not because they're the same thing. If a player and a DM agree on roleplaying or mechanics, fine, but if they don't, negotiations may be in order.

I did forget about the descriptions being explicitly stated as suggestions before the races; that's definitely meant to carry forward and should help with such "negotiations".

[Honest Tiefling]

Yeah but I think I know what Ad_Hoc is getting at. If you decided to call your self a Paladin of your tribe, why use the word Paladin? The tropes associated with that image is not likely what you're going to play, at least in practice.

Because not everyone will have the same associations. To some, a paladin is perfectly capable of doing whatever is necessary to support King Charlemagne. To them, asian or arabic flavored paladins make little to no sense. Others will think more of well...WOW, and think Draenei paladins because it is an influential source for the medium like it or not.


MY OTHER Barbarian is a Dwarf Battlerager and has fought against the encroaching Goblin menace deep below the surface of the world for almost his entire life. He has seen the sun only a handful of times in his life. He's a tunnel-fighter, a cave-dweller...where does he feel uncomfortable?

Yeah, isn't the Dwarven Barbarian Kit from SCAG a dwarf? And I doubt they were thinking of Wild Dwarves, if those even made the cut into 5e. (I honestly sorta don't remember). So the rules themselves present a barbarian that is probably fine with stone walls, since that is where dwarves typically are.

Then you have the UA Primal Path of the Zealot, which does indicate it could be used by followers of Hextor. Unless something has changed in these editions, most followers of Hextor are pretty much city-inclined.

So why follow these 'rules' of fluff, when even the writers didn't feel much need to? I think of them as role playing guidelines for newer players to get some ideas rolling about their characters.

[Sigreid]

You and your group are free to run your table however you choose. I would not choose to play at it. To me classes are sets of mechanical abilities. The fluff given there is the default to help people along with their character concept. There is nothing wrong with using the barbarian mechanics to represent a noble house's secret martial training, for example, provided such a thing can fit into the world. In a world with people who can speak fire into existence, the gods may well walk down the street to the corner pup and with flying talking lizards that can breathe fire; I would argue that there is a room for many, many tamer things.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

So why follow these 'rules' of fluff, when even the writers didn't feel much need to? I think of them as role playing guidelines for newer players to get some ideas rolling about their characters.

I've always thought these 'rules' were descriptions of what npcs generally were like. The DM makes you aware of any changes for his specific game world.
Then the players decide how their characters are like or unlike the rest of class our race or whatever.

EXAMPLE
Me and my barbarian hunting party are out hunting a Giant Elk. Suddenly four walls appear and we're surrounded. I look around. All the other barbarians seem really uncomfortable. I'm perfectly comfortable because the walls are protecting us from what I fear, Giant Sabertooth Cats.

[BurgerBeast]

While I don't agree with the specific stance of the OP on the particular issue, I have a big problem with the extent to which some people take the "I can do whatever I want" mentality. And this is a real problem. To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone playing D&D however they want.

I do, however, have a big problem with people playing D&D however they want with a bunch of people who don't want to play it that way. And that is a different problem, entirely.

So, you know, communicate your expectations ahead of time, and if one person reneges or if there are irreconcilable differences, find a new game.

[Razade]

The OP should probably look up the word "Conflation" because that's pretty much the bulk of his post and the reason he's missing the mark so completely.

[Honest Tiefling]

While I don't agree with the specific stance of the OP on the particular issue, I have a big problem with the extent to which some people take the "I can do whatever I want" mentality. And this is a real problem. To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone playing D&D however they want.

And I think there's a gulf of difference between following guidelines presented within the books that give you very limited character options and completely ignoring the group and tone of the game.

The dwarven battlerager presented earlier by JellyPooga is perfectly legitimate in the default 5e setting, and wouldn't be out of place in many a fantasy setting. It goes against the description of the class as presented in the PHB, but in my opinion, doesn't present an air of presumption that the player can do whatever they want.

The argument is against following arbitrary 'rules' which probably aren't rules to stop awesome and workable character concepts, not that the player can do whatever. Yeah, in a medeival Chinese themed game, don't pull out an expy of King Arthur, dumb***. But what's to say that you can't fluff a druid as a shaman or Taoist caster? But the two are completely different issues.

[Razade]

The argument is against following arbitrary 'rules' which probably aren't rules to stop awesome and workable character concepts, not that the player can do whatever. Yeah, in a medeival Chinese themed game, don't pull out an expy of King Arthur, dumb***. But what's to say that you can't fluff a druid as a shaman or Taoist caster? But the two are completely different issues.

The word these people are looking for is conventions. There are Roleplaying conventions (and Conventions incidentally).

[SLIMEPRIEST]

So, you know, communicate your expectations ahead of time, and if one person reneges or if there are irreconcilable differences, find a new game.

I completely agree. I've never played in a game where there was a character so "out of sync" that it made the game no fun. Most people want a place in the game world. But I've seen of lawful thieves and chaotic dwarves.

I just don't think there should be any perscriptive guidelines for how you play your character.

If people say monks don't act like that or an elf wouldn't think like that, we should be able to say
This one does.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I generally adhere to the honor system (The rules, crunch or fluff, are always less important than communal agreement) but beyond that i generally hate being contrarian for its own sake in fantasy and enjoy "Roleplaying rules". The important takeway though is that they exist to provide a framework for a characters role-playing archetype, not as a tool to be used in rules disputes.
When i don't like someone doing something i find particularly inane ("i want to be a Lawfull Good Drow Necromancer/Paladin/Warlock") i generally skip strait to the pathos stage of argumentation, as "rules arguments" just lead to lines in the sand.

[Razade]

Roleplaying, or in-character decision making, is the antithesis of storytelling, including collective storytelling. And vice versa. If you're trying to do the latter, you can't also be doing the former.

And the majority of games with roleplaying, as opposed to storytelling, have roleplaying rules of one kind of another. They still get to choose how to control their character ... they just make the choice when they choose to have their character be something (in 5e most of them are class based) that has a roleplaying rule that applies. Edit: Or, obviously, a table can not use the rule. That's always the case, but sometimes I need to explicitly put that in a post, because otherwise people will think I'm saying that's not possible.

I think this is the most wrong thing that's been said in the thread. Like...all of it. Roleplaying is storytelling. It's telling the story of your character, how they deal with the other characters and the world. If you, as a DM, see it as a problem than that says way more about you than it does about them. As a GM, there is no more important story to me than the players. If I felt otherwise I'd just write a damn book.

There are no "Rules" to roleplaying. There are conventions. There are accepted areas and limits that are agreed on by table to table. Even 5th Ed. There's no rule saying you can't make a half drow Paladin in 5th Ed, simply things your DM and other players are willing to accept within the fiction. That isn't a Rule. That's the least offensive thing you've said but it's still up there. Just can't....can't get over the thing about storytelling and Roleplaying being on opposite ends of the spectrum.

[ad_hoc]

While I don't agree with the specific stance of the OP on the particular issue, I have a big problem with the extent to which some people take the "I can do whatever I want" mentality. And this is a real problem. To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone playing D&D however they want.

I do, however, have a big problem with people playing D&D however they want with a bunch of people who don't want to play it that way. And that is a different problem, entirely.

So, you know, communicate your expectations ahead of time, and if one person reneges or if there are irreconcilable differences, find a new game.

I agree with this though I am not sure what 'particular issue' you're talking about, I used a variety of examples to illustrate the point.


I generally adhere to the honor system (The rules, crunch or fluff, are always less important than communal agreement) but beyond that i generally hate being contrarian for its own sake in fantasy and enjoy "Roleplaying rules". The important takeway though is that they exist to provide a framework for a characters role-playing archetype, not as a tool to be used in rules disputes.
When i don't like someone doing something i find particularly inane ("i want to be a Lawfull Good Drow Necromancer/Paladin/Warlock") i generally skip strait to the pathos stage of argumentation, as "rules arguments" just lead to lines in the sand.

We use the honour system at our table too. That said, it's frustrating when people violate it. We all signed up to play a game with certain tropes and themes and now you're coming in and being contrarian to be 'creative'. I don't see the creativity in it. Be a part of the group, play the same game as everyone else.

Wanting to change the themes is a big red flag to me now. I have yet to see something as extreme as someone wanting to wear metal on their druid, but if they did they would be right out.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Tropes are great and an important part of the game. Part of the fun of tropes is subverting and reaffirming them.

I get that you want the game to include specific tropes. All groups do this to one degree or another. I fully agree. As long as you don't tell the other characters how to feel, what to think or how to act, you're doing the game no disservice.

Just don't point to the book and say, this is the right way to play. The books agree, it's up to the people playing to decide this.

My favorite trope: adventures are a bunch of outcasts and misfits.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Roleplaying, or in-character decision making, is the antithesis of storytelling, including collective storytelling.

If this were the case, we'd never get through a session. We'd just sit around while the DM told the story, get bored and go home.

It's the only way Players can interact with the story!

[ad_hoc]

I get that you want the game to include specific tropes. All groups do this to one degree or another. I fully agree. As long as you don't tell the other characters how to feel, what to think or how to act, you're doing the game no disservice.


Thats the point though, there are rules both spoken and unspoken that dictate what characters can feel, think, or how to act.

[LordVonDerp]

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

I found the bit you're describing, but it's not in the rules, it's in the fluff text that precedes the class.

[RedMage125]

Thats the point though, there are rules both spoken and unspoken that dictate what characters can feel, think, or how to act.

That's the point though...you're flat wrong. There are ZERO rules that say "based on race/class/alignment your characters can only think x, feel y or act in z manner".

None.

No rules.

If you think this is true in the rules, you are just incorrect and that is all there is to it.

D&D thrives on houserules and customization, so play however makes you and the players at your table happy. If your group enjoys staying within the boundaries of default tropes, cool. More power to you.

But the moment you tell everyone else that the rules ONLY support your way of playing and everyone else is wrong, then YOU are the one who is wrong.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Its nice to be able to role play something besides what is exactly in the book.

My group seems to seek inspiration from the book to create our back stories.

Then we seek inspiration from our back stories to determine what our characters would do in any situation.

[Millstone85]

Roleplaying, or in-character decision making, is the antithesis of storytelling, including collective storytelling.
If this were the case, we'd never get through a session. We'd just sit around while the DM told the story, get bored and go home.That sounds like a discussion on the GNS theory:
* "We are not here to play a board game!"
* "We are not here to help Bob with his story!"
* "We are not here for improvisational theatre!"

[LordVonDerp]

Some setttings may have characters 'in a box' more than others; and one should not always assume they can 'refluff' everything without some discussion with the GM... but anything outside of the 'clearly rules' part of the text is background and guidance, not rules unless the GM says otherwise (and this is ok if they do for setting or story reasons)
Basically, yes.



Do RP rules still exist? A few...
Maybe



Paladin Oaths,
They're pretty vague.



Cleirc Gods via divine intervention,
Maybe.



Druid armor restrictions,

Don't exist in 5e

[Cybren]

I think this is the most wrong thing that's been said in the thread. Like...all of it. Roleplaying is storytelling. It's telling the story of your character, how they deal with the other characters and the world. If you, as a DM, see it as a problem than that says way more about you than it does about them. As a GM, there is no more important story to me than the players. If I felt otherwise I'd just write a damn book.

There are no "Rules" to roleplaying. There are conventions. There are accepted areas and limits that are agreed on by table to table. Even 5th Ed. There's no rule saying you can't make a half drow Paladin in 5th Ed, simply things your DM and other players are willing to accept within the fiction. That isn't a Rule. That's the least offensive thing you've said but it's still up there. Just can't....can't get over the thing about storytelling and Roleplaying being on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Honestly I think It's one of the most true things ever said on this forum. There is no difference between mechanics and fluff, in that they should both reflect each other. Ideally there is a harmony between the two, and it makes the game weaker when there isn't (see the above example someone gave with regards to a monster described as "tough" having low HP and AC).

[SLIMEPRIEST]

That sounds like a discussion on the GNS theory:
* "We are not here to play a board game!"
* "We are not here to help Bob with his story!"
* "We are not here for improvisational theatre!"

I guess technically it could be. I've never found that play was that easy to break down into 3 categorIes. In my experience it's really a mix of all three most of the time. I love being part of a Dm's story. I'm just not sure how to participate if role-playing is discouraged.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't exist in 5e Yes they do, per that 20+ page long thread, but a DM can relax that if it fits the table better.

@ad_hoc:
I am curious as to whether your are taking this position as a player or as a DM?

If as a player, then apply it as appropriate to your character, but don't get all in the business of other players if your DM has a more flexible attitude.
If you are the DM, you can make the guidelines on role playing more stringent or not, but I strongly encourage you to get with your Barbarian player and discuss how to flesh out the "who and why" of that Barbarian so that the player and you both buy into just who this particular Barbarian is.



While I side with Tanarii on the "fluff" fallacy issue, I appreciate that at each table the balance on that will move a bit.

So what is your situation, ad_hoc?

Are you

trying to make a broad, general statement on how the game should be played?
uncomfortable with how some fellow players play Barbarians?
as a DM more inclined to tighten the guidelines on some class tropes?


The reason I ask is that I'm not sure what your motive is in making the OP.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Thats the point though, there are rules both spoken and unspoken that dictate what characters can feel, think, or how to act.

I can't find a single rule that prescribes anything like this. 'unspoken' rules? Is that like guess what the DM's thinking? Also, it's got to be hard to inforce rules about what characters feel and think.

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other.
Check this example:

Jeff the dwarf and his friends are out adventuring. Jeff comes across an abandoned brood of goblin children. "Awe," says Jeff, "look how cute."
NO! says the DM, YOU ARE A DWARF YOU HATE ALL GOBLINS! Another player chimes in "you pretty much have to attack them Jeff, you are a dwarf and a fighter." The DM makes his call: IT'S IN THE RULZ.

As Jeff hacks the goblin children to bits, he feels disgusted. Though he literally 'had' to do this, he can't help feeling that it's somehow wrong. Lucky this was the final good deed required to put him over the top. His alignment shifts from neutral good to lawful good...

Is this what you have in mind?

[KorvinStarmast]

As usual for people who wrongly believe roleplaying is collective storytelling, you've got it exactly back to front. If you are there to collectively storytell, you would all be sitting there while the group took turns writing or telling a story, and your characters would never interact with the adventure or world they live in.

As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

Whether or not you'd all get bored and go home is entirely on what kind of people you are. :smallwink:
I like to put it this way:
The story happens as a result of role play; (usually helps if one of the players keeps a journal).
That result is a synthesis of the setting/challenges the DM has presented and the decisions the players (and mostly the player characters) make.
Without the world (DM stuff) as the party's foil, there isn't a story to tell via this means.

[Contrast]

I have even seen a few people say something along the lines of "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

Ahahahaha...

...Oh, you're serious?

Ignoring the (vast numbers) of people who just want to use the barbarian rules to play a thug or bruiser or whatever, lets take the example of Thrag the Stereotypical BarbarianTM. He is a half orc who grew up in a nomadic warrior band before joining up with the PCs as part of his mystical vision quest/quest for vengence/insert heroic or conflicted backstory here.

He enters a town for the first time:

PC: Thrag is amazed at the number of people wandering around. After spending the day walking around in a daze at the people and items, he retires to an inn. He's delighted by the comforts on offer and finds himself wondering why no-one ever told him that living life could be so easy. He falls to sleep, the bed much nicer than any bedroll, and resolves that he will strive to live every day in this sort of comfort!
DM: Actually no, you find the whole day very unsettling and the walls and blankets feel like a suffocating embrace around you. You pick up your stuff and spend the night outside under the stars where you're much more comfortable.

Is that honestly how you think that exchange should go?

Edit - ninjad by Slimepriest :smalltongue:

What I'm really sensing here is that you're fed up of people being bored with the stereotypes and feeling the need to make non-conformist characters ('MY dwarf doesn't like ale, have a beard or use an axe!'). I see where you're coming from but at the same time we play roleplaying games precisely so we can let our imaginations run wild and have the freedom to do what we want. Some of my favourite characters have come from playing against type and some of my favourite characters have come from embracing stereotypes.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

As usual for people who wrongly believe roleplaying is collective storytelling, you've got it exactly back to front. If you are there to collectively storytell, you would all be sitting there while the group took turns writing or telling a story, and your characters would never interact with the adventure or world they live in.

As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

Whether or not you'd all get bored and go home is entirely on what kind of people you are. :smallwink:

I see. I was misusing the terminology. That's fine.

I support player agency in d&d. Years and years of play have taught me that the game is more fun when the players do things the way they want. Why would you want to arbirarily shut out potentially fun ideas by using the book as cudgle.

I'm fine if we skip the debate about whether rpgs are collective storytelling.

[Arkhios]

Yes they do, per that 20+ page long thread, but a DM can relax that if it fits the table better.

What the player community thinks means nothing. It doesn't matter whether there is 20, 200, or just 2 posts in a thread saying something is or isn't so.

Druids don't have a hard restriction for their armor. It's only a taboo why they generally prefer not to use certain types of armor. 5th edition rules (as written) do not deprive a druid wearing metal armor his or her powers. It's only considered not-kosher. If a DM chose to stick with old rules instead of current rules, that's his call, not the game's.

That it's only a taboo has been confirmed by Crawford, and that's what I hold much more weight in ruleswise than the community - who were not there designing the edition.

[KorvinStarmast]

Druids don't have a hard restriction for their armor. Let us leave that debate for that thread, where we all did a great job of beating it to death from either side. OK? At each table there's room from the DM to choose one way or the other by playing "Master of Rules" ...
I'd like to go back to the point first made in the OP:

It's right there in the PHB. I was taken aback that some people didn't think it was possible for me to be serious about this. I have even seen a few people say something along the lines of "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you. There are a multitude of things you can try to do which your group with respond with "no" then you can either retract it, or leave.
I think this observation is being misunderstood by some of the respondents.

For the case of 5e ... the book describes the creation of the character, the background, and the back story as a cooperative effort between the DM and the player. The key issue here is that the back story fits into the world at large that the DM has. Some DM's will solicit (my last one loved this) input from players on how the world is shaped, others have a much more organized and more fleshed out world for their players to act in. Thus, what ad_hoc says there is completely true in paragraph 1. DM and player need to come to a consensus on a number of character details, and need to do that (IMO) in a face to face conversation. (or a phone con, or a back and forth series of emails ... DIALOGUE is the point here).

The second paragraph is also true of the boundaries that exist at a table. If you are the My Guy who thinks it's OK to PvP and the rest are not into that, you don't get to do that at that table with that DM and with that group.

If you want to play an LG paladin, and the rest of the party is mostly evil or neutral to evil, is this party really a good fit? Maybe you should look at the party and consider a different choice, unless the whole group is interested in internal tension within the party as a feature of play.

The point being made is that In Group Activities, there is an element of compromise and sacrifice that each of us makes.

Thus this point
"your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false. is true most of the time ... unless you are interested in a dysfunctional table. We each have to accommodate the others at the table for a good table environment.

For the case of the original game: except for my every first dungeon crawl when we were all very new, every DM I ever played with ( and then me as a DM because I learned from them) included a bit of a background story for each character as part of getting the group together. This was before anything was ever formal. This was ... well ... part of the fun and most DM's on their own initiative would drop something into the story from a background story somewhere along the line.

(In one case, our Fighter had died a horrible death as we had gone into a tower to defeat a vampire's minions, so we found my cousin (per my back story) as a prisoner chained to the wall. Imagine my surprise!

The DM had created an NPC Ranger who was my cousin (I was playing a druid). It was almost too easy: our Fighter played this new Ranger, and a reason to join the party was premade. Given how darned hard it was to roll up a Ranger in those days, we were all grateful and it was great fun. (He had cool bonuses versus Giant Class creatures, and saved us from being surprised with some frequency ...)

[Contrast]

Thus this point is true most of the time ... unless you are interested in a dysfunctional table. We each have to accommodate the others at the table for a good table environment.

Except I'm not talking about someone choosing to be unco-operative or PVP in a table who doesn't want to PVP. Ad_hoc specifically suggested it was against the 'rules' for anyone playing the barbarian class to feel comfortable in a city. If someone playing such a barbarian would be harmful to your play experience then I would suggest the issue is with you, not with them.

[Naanomi]

What the player community thinks means nothing. It doesn't matter whether there is 20, 200, or just 2 posts in a thread saying something is or isn't so.

Druids don't have a hard restriction for their armor. It's only a taboo why they generally prefer not to use certain types of armor. 5th edition rules (as written) do not deprive a druid wearing metal armor his or her powers. It's only considered not-kosher. If a DM chose to stick with old rules instead of current rules, that's his call, not the game's.

That it's only a taboo has been confirmed by Crawford, and that's what I hold much more weight in ruleswise than the community - who were not there designing the edition.
I'll leave this alone given there are probably 100 pages on the subject on this forum alone; except to say that at the very least there are people who disagree with this interpretation.

That aside, I think roleplaying 'rules' as much as they are (and I do think that some exist to a degree even in 5e, even though they are lighter and more adaptable than ever before) should never come up with a skilled roleplayer. As a GM I shouldn't have to be stepping in and telling you 'um, you are charmed, you have to treat him like a friend; not sabotage his plans' or 'that might violate your paladin Oaths': if you are magically compelled, have taken sacred oaths to the degree of getting supernatural powers from your conviction, have intense religious taboos integral to every aspect of your (again supernaturally empowered) belief system, have had your alignment changed to chaotic evil from your vampirism or lycanthropy... *in general* you shouldn't need reminders to act accordingly.

Does this mean there cannot be exceptions? Of course not... if you want to do a 'fall from grace' storyline and have your Paladin slowly descend from their lofty ideals I'm all for it, come talk to me about it and we will make it work. If you immediately start butchering orphans and when I inform you it violates your oaths you say 'meh, I like the Oathbreaker power set anyways' then maybe we have some deeper 'table philosophy' issues to work out.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except I'm not talking about someone choosing to be unco-operative or PVP in a table who doesn't want to PVP. Ad_hoc specifically suggested it was against the 'rules' for anyone playing the barbarian class to feel comfortable in a city. If you would do me the kindness of reading my whole post, that would be nice. It appears that you only responded to part of it. (You can skip my story about back in the stone age ...)

Let's go back to the point on how the DM and player collaborate on creating the character within the world the DM is running. As I pointed out, some DM's have wider boundaries than others on what is or isn't consistent with the rules (guidelines) on character tropes and classes. They are not by default wrong, but you or I may well disagree with them on a given PoV. What is necessary is consensus building between the DM and the player, not the players by default asserting "you deny me agency" any time they disagree.

I suspect we disagree more than we don't, but are coming at this from slightly different angles.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

The point being made is that In Group Activities, there is an element of compromise and sacrifice that each of us makes.

Thus this point is true most of the time ... unless you are interested in a dysfunctional table. We each have to accommodate the others at the table for a good table environment

Yes. I totally agree. I think it's easier to accomplish this by allowing more freedom but whatever.

My objection: the OP claims is making the games less fun for him if my barbarian doesn't feel uncomfortable indoors. I'd like to mske everyone happy, but I don't think he's accommodating me by forcing my character to be uncomfortable for half the game. This is all moot because he thinks the rules say that barbarians always feel uncomfortable indoors. There goes any hope of accommodation. My non uncomfortable barbarian is breaking the rules. He's basically bullied me with the rules into playing my character the way he wants. This I object to.

[KorvinStarmast]

My non uncomfortable barbarian is breaking the rules. He's basically bullied me with the rules into playing my character the way he wants. This I object to. And what about all of those barbarians who grew up living in a cave? :smallbiggrin:

If the disagreement is strong enough, either play a different class or play at a different table. Consensus needs to be reached, and I think we agree.

[King539]

What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you.

It honestly seems like you're being sarcastic.

[Contrast]

I did read your post...quoting the entire thing in my response seemed a tad excessive though :smalltongue:

I'm not disagreeing with you that creating a character is a co-operative enterprise between the DM and all the players (hence why I didn't really respond to this segment of your argument).

What I (and others) have objected to is ad_hoc conflating this with having to play your class according to trope. That is an entirely different beast and should be treated as such. I play a rogue who has never stolen anything. Am I playing my rogue wrong? Based on what ad_hoc has said I am.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Let's try one more example from real life:
Personally, I prefer playing in a human-centric world. I prefer playing 1e. The game I play in is 5e and literally none of the other pcs (or most npc)are human. I could try to get everyone to do it my way because of my hurt feelings. I could try to use the books to prove that a tiefling and a dragonborn pally world never adventure together.

Instead I'm enjoying walking through this weird world and learning about new cultures. The pcs come up with most of the culture stuff through play.

This is what consensus looks like. Having the the courage to let other players play their characters so that everyone can have fun.

DMs, please no railroading.

[Unoriginal]

As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

That's wrong, though. Stories can be acted. Stories can be lived.

A RPG scession is a story, although it's true it's more story-acting than strictly only story-telling.




I think this observation is being misunderstood by some of the respondents.


Not really, OP is saying that if you want to play a Barbarian who's comfortable in a city, you can't, because according to them the RP suggestions in the PHB are rules that shall not be broken.

[Ruslan]

Druid armor restrictions,

Don't exist in 5eDid you know that if you squint hard enough, you can make whole sections of the PHB disappear?

[Unoriginal]

Did you know that if you squint hard enough, you can make whole sections of the PHB disappear?

I call that closing my eyes.

[Chaosmancer]

Seems like a bad idea to quote most of the thread, so I'll refrain.


We've got a few different examples from the OP and therefore we have a few different conversations going on.


Should players be able to justify metagaming through backstory?

This seems to be the biggest thing for a lot of people. "If we allow players to do whatever they want then their grandfather will have passed down his staff of the Magi and armor of invulnerability and I don't want to deal with a 1st level character breaking the game like that"

I agree that if a player tries this I generally try and reframe what they are attempting. I have a friend who wanted his 1st level paladin to be a cursed immortal who devoured the souls of the wicked to power his abilities. I told him no. I tried to work with him to re-imagine a paladin he was happy with, but I was not going to let him play a demi-god when I wanted a story of people caught up in a war between nations.



This is a completely different issue than some of the others though

A second issue is table etiquette

Does allowing a player to play any character he wants mean allowing him to murder party members or play a misogynist? Or less extreme, someone who breaks with the party dynamic like a lawful good player in an evil party.


Well, it depends on which end we're talking about and how comfortable the party is. You adjust yourself to the table. If you want to steal from the party, and the party isn't cool with that style of game, then you need to have a discussion with the group and probably just not do it. However, this isn't always obvious. I played a "lawful good" (we don't play with official alignments) character in a group that turned out over the course of the game to be highly amoral, and it caused friction. I had asked the DM about my character before the game started, and I don't think anyone expected the party to turn out the way it did, however, the group had a blast, so it was okay, but we all acknowledge the party is dysfunctional and only sticking together because the game demands it.



And then finally, does the game demand you follow tropes.


Can I play a Barbarian with the Noble (knight) background? Yes, nothing in the rules prevents this. Even if you include fluff=rules, the backgrounds in the PHB do not say "Only fighters can take the soldier background and only thieves can take the criminal background" so there is no rule against mixing and matching and you are encouraged to do so.

And I think most of us on this thread are in agreement, there is no reason to force people into specific characters.

Does your elf hate orcs or not? Player's choice

Is your thief greedy or generous? Player's choice

Does your cleric militantly proselytize or simply lead by example? Player's choice


My Half-Orc Fighter (samurai) Soldier has superstitions like burying rocks outside our base when we leave for good luck, or taking the weapons of those who dropped him to zero in case the weapons "have his name" on them. I didn't talk to the DM about it, but I don't think I needed to (and he hasn't complained to me) because what my character believes and acts on is my choice.



Some people get very upset about "snowflakism", but this seems to be an ever changing goal. You as the DM may have seen 600 players who decided their rogue is a generous archaeologist , but this new player has never played that character and is sick of playing rogues who are sneak thieves and criminals. You'd love them to play a criminal instead, but they don't want to. Are they trying to be a "snowflake"? Who gets to decide that?

In part, I come at this as a DM who rarely gets to play. When I sit down to play a character, I want to play the character who interests me. I don't really care if the DM finds my concept boring, if it doesn't break the world please let me enjoy the character I want to enjoy.

And, if every character is only defined by their broadest strokes, then yeah things are going to get boring. But then your characters are not fully developed people and of course they are going to be boring. Tropes aren't going to make that better

This is where I disagree with the OP. Yes, talk to your DM about your character, but the DM doesn't have the right to tell you what superstitions, beliefs, or behaviors your character has, as long as they don't move into the realm of harming the group dynamics at the table, and if you are so strict in your fun that not being a caricature harms the group dynamics.... then I really don't understand your table at all

[Hathorym]

If a player came to me with a concept of a Dwarven barbarian/Underdark druid who guards the mines and homes of his people and wears medium metal armor, I would oblige.

Why?

First, he came to me and asked.
Second, we discussed his concept and it fit with the setting.
Third, because it breaks absolutely nothing. The concept fits within the mechanics of both classes and the role-playing aspect of the character is utilized.

He's a barbarian surrounded by walls and a druid wearing metal armor and the only person who will be impacted by my decision is the player. And he gets to have fun.

It affects absolutely nothing to allow the player to play the character he has in mind. Not everything has to be so rigid.

[pwykersotz]

I'm okay with people making their characters behave in a multitude of ways, but I do ask that if you remove a bit of RP fluff, you add another equivalent one back in. That city Barbarian who is at home in the walls? I would expect that he's no longer "uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" but is now "uncomfortable in wide open spaces". Your Druid who wears metal armor? I would expect him to have a taboo against a common use of wood or stone. It's the same with the benefits. If your Monk isn't capable of "whirling through foes, knocking their blows aside, and sending them reeling", then come up with something else awesome that you can do.

[KorvinStarmast]

I did read your post...quoting the entire thing in my response seemed a tad excessive though :smalltongue:
Fair enough, and it appears that we agree more than we disagree.


What I (and others) have objected to is ad_hoc conflating this with having to play your class according to trope. That is an entirely different beast and should be treated as such.
That's not a bad way to play, though. I've seen it done. It is, and can be, fun. I object to the assertion that it is somehow wrong, in terms of a DM for a given table making that preference known up front, but then we are back to the collaboration bit on character creation.
I play a rogue who has never stolen anything. Am I playing my rogue wrong? I don't know, since a rogue isn't by default a thief (as the original class was.)

Based on what ad_hoc has said I am. I had asked the OP a three part question and not gotten a response, so I'm going to wait for that before going further.

[Xetheral]

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

It's right there in the PHB. I was taken aback that some people didn't think it was possible for me to be serious about this. I have even seen a few people say something along the lines of "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

Out of curiousity, what is the value to you, personally, in requiring PCs with levels in the Barbarian class to feel hedged in by walls?

I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from, so more explanation would be helpful.

[Hathorym]

I'm okay with people making their characters behave in a multitude of ways, but I do ask that if you remove a bit of RP fluff, you add another equivalent one back in. That city Barbarian who is at home in the walls? I would expect that he's no longer "uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" but is now "uncomfortable in wide open spaces". Your Druid who wears metal armor? I would expect him to have a taboo against a common use of wood or stone. It's the same with the benefits. If your Monk isn't capable of "whirling through foes, knocking their blows aside, and sending them reeling", then come up with something else awesome that you can do.
Why? You'd still be dictating personal beliefs and aspects of the Player's character. You'd still be saying, "yeah, nice concept but I want you to add this arbitrary fluff to replace the absolutely arbitrary trope we removed from the class you want to play even if it doesn't work with your concept."

I believe you work with a player. If it doesn't work out, such as the immortal soul eating Paladin from earlier in the thread, then thems the breaks. You ask them to go back to the drawing board. But when the fluff is as innocuous as "Barbarians don't feel comfortable surrounded by walls" there's no reason to place an equal piece of fluff on a player. It's just utilizing power for the sake of having it.

D&D, at my table, is a cooperative game. We work together to build the best world, story, character development within the parameters of the setting. If you've had a session 0 and have explained the expectations of the campaign, none of these things should be an issue.

[Naanomi]

I don't know, since a rogue isn't by default a thief (as the original class was.)
I had asked the OP a three part question and not gotten a response, so I'm going to wait for that before going further.
Although they *do* all know thieve's cant (I personally moved it to the Criminal background feature and let rogues change it out for another language or tool)

[KorvinStarmast]

Although they *do* all know thieve's cant (I personally moved it to the Criminal background feature and let rogues change it out for another language or tool) Love that idea. A lot.

[pwykersotz]

Why? You'd still be dictating personal beliefs and aspects of the Player's character. You'd still be saying, "yeah, nice concept but I want you to add this arbitrary fluff to replace the absolutely arbitrary trope we removed from the class you want to play even if it doesn't work with your concept."

I believe you work with a player. If it doesn't work out, such as the immortal soul eating Paladin from earlier in the thread, then thems the breaks. You ask them to go back to the drawing board. But when the fluff is as innocuous as "Barbarians don't feel comfortable surrounded by walls" there's no reason to place an equal piece of fluff on a player. It's just utilizing power for the sake of having it.

D&D, at my table, is a cooperative game. We work together to build the best world, story, character development within the parameters of the setting. If you've had a session 0 and have explained the expectations of the campaign, none of these things should be an issue.

1. You assume incorrectly that this is a GM driven rule. It is not. I didn't come up with it, my players did. New players are encouraged to abide by it, or find a way to create in harmony with it.
2. You assume incorrectly that this is applied with some sort of iron fist. It is not. Note the word "ask in my previous post. It is a guideline to make sure you have developed a well-rounded character, not a snowflake.
3. Your last line is not mutually exclusive with the rest of your point. I would describe my table the same way.

[CaptainSarathai]

This entire thread is Skub.
In the end, it doesn't matter how you play your game. I could "house-rule" with my table that a Greatsword does 4d12 damage on a hit. Ain't nothing you, or anyone else, can do about it.

If you want to demand that all Barbarians have panic-attacks when underground or enclosed, then whatever; that's your table, your characters.
But do not start pulling interpretations out of your butt to tell me how I'm not playing my character right, at an entirely different table.
Because ultimately, what's it matter to you? Did I ask for a ruling on barbarians' agoraphobia? Is my urban barbarian ruining your play experience?

[pwykersotz]

This entire thread is Skub.
In the end, it doesn't matter how you play your game. I could "house-rule" with my table that a Greatsword does 4d12 damage on a hit. Ain't nothing you, or anyone else, can do about it.

If you want to demand that all Barbarians have panic-attacks when underground or enclosed, then whatever; that's your table, your characters.
But do not start pulling interpretations out of your butt to tell me how I'm not playing my character right, at an entirely different table.
Because ultimately, what's it matter to you? Did I ask for a ruling on barbarians' agoraphobia? Is my urban barbarian ruining your play experience?

Pfft...that sounds like the sort of claptrap an anti-skub would say. :smalltongue:

[Ruslan]

Can I play a Barbarian with the Noble (knight) background? Yes, nothing in the rules prevents this. Even if you include fluff=rules, the backgrounds in the PHB do not say "Only fighters can take the soldier background and only thieves can take the criminal background" so there is no rule against mixing and matching and you are encouraged to do so.

Your class is what you're doing as an adventurer. Your background is what you were doing before you became an adventurer. The rules specifically allow any combination of class/background, and it's up to the player, possibly in cooperation with the DM, to come up with the fluff of how he got from this to that.

A reformed criminal that became a paladin? An acolyte who had a crisis of faith and sold his soul to the devil? A former career soldier who decided to use his army savings to enroll into Wizards' School? A nobleman's disowned son who now robs tombs for a living? Whatever works, man.

[Razade]

As usual for people who wrongly believe roleplaying is collective storytelling, you've got it exactly back to front. If you are there to collectively storytell, you would all be sitting there while the group took turns writing or telling a story, and your characters would never interact with the adventure or world they live in.

As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

Whether or not you'd all get bored and go home is entirely on what kind of people you are. :smallwink:

Collective storytelling doesn't require you to do it bonfire style. Roleplaying isn't collective storytelling or doesn't have to be. Mostly because you want to define story and roleplaying as one thing, when that's not the case.

[Tetrasodium]

Someone asked earlier in this thread about if someone's PoV is normally as the player or gm & if flipping that screen changes things. I'm normally the GM going wayyyyy back. As the gm I'm usually more willing to allow players to color outside the lines & work with them to come up with something that fits what they are going for. As a player, I might make a case, and probably will, but I'm usually more strict on myself than most gm's I've played with expect.


I think part of the problem is human nature's dislike of being wrong & some people having more issue with it than others. Maybe they ate crow once or lost control & decided they would avoid that by not explaining themselves to the extent the other party is asking for because subconsciously it's obvious deep down that the conscience robot is screaming danger will robinson & waving a flag of doubt.

Take for example, lets say I want to run a campaign where metallurgy is poorly developed/rare & tell the rogue "sorry guy, rapiers need advanced metalurgy, but it looks like all of your other base proficiency stuff are fine with the basic late bronze/very early iron age level of advancement I'm going for." When the rogue understandably says "uhh... so what else is effected?" & I come back with a list that is made up of "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers", the rogue is extremely justified in saying "uhh... so this effects me pretty heavily since base bard doesn't get rapier & valor bards get full martial+medium proficiency.. aren't you kind of unfairly singling me out?" > "no not at all, the valor bard can't sneak attack".

after an absurd reply like that, a truly patient rogue might ask "um... ok... so how rare is rare, what does that mean for me exactly if I want one?". The rogue is probably already viewing the whole thing with some significant amount of skepticism & is quickly going to ask the obvious & seemingly very reasonable question "does the heavy armor class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21794567#post21794567) who wants a set of plate/greataxe/longsword/etc need to make a skill roll too, or just me if I want a rapier/studded leather?... if he does, are the targets the same, or is my class proficiency just extra special unlucky?... cause I'm having difficulty seeing how you can maintain that you are treating rogues fairly, but refusing to answer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21794661&postcount=57) any of those questions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21797734&postcount=592) & some of those seem to be mutually exclusive based on your positions".

From there, The rogue spends ten pages trying to get the gm to explain anything & points out how a particularly awful style of gm'ing is being displayed, not because he was told no; but by the refusal to explain anything while people ignore all that & focus on why the gm can say no. The rogue is upset that he's being given the impression that he's never going to find a magic rapier/set of studded while focusing on things he or she wanted to & the gm is upset because the rogue could make it their life's mission to [url=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21777529&postcount=217]quest for the level of stuff the rest of the party gets while questing for stuff the character wants to care about (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21781650&postcount=341"rare" or "exotic"[/url). Finally the rogue problem is a particular gm (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21778584#post21778584) & suggests people find another... By the end of that second set of ten pages, the thought of eating crow after so much arguing in favor of contradictory points, the gm runs away & declares that the player was just "acting hostile" & walks away from the whole discussion with the problem player as the rogue did with the problem gm refusing to explain themselves. Player/rogue & gm are pretty set in this example, but they could take either role in other cases.. mainly because most tables are filled with humans (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostWritersAreHuman).

If the rogue needs to spend downtime & roll to find base rapier/studded leather, does the fighter(or whatever) who wants a set of plate?... if yes, is the difficulty going to be the same, or is the rogue correct in that he or she is being unfairly singled out by this particular bit of fluff in my hypothetical campaign? If the fighter does not and/or will generally have an easier target regardless of whatever story reasons I come up with... the rogue is correct.
If the fighter (or whatever) will generally need a similarly difficult skill check, I'm wrong because my original list of rare/uncommon/exotic stuff was limited only to "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers" & caused the misunderstanding by a simple lack of clarity on my own part. I'm also wrong because it's not "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers" it's "everything" and the whole point of telling the rogue why he was going to have a hard time with rapiers was irrelevant... Unfortunately, it's too late to admit either of these things because I & someone's obvious second/third account brigade has now spent 20 pages arguing with the rouge.... oops, that rogue is just a hostile problem player.

[Unoriginal]

Take for example, lets say I want to run a campaign where metallurgy is poorly developed/rare & tell the rogue "sorry guy, rapiers need advanced metalurgy, but it looks like all of your other base proficiency stuff are fine with the basic late bronze/very early iron age level of advancement I'm going for." When the rogue understandably says "uhh... so what else is effected?" & I come back with a list that is made up of "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers", the rogue is extremely justified in saying "uhh... so this effects me pretty heavily since base bard doesn't get rapier & valor bards get full martial+medium proficiency.. aren't you kind of unfairly singling me out?"
[/LIST]

That exemple would rely on the DM somehow forgetting all the other armors that require more advanced metallurgy than chain mail.

Even then, a DM deciding that their campaign world has some features that put one or another player option at disadvantage is not singling the player out or being unfair.

In some settings, people will throw stones when they see a Tiefling approach a town. Is it unfair for the player who want to have a Tiefling character? In Ravenloft, Clerics are cut out from their deities and get their powers granted by the evil entities controlling the place. Is Ravenloft unfair for the player who want to play a Cleric?

Also, I don't want to be mean, but it really sounds like you're trying to change this debate to "talking about what happened in another thread".

[Naanomi]

In some settings, people will throw stones when they see a Tiefling approach a town. Is it unfair for the player who want to have a Tiefling character? In Ravenloft, Clerics are cut out from their deities and get their powers granted by the evil entities controlling the place. Is Ravenloft unfair for the player who want to play a Cleric?
There is definitely an important distinction between 'singling out a player' and 'a player happening to suffer because of the setting'... heck even the published adventures do so to a degree (Curse of Strahd having harder times for Paladins and Clerics as part of the traditional Ravenloft setting, and the people of Mulmaster hating Arcane Spellcasters (with associated mechanics!) in the Dragon Queen modules.

[Ruslan]

Take for example, lets say I want to run a campaign where metallurgy is poorly developed/rare & tell the rogue "sorry guy, rapiers need advanced metalurgy

The DM can just shift the goalposts on what exactly constitutes "poorly developed".

I once ran a campaign in such a "metallurgy is poorly developed" world.

- The PCs had access to some shoddily made Plate Armor which only provided AC 18 (if they had access to well-made plate armor, it could have had AC as high as 22, but no one had access to any, because poorly developed metallurgy...)
- The PCs had access to some shoddily made Longswords which only dealt 1d8 damage (if they had access to properly made longswords, they would have done like 1d12 damage, but no one had access to any, because ... you get it)

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

I think where I draw the line on fluff is between "this is how the setting reacts to the PC" and "this is how the PC reacts to the setting". DM comes up the former, player comes up with the latter. Collaboration isn't out of the question, but that's basically how it goes. Tieflings can shrug off their shunning or have it affect them deeply, and same for barbarians and walls.

When it starts running up against mechanics, then you can start discussing whether it's appropriate for the characters to take up developing great strides in metallurgy.

[mr-mercer]

On the original subject, I have a particular line in the sand that I'm fond of. I will begin with a disclaimer: this is only true assuming your campaign follows the standard descriptions of everything. If your DM is the type to experiment with fun ideas such as simian elves, ask them about the differences in their world and understand those when making your character.

In any case, my way of doing things is thus: with each race and class there is a particular point on their pages ("[insert race here] traits" for races and "Class features" for classes). Beyond those points these rules are fairly rigid (e.g. druids wouldn't be able to wear metal armour because that's after the aformentioned section, though DM fiat is a wonderful thing and if I were a DM I'd definitely allow individual druids to wear metal armour if they could provide a character-specific justification).

Anything before that, however, is strictly fluff and doesn't have rules governing it: everything there just comes down to basic logic. If you're an experienced player (or just understand fantasy settings, as D&D is one of our current baselines for the generic fantasy world) you can ignore that section entirely if you already have a general idea of it: any idiot can tell you how dwarves work in a general sense, but a newcomer may not know what a tiefling is, so you can safely ignore the former and pay attention to the latter. If, as my disclaimer mentions, you have a creative DM who likes altering stuff, that fluff section might not even be relevant.

TL;DR: rules are only rigid from the point that they start discussing skills and features and such. Anything before that is plenty malleable so long as you understand the core principles of the thing you're looking at.

[Naanomi]

TL;DR: rules are only rigid from the point that they start discussing skills and features and such. Anything before that is plenty malleable so long as you understand the core principles of the thing you're looking at.
I completely agree *with the caveat* that some settings might be more restrictive than that for whatever reasons, for example stating all Clerics and Paladins follow one of the 'four Gods detailed here' or somesuch... so long as those setting expectations are clear and consistently applied everything is still good

[Tetrasodium]

That exemple would rely on the DM somehow forgetting all the other armors that require more advanced metallurgy than chain mail.

Even then, a DM deciding that their campaign world has some features that put one or another player option at disadvantage is not singling the player out or being unfair.

In some settings, people will throw stones when they see a Tiefling approach a town. Is it unfair for the player who want to have a Tiefling character? In Ravenloft, Clerics are cut out from their deities and get their powers granted by the evil entities controlling the place. Is Ravenloft unfair for the player who want to play a Cleric?

Also, I don't want to be mean, but it really sounds like you're trying to change this debate to "talking about what happened in another thread".

Yes, the gm is forgetting it, & the rogue would no doubt bring that up only to be have it dismissed because plate would just be heavier or something. It's a significantly bad false equivalency to suggest that "joe they throw stones at your tiefling" and "steve, sorry your rogue probably can't get rapiers or studded leather & almost certainly won't find those exotic things in magical format unless you go questing explicitly or them."
As to your last statement about changing the debate, there are two problems there... First, I came in on page 3 & there had already been quite a few posts about both the problems discussed in the other thread and their likely reasons... Almost more involving something friom that thread (including multiple points in the first post & the whole barbarian!city thing). than not.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21798806&postcount=1
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799310&postcount=8
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799366&postcount=11
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799379&postcount=13
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799462&postcount=16
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799558&postcount=17
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21799673&postcount=18
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21800212&postcount=23
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21800283&postcount=25
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21800369&postcount=27
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802121&postcount=39
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802188&postcount=40
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802388&postcount=42
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802444&postcount=44
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802473&postcount=46
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802512&postcount=48
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802555&postcount=50
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21803249&postcount=63
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21803314&postcount=67

Second, you can blame Naanomi for that.



You mentioned (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21794441&postcount=567) that a druid might need to do some side adventuring [with the party's help?], or maybe make a skill roll, to get nonmetal base medium armo; but you also seem to have argued that it's wrong to say the druid is getting any special unlucky treatment making Chaosmancer'spost (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517166-Land-Druid-and-it-s-AC-problems/page19&p=21794567#post21794567). even though he wasn't quoting you in the post, it very clearly is addressing things you said in #567 (adventuring staple/skill roll/etc).

Does the valor bard wanting a set of breastplate/halfplate armor need to go adventuring/make a skill roll & use downtime, or does he just wait for a set to randomly show up knowing he doesn't need to go out of his or her way for base gear?

If the bard needs to do that adventure/skill roll& downtime, are the target difficulties & downtime needs going to be the same as the druid wanting the same base breastplate/halfplate.. or is the druid almost always going to have higher requirements because very few campaigns take place in & around a significantly important to the plot druid grove?

if both the bard & druid lack the relevant skill or do poorly on their roll, can they both turn to a more relevantly skilledparty member and say "hey so & so, can you try to find someone to make me a breastplate/halfplate?" across the table, or is only one of them able to do that?

If the bard & druid are both even in all of those hurdles towards getting base gear with nether being singled out for an unfair disadvantage, doesn't that make the original claim of nonmetal medium armor being rare/exotic in your campaign wrong by adding the nonmetal distinction to "armor in my campaign is rare"?



If you want to have this discussion on a public thread, I would gladly do so. However, I make it a habit, in general, to not use the personal message systems in forum environments; particularly not to people who have been acting even the least bit hostile in more public viewable settings. I will not respond to further personal messages, but feel free to post and I can follow up if you wish.



If you want to have this discussion on a public thread, I would gladly do so. However, I make it a habit, in general, to not use the personal message systems in forum environments; particularly not to people who have been acting even the least bit hostile in more public viewable settings. I will not respond to further personal messages, but feel free to post and I can follow up if you wish.
I sent you the pm because you ignored chaosmancer's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21794567#post21794567), & I myself made not [/url=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21794661&postcount=571]one[/url], but two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21797734&postcount=592) attempts to do just that. After that reply, the plate of crow is in your court; but lets just be civil & go on the assumption that you didn't see Chaosmancer's or either of my posts when you were replying to others in the mean time.





Bold underline emphases mine, no other changes aside from a close italics to close url tag correction. Since it's been quite some time & they are still unwilling to explain or eat that plate of crow & ignored it in the last couple posts here, I think the answer is obvious that it's more about the plate of crow after arguing in favor of mutually invalidating positions than the public thread.



I don't care about what people think about metal armor on the fourth class listed in the phb 's "chapter 3 classes" section & avoided mentioning it, I care about how people can hold mutually invalidating viewpoints like my rogue & "sorry rapiers/studded leather will be rare, fighters can't sneak attack so nothing to discuss". I'm wanting to know because I've seen people take mutually invalidating positions on other things from time to time & it always amazes me... I think the most obnoxious example was a ranger who wanted to know ", I'm thinking of favored enemy giant, how common will giants be?" & was around level 4-5 before the increasingly shrill gm finally admitted "It's very heavily inspired by ravenloft, you will continue to see mostly undead but might see giants at some point if they are in one of the modules I run & I'm not going to change them for you. so stop asking for information about the future that I'm not going to give, sorry you picked the wrong FE originally" just before the ranger walked off & a significant chunk of the group was looking for a new gm a few days later.... Needless to say we all had a lot of fun at my table while I agreed to start gm'ing for them.

[Naanomi]

Ok… I waited to post on this because I didn’t want to derail an active thread; plus I was considering just blocking the user and letting it go. However, I did agree that I would pursue it in a public space so I will do so.

I have two things to address:
First, a bit about my campaign and playstyle that addresses some of the concerns. I fully admit that these are all assumptions, and that not everyone runs their table this way (nor, perhaps, should they); but only that they are the assumptions that I generally make, and that they have worked reasonably for many years for me as a GM and, by and large, for the players that I have run through many adventures

1) I tend to a rather strict basic interpretation of the rules, and then apply exceptions later. Sometimes this means that I am more ‘strict’ in the reading of a rule that can be interpreted multiple ways than I could possibly be. I do this for a variety of reasons.

>a. I sometimes ‘co-GM’ or have people taking characters from one table to another; and while we do good communication between GMs to make sure everyone is on the same page, I tend to stick with the most literal or strict interpretation of the rules as a default position to best support consistency between tables

>>i. In fact, this is generally why I take this stance on forums and the like: one can never know the expectations and exceptions made at every table, so taking a ‘strict’ stance but then noting when exceptions may appear

>b. It is very common for me to have new players, in fact new roleplayers, at my table (one of my groups is run at the school I teach at as a student group); and just playing ‘by the rules’ rather than making broad and open interpretations is often, in my experience, a better entry way into the hobby than a list of houserules and loose gameplay style that might be more acceptable at a more experienced table

>c.In my capacity for running games at school, it is very common for me to be using roleplaying as a way of teaching social skills to students with Autism Spectrum Disorders; and individuals on the spectrum are often very ‘fairness’ and ‘rule’ focused, so it is easier to have an ‘objective’ standard to refer to in order to hedge off disputes of this nature

>d. While I am very appreciative that the developers are so accessible to the community in this edition of DnD, I don’t consider anything they say in UA, twitter, etc articles to be ‘official’ content until it is integrated into a formal Errata. This is doubly true when they are explicitly making statements about how you *could* modify things rather than statements on the existing rules

2) I don’t consider anyone at the table to be ‘owed’ anything in regards to their character. We are telling a story, one they are a part of, but ultimately there are limitations of the setting and circumstances of gameplay that may happen favor one player over another because of their actions, as well as setting factors around race and class choices (though not with specifically ‘targeting’ a player, but just organically as a factor of the story). A *player*, to a degree, is owed ‘fun’, but I have found in practical experience that a player’s fun at the table often has little to do with mechanical specificity of this nature, and players generally receive limit setting without complaint (excepting, perhaps, those who are ‘disagreeable’ players in general, of which I have played with a few over the years). It is generally my opinion that as a ‘team game’ that it doesn’t do much good for the game to try and ‘compare’ characters to one another using some sort of ‘fairness’ criteria; but instead focus on the group as a whole and the fun of the players (rather than the ‘fairness’ of the characters themselves).

>a. Sometimes this includes fairly organic and natural limitations, it is not unfair to a drow player if a large part of an adventure happens to occur outside during the day for example

>b. This may include social limitations: warlocks are distrusted in parts of the game, as are tieflings; so your tiefling warlock isn’t being ‘unfairly targeted’ when the townsfolk don’t want anything to do with him. Likewise, magic users are not being punished when they have to keep their magic secret because they are in a town where magic is outlawed

>c. This includes, for what it is worth, access to equipment. A polearm master is not ‘due’ a magic polearm, a wizard isn’t punished if there are few scrolls or spellbooks in the loot pile, and Padded Leather +1 isn’t an insult to every light armor wearer even if it mechanically serves little purpose . To hearken back to the origin of all of this, providing access to magical non-metal armor isn’t necessary to be ‘fair’ to the druid player in any meaningful way

>>i. The system is very flexible around the mechanical bonuses it expects; while it doesn’t break anything to give a druid access to AC 19 (half-plate and a shield), it likewise doesn’t ‘gimp’ them to have them at AC 13+dex (leather and a shield) like many arcane casters. Likewise, the difference between a D6 short-sword and a D8 rapier is negligible enough that lack of easy access to a rapier isn’t going to destroy any classes’ balance

>d. Because I have historically played with ‘powergamers’ more than once, I am particularly wary of approving rules that are blatant increases in the power level of a character who would function just fine without that gain; for example I would likely reflexively ‘shoot down’ a ‘barbarian’ whose battle rage was about ‘combat focus’ and not anger if they appeared to really want to be able to maintain concentration spells during the rage
ii. In fact, I would argue that 5e (as compared especially to 3.X and 4e) explicitly state that magic and exceptional equipment is *additional* and shouldn’t be considered a requirement or expectation of any kind, and definitively not part of balance ‘fairness’ considerations

3) Setting verisimilitude is very important to me. I have been playing largely in the same homebrew setting since before ADnD, it has been built (and destroyed) by the actions of PCs over many years. While some of my preference is just enjoyment of the worldbuilding (GMs get to find fun where they can just like players do), but I also think it benefits players to adventure in a world that has real *history* to it… I know what the neighboring countries are and their attitudes to where your PCs are from, players two editions ago signed the treaty that brought peace to them; and the next village over was actually the birthplace of the legendary hero who killed the demon who actually started that war (his ever-poisonous magic sword is buried with him there, unbeknownst to many). While I doubly apply it to ‘my’ setting (though many GMs have run games there over the years); I take a similar stance to Ravenloft, or Forgotten Realms, or Planescape: I don’t like to run ‘adventure worlds’ where the only things that matter are the town’s inn, the dungeon, and the monster-filled wilderness between them.

>a. I also do not make that assumption that exceptions may exist, but not that players necessarily have the right to *be* that exception. For example, there was once an Elven cleric of the human-only God in the campaign’s history, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree that a player Elf can become a cleric of that God. Similarly, if I agree that there is a small druid sect that wears metal armor somewhere in the world *doesn’t* necessarily imply that I would allow a player to start as a member of that sect. I might, but I have the right not to make such exceptions, especially as they regard rules but also for setting reasons.

>b. This means that sometimes there will be setting factors that influence gameplay decisions. For example, while there is discussion of Druids, Rangers, and even Clerics getting their magic from a variety of sources; in Forgotten Realms it is clear that virtually everyone has a ‘patron God’, and *every* ‘divine spellcaster’ gets their power from that Deity; so while in a normal game a druid powered by ‘nature spirits’ or a cleric of a ‘philosophy’ is fine, in FR (or at least, FR ‘as written’) that isn’t an option. Again, this isn’t punishing players or forcing them to play certain ways, per se, it is just a reality of the shared setting everyone is accessing.

>c. Most directly in response to the underlying concerns: this may mean limited access to certain equipment a character may want. Darksun has very little metal, so any equipment using metal components is very rare at best. Thus a cleric of the Forge Domain (or, to a lesser degree, any PC with the ‘blacksmithing’ skill) won’t have access to some aspects of their abilities. If you are adventuring in the jungles of Maztica, thieves’ tools are not likely to be sold at the tribal village you are re-provisioning in. A small Proficiency in an exotic weapon, such as an ‘asian’ themed weapon in a western setting, or a high-tech weapon in a traditional fantasy setting, means your chosen equipment may be difficult to find (though not impossible, afterall…. Pistols are unknown outside of Lantan on Faerun, but they do exist).

>>i. Things that are often difficult to find in a ‘traditional European fantasy setting’ but not impossible (and to varying degrees) that may require additional effort, resources, or skill involvement to acquire: poison, weapons or armor made out of exotic materials, unusual weapons or armor, technologically sophisticated equipment, exotic animals to train.

>>ii. This is, as mentioned above, perhaps doubly true for enchanted equipment. My home campaign is probably broadly in the ‘low magic’ end of campaign settings, so enchanted gear is fairly rare to begin with; let alone an already exotic equipment

>>iii. I think it is important that I in no way see this as *punishing* anyways, making it hard to find a pterodon isn’t *punishing* you for playing a Halfling beastmaster. You can disagree with that stance, but it works well for me and isn’t inherently *wrong* by game expectations or functional play

>>iv. My games tend to be at least somewhat ‘sandbox’ style, so side adventures to achieve an individual player’s goals (such as seeking specific equipment) is generally well received by both players and characters

4) In general, I am very happy the game has moved away from ‘roleplaying rules’ as a whole. ‘Your character wouldn’t do that’ isn’t a phrase I ever want to say as a GM; and in the current system the only time I could imagine doing so is if a player is refusing to ‘go along’ with mind-control magic or forced alignment change or the like. However, I have no problem, as it works in the setting, with there being repercussions for character choices, including possibly mechanical ones. In some settings, a druid wearing metal armor may interfere with spell casting, a paladin blatantly breaking their established Oaths may lose abilities, Clerics may be abandoned by the Gods they disrespect. There may also be social fallout as well… if your druid organization is really a global shared community (they do share a secret language after all), turning your back on their teachings might bring their wrath down upon you; particularly if you insist on continuing to use ‘their’ magic while you do so; and a low level druid making themselves an enemy of such an organization may find themselves in dire straights.

>a. However, it is always something I would give a warning about before I ‘confirmed’ that was the action you wanted to take; so it would never be something I’d ‘spring’ on the player; and if they wanted to have a conversation about it later I would be amenable to it for potential revision or clarification

5) In regards to the Ranger and racial enemy selection: Terrain and enemy choices were among the chief complaints of the Ranger class as a whole for just that reason. This is especially true if you run a more ‘sandbox’ type game where what the players are doing and what they fight is somewhat dependent on player decisions. I can, as a GM, be planning a goblin-war campaign in the mountains, but when the players open a portal to hell and demons pour over the world, and they decide (like good heroes) to fix that mess… then now you are fighting fiends in the city… it does mean a ranger loses access to some of their abilities.
There isn’t an easy ‘fix’ for this, and I do agree that in most cases GMs should try to work with players (though it isn’t always possible… ‘we are doing a murder mystery campaign’… ‘what racial enemy should I take’… ‘maybe… doppelganger?’ is probably not a productive conversation); and does happen to all players to a degree… your long-range archery specialist suffers when the party gets enslaved and taken to the underdark, your social-skill focused bard suffers when fighting the golem uprising, etc. I do try to be open with my players about campaign expectations, but as stated in some campaign styles it can be difficult to know for sure how things will proceed.

-------------------------------

Secondly, I am a special education teacher; specifically focusing on the intersection of problem behavior and autism spectrum disorder. As such, I am often called upon the task of remediating social skills deficits; and in the modern world that often includes aspects of online communication, the system of emails, texting, and forums that is pervasive in our world today yet carry their own ‘hidden curriculum’ social skills expectations. Given that, I would feel remiss if I didn’t address a few things here:

1) Hostile or aggressive phrasing has an enhanced effect in all-text discussions. The reason is that with only text and minimal context clues to drive meaning, we have little else to go off of to interpret attitude or meaning. Therefore, phrases like ‘you can blame Naanomi for that’, ‘make them eat crow’, metaphors about spraying players with urine, repeated use of phrases like ‘cartmanesque’ to characterize someone’s position or style, making statements that imply that someone is unable to read or comprehend the text they are quoting, continually stating that someone needs to ‘find a new GM’ if the playstyle is one you are arguing against, and so on; is generally considered rude and not generally acceptable even during heated discussions, let alone when first entering a conversation

>a. Even if you disagree with someone’s argument, repeatedly pointing out what you perceive as logical errors in a discussion (as opposed to a formal debate) is often (but not always) considered rude.

2) There is an expectation of privacy in ‘personal messages’ and the like; directly sharing the text of a private message, email, or personal text message is often considered an invasion of privacy or, at the very least, rude. For example, posting the full text of the response where I said I felt uncomfortable with you privately messaging me to continue a discussion is probably *not* something I would recommend posting in a more public space

3) It is also in most cases considered somewhat rude to ‘follow people’ to continue one conversation from one thread to another in a forum format. While it will always be the case in a sustained community that people get to know each other and have opinions about one another (this is a positive, it is what makes a group like a forum group a legitimate ‘community’ instead of people just spouting opinions), each thread is generally considered a ‘separate’ conversation, and tracking people through threads to continue a conversation (unless the thread was explicitly made to do just that) is considered poor social graces, and sometimes borders on harassment.

4) In any discussion, one needs to know that people will have different opinions than yours, but that doesn’t make their opinion invalid. In most cases, there isn’t a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way to, lets say, interpret a rule or to have fun playing a game; and while one can defend one’s opinion, spending energy attempting to ‘prove the other person wrong’ over matters of opinion or interpretation generally come across as socially hostile. This can be challenging, as many people are naturally drawn to the idea of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in a ‘debate’, when more reasonable discourse generally does not follow the debate pattern.

>a. Likewise it is considered bad discussion form to restate people’s opinions as if they are making statements of fact; for example stating that someone saying they wouldn’t make an exception in the case quoted means they categorically are in the ‘would never’ make exceptions ‘camp’; or stating that someone who says ‘rare’ actually means ‘completely unavailable’, or that ‘"a few days of downtime and maybe a skill roll" as a bar worthy of being called "less common"’. In fact, as much as possible, you should allow other people to frame their arguments and terminology rather than redefining terms for them (though requesting clarification for a confusing term is generally acceptable, so long as it is not done repeatedly).

>b. However, in situations where there may be a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer (even if it can’t be determined definitively) it important to maintain a position that you would admit you are at least potentially wrong. When several people, presumably with good intentions, disagree with your position one must accept that there is at least a chance you are mistaken; to do otherwise isn’t ‘conversation’

>c. Furthermore, ‘declaring victory’ in an ongoing discussion, especially one about opinions, is generally considered inappropriate social behavior

5) Likewise, one has to be careful of the appearance of bragging or the like when there are not non-verbal cues to act off of. For example, statements like ‘when I took over as GM everyone had fun of course’ can be a statement attempting to say ‘my way works too’. In fact, the ‘of course’ assumption type statements in general come across more harshly in written tone than they do in verbal conversations (and even there are somewhat tricky statements to use without offending); particularly when discussing matters of opinion.

6) In a conversation with multiple participants, one cannot assume that someone will respond specifically to you, nor become upset if they do not. Calling attention to a post and requesting a response if someone fails to is generally socially acceptable, if not done frequently, but it is generally assumed that if someone doesn’t reply it is for a reason and not because they ‘missed it’. Reasons may include that they feel they have adequately addressed that point already, or that the conversation has largely moved past that specific point of discussion.

>a. In a similar way, one cannot demand that the larger conversation follow the topic threads that you want it to. While it is acceptable to attempt to draw attention to a dropped topic of conversation, doing so repeatedly or declaring the current topic ‘irrelevant side conversations’ or the like is generally not appreciated by other conversation participants.

7) Although it can be challenging to track multiple people in a conversation, do make an effort to keep people separate; even if they are agreeing with each other on many issues. For example, using ‘skill rolls to create turtle shell armor that requires constant maintenance’ as a counterargument to someone who didn’t take or agree with that position (even though they did agree with other statements the ‘turtle armor’ user) makes one come across as uninterested in genuine discourse, but rather is more interested in expressing their own viewpoints without being challenged.

8) Implying that individuals are posting under multiple accounts or similarly explicitly breaking forum rules or protocol without significant evidence to believe so is considered an especially egregious breach in online etiquette. If you have concerns about people engaging in such practices, just report the posts and let administration sort it out rather than attempting to use it as an argument point.

9) While I understand there can be limits in place… use of a phone to type, limited English proficiency, lexonigraphical disabilities, making cursory attempts at correct punctuation, grammar, and spelling are always useful in maintaining a positive ‘decorum’ of a conversation with others online; although it is important to note that different forum groups or other online communities may have adopted different conventions than 'proper' English in this regard.

[ad_hoc]

Ok… I waited to post on this because I didn’t want to derail an active thread

This post seems pretty on topic to me.



4) In general, I am very happy the game has moved away from ‘roleplaying rules’ as a whole. ‘Your character wouldn’t do that’ isn’t a phrase I ever want to say as a GM; and in the current system the only time I could imagine doing so is if a player is refusing to ‘go along’ with mind-control magic or forced alignment change or the like. However, I have no problem, as it works in the setting, with there being repercussions for character choices, including possibly mechanical ones.

I used the term 'roleplaying rules' for lack of a better one.

I think the honour system is the way to go and I am glad that is what they have done. There doesn't need to be mechanical repercussions for 'druids don't wear metal armour' because they won't.

The thing is, all groups have roleplaying rules to a varying degree. The most broad ones are also social rules. Don't be a jerk, be respectful, don't be offensive, etc.

Then there are game/setting specific ones. Most of these are also broad. If you are playing a fantasy game you should probably make a fantasy character. You should also make a character who is going to participate in the goal of the game, whatever that may be.

I don't think most people think of those as roleplaying rules, or as things we do in general, but they are and we do them. They're just not usually contentious but they are all restrictions on characters.

Then we get to specific rules. I think it is important for the group to be on the same page with these. I rarely need to actually step in but it does happen from time to time as we gain new players. For a real example we had a player joining our group not too long ago. She created a cleric but when it came time to choose her deity she said that her character didn't believe in any gods. I said that wasn't going to fly, explained the reasons and offered alternative classes. She wanted to stick with Cleric so we went ahead with the session with plans to address it later. Well, she was frustrated throughout the session for various reasons and didn't come back so we didn't need that follow up.

That's a clear example of someone not following a roleplaying rule at our table. I'm not saying everyone needs to abide by that rule, just that it's okay and I think, beneficial to have roleplaying rules in general. It's also not inherently creative to go against them. Part of the fun for our group is being creative within the rules.

[Unoriginal]

She created a cleric but when it came time to choose her deity she said that her character didn't believe in any gods. I said that wasn't going to fly, explained the reasons and offered alternative classes.

Your setting doesn't allow being Cleric of a concept or ideal?

[RedMage125]

Your setting doesn't allow being Cleric of a concept or ideal?

As much as I violently disagree with everything that ad_hoc espoused in his OP, I have to say that saying "there are no clerics without deities in the campaign world I am running" is totally fine, because that's a rule of the setting, and not dictating that a player MUST feel/think/act a specific way.

As this is in a 5e forum, I would question how an atheist cleric's Divine Intervention class feature (11th level) would work.

[Unoriginal]

As much as I violently disagree with everything that ad_hoc espoused in his OP, I have to say that saying "there are no clerics without deities in the campaign world I am running" is totally fine, because that's a rule of the setting, and not dictating that a player MUST feel/think/act a specific way.

As this is in a 5e forum, I would question how an atheist cleric's Divine Intervention class feature (11th level) would work.

I'm not saying it's not fine, just asking about it.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think the idea that clerics need a god is a fine setting restriction, because it ties into the cosmology of the world and how gods and magic acts. I think most people can agree that in a typical set up, the DM determines these things.

Going as far as to declare all priests medium armor wearing defenders of good and right who use only warhammers and MUST be a healer who is sent on a quest by their god personally is...A bit much, however. The cleric fluff isn't as restrictive as some, but I would assume at least SOME leeway in how to build a cleric in a campaign unless there's a very good reason for every single cleric to be the same.

One is setting, and quite broad. Another is very particular to the character themselves, as well as having very strange implications about the setting. Why is every cleric the same? Are the gods possibly morons for not knowing about mixed unit tactics or other skills? Is there some force causing clerics from one side of the world to the other to be the same?

[Naanomi]

I think the honour system is the way to go and I am glad that is what they have done. There doesn't need to be mechanical repercussions for 'druids don't wear metal armour' because they won't.
Well and that is really the crux of it isn't it? What do you do when the player insists their Druid puts on the armor? Or they demand they can leave the guy who has them charmed in the burning building? Or insists on playing their newly turned vampire as the same nice guy he's always been?

You really only have three choices:
-take control, say 'no you don't do that' (perhaps ultimatel not playing with that player anymore if the problem is intolerable for whatever reason)
-let it happen and move on
-let it happen but apply mechanical or plot repercussions

I don't think any is the 'right' choice in all situations; but it needs to be a consideration on what to do when people can't just play nice on their own

[pwykersotz]

As much as I violently disagree...

I sure hope you mean vehemently. :smalleek:

[Tetrasodium]

Ok… I waited to post on this because I didn’t want to derail an active thread; plus I was considering just blocking the user and letting it go. However, I did agree that I would pursue it in a public space so I will do so.

I have two things to address:
First, a bit about my campaign and playstyle that addresses some of the concerns. I fully admit that these are all assumptions, and that not everyone runs their table this way (nor, perhaps, should they); but only that they are the assumptions that I generally make, and that they have worked reasonably for many years for me as a GM and, by and large, for the players that I have run through many adventures

1) I tend to a rather strict basic interpretation of the rules, and then apply exceptions later. Sometimes this means that I am more ‘strict’ in the reading of a rule that can be interpreted multiple ways than I could possibly be. I do this for a variety of reasons.

>a. I sometimes ‘co-GM’ or have people taking characters from one table to another; and while we do good communication between GMs to make sure everyone is on the same page, I tend to stick with the most literal or strict interpretation of the rules as a default position to best support consistency between tables

>>i. In fact, this is generally why I take this stance on forums and the like: one can never know the expectations and exceptions made at every table, so taking a ‘strict’ stance but then noting when exceptions may appear

>b. It is very common for me to have new players, in fact new roleplayers, at my table (one of my groups is run at the school I teach at as a student group); and just playing ‘by the rules’ rather than making broad and open interpretations is often, in my experience, a better entry way into the hobby than a list of houserules and loose gameplay style that might be more acceptable at a more experienced table

>c.In my capacity for running games at school, it is very common for me to be using roleplaying as a way of teaching social skills to students with Autism Spectrum Disorders; and individuals on the spectrum are often very ‘fairness’ and ‘rule’ focused, so it is easier to have an ‘objective’ standard to refer to in order to hedge off disputes of this nature

>d. While I am very appreciative that the developers are so accessible to the community in this edition of DnD, I don’t consider anything they say in UA, twitter, etc articles to be ‘official’ content until it is integrated into a formal Errata. This is doubly true when they are explicitly making statements about how you *could* modify things rather than statements on the existing rules

2) I don’t consider anyone at the table to be ‘owed’ anything in regards to their character. We are telling a story, one they are a part of, but ultimately there are limitations of the setting and circumstances of gameplay that may happen favor one player over another because of their actions, as well as setting factors around race and class choices (though not with specifically ‘targeting’ a player, but just organically as a factor of the story). A *player*, to a degree, is owed ‘fun’, but I have found in practical experience that a player’s fun at the table often has little to do with mechanical specificity of this nature, and players generally receive limit setting without complaint (excepting, perhaps, those who are ‘disagreeable’ players in general, of which I have played with a few over the years). It is generally my opinion that as a ‘team game’ that it doesn’t do much good for the game to try and ‘compare’ characters to one another using some sort of ‘fairness’ criteria; but instead focus on the group as a whole and the fun of the players (rather than the ‘fairness’ of the characters themselves).

>a. Sometimes this includes fairly organic and natural limitations, it is not unfair to a drow player if a large part of an adventure happens to occur outside during the day for example

>b. This may include social limitations: warlocks are distrusted in parts of the game, as are tieflings; so your tiefling warlock isn’t being ‘unfairly targeted’ when the townsfolk don’t want anything to do with him. Likewise, magic users are not being punished when they have to keep their magic secret because they are in a town where magic is outlawed

>c. This includes, for what it is worth, access to equipment. A polearm master is not ‘due’ a magic polearm, a wizard isn’t punished if there are few scrolls or spellbooks in the loot pile, and Padded Leather +1 isn’t an insult to every light armor wearer even if it mechanically serves little purpose . To hearken back to the origin of all of this, providing access to magical non-metal armor isn’t necessary to be ‘fair’ to the druid player in any meaningful way

>>i. The system is very flexible around the mechanical bonuses it expects; while it doesn’t break anything to give a druid access to AC 19 (half-plate and a shield), it likewise doesn’t ‘gimp’ them to have them at AC 13+dex (leather and a shield) like many arcane casters. Likewise, the difference between a D6 short-sword and a D8 rapier is negligible enough that lack of easy access to a rapier isn’t going to destroy any classes’ balance

>d. Because I have historically played with ‘powergamers’ more than once, I am particularly wary of approving rules that are blatant increases in the power level of a character who would function just fine without that gain; for example I would likely reflexively ‘shoot down’ a ‘barbarian’ whose battle rage was about ‘combat focus’ and not anger if they appeared to really want to be able to maintain concentration spells during the rage
ii. In fact, I would argue that 5e (as compared especially to 3.X and 4e) explicitly state that magic and exceptional equipment is *additional* and shouldn’t be considered a requirement or expectation of any kind, and definitively not part of balance ‘fairness’ considerations

3) Setting verisimilitude is very important to me. I have been playing largely in the same homebrew setting since before ADnD, it has been built (and destroyed) by the actions of PCs over many years. While some of my preference is just enjoyment of the worldbuilding (GMs get to find fun where they can just like players do), but I also think it benefits players to adventure in a world that has real *history* to it… I know what the neighboring countries are and their attitudes to where your PCs are from, players two editions ago signed the treaty that brought peace to them; and the next village over was actually the birthplace of the legendary hero who killed the demon who actually started that war (his ever-poisonous magic sword is buried with him there, unbeknownst to many). While I doubly apply it to ‘my’ setting (though many GMs have run games there over the years); I take a similar stance to Ravenloft, or Forgotten Realms, or Planescape: I don’t like to run ‘adventure worlds’ where the only things that matter are the town’s inn, the dungeon, and the monster-filled wilderness between them.

>a. I also do not make that assumption that exceptions may exist, but not that players necessarily have the right to *be* that exception. For example, there was once an Elven cleric of the human-only God in the campaign’s history, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree that a player Elf can become a cleric of that God. Similarly, if I agree that there is a small druid sect that wears metal armor somewhere in the world *doesn’t* necessarily imply that I would allow a player to start as a member of that sect. I might, but I have the right not to make such exceptions, especially as they regard rules but also for setting reasons.

>b. This means that sometimes there will be setting factors that influence gameplay decisions. For example, while there is discussion of Druids, Rangers, and even Clerics getting their magic from a variety of sources; in Forgotten Realms it is clear that virtually everyone has a ‘patron God’, and *every* ‘divine spellcaster’ gets their power from that Deity; so while in a normal game a druid powered by ‘nature spirits’ or a cleric of a ‘philosophy’ is fine, in FR (or at least, FR ‘as written’) that isn’t an option. Again, this isn’t punishing players or forcing them to play certain ways, per se, it is just a reality of the shared setting everyone is accessing.

>c. Most directly in response to the underlying concerns: this may mean limited access to certain equipment a character may want. Darksun has very little metal, so any equipment using metal components is very rare at best. Thus a cleric of the Forge Domain (or, to a lesser degree, any PC with the ‘blacksmithing’ skill) won’t have access to some aspects of their abilities. If you are adventuring in the jungles of Maztica, thieves’ tools are not likely to be sold at the tribal village you are re-provisioning in. A small Proficiency in an exotic weapon, such as an ‘asian’ themed weapon in a western setting, or a high-tech weapon in a traditional fantasy setting, means your chosen equipment may be difficult to find (though not impossible, afterall…. Pistols are unknown outside of Lantan on Faerun, but they do exist).

>>i. Things that are often difficult to find in a ‘traditional European fantasy setting’ but not impossible (and to varying degrees) that may require additional effort, resources, or skill involvement to acquire: poison, weapons or armor made out of exotic materials, unusual weapons or armor, technologically sophisticated equipment, exotic animals to train.

>>ii. This is, as mentioned above, perhaps doubly true for enchanted equipment. My home campaign is probably broadly in the ‘low magic’ end of campaign settings, so enchanted gear is fairly rare to begin with; let alone an already exotic equipment

>>iii. I think it is important that I in no way see this as *punishing* anyways, making it hard to find a pterodon isn’t *punishing* you for playing a Halfling beastmaster. You can disagree with that stance, but it works well for me and isn’t inherently *wrong* by game expectations or functional play

>>iv. My games tend to be at least somewhat ‘sandbox’ style, so side adventures to achieve an individual player’s goals (such as seeking specific equipment) is generally well received by both players and characters

4) In general, I am very happy the game has moved away from ‘roleplaying rules’ as a whole. ‘Your character wouldn’t do that’ isn’t a phrase I ever want to say as a GM; and in the current system the only time I could imagine doing so is if a player is refusing to ‘go along’ with mind-control magic or forced alignment change or the like. However, I have no problem, as it works in the setting, with there being repercussions for character choices, including possibly mechanical ones. In some settings, a druid wearing metal armor may interfere with spell casting, a paladin blatantly breaking their established Oaths may lose abilities, Clerics may be abandoned by the Gods they disrespect. There may also be social fallout as well… if your druid organization is really a global shared community (they do share a secret language after all), turning your back on their teachings might bring their wrath down upon you; particularly if you insist on continuing to use ‘their’ magic while you do so; and a low level druid making themselves an enemy of such an organization may find themselves in dire straights.

>a. However, it is always something I would give a warning about before I ‘confirmed’ that was the action you wanted to take; so it would never be something I’d ‘spring’ on the player; and if they wanted to have a conversation about it later I would be amenable to it for potential revision or clarification

5) In regards to the Ranger and racial enemy selection: Terrain and enemy choices were among the chief complaints of the Ranger class as a whole for just that reason. This is especially true if you run a more ‘sandbox’ type game where what the players are doing and what they fight is somewhat dependent on player decisions. I can, as a GM, be planning a goblin-war campaign in the mountains, but when the players open a portal to hell and demons pour over the world, and they decide (like good heroes) to fix that mess… then now you are fighting fiends in the city… it does mean a ranger loses access to some of their abilities.
There isn’t an easy ‘fix’ for this, and I do agree that in most cases GMs should try to work with players (though it isn’t always possible… ‘we are doing a murder mystery campaign’… ‘what racial enemy should I take’… ‘maybe… doppelganger?’ is probably not a productive conversation); and does happen to all players to a degree… your long-range archery specialist suffers when the party gets enslaved and taken to the underdark, your social-skill focused bard suffers when fighting the golem uprising, etc. I do try to be open with my players about campaign expectations, but as stated in some campaign styles it can be difficult to know for sure how things will proceed.

-------------------------------

Secondly, I am a special education teacher; specifically focusing on the intersection of problem behavior and autism spectrum disorder. As such, I am often called upon the task of remediating social skills deficits; and in the modern world that often includes aspects of online communication, the system of emails, texting, and forums that is pervasive in our world today yet carry their own ‘hidden curriculum’ social skills expectations. Given that, I would feel remiss if I didn’t address a few things here:

1) Hostile or aggressive phrasing has an enhanced effect in all-text discussions. The reason is that with only text and minimal context clues to drive meaning, we have little else to go off of to interpret attitude or meaning. Therefore, phrases like ‘you can blame Naanomi for that’, ‘make them eat crow’, metaphors about spraying players with urine, repeated use of phrases like ‘cartmanesque’ to characterize someone’s position or style, making statements that imply that someone is unable to read or comprehend the text they are quoting, continually stating that someone needs to ‘find a new GM’ if the playstyle is one you are arguing against, and so on; is generally considered rude and not generally acceptable even during heated discussions, let alone when first entering a conversation

>a. Even if you disagree with someone’s argument, repeatedly pointing out what you perceive as logical errors in a discussion (as opposed to a formal debate) is often (but not always) considered rude.

2) There is an expectation of privacy in ‘personal messages’ and the like; directly sharing the text of a private message, email, or personal text message is often considered an invasion of privacy or, at the very least, rude. For example, posting the full text of the response where I said I felt uncomfortable with you privately messaging me to continue a discussion is probably *not* something I would recommend posting in a more public space

3) It is also in most cases considered somewhat rude to ‘follow people’ to continue one conversation from one thread to another in a forum format. While it will always be the case in a sustained community that people get to know each other and have opinions about one another (this is a positive, it is what makes a group like a forum group a legitimate ‘community’ instead of people just spouting opinions), each thread is generally considered a ‘separate’ conversation, and tracking people through threads to continue a conversation (unless the thread was explicitly made to do just that) is considered poor social graces, and sometimes borders on harassment.

4) In any discussion, one needs to know that people will have different opinions than yours, but that doesn’t make their opinion invalid. In most cases, there isn’t a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way to, lets say, interpret a rule or to have fun playing a game; and while one can defend one’s opinion, spending energy attempting to ‘prove the other person wrong’ over matters of opinion or interpretation generally come across as socially hostile. This can be challenging, as many people are naturally drawn to the idea of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in a ‘debate’, when more reasonable discourse generally does not follow the debate pattern.

>a. Likewise it is considered bad discussion form to restate people’s opinions as if they are making statements of fact; for example stating that someone saying they wouldn’t make an exception in the case quoted means they categorically are in the ‘would never’ make exceptions ‘camp’; or stating that someone who says ‘rare’ actually means ‘completely unavailable’, or that ‘"a few days of downtime and maybe a skill roll" as a bar worthy of being called "less common"’. In fact, as much as possible, you should allow other people to frame their arguments and terminology rather than redefining terms for them (though requesting clarification for a confusing term is generally acceptable, so long as it is not done repeatedly).

>b. However, in situations where there may be a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer (even if it can’t be determined definitively) it important to maintain a position that you would admit you are at least potentially wrong. When several people, presumably with good intentions, disagree with your position one must accept that there is at least a chance you are mistaken; to do otherwise isn’t ‘conversation’

>c. Furthermore, ‘declaring victory’ in an ongoing discussion, especially one about opinions, is generally considered inappropriate social behavior

5) Likewise, one has to be careful of the appearance of bragging or the like when there are not non-verbal cues to act off of. For example, statements like ‘when I took over as GM everyone had fun of course’ can be a statement attempting to say ‘my way works too’. In fact, the ‘of course’ assumption type statements in general come across more harshly in written tone than they do in verbal conversations (and even there are somewhat tricky statements to use without offending); particularly when discussing matters of opinion.

6) In a conversation with multiple participants, one cannot assume that someone will respond specifically to you, nor become upset if they do not. Calling attention to a post and requesting a response if someone fails to is generally socially acceptable, if not done frequently, but it is generally assumed that if someone doesn’t reply it is for a reason and not because they ‘missed it’. Reasons may include that they feel they have adequately addressed that point already, or that the conversation has largely moved past that specific point of discussion.

>a. In a similar way, one cannot demand that the larger conversation follow the topic threads that you want it to. While it is acceptable to attempt to draw attention to a dropped topic of conversation, doing so repeatedly or declaring the current topic ‘irrelevant side conversations’ or the like is generally not appreciated by other conversation participants.

7) Although it can be challenging to track multiple people in a conversation, do make an effort to keep people separate; even if they are agreeing with each other on many issues. For example, using ‘skill rolls to create turtle shell armor that requires constant maintenance’ as a counterargument to someone who didn’t take or agree with that position (even though they did agree with other statements the ‘turtle armor’ user) makes one come across as uninterested in genuine discourse, but rather is more interested in expressing their own viewpoints without being challenged.

8) Implying that individuals are posting under multiple accounts or similarly explicitly breaking forum rules or protocol without significant evidence to believe so is considered an especially egregious breach in online etiquette. If you have concerns about people engaging in such practices, just report the posts and let administration sort it out rather than attempting to use it as an argument point.

9) While I understand there can be limits in place… use of a phone to type, limited English proficiency, lexonigraphical disabilities, making cursory attempts at correct punctuation, grammar, and spelling are always useful in maintaining a positive ‘decorum’ of a conversation with others online; although it is important to note that different forum groups or other online communities may have adopted different conventions than 'proper' English in this regard.


first off, you can't really complain about a pm chain being made public when it effectively amounts to "umm I'm genuinely curious how you can claim both x & Y as someone asked here & I asked here & here" when you reply to it saying to ask publicly & don't reply to either of them when the obvious reply along the lines of "I did before I sent the pm not once.. but twice..." & you continue to ignore the question when it's actually asked publicly a day or so later. It's not like five minute passed between the first two public times & the pm chain with another 5 minutes for the third public questioning followed by an immediate dump of the chain, you were originally asked on the 10th by chaosmancer, I asked publically on the 11th, the PM's were on the 12th, then finally this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21804167&postcount=77) doing exactly what you requested was followed by two posts from you over the course of hours. You lost any hope of high ground by dodging it too hard.... Having the pm chain out in the open only prevents you from voicing frustration about having the questions posed, you lost that chance days ago & I suspect that is why we had that particular outburst of discontent.

As to the rest of your post, I can't help but notice while you were talking about teaching special education, co-dming, & what not, you ignored every one of the questions posed. Not just danced around them, but continued to flatly ignore them entirely.

So, lets try again, I'll even use bullet points to make it easy All mentions of the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue are in the hypothetical poor metallurgy makes them rare example setting .....

If the rogue needs to make a skill check & burn downtime in order to get studded leather/rapier, does the fighter who wants plate/greatsword need to as well? If not, how is this not the definition of treating the rogue unfairly?
If the fighter needs to make them too, are the numbers substantially similar, or is the rogue just going to be unlucky because like the nonmetal medium armor, rapiers & studded leather are made in far away places? if the answer is no the numbers will be higher for the rogue, again how can you claim this is an impartial ruling?
If the rogue wanting studded leather/rapier or druid wanting nonmetal medium armor lacks the skill needed to do the skill check, can their more dkilled party member make the check instead?... if not, can the greatsword/plate wanting fighter get someone more skilled to make it? If the rogue/druid is & fighter yes... this is absolutely 100% the opposite of impartial with no ifs ands or buts.
If the rogue wants to focus his extra curricular roleplaying sidequest stuff on things other than questing for a magic rapier/magic studded leather; but other players like the plate & greatsword wielding fighter can focus on whatever story plots they want to & just wait for a set of magic plate/greatsword to drop... how can you claim outrage when the rogue says that "rapiers *& studded leather are rare" effectively to be the same as "none"
If the answer to the last question is that the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue & nonmetal medium armor wanting druid questing to save the kingdom & whatnot instead of equip themselves had prospects just as realistic as the fighter doing the same... does that not utterly invalidate the claim that "it is rare"? I can see no way that you could maintain it is rare=true as well as you have the same expectations of finding magic variants as the other folks magic variants of their stuff; because if it it flatly invalidates the entire topic on account of the gm going from the initial claims of rare & exotic to something they are now saying are not when cornered.
If the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue/nonmetal medium armor wanting druid has a much lower chance, but any class with light armor or full martial (instead of just the rogue's rapier) proficiency and any class with medium armor proficiency can also make a claim to why they should get the magic studded leather/magic rapier/magic nonmetal medium armor... does this not reinforce the rogue/druid's "ok rare = none" statement of equivalency.
If the rogue wanting magic studded/magic rapier & druid wanting magic nonmetal medium both need to explicitly go out on a adventures dragging the group along with the specific intent of getting those two the sort of magic weapons & armor that every other class got adventuring for stuff their player & character thought was interesting... and those to are not willing to drag the party around like that specifically to equip those two, does that not explicitly confirm their "so none/it does not exist" statement,, why hide behind the feel good hair splitting of "it's rare" instead of just being open & saying "you almost certainly won't find it without convincing the group to go out on an adventure specifically to equip you with a magic rapier/studded leather/nonmetal medium armor while every other class has reasonable chances of finding magic greatswords/bows/xbows/metal halfplate/plate/etc in treasure hoards of high enough quality... just not rapier/studded/nonmetal medium armors"
If the answer to the last question is that the rogue/druid above are just as likely to get that magic stuff they want as the fighter/barbarian/paladin/valor bard/etc... why even make the "rare" distinction that such a claim invalidates.


Your campaign is irrelevant , because you also argued "Non-metal armor would be *exotic* in most settings." and "Metal armor is the norm for a reason, if for nothing else than for classical aesthetics... anything else is exotic enough to incur rarity and extra cost" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517166-Land-Druid-and-it-s-AC-problems/page12)on page 12 in an attempt to dismiss the very idea that a gm favoring the fighter over the rogue or valor bard over the druid in the above example was not abandoning the position of an impartial judge. You can't claim your campaign now after so much arguing for "most settings" as I linked & bolded. It was not until page 18 where you mentioned your campaign being "pretty low magic" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21790016&postcount=526) making your campaign an irrelevant avoidance of the question about many of the positions you argued blatantly invalidating a significant number of each other by either plain or strict reading.

There are just too many positions that you have argued strenuously for that seem to utterly invalidate too many other positions you've argued for.

[ad_hoc]

Your setting doesn't allow being Cleric of a concept or ideal?

Yes, that's right. Even if that were not the case, this isn't just a case of not worshipping/getting their power from a Deity, the character didn't believe they existed at all. This would be fine in Ravenloft, but not a setting where deities actively engage in the world (maybe a rare character exception, but certainly not a Cleric).


As much as I violently disagree with everything that ad_hoc espoused in his OP, I have to say that saying "there are no clerics without deities in the campaign world I am running" is totally fine, because that's a rule of the setting, and not dictating that a player MUST feel/think/act a specific way.

As this is in a 5e forum, I would question how an atheist cleric's Divine Intervention class feature (11th level) would work.

You disagree (violently even) with players needing to obey social rules through their characters? I find it hard to believe that you can have that stance and have a group at the same time.

Also, no clerics without deities is part of dictating what a character must feel/think/act.


Well and that is really the crux of it isn't it? What do you do when the player insists their Druid puts on the armor? Or they demand they can leave the guy who has them charmed in the burning building? Or insists on playing their newly turned vampire as the same nice guy he's always been?

You really only have three choices:
-take control, say 'no you don't do that' (perhaps ultimatel not playing with that player anymore if the problem is intolerable for whatever reason)
-let it happen and move on
-let it happen but apply mechanical or plot repercussions


There is a 4th choice: Deal with it out of the game. That is why I think the way 5e approaches the problem is the correct one. No in game rules are going to work. Loopholes can be found. They also can't be exhaustive.

This is close to your 1st choice but slightly different. Dictating what happens in game will likely just create more conflict and won't actually resolve what is going on. It is best to either talk about it after the session, or if it is disruptive enough, put the session on pause and deal with it at the moment. It's possible that the player's goals aren't compatible with the rest of the group, and then yes, not playing with that person anymore would be the way to go.

What would you do if you were playing improv games and 1 person decided to just do their own thing without having their character be constrained by the game's rules? Say you were playing the 2 sentences game and 1 player just decided they were going to make up their own sentences because they wanted to be more creative. Maybe you keep playing, esp. if you have an audience. Do you play with that person again? Probably not. Nothing you can do in game will fix the actual problem because it's not an in game problem.

[Naanomi]

So, lets try again, I'll even use bullet points to make it easy All mentions of the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue are in the hypothetical poor metallurgy makes them rare example setting
Organizing your thoughts in a way that makes clear what you would like addressed certainly helps.



If the rogue needs to make a skill check & burn downtime in order to get studded leather/rapier, does the fighter who wants plate/greatsword need to as well? If not, how is this not the definition of treating the rogue unfairly?
Firstly, I am hard pressed to think of a situation where that would be the case. But, if for whatever reason it were the case, it would be 'fair' because I didn't set the campaign setting components with the thought of 'how can I screw over Bob, the rogue!'; I instead thought 'in the constraints of the campaign, in this time and place in the setting, it *would* be harder to get studded leather, so I am going to go with it in the name of verisimilitude'. Also note, that I explicitly said that I don't have a big aim in my games to make things 'fair' between different classes; and that a few points of AC and one die of damage increase isn't particularly compelling mechanically in any case. Both of these assumptions were explicitly stated in the first part of my post.




If the fighter needs to make them too, are the numbers substantially similar, or is the rogue just going to be unlucky because like the nonmetal medium armor, rapiers & studded leather are made in far away places? if the answer is no the numbers will be higher for the rogue, again how can you claim this is an impartial ruling?
You seem to have an significantly different definition of what an 'impartial ruling' is and the importance it plays in a successful game. I see my role as GM to adjudicate rules questions, provide a setting, and make that setting react to the players. I do so in an impartial manner by *not* catering to the players specifically... any players... I don't go out of my way to make a poisonmaker in a place one wouldn't belong just because the assassin wants to use poison, I don't make a magic emporium selling enchanted weapons just because the melee characters feel like they are getting to the point where they 'need' it to overcome damage resistance. I *do* provide opportunities for characters to seek out that stuff; sometimes through skill rolls, but generally through adventuring or role-play; though I only feel the need to make it 'easy' as the setting would logically dictate. If half the party is drow, I don't work to make half the encounters in dark places; instead I just run the encounters how I was going to anyways regardless of the makeup of the party (with a few exceptions perhaps, because I am speaking in generalities... in all things there can be exceptions).



If the rogue wanting studded leather/rapier or druid wanting nonmetal medium armor lacks the skill needed to do the skill check, can their more dkilled party member make the check instead?... if not, can the greatsword/plate wanting fighter get someone more skilled to make it? If the rogue/druid is & fighter yes... this is absolutely 100% the opposite of impartial with no ifs ands or buts.
Sure, people have the correct skills I would hope that the party would support eachother. Just like I hope someone with the 'criminal' background might go about getting thieve's tools for people when through criminal contacts when they are not available in the general market. DnD isn't a competition between players, or a competition between players and the GM; my hope is that in general they would all work together with all of their resources to overcome obstacles.



If the rogue wants to focus his extra curricular roleplaying sidequest stuff on things other than questing for a magic rapier/magic studded leather; but other players like the plate & greatsword wielding fighter can focus on whatever story plots they want to & just wait for a set of magic plate/greatsword to drop... how can you claim outrage when the rogue says that "rapiers *& studded leather are rare" effectively to be the same as "none"
Again, because I am just arbitrating the setting; it is their choice what to do in it. If an extra AC and a slight increase in average damage is how the rogue player wants to spend their downtime, then go for it. In any case, no player should just expect magic plate and greatsword to 'drop', this isn't Diablo, random skeletons and barrels are not hurling out magic items; and expecting magic equipment of any specific type to appear is fairly clearly outside of the design principles of 5e (as compared to 3e and 4e where the magic item treadmill was a vital part of play)



If the answer to the last question is that the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue & nonmetal medium armor wanting druid questing to save the kingdom & whatnot instead of equip themselves had prospects just as realistic as the fighter doing the same... does that not utterly invalidate the claim that "it is rare"? I can see no way that you could maintain it is rare=true as well as you have the same expectations of finding magic variants as the other folks magic variants of their stuff; because if it it flatly invalidates the entire topic on account of the gm going from the initial claims of rare & exotic to something they are now saying are not when cornered.
Most of my conversation has been about mundane equipment access, not magical (though there is a factor in that as well). I wouldn't expect any of my players to explicitly hope for a specific type of magic item to appear for them, that just isn't the game I run. It is sometimes a factor... that hand-crossbow master you built may not see a magic hand-crossbow as often as they see a magic longbow (which is true in more traditional 'randomly generated magic items' as well); and the decision to switch over what type of weapon you are using if new exciting gear becomes available is a *good thing*, a good source of tactical turmoil; at least from my perspective.



If the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue/nonmetal medium armor wanting druid has a much lower chance, but any class with light armor or full martial (instead of just the rogue's rapier) proficiency and any class with medium armor proficiency can also make a claim to why they should get the magic studded leather/magic rapier/magic nonmetal medium armor... does this not reinforce the rogue/druid's "ok rare = none" statement of equivalency.
I'm having trouble decoding what you are asking here but... again one of my stated positions is that I don't think any class is 'owed' any equipment, nor is it a requirement to have fun. A druid operates just fine with an AC of 14; and at the very least the last discussion we had on this issue should demonstrate that there are at least several people out there who don't feel that druids 'need' exotic non-medium armor access in the first place, so any argument starting with 'well how do they get that armor they need?' is starting with a false premise.

The druid perhaps should be happy if his party members get something strong because it is a team game and the party benefits from it... but no one at the table should be expecting to cater to individual builds or class choices in that way. You may be able to make statistical claims like 'I am more likely to find a magical dagger than I am to find a magical whip'; but you shouldn't ever be in a position to expect (or demand) that either make an appearance at all.



If the rogue wanting magic studded/magic rapier & druid wanting magic nonmetal medium both need to explicitly go out on a adventures dragging the group along with the specific intent of getting those two the sort of magic weapons & armor that every other class got adventuring for stuff their player & character thought was interesting... and those to are not willing to drag the party around like that specifically to equip those two, does that not explicitly confirm their "so none/it does not exist" statement,, why hide behind the feel good hair splitting of "it's rare" instead of just being open & saying "you almost certainly won't find it without convincing the group to go out on an adventure specifically to equip you with a magic rapier/studded leather/nonmetal medium armor while every other class has reasonable chances of finding magic greatswords/bows/xbows/metal halfplate/plate/etc in treasure hoards of high enough quality... just not rapier/studded/nonmetal medium armors"
I'll skip this one because it is just rehashing what was above, at least from an answer standpoint.


If the answer to the last question is that the rogue/druid above are just as likely to get that magic stuff they want as the fighter/barbarian/paladin/valor bard/etc... why even make the "rare" distinction that such a claim invalidates.
No one is just as likely to get any specific piece of magic equipment at all, it isn't a system expectation, this isn't 2e where you need +X weapons by level Y to be competitive, and if you don't the GM is denying you something basic to function in the game. Frankly I'd be very confused at the mindset of a player who cannot enjoy a game because their rogue has a short-sword instead of a rapier; or hasn't been handed an enchanted set of turtle-shell half-plate by level 9 or some such.



Your campaign is irrelevant
I disagree, at the very least my years of campaigning under this model act as a case-study that it is possible to run a game with some measure of success under the assumptions you seem to disagree with so much. I cut out some of the text here from your statement, it was almost line-for-line a repetition of what was stated above.



There are just too many positions that you have argued strenuously for that seem to utterly invalidate too many other positions you've argued for.
I don't feel as if I have reversed myself, so much as I have clarified positions (and not even that in some of the cases you seem to want to quote, as they were responses to different lines of conversation). For almost any statement regarding a game taking place in a fantasy setting, my real answer is going to be 'it depends'; black and white answers are not the norm, but nuanced answers didn't appear to be necessary at the time of some of those posts so I added clarifying information later.

In any case, hopefully you feel you have made me 'eat enough crow' or whatever your ultimate goal was here? You did a much better job on your grammar, structure of readability, and maintaining a polite tone of 'written voice' here than in previous posts; so congratulations on that measure. It makes meaningful discussion so much easier.


There is a 4th choice: Deal with it out of the game. That is why I think the way 5e approaches the problem is the correct one. No in game rules are going to work.
Ultimately, perhaps, but in the moment you need a response as well unless every time it comes up you just say 'OK guys, game ends here until we can have a conversation about this'

[Tetrasodium]

Yes, that's right. Even if that were not the case, this isn't just a case of not worshipping/getting their power from a Deity, the character didn't believe they existed at all. This would be fine in Ravenloft, but not a setting where deities actively engage in the world (maybe a rare character exception, but certainly not a Cleric).



You disagree (violently even) with players needing to obey social rules through their characters? I find it hard to believe that you can have that stance and have a group at the same time.

Also, no clerics without deities is part of dictating what a character must feel/think/act.



There is a 4th choice: Deal with it out of the game. That is why I think the way 5e approaches the problem is the correct one. No in game rules are going to work. Loopholes can be found. They also can't be exhaustive.

This is close to your 1st choice but slightly different. Dictating what happens in game will likely just create more conflict and won't actually resolve what is going on. It is best to either talk about it after the session, or if it is disruptive enough, put the session on pause and deal with it at the moment. It's possible that the player's goals aren't compatible with the rest of the group, and then yes, not playing with that person anymore would be the way to go.

What would you do if you were playing improv games and 1 person decided to just do their own thing without having their character be constrained by the game's rules? Say you were playing the 2 sentences game and 1 player just decided they were going to make up their own sentences because they wanted to be more creative. Maybe you keep playing, esp. if you have an audience. Do you play with that person again? Probably not. Nothing you can do in game will fix the actual problem because it's not an in game problem.


The Silver flame (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Silver_Flame_(Religion))is the dominant religion (or one of them) in much of eberron but is entirely about the concept/ideal of purity & lacks a deity. I believe sovereign host (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sovereign_Host) is the other & it's basically just an amalgam of all the goodish deities smushed under one roof. Dark Six (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Six) is the soverign host;s little e evil counterpart & bizarrely engaged in so much benevolent just help everyone including stuff like supporting war widows& orphans of any faith that they are even acceptable for politician types to worship openly as some of the books actually said (faiths of eberron?). It was actually the pelor type silver flame folks that almost succeeded at full blown & complete genocide of the shifter race. Blood of Vol (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Blood_of_Vol) are almost kinda sorta a big E Evil faith created after too many people were trying to end wars & save lives/the world, but you have to look at Lady Vol's history (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Lady_Vol) to really get it. Undying Court (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/The_Undying_Court) is another nondeity having major faith. It's pretty easy to have a cleric/paladin with faith in a concept or something that fits great into just about any given setting just by saying it's small, new, secretive, from far away, or some combination of the four.

[ad_hoc]

The Silver flame (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Silver_Flame_(Religion))is the dominant religion (or one of them) in much of eberron but is entirely about the concept/ideal of purity & lacks a deity. I believe sovereign host (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sovereign_Host) is the other & it's basically just an amalgam of all the goodish deities smushed under one roof. Dark Six (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Dark_Six) is the soverign host;s little e evil counterpart & bizarrely engaged in so much benevolent just help everyone including stuff like supporting war widows& orphans of any faith that they are even acceptable for politician types to worship openly as some of the books actually said (faiths of eberron?). It was actually the pelor type silver flame folks that almost succeeded at full blown & complete genocide of the shifter race. Blood of Vol (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Blood_of_Vol) are almost kinda sorta a big E Evil faith created after too many people were trying to end wars & save lives/the world, but you have to look at Lady Vol's history (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Lady_Vol) to really get it. Undying Court (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/The_Undying_Court) is another nondeity having major faith. It's pretty easy to have a cleric/paladin with faith in a concept or something that fits great into just about any given setting just by saying it's small, new, secretive, from far away, or some combination of the four.

I have no idea what this has to do with my post (or this thread).

[Naanomi]

Clerics without deities is a highly setting dependent question. In Eberron and Darksun it is in some ways the default (as much as Darksun has 'clerics' anyways); whereas in Forgotten Realms it is a definitive 'no' (and nearly everyone... divine caster or not... has a patron deity anyways)

[Anderlith]

Throwing in my two coppers...

Any class can be fluffed into whatever you want within reason & setting
Players can play any alignment, or personallity within reason & setting
If you want to play a racist/sexist, that's fine by me. (Legolas & Gimli were racists, but it didn't hamper completing the quest) but honestly if you play a character like this PCs & NPCs might not like you & then they won't invite your character to go questing, maybe forcing you to reroll something that isn't an @sshole.
Clerics should follow somekind of god/pantheon/faith though. I dont like the fluff of getting heals & miracles because you're a nice person who believes in the power of friendship. Heck you could make it super vague, "Green Way" of nature, or worship an all penetrating force, but use somekind of faith.
Want to play a monk, but no eastern themes? That's fine. You can be someone who wanted to be a living weapon anyhow, you don't need eastern fluff. I'm not even going to limit them to being somekind of tavern brawler pugilist. They can just be a guy who wanted to focus his mind body & soul into punchimg dragons in the face.

[Tetrasodium]

Organizing your thoughts in a way that makes clear what you would like addressed certainly helps.


Firstly, I am hard pressed to think of a situation where that would be the case. But, if for whatever reason it were the case, it would be 'fair' because I didn't set the campaign setting components with the thought of 'how can I screw over Bob, the rogue!'; I instead thought 'in the constraints of the campaign, in this time and place in the setting, it *would* be harder to get studded leather, so I am going to go with it in the name of verisimilitude'. Also note, that I explicitly said that I don't have a big aim in my games to make things 'fair' between different classes; and that a few points of AC and one die of damage increase isn't particularly compelling mechanically in any case. Both of these assumptions were explicitly stated in the first part of my post.



You seem to have an significantly different definition of what an 'impartial ruling' is and the importance it plays in a successful game. I see my role as GM to adjudicate rules questions, provide a setting, and make that setting react to the players. I do so in an impartial manner by *not* catering to the players specifically... any players... I don't go out of my way to make a poisonmaker in a place one wouldn't belong just because the assassin wants to use poison, I don't make a magic emporium selling enchanted weapons just because the melee characters feel like they are getting to the point where they 'need' it to overcome damage resistance. I *do* provide opportunities for characters to seek out that stuff; sometimes through skill rolls, but generally through adventuring or role-play; though I only feel the need to make it 'easy' as the setting would logically dictate. If half the party is drow, I don't work to make half the encounters in dark places; instead I just run the encounters how I was going to anyways regardless of the makeup of the party (with a few exceptions perhaps, because I am speaking in generalities... in all things there can be exceptions).


Sure, people have the correct skills I would hope that the party would support eachother. Just like I hope someone with the 'criminal' background might go about getting thieve's tools for people when through criminal contacts when they are not available in the general market. DnD isn't a competition between players, or a competition between players and the GM; my hope is that in general they would all work together with all of their resources to overcome obstacles.


Again, because I am just arbitrating the setting; it is their choice what to do in it. If an extra AC and a slight increase in average damage is how the rogue player wants to spend their downtime, then go for it. In any case, no player should just expect magic plate and greatsword to 'drop', this isn't Diablo, random skeletons and barrels are not hurling out magic items; and expecting magic equipment of any specific type to appear is fairly clearly outside of the design principles of 5e (as compared to 3e and 4e where the magic item treadmill was a vital part of play)


Most of my conversation has been about mundane equipment access, not magical (though there is a factor in that as well). I wouldn't expect any of my players to explicitly hope for a specific type of magic item to appear for them, that just isn't the game I run. It is sometimes a factor... that hand-crossbow master you built may not see a magic hand-crossbow as often as they see a magic longbow (which is true in more traditional 'randomly generated magic items' as well); and the decision to switch over what type of weapon you are using if new exciting gear becomes available is a *good thing*, a good source of tactical turmoil; at least from my perspective.


I'm having trouble decoding what you are asking here but... again one of my stated positions is that I don't think any class is 'owed' any equipment, nor is it a requirement to have fun. A druid operates just fine with an AC of 14; and at the very least the last discussion we had on this issue should demonstrate that there are at least several people out there who don't feel that druids 'need' exotic non-medium armor access in the first place, so any argument starting with 'well how do they get that armor they need?' is starting with a false premise.

The druid perhaps should be happy if his party members get something strong because it is a team game and the party benefits from it... but no one at the table should be expecting to cater to individual builds or class choices in that way. You may be able to make statistical claims like 'I am more likely to find a magical dagger than I am to find a magical whip'; but you shouldn't ever be in a position to expect (or demand) that either make an appearance at all.


I'll skip this one because it is just rehashing what was above, at least from an answer standpoint.


No one is just as likely to get any specific piece of magic equipment at all, it isn't a system expectation, this isn't 2e where you need +X weapons by level Y to be competitive, and if you don't the GM is denying you something basic to function in the game. Frankly I'd be very confused at the mindset of a player who cannot enjoy a game because their rogue has a short-sword instead of a rapier; or hasn't been handed an enchanted set of turtle-shell half-plate by level 9 or some such.


I disagree, at the very least my years of campaigning under this model act as a case-study that it is possible to run a game with some measure of success under the assumptions you seem to disagree with so much. I cut out some of the text here from your statement, it was almost line-for-line a repetition of what was stated above.


I don't feel as if I have reversed myself, so much as I have clarified positions (and not even that in some of the cases you seem to want to quote, as they were responses to different lines of conversation). For almost any statement regarding a game taking place in a fantasy setting, my real answer is going to be 'it depends'; black and white answers are not the norm, but nuanced answers didn't appear to be necessary at the time of some of those posts so I added clarifying information later.

In any case, hopefully you feel you have made me 'eat enough crow' or whatever your ultimate goal was here? You did a much better job on your grammar, structure of readability, and maintaining a polite tone of 'written voice' here than in previous posts; so congratulations on that measure. It makes meaningful discussion so much easier.


Ultimately, perhaps, but in the moment you need a response as well unless every time it comes up you just say 'OK guys, game ends here until we can have a conversation about this'
So, we are to believe that:
11:Despite the fact that taking stance A makes stance B irrelevant or invalid, just because you maintain the same positions on both rather than reversing your position on either means that they cannot possibly invalidate each other.
2: that rogue wanting a rapier/studded leather or druid wanting nonmetal medium armor is the only one who would need to burn downtime & maybe make a skill roll (given that you cant seem to think of a situation where a fighter wanting plate/greataxe would), but you don't see how this is treating one class different from the 11 others could possibly be anything but impartial. Although it's kind of tough to be sure on that one because it was a question basically amounting to "if the rogue/druid needs to burn downtime & make a skill roll, does a fighter/barbarian/etc need to as well?... if not, how is it not treating them different from every other class" with a statement that you can't think of a situation where "that" would be the case (which part!). Although, I guess that I should be thankful that you didn't try to make a strawman by reductum ad absurdum with an antimatter rifle example or shapeshifter growing extra limbs(druids get wildshape based shapeshifting not nature clerics, absurdist extra limbs was all you) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21786431&postcount=447)
3: You refuse to answer if other classes need to make a skill roll & burn downtime for base armors like the druid wanting nonmagic nonmetal medium armor.
4: You refuse to explicitly state if other classes that do need to make those skill roll/downtime burns have similar difficulty
5: At least you were willing to admit that other players could make the skill roll rather than "sorry, they don't know druidic so the druids don't trust them" or something
6: You got up in arms over "rare=none" but will make comparisons to diablo and refuse to answer if the druid hoping for magic nonmetal medium (or heavy) armor has realistic chances of coming across it on par with fighter/paladin/valor bard/etc getting magic medium/heavy metal armor because they can use either metal/nonmetal variants. You cannot argue that rare=none is wrong and say that the druid does not so refuse to answer if the druid would need to go out of his way to drag the party along simply to equip him with that nonmetal armor.
7: If the druid hoping for magic nonmetal medium (or heavy) armor has realistic chances of coming across it on par with fighter/paladin/valor bard/etc getting magic medium/heavy metal armor... then full stop, it is was neither rare nor exotic. One invalidates the other & you are arguing both. Remember, medium armor is not a specific item, it is an entire class of armors

8: You want to argue that rare does not equal none and express frustration towards diablo mindsets / people not being owed magic gear while you avoid actually answering direct questions about how rare is "rare". To add insult to it, you even take it a step further by bringing up hand crossbows & whips (Hey, at least it wasn't another absurd antimatter rifle strawman) & build/class choices as if 5th had the same sirt of PrC jenga 3.5 did to be worthy of calling "one of twelve base classes" "class choices" rather than just being honest and admitting "druid". All of that together with the refusal to answer questions if the answer invalidates one of the confliucting positions already taken gives the distinct impression that It's just easier to say "It's rare"than "you probably shouldn't play a druid that dances on the front lines & needs to keep up with AC",

9: The hand crossbow thing is probably even more insulting than the magic nonmetal medium armor because one is a specific item while the other is an entire class of armor (medium) that has been fashioned in a way that does not deny it to a druid in a world where there are likely to be people who care about such things.

"Druid not denied around 8 of the 12 armor types regardless of proficiency" (they start w/medium & can pickup heavy by multiclassing or a feat just like any other class) is a wildly different level of character "optimization" that it almost makes comparisons to hand crossbow experts/whips absurdist to epic levels. So much so that it' practically dishonest to even pretend it has anything to do with some kind of twinky powergaming prc/feat jenga type charop concern that you've alluded to here & there.

10:Rather than answer if a druid has a similar chance of finding magic nonmetal medium armor as a valor bard/fighter/paladin etc finding a magic set of metal medium or heavy as class appropriate in stuff the group comes across, you make absurd comparisons to how a magic dagger is going to be more common than a magic whip.... I don't believe the dmg tables have any explicitly nonmetal armors above hide (very rare dragonscale aside) in the treasure tables & pretty sure that mithral is the only armor that explicitly says it's metal. so the chance of it showing up in a random treasure table with a gm who has decided "metal is the norm" is 1 in 12 each time an armor comes up if a druid was the previous owner, or practically none... but that can't be, because you weren't happy with "rare=none"
11: While yes it is a team game & the druid will probably be happy for joe getting that nice new set of plate... When joe is on his third variant of differently magical heavy armor & the druid is still on the front line at his side sporting the same nonmagic mundane armor 17 levels later it's worked into a different situation entirely over all those months/possibly years of game time.
11: Why is the druid in mundane nonmagic armor 17 levels later?... easy, +3 hide = +0 mundane half plate & a light armor class will be better off with the magic light armor unless it's got some really special resistances or aomething. +3 studded leather is only 1 ac better than mundane halfplate if the wearer has 16 dex & the wearer has not also taken medium armor master... at that point it's safe to assume the druid does bot have 17-20 dex.

[Chaosmancer]

Also, no clerics without deities is part of dictating what a character must feel/think/act.



See, I think this is a point where we may be talking past each other.

I disagree with your above statement, insisting that clerics have a deity does not necessarily lead to dictating how a character feels about that deity, how a character thinks about that deity, or how a character acts in response to that deity.



There was, if memory serves me, a Forgotten Realms novel series where the main character was a rogue who was forced to be the High Priest of Mask, God of Thieves. If a player came to you wanting to recreate that character, including the part where the character feels the deity is intruding upon their lives and being a nuisance by granting them this power, is that not acceptable?

If a player wanted to worship a god of war, but wanted to be a life cleric, with the fluff that their particular sect are devoted battlefield medics, who keep the warriors alive with their god's power, is that not acceptable?



The player has a lot of choice within the box of "you have a relationship with a deity". And it is all a meaningful choice, while other examples that have been floated around like the Barbarian being uncomfortable in cities gives the player almost no choice within that box, and the choices they do have may be not meaningful to the player or may actually harm their concept, like some of the aforementioned city-born barbarians.


Roleplaying restrictions are not bad, but if the player is not given any input into them, and no leeway is made for legitimate concepts which stretch or even break those limits, then they are more like to become problematic restrictions instead of useful ones.

[Vaz]

WotC seems to have been unable to instil the idea that you're playing a Role Playing Game to many people creating the threads and supporting where you are creating Role Playing Rules in the base ruleset of the game along the lines of Druids, Paladins, and now Barbarians.

I personally believe it's down to a lack of creativity, and possibly intelligence to the open mindedness of being able to play a class.

A class is a bag of mechanics. You're not playing a Bag of Mechanics, that's basically meta. You're playing the role of a character. An individual.

It is reasons like this why we have stories of the Devil. Hell, (excuse the pun), it's why we have stories like Dogma, and End of Days, and the Blade Trilogy, and Monty Python, and Constantine, and Passion of the Christ.

Each of those stories have different takes on similar events or themes. That doesn't mean that thise roles cannot be represented in a different manner.

What about that Druid? Is he a Druid, as in shapechanger Druid? Or a Nature Cleric? Or a Tribal Champion, extolling the virtues of animals of their forest? All are equally appropriate. He might even be a Druid in the sense of a tribal leader with a bent towards ostensibly religious guidance, but he's nothing more than a non class levelled individual with high Charisma.

My Warlock is a Water Genasi from a fishing Genasi tribe, who had his powers "awoken" after calling for help to defeat some creatures attacking the village, and started Eldritch Blasting them back into the water. Our traditional weapon was a variant on the Fishing spear, which acted like a Trident, and I even got to use Shillelagh with it because of its connection with me. Not going to lie, that Piercing rather than Bludgeoning Damage has come in helpful and dealt clutch damage thanks to the additional Dice Size from One handed wielding the Trident allowing me to still cast Bonus Action spells; in this individual case, Hex. From that point of view, it's broken. It's allowing me to stay alive when by rights I'd be making death saves. For shillelagh to work on a none Trident and to be Trident Proficient is not something a Warlock can normally do. Yet it was appropriate to the character

All of those are valid answers and apply to a druid. As in "druid", rather than "Druid" with the capital. "Druids" with the capital have RP rules written into their baseline. But otgers have said that 'RP means that this can be ignored', whether it's in RP rules (Druids don't wear metal armour; but my Druid takes the form of Earth Elemental to burrow into Terrain and find ore, then fire elemental to melt it, and finally water elemental to cool it, and air elemental to enchant it, and I'm a Blacksmith yada yada) or pure mechanical (My Water Genasi with the Trident+Shillelagh), then you begin to understand where people come from in that it's 'just a bag of mechanics' and pretty much can be exchanged wholesale. If things can be ignored at the expense of RP, why is ot there in the first place when you're meant to be RPing anyway.

Close Minded following of the rules which were written so that people who bought the PHb and immediately skipped to the Druid could see their Sacred Cow still intact shouldn't have any meaning on what is relevant in a game.

Now, talking from a CharOp perspective, I'm extremely disappointed with the lack of CharOp available. There just aren't enough options or breakpoints available to make any form of CharOp an option. I'm not using 3.5e as the perfect example in practise, but at least in comparison you could use the dedicated CharOp community to come up with fun builds and to discuss options you've not thought possible.

Whether it's from 3.5 Psionics wibbly wobbly timey wimey business, to Incarnum's flexibility for Mundanes, to Eberroni Dragonmarks, Pact Magic, or Tome of Battles "Fightan Magic for Tier 3 classes" there were plenty of options.

That the game scaled better at higher levels, that there was magic items, that multiclassing and prestiging was essentially encouraged (even with multiclass XP penalties so that single classes in theory were more powerful rather than dipping levels), stat increases weren't artificially capped or competing with other character building options like Feats.

The only thing that 5e has actually added to the game is the one time mechanical boost of 2 skills that are appropriate to the individual. To the extent that I like it that much that I've told my 3.5 players (2x weekly parties and 1monthly) and asked my 3.5gm (monthy, he agreed) to include two skills to always be considered class skills that they already have ranks in from their first level, and gain 1 free skill point a level to add to that skill provided that they have some means of getting it as a class skill for their current level. It's more options for people to build a character.

Let's have a look at another example which frequently crops up; necromancy, specifically animating the undead. The actions that people do with the undead is what makes necro evil. Objectively, what is evil about having a skeleton build a house for you? Not much. When you put more context to it, did you kill the builder and then raise him and have him build it free of charge? That's evil, because you killed someone for something relatively minor, but then again, dominating or charming someone to do it against their will is also questionably evil. But is Dominating the guard to look the other way while you rescue his Rightful and just King who has been supplanted by a Changeling bent on world domination? That's hardly evil.

In regards to Necromancy that isn't to say that while Animating Skeletons is not necessarily evil, going to a grave yard and being discovered pulling up the corpses of the dead in order to do whatever non evil task you wish to accomplish is going to be taken lightly. People care about the bodies of those they cared about in life and continue to do so in death; hence graveyards or cairns where they can go pay respects. Excusenthe religious term, I don't mean it as the religious connontation, but it's sacrosanct to the individual to spend time, and talk and care for the dead in a matter that is as individual as the individual. My Water Genasi Warlock might not have a problem with seeing someone animate the Undead, because to him, they have a sea burial, forming rafts of Driftwood and setting them ablaze so that they can rejoin the ocean. But that isn't to say that if I get Create Undead, I can go to one of the graves of my party member's parents, animate them into a skeleton/zombie and have that party member still happy.

There are a lot things that change the outcome of certain actions because of RP. Not all RP is equal; someone roleplaying going to the toilet to have their morning ablutions is different than someone Role playing as a former Captain of the Guard drilling conscripts/civilians into a militia in order to help resist the orc horde, for example.

But there isn't a class for a Captain of the Guard. Or a Witch Doctor. Or any other class. Which as the Giant comic helpfully points out is appropriate to the individual and their class choice is representative of their abilkties, not that their abilities are represententative of their class, except in the meta that Miko Mizaki is a Monk/Paladin rather than 'Samurai' and that my Warlock is an apprentice Witch Doctor with powers from an unknown source. Out of Character, and on a meta level, my Witch Doctor is a Great Old One Warlock with a Pact of the Tome with which he gets flashes of inspiration in dream form and is gradually learning to communicate with his Patron by using his Comprehend Languages ritual.

None of that is specifically spelled out in the books. Not all of the mechanics of the above are written in the books. That someone wants to play a Urbanphobic/Claustrophobic Barbarian straight out of the PHB is fine. Not a problem. But what about those who don't?

But to have every swathe of character building outside of a few select mutually exclusive branches of a tree which never intertwines again and then also throw on top of that the single minded stupidity of WotC writers who have something like 7 printings of the same rulebook except with new errata each time and state that that is the only way to run a class means that essentially you are just playing a video game with every decision already premade for you.

TL;DR -if PHB role playing rules is the only correct way to run a class unless you RP differently, and we're playing an RP game, why is it an RP rule in any case?

[Unoriginal]

Let's have a look at another example which frequently crops up; necromancy, specifically animating the undead. The actions that people do with the undead is what makes necro evil. Objectively, what is evil about having a skeleton build a house for you? Not much. When you put more context to it, did you kill the builder and then raise him and have him build it free of charge? That's evil, because you killed someone for something relatively minor, but then again, dominating or charming someone to do it against their will is also questionably evil. But is Dominating the guard to look the other way while you rescue his Rightful and just King who has been supplanted by a Changeling bent on world domination? That's hardly evil.

In regards to Necromancy that isn't to say that while Animating Skeletons is not necessarily evil, going to a grave yard and being discovered pulling up the corpses of the dead in order to do whatever non evil task you wish to accomplish is going to be taken lightly. People care about the bodies of those they cared about in life and continue to do so in death; hence graveyards or cairns where they can go pay respects. Excusenthe religious term, I don't mean it as the religious connontation, but it's sacrosanct to the individual to spend time, and talk and care for the dead in a matter that is as individual as the individual.


Actually, the book makes it quite clear that neither necromancy nor animating the dead are evil acts. However, it warns that only an evil character would frequently create Undead, because in 5e the Undead are inherently evil and, if they escape the caster's control, they will go around killing as many people as they're capable of. Essentially, the book is telling you "if you go out of your way to regularly create large groups of evil omnicidal maniacs and use them as your posse despite the risks for others, then you're either malevolent or cruelly uncaring."

It's like having a machine that creates golems, but with a sign next to it saying "warning: there is 1% of chance using this machine will summon a demon inside an urban area chosen at random". If the character promptly decide to use said machine 500 times because they want a golem army, they can hardly call themselves "good", because they probably unleashed 5 demons on innocent people.

[RedMage125]

You disagree (violently even) with players needing to obey social rules through their characters? I find it hard to believe that you can have that stance and have a group at the same time.

Also, no clerics without deities is part of dictating what a character must feel/think/act.


No, I disagree (violently) with your completely asinine assertion that "all barbarians feel closed in by walls" or other complete garbage about how you think the rules say every member of whichever class/race/alignment MUST somehow think/feel/act in a certain manner.

The rules do not support this. You are wrong.

And no, "no clerics without deities" is a SETTING choice, not dictating anything to a particular player. If you tell a player "in this setting, only actual deities grant the powers of the cleric class", a player is still free to play an atheist character, they just need to pick a different class. You have been advocating dictating to a player what their character thinks, feels and does, completely overriding that player's agency over their character. "No clerics without deities" is something that comes up meta-game, during character creation, and is an entirely valid setting decision for a DM.

[KorvinStarmast]

Secondly, I am a special education teacher; specifically focusing on the intersection of problem behavior and autism spectrum disorder. As such, I am often called upon the task of remediating social skills deficits; and in the modern world that often includes aspects of online communication, the system of emails, texting, and forums that is pervasive in our world today yet carry their own ‘hidden curriculum’ social skills expectations. Heh, this thread appears to be right in your wheel house. :smallbiggrin:

No, I disagree (violently) with your completely asinine assertion that "all barbarians feel closed in by walls" It's valid for his campaign, but you may not like it in yours. (I personally think it's an overreach since people adapt as they grow and experience new things)

or other complete garbage about how you think the rules say every member of whichever class / race / alignment MUST somehow think/feel/act in a certain manner. As DM he is master of rules at his table. That's in the book. He is not master of rules at your or my table.

The rules do not support this. You are wrong. See above.
You and I are in violent agreement on this matter:
And no, "no clerics without deities" is a SETTING choice, not dictating anything to a particular player. If you tell a player "in this setting, only actual deities grant the powers of the cleric class", a player is still free to play an atheist character, they just need to pick a different class. I think you agree (violently) with ad_hoc here, based on what you have both written.

You have been advocating dictating to a player what their character thinks, feels and does, completely overriding that player's agency over their character. "Completely" is an overreach. Player still makes decisions in games, but some of what ad_hoc advocates seems to me heavy handed.

"No clerics without deities" is something that comes up meta-game, during character creation, and is an entirely valid setting decision for a DM.
Woo hoo, violently agree, again!

I'll add into my notes to self that if I were to play at ad-hoc's table, you won't be joining us.

[Unoriginal]

the Animate Dead thing more common sense than a roleplaying rule.

I mean, it's not often you hear a good person say the equivalent of "don't worry, we only cloned Hannibal Lecter five time this month. We were too busy cloning more Jason Voorhees."



Heh, this thread appears to be right in your wheel house. :smallbiggrin:
It's valid for his campaign, but you may not like it in yours. (I personally think it's an overreach since people adapt as they grow and experience new things)
As DM he is master of rules at his table. That's in the book. He is not master of rules at your or my table.
See above.
You and I are in violent agreement on this matter: I think you agree (violently) with ad_hoc here, based on what you have both written.
"Completely" is an overreach. Player still makes decisions in games, but some of what ad_hoc advocates seems to me heavy handed.

Woo hoo, violently agree, again!

I'll add into my notes to self that if I were to play at ad-hoc's table, you won't be joining us.

ad_hoc is *not* advocating that it is in his campaign that it's like that. ad_hoc is saying that having the Barbarian uncomfortable within walled space is an inherent rule of DnD 5e, just like the Fighter's Extra-Attack or the Bard's spellcasting, and that a Barbarian player doesn't get to decide otherwise.

[KorvinStarmast]

ad_hoc is *not* advocating Sir, on that specific point, clerics and deities, ad_hoc was advocating that. Go back a few posts. I do understand the distinction people are trying to make about clerics, deities, and setting dependency ... but even within that discussion, at a given table the DM is free to require (regardless of setting) that a cleric must have a deity. While the Rules allow for a cleric to serve some other concept, the rules don't Require any DM to have a non deity cleric option. (I think most of us are in agreement on that point, if not violently).

I have already made my response to the OP with my 3 questions that the OP failed to respond to. My point about DM being "master of rules" at the DM's table remains.

Where the disagreement seems to be coming from is the offense people are taking about how a barbarian should versus must role play a particular class feature or description about "what makes a barbarian a barbarian, anyway?"

It doesn't matter unless you are at ad_hoc's table. I am pretty sure I could live with that guidance or limitation, if I chose a barbarian, unless during our collaborative process of coming up with my character I got a bad vibe out of that point of view. I might then choose a different class. (There are 12 classes). Or, if I got a really vibe, I might choose a different table.

Now, let's go back to the closing passage in the OP:


D&D is a game of fantasy tropes. I think it is fun to create something unique using those tropes. Breaking them is lazy and the game suffers as a result.

Plus, that special character you made who goes against their archetype isn't as unique or interesting as you think they are. We've seen it all before. The interesting and creative moments happen during play with the collaboration of the group, just like in improv.

Of course, play with whatever 'roleplaying rules' you wish. Houserule the ones in the PHB if you like. Do keep some though, as they are important and enrich the game. I think the bolded part is the kind of comment that has some people up in arms. The italicized part ... hmm, someone bagged the limit. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

WotC seems to have been unable to instil the idea that you're playing a Role Playing Game to many people creating the threads and supporting where you are creating Role Playing Rules in the base ruleset of the game along the lines of Druids, Paladins, and now Barbarians.

I personally believe it's down to a lack of creativity, and possibly intelligence to the open mindedness of being able to play a class.

A class is a bag of mechanics. You're not playing a Bag of Mechanics, that's basically meta. You're playing the role of a character. An individual.

A bag of mechanics is one way to use a class, although I'd argue that if that's the way it's being used you're better off with a classless system. The other way to use a class is to represent a particular chunk of people within certain parts of a setting. Here the class based system lets you detail those particular types to a disproportionate level compared to the rest of the setting, thus allowing for more complex mechanics there without the mechanical weight that comes with doing that in a more universal specialization. The use of class rules also emphasizes the character of the setting itself - in D&D, things like the Cleric class and the Wizard class emphasize the setting side arcane-divine magic split, the high prevalence of magic classes and subclasses emphasizes the magical nature of the setting, the way every class is a combatant who is also reasonably mobile and capable of exploration emphasizes D&D as a combat game with a side of exploration, the specific spells for monsters, ranger class features, the Warlock class, and turn undead emphasize the setting as a place full of malevolent non-human entities.

This isn't just a D&D thing either. Apocalypse World really gets the fairly bleak and gonzo setting across through the bizarre classes within the setting, particularly those pertaining to the way characters access magic through various incredibly self destructive behavior. This behavior then trickles down to the various hacks collectively referred to as Powered by the Apocalypse games, although often not very well. Even outside class systems there are some class-like features at times that do things like this, such as REIGN's magic systems and skill talent trees tied to particular organizations. The mechanical focus side is here for all of this, but there's a lot of instructions on how to roleplay as well, though they tend to be more guidelines than ironclad rules.

In terms of roleplaying rules, D&D is a bit of an odd case. Early D&D is in a lot of ways an incredibly specific setting, and a lot of the rules stem from strong setting emulation. That strain persists through to modern D&D, but there have been constant attempts to make D&D an increasingly generic system, with the restrictions that come from setting specificity loosened. The gradual decline of alignment prerequisites is an obvious case here, as is the shift from the idea that an individual DM was running one instance of D&D in parallel with the rest and as part of a broader community over which they had no control (hence things like the verbiage on all worlds being connected, taking PCs from other games, etc.) to the idea that a DM is using D&D as a tool to run their stuff. There's thing like the more generic base classes and the way prestige classes started as heavily organizationally affiliated and gradually got less setting specific during the run of 3.x, to be replaced entirely in more modern editions. Then there's the way WotC as a company adapted to fluff text with no rules implications from MtG.

That leads to a major grey area. There's a whole bunch of stuff that is definitely rules. There's then a bunch of stuff which is ignorable fluff if you treat the classes as bags of mechanics used to build characters, and which is guidelines-to-rules if the classes are supposed to operate in a more setting side role. Either way works fine, either way gets some mileage out of the class rules (assuming that you stick to what they cover and don't decide to use D&D for something like an extremely combat and magic light mercantile game for some reason, in which case the classes are working against you but another set could work for you) compared to a classless system, and either way you can run a fun game. It's when they intersect that things start to get messy.


But apparently it's not common sense enough, as in the archaic 'sense of commoners', ie something most people would know and doesn't really need to be stated. Because WoTC felt the need to write it in the book, and just look at how many people want to claim it somehow isn't actually a rule rule.

Get your oppressive roleplaying rules out of my roleplaying game, we don't need your corporate & government establishment types around here, man ...
- Roleplaying Hippies everywhere :smallamused:
This gets back into the matter of what is a class and why are they used, and how that creates a legitimate grey area in D&D in particular because the designers either couldn't or pointedly didn't decide to specify.

As far as corporate and establishment types go, I'll just point out that there are plenty of small indie games which have way more in the way of roleplaying rules than D&D does.

[Unoriginal]

Sir, on that specific point, clerics and deities, ad_hoc was advocating that.

I wasn't talking about this part. I was pointing out that RedMage125 said they violently disagreed with ad_hoc's assertion that "all Barbarians must be like", and that ad_hoc never said "at my table, I do it like this", but went "all Barbarians must be like this because it's the rules."

RedMage125 did say that they considered "Clerics must have a deity" to be fine, as it is a setting rule.


The disagreement is not if the DM can do anything they want with the setting (since nearly everyone agrees to it), but whenever or not the roleplay suggestions in the class descriptions are rules or not.


I think the bolded part is the kind of comment that has some people up in arms. The italicized part ... hmm, someone bagged the limit.

It's not the "breaking it is lazy" part, I'd say, but more insisting that some things that are not roleplay rules are in fact totally roleplay rules.

As for the "you're not as original as you think you are" part: like I've once read on this very forum, "originality is simply using old things in new ways".

[Vaz]

Common sense in a more modern version means prudent and good judgement. :smallyuk:

But apparently it's not common sense enough, as in the archaic 'sense of commoners', ie something most people would know and doesn't really need to be stated. Because WoTC felt the need to write it in the book, and just look at how many people want to claim it somehow isn't actually a rule rule.

Get your oppressive roleplaying rules out of my roleplaying game, we don't need your corporate & government establishment types around here, man ...
- Roleplaying Hippies everywhere :smallamused:

Thank **** i don't know you or play in your games. Any attempt at individualism or just not doing what almighty WotC say just gets slapped down?

Tanarii, why do you so fervently believe that what some dude being paid by hour sat in an office half way around the world somewhere is the absolute gospel and cannot be broken?

I'm still not confident in calling out whether it's trolling or you are literally that dense, but hey, who am I to doubt to holy word of the almightly WotC?

[Knaight]

Thank **** i don't know you or play in your games. Any attempt at individualism or just not doing what almighty WotC say just gets slapped down?

Tanarii, why do you so fervently believe that what some dude being paid by hour sat in an office half way around the world somewhere is the absolute gospel and cannot be broken?

I'm still not confident in calling out whether it's trolling or you are literally that dense, but hey, who am I to doubt to holy word of the almightly WotC?

Translation: Any game which operates within a narrower PC-space and setting-space than you prefer is badwrongfun. The fallibility of WotC is entirely besides the point here - sometimes people want to play a specific game and enjoy the game more by using its rules more strictly. Sometimes people want to use the rules as minimally as possible where the game is there to prop up their own thing. Sometimes the same people are fine with both. With D&D in particular I lean towards the second due to holding the implicit setting in open contempt, but I'd be totally down with playing Mouseguard perfectly RAW to get everything out of those rules, along with taking the rules and using them as a hack basis for something else entirely (I've seen some discussion on it working for LotR rangers, and something like that could be fun).

Or, for another example, take Pendragon. Pendragon is hyper focused on Arthurian knights. It has a set of roleplaying rules built around the knightly virtues, it adds more rules that tie to the setting factions of Arthurian Britain, so on and so forth. It shines best when using those rules. That doesn't mean that thinking that those rules are rules means that they're being taken as absolute gospel that can't be broken, and while I'm pretty sure it was written by contract freelancers who weren't paid by the hour it was still written by people who sat in offices.

[Unoriginal]

This gets back into the matter of what is a class and why are they used, and how that creates a legitimate grey area in D&D in particular because the designers either couldn't or pointedly didn't decide to specify.

As far as corporate and establishment types go, I'll just point out that there are plenty of small indie games which have way more in the way of roleplaying rules than D&D does.


Thank **** i don't know you or play in your games. Any attempt at individualism or just not doing what almighty WotC say just gets slapped down?

Tanarii, why do you so fervently believe that what some dude being paid by hour sat in an office half way around the world somewhere is the absolute gospel and cannot be broken?

I'm still not confident in calling out whether it's trolling or you are literally that dense, but hey, who am I to doubt to holy word of the almightly WotC?


Tanarii was responding to my post about Animate Dead, not about classes or "any attempt at individualism".

[Corsair14]

The descriptions in PHB are just fluff to help the creation process along or give an example of a stereotype of that class. Not all necromancers are evil villains raising an army of the undead, not all paladins are knights in shining armor rescuing the damsel in distress, not all rangers are Strider. I play in the current campaign I am in a barbarian berserker who was a pirate on a Dwarven ironclad as part of the initial boarding party. He has no issues in cities or ports and grew up doing jewelry work in his clans shop in a Dwarven fortress with forges heated by fire elementals. The rules are what is important, anything else is just fluff to describe the character and personality of him.

[Vaz]

Tanarii was responding to my post about Animate Dead, not about classes or "any attempt at individualism".

He initially responded to my post. And also with the snarky "hipsters" comment it felt appropriate to include that also.

Edit; @Knaight, pretty much. If I want to play a stereotype, I'll play a stereotype. If I don't, then I won't. I'm there to play D&D and give up a couple of nights a week to have fun. If I want to have fun, i'll do it, but if I would like to do something and the DM is just there holding his "Holy Book" where it says "look here, this what some guy 2 years ago wrote in an office and said is what happens to generic Class-Xeta's" and I' mactively being forced to change things on my character because of what someone else thinks is appropriate for how such a character reacts, i might as well not play or GM.

It's not as though people are saying "my character doesn't believe in the action economy and has 35292947 actions a turn, and doesn't need to expend spell slots, and they are always at his highest spell level and he isn't limited to casting cantrtips if he casts a bonus action", it's literally the RP aspect of certain things. And then moving the goalposts afterwards.

To use a recent example, because I can't even entertain how stupid the OP's post is in regards to actually using it as an example.

> Druids cannot wear metal armour
Yes they can
> says in the PHB they can't.
It says they won't.
> and?
Will not =! Cannot
> end result is the same though
Does that take into account the individual?
> but, you chose that class, you knew what the limitations were
No. But my character didn't choose to be a druid. Those abilities are best represented by a Druid. Hence why he is a Druid in class only. Also, stop metagaming.
> but he can't wear metal
We've already done this
> So he'll lose lose his Druid abilities/I'll punish him for not RPing his character how I/some guy in an office believes it should be played
Now who is changing the rules? Anyway, what about if he just puts it on? What then?
> okay, but it's the Druid order who will kick him out and lose his abilities or cannot progress.
so where does it say that?
> okay fine, but it says they won't.
And here we go again.

The ultimate cruxbeing that WotC made the mistake of writing it down and people lacking in creativity and imagination such ad Tanarii believe it to be the be all and end all of a discussion.

Hell, look at the front page of the PHB by Mike Mearls; "exercise in collaborative creation", "willingness to use whatever imagination you have", "aspire to create" "above all else, D&D is yours", "nothing without the spark of life that you give them"

All of it speaks of creativity, and goes on to say it's an improved version of childhood makebelieve games. To that extent, homebrew or houserules are pretty integral, given, you know, that's how D&D started off.

I get it, you guys lack creativity and imagination to understand that not all is as WotC say it is. But there's a difference between saying it's a rule on how to play the game and how abilities work in game and what a certain characters feelings, emotions and decisions are.

I might as well watch a movie or play a video game with that time, where rather than "Press Space to Enter" I have to roll a dice and do addition if all of my decisions are made for me along those lines.

[Naanomi]

I don't mind the 'bag of mechanics' approach; but it does create some odd cases... like when your 'bag' includes knowing the global criminal slang, or the secret Druid language... that do inherently point you in one direction or another (without DM intervention, which is always potentially possible but shouldn't be assumed)

[Unoriginal]

No need to defend me. Because I did initially respond to Vaz's "you're not really roleplaying / lack creativity if A' post with 'too bad you haven't read the book' which is fighting words vs fighting words. And certainly it's fair to call poking fun at his stance that something really isn't a rule "snark".

My intent was more to make sure everyone wasn't incorrect about what was being debated in the exchange. Sorry if it was unclear

[KorvinStarmast]

The descriptions in PHB are just fluff to help the creation process along or give an example of a stereotype of that class. That sentence is not correct. I'll tell you why in a moment.
The following sentence is correct:

The descriptions in PHB are intended to help the creation process along or give an example of a stereotype of that class The authors have to serve the entire game audience, not just people with the asserted black and white on fluff versus non fluff viewpoint implied in your opening sentence. "Just fluff" is nowhere in the Rules as Written, it is something someone brings with them to the reading of the rules. It is from outside of the game. It is meta. (Not inherently bad ... )

The game / rules authors have to serve:

Veteran D&Ders (such as you or me)
People new to D&D who are RPG players from other systems
People New to D&D completely.
And a number of cases in between.

For a veteran player, you may not need any coaching or trope setting since you've been around for a while. A newbie might gain great value from that whole process. It may help them role play, in fact, if a DM holds them to those guidelines it can help them get out of their everyday situation and get themselves into a role. Not everyone's a natural at that role playing thing. I know what I am speaking about here. I came to D&D from wargames, back when it was a very new game and "combat as war" was quite the assumption. The role playing came later, and was a huge boon: but it was left very open ended in the beginning. The fans/players wanted more on that part of it.

If you approach the class descriptions in the PHB from the point of view of someone who has Never Played The Game before, or a DM trying to help a new player understand some of the tropes and meta concepts that are behind the classes (D&D has classes, it is not a classless game system) you'll find that they are very helpful for getting someone into a role. This is one reason that I find the dismissive tone of "just fluff" so unpalatable.

On this we are in complete accord.

Not all necromancers are evil villains raising an army of the undead, not all paladins are knights in shining armor rescuing the damsel in distress, not all rangers are Strider.

"Rules versus fluff" is IMO a very narrow way of looking at the game, but I understand that for some people it works.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it's a false division, not just a narrow way of looking at the rules. As in, not everything falls exclusively into one or the other of "Fluff" vs "Mechanical rules". It's not just narrow, it's provably wrong.

And then the people who have been proven wrong try to insist something not a Mechanical Rule clearly is Fluff, not a Rule, because it doesn't fit their world view. Tanarii, I think I look at it similarly to you, but I got a warning from Roland for spelling out how I see it, so I will not be pushing that point any time soon.

[ad_hoc]

For a veteran player, you may not need any coaching or trope setting since you've been around for a while. A newbie might gain great value from that whole process...

...If you approach the class descriptions in the PHB from the point of view of someone who has Never Played The Game before, or a DM trying to help a new player understand some of the tropes and meta concepts that are behind the classes (D&D has classes, it is not a classless game system) you'll find that they are very helpful for getting someone into a role. This is one reason that I find the dismissive tone of "just fluff" so unpalatable.

I reject the implication that the tropes/roleplaying rules/setting/fluff/etc are there for new players and that disregarding them is somehow a sign of skill, experience, or creativity. I will even go so far to say that if you can't create an interesting and unique character within these tropes/rules that you probably lack experience and creativity.

I come back to D&D, specifically 5e, because it has those strong tropes. I want to play a game where everyone works within them. My fun is diminished if a player breaks setting.

[Naanomi]

I think it's a false division, not just a narrow way of looking at the rules. As in, not everything falls exclusively into one or the other of "Fluff" vs "Mechanical rules". It's not just narrow, it's provably wrong.

And then the people who have been proven wrong try to insist something not a Mechanical Rule clearly is Fluff, not a Rule, because it doesn't fit their world view.
I see a pretty strong case for the fluff/crunch dichotomy (though as you mention there is plenty of times things 'straddle the line' and are both to some degree). However, I think the problem comes in when people then want to disregard 'fluff' more casually than they want to modify 'crunch'. Both are important, both are malleable of everyone at the table agrees to it; but it doesn't make them the 'same thing' to me (and keeping the demarcation is occasionally useful for discussion)

[Naanomi]

My position is not: there are no things that are 'fluff' and no things that are 'mechanical rules'.

It's that there is a spectrum, and it is demonstrably true that not all things are wholly one or the other. Therefore insisting that there is a line on the spectrum on which side all things are fluff vs mechanical rule, or that all things must be wholly one or the other, is false.
I... largely agree with this position, though I think in some (perhaps most, but depends largely on your specific definitions of the terms) cases which 'side' they lean towards in that spectrum is pretty clear. The 'list of all things DnD' isn't a bell curve with most of the stuff somewhere muddled in the middle of fluff/crunch, at least not from my perspective.

[KorvinStarmast]

I reject the implication that the tropes/roleplaying rules/setting/fluff/etc are there for new players and that disregarding them is somehow a sign of skill, experience, or creativity. Since I did not advocate disregarding them, why this hostile response? For that matter, since you were kind enough to respond to that post, will you please respond to the post where I asked you three questions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21802388&postcount=42)?
The point I was making to a fluff advocate (which I am not) is that what is there aids the new player, and the new DM, in having an idea of the roles / tropes the classes fill. Not everyone knows that entering the game. With game mastery, it's still good stuff to use ... particularly when trying out a new class that you have not tried in this edition, or for that matter, in any other edition.

I will even go so far to say that if you can't create an interesting and unique character within these tropes / rules that you probably lack experience and creativity.Given that I've been playing this game since 1975 (with a few substantial breaks thanks to raising a family) I hope that you are not using that "you" personally. As I noted above, I indicated that I'd likely do fine at your table unless our collaborative character creation process gave me a bad vibe. I am experienced enough to know where I do and don't fit in.

I come back to D&D, specifically 5e, because it has those strong tropes. I want to play a game where everyone works within them. My fun is diminished if a player breaks setting. That's one of those "session zero" and "same page tool" things to work out as the group gels.

[Tetrasodium]

I... largely agree with this position, though I think in some (perhaps most, but depends largely on your specific definitions of the terms) cases which 'side' they lean towards in that spectrum is pretty clear. The 'list of all things DnD' isn't a bell curve with most of the stuff somewhere muddled in the middle of fluff/crunch, at least not from my perspective.

So, I can take all your posts to mean you A: refuse to answer any questions about how less common/rare does not equal rare as you claimed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21787573&postcount=499) more than once (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21790016&postcount=526); B: but fail to see, or refuse to accept that all of the dithering over just how unlikely it is that it will be found explicitly confirms that rate/less common is effectively equal to none simply because they could do a side quest (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21794441&postcount=567). Correct?

C: I also can take it on good faith that you are incapable and/or refuse to admit if a druid wanting nonmetal armor above hide has a reasonable chance of finding it outside of questing for it explicitly. Reasonable chance is defined as being on par with a fighter/valor bars/paladin/etc

I also can take it on good faith that you are D:incapable and/or unwilling to admit if another class wanting to buy a a set of plate/greatsword/etc in a town needs to make a skill roll & burn downtime like the druid wanting nonmetal armor above hide. and E: Incapable and/or unwilling to admit if that difficulty & downtime usage is on par with the druid wanting to go buy the same type of armor in a nonmetal variant or not.



Finally nobody is arguing that the gm cant make a particular call, simply that they should not do things like shriek "you made your decision, it says will not! it will never happen! end of discussion!" should a druid bring it up as several pages spanned in the previous thread and/or that if a gm wants to make that decision they should be honest & up front with the player rather than simply saying "it's rare" when It's crystal clear that "rare" is effectively the same as "none" while said gm blames the player's class choice rather than the GM's own hairsplittingly obsurd "meaning of is" style dishonesty that led to said player's decision to not play a different class or find a different gm.

If C is false & they do not, it confirms rare=none, if C is true & they do, it makes the whole point of insisting that it is rare/exotic an irrelevant & wrong distinction that only serves to give the wrong impression to a player contemplating a druid. The problem is that you want to argue both sides of C and/or refuse to clarify it & blame it on the player if they get the wrong impression by your insistence that rare does not effectively equal "none".

[MadBear]

I reject the implication that the tropes/roleplaying rules/setting/fluff/etc are there for new players and that disregarding them is somehow a sign of skill, experience, or creativity. I will even go so far to say that if you can't create an interesting and unique character within these tropes/rules that you probably lack experience and creativity.

Short answer- you're wrong

Long answer- People come to play D&D from all different manner of perspectives and types. Some people are using classes/races to make a character that fits those narratives, and that is a completely fine way to play the game. Others are taking classes/races to fit a character that they are trying to create.

For instance, if I was excited to play D&D to play Sub-Zero from mortal combat, I might make a Human Monk. Maybe I'll ignore the fluff text and just utilize the rules text in order to make a character that fits what I'm trying to create.

As with all things, there's a spectrum of how everyone comes to a decision about the type of character they're going to create.

In fact, if what you're saying is true, the characters like Drizzt could never have come into being since all dark elves are "evil".

You'd never have a fallen paladin since all paladins would have to follow their oaths and they'd be breaking the rules if they didn't.


I come back to D&D, specifically 5e, because it has those strong tropes. I want to play a game where everyone works within them. My fun is diminished if a player breaks setting.

What you do at your table is your business. If that's what makes you happy fine, but that doesn't mean that people must abide by the fluff unless that's their groups expectation.

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, but only because Life is an acceptable domain for any God, regardless of listed domain. If a Cleric of a God that wanted granted the War domain (only) wanted to pick the Tempest domain because reasons, no by the rules he couldn't do it. He'd need a DM fiat ruling to add the domain to the God.

I agree the player should talk to their DM, but I don’t think the PHB explicitly forbids this.

It does say you can pick a Domain based on preference, emphasizing the aspect of the deity your character worships. You could make a cleric whose magic focuses on the strength and strategic value of shaping the weather fit into a God of War, it is a stretch, but not a far one. Because it is a stretch, talk to your DM, but because you can find an aspect of the Deity to which your powers apply, it is still legal by my reading of RAW


Also I like how you're still trying to ignore that the PHB has a clear roleplaying rule on necromancy: Only evil casters will create undead using spells such as Animate Dead frequently.

See, rules like this annoy me. How many times is “frequently”? Do we talk about “frequently” in terms of hours at the table? Days or months within the game world?

Is he evil if he does it 3 times a session, even if that is once a year in the world?

Is it scale? Is 3 bodies good or 5? 15?

It varies so much, and the player can have one idea and then their DM is telling them they have to switch character because they don’t allow evil characters and the necromancer stepped over some invisible line they didn’t know about. Just leave it as a neutral act, allow the reasons they raise the dead to reflect more on them than the “frequency” with which they do it.



I reject the implication that the tropes/roleplaying rules/setting/fluff/etc are there for new players and that disregarding them is somehow a sign of skill, experience, or creativity. I will even go so far to say that if you can't create an interesting and unique character within these tropes/rules that you probably lack experience and creativity.

I come back to D&D, specifically 5e, because it has those strong tropes. I want to play a game where everyone works within them. My fun is diminished if a player breaks setting.

I can respect that if the tone of a game is broken by a single player it can harm the enjoyment of the entire group.

Beyond that I disagree with your post.

What’s more creative Classical music or Jazz? What’s more technically difficult?

There is no answer.

The same with following tropes and archetypes. It is true that new players need more guidance than experienced players, but following or not following those archetypes says nothing about someone’s creativity, experience, or anything else other than the fact they chose a character that either follows a trope or not.

[ad_hoc]

...but following or not following those archetypes says nothing about someone’s creativity, experience, or anything else other than the fact they chose a character that either follows a trope or not.

On this we (mostly*) agree. I suggest you re-read my post. I said that not following the tropes is not a sign of creativity. I did not say that not following tropes is a sign of a lack of creativity. In other words, it has no bearing. I did say that if a person cannot be creative within tropes that it is a sign of a lack of creativity. I felt it was worth stating because it has been argued that colouring outside the lines is how you show that you are creative. I reject that notion.

*If those archetypes are expected to be followed by the group, and the player does not follow them, then that is a problem.


I understand that Roleplaying rules get under the skin of people that want to look at the rules as 'fluff' vs 'mechanical rule', as suggested vs required. But I think it's a direct consequence of trying to look at rules from that PoV, not a problem inherent to rules that don't line up with that PoV.

Edit: In other words, the rule is there so you as a player know how to 'correctly' play your character within the trope. Not so the DM or rules can enforce 'correct' playing of a character within the trope. If a player flat out doesn't want to 'correctly' play within the trope they should discuss that with their DM, so they can find out how important said tropes are going to be in their game. They are there to set a baseline expectation of what the default tropes are for the game of D&D. Not to require all games to align with said tropes.

This is the nail on the head. The only part I would change is "DM" to "group" or perhaps "DM/group".

I would further add that the tropes are a good thing to have. I wouldn't be playing 5e if it was just generic mechanics. The biggest failing of the system in my view is the lack of tropes in the Fighter class, something which I believe Mearls has stated he regrets. Still, it's a minor quibble as the Fighter is still salvageable.

[Naanomi]

I'm AFB right now, but IIRC it forbids it by telling you to pick a Domain based on the ones available to your Deity. Although, like I said, I don't currently have the exact wording available to confirm that.
Some of the confusion may come from Adventure League, which explicitly allows you to have the Life domain regardless of the God you follow (I think to make it more accessible to those with just the basic rules). I am pretty sure it isn't part of the PHB rules, just AL's

[GlenSmash!]

As a DM I present scenarios to my players, they in turn decide what their characters do in response to the scenario, then I as the DM decide how the game world is affected by and how it's inhabitants react to the PC's actions.

In doing this I have never had to tell a player what their character thinks, feels, or how they act. I don't think it make the game more fun for anybody at the table (myself included) if I did. While I get that other people play differently than I do, I honestly think I would be a bad DM if I did this.

[Naanomi]

No, that's definitely in the PHB I saw it this morning before I posted a reference to it. It's in the Deities section in a sidebar.
I stand corrected, the cleric of any non-evil Deity can indeed take the Life domain, on the basis of it being the archtypical 'good holy domain'. I still would maintain that it is probably this way because of Life Domain's inclusion in the 'basic rules'.

Edit: (also this is something I would houserule away in my own setting, the Goddess of Life needs her niche)

[MadBear]

I'm AFB right now, but IIRC it forbids it by telling you to pick a Domain based on the ones available to your Deity. Although, like I said, I don't currently have the exact wording available to confirm that.

I'm looking at Appendix B: Gods of the multiverse section, and I don't see anywhere that you must pick a domain based on the ones avialbe to your deity.

Instead, there's a section on the gods tab that says: "Suggested Domains". It also references that you should consult with your DM. To me that says that it isn't a requirement, but what domain that god typically embodies.

Maybe you can find the exact reference, because that's what I found digging through my book.

[MadBear]

IIRC it's in the intro to the Domains section under the Cleric class. I'll see if the basic rules has the same text.

Edit:
Cleric Class, First line of the Divine Domain feature description:
Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War.

This is relevant in two ways:
1) Cleric has a deity to get a domain.
2) Cleric chooses from their deities domains.

Both of those are, of course, unless the DM sets up their setting differently, per the DMG.

Edit2: What's really weird is that for some time now I've had it in my head that 5e clerics must match the Alignment of their Deity. But I can't find that rule while I was looking today. I'm assuming at this point that I carried it over from an earlier edition.

What makes this weird is that in the Appendix section it doesn't list concrete domains for deities. Instead it gives them suggested domains, meaning that it is in some ways malleable.

[Naanomi]

What makes this weird is that in the Appendix section it doesn't list concrete domains for deities. Instead it gives them suggested domains, meaning that it is in some ways malleable.
To allow setting variablity or allow for adaptation to new domains being introduced? I wouldn't assume it means 'feel free to pick what you like' myself (not that you were implying that)

[MadBear]

I assume that's referring back to this?
"Instead, there's a section on the gods tab that says: "Suggested Domains". It also references that you should consult with your DM. To me that says that it isn't a requirement, but what domain that god typically embodies."

If that's the case, yeah, there's more flexibility built into the Cleric Class Domain choice that I thought. The feature itself seems pretty cut and dry to me, but if the domains of deities are only 'suggested', the question becomes ... who are they suggestions to? The player or the DM? Both? Work together with your DM to find out what his settings allows?

agreed. It's a bit wonky.

1. You must pick a domain based on your deity
2. We will only suggest and not state what deities domains are

This is one of those issues, where 99% of the time it's a non-issue, but where the rules are just weird.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would further add that the tropes are a good thing to have. I wouldn't be playing 5e if it was just generic mechanics. The biggest failing of the system in my view is the lack of tropes in the Fighter class, something which I believe Mearls has stated he regrets. Still, it's a minor quibble as the Fighter is still salvageable. Some of the fighter tropes have become their own classes ... Ranger, Paladin (and some will argue Barbarian). (As you are doubtless aware, the former were once sub classes of Fighting Man ..)

[BurgerBeast]

As a DM I present scenarios to my players, they in turn decide what their characters do in response to the scenario, then I as the DM decide how the game world is affected by and how it's inhabitants react to the PC's actions.

In doing this I have never had to tell a player what their character thinks, feels, or how they act. I don't think it make the game more fun for anybody at the table (myself included) if I did. While I get that other people play differently than I do, I honestly think I would be a bad DM if I did this.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with this philosophy, but...

Problems arise when one character's actions become irreconcilable with another party member, with the rest of the group, or with the story. If one character decides to commit immoral acts in front of the others, who have decided to play good heroes, then the game degenerates into PVP, which may be disagreeable to one or more players. If one player wants to abandon the adventuring life to rule a kingdom, then they are essentially requesting that table time be devoted to a personal side-project when everyone else is expecting to adventure for the whole time. If one player decides to focus on taking over the major city of the campaign, then he may be up against an impossible task, because of the sheer number of high-level, organized power groups who will simply not let it happen, and the player may feel like they've been "cheated" out of a fair game by a DM who doesn't play properly because "anything should be possible."

[BoringInfoGuy]

agreed. It's a bit wonky.

1. You must pick a domain based on your deity
2. We will only suggest and not state what deities domains are

This is one of those issues, where 99% of the time it's a non-issue, but where the rules are just weird.
Another way to read this is to put the context of suggested domain next to the "Any non - evil deity also has access to the Life Domain" part of the cleric description.

Suggested Domain for Mask is Trickery. But since Mask is not an Evil Deity (unlike some earlier editions), the Life Domain is also an acceptable choice.

(Which is the choice I made in picking a Life Domain Cleric of Mask with the criminal background.)

Alternately, they could be leaving flexibility so that they can create more Domains in future supplements, which could be added to the Deity's portfolio or supplant the current Domain.

[MadBear]

Another way to read this is to put the context of suggested domain next to the "Any non - evil deity also has access to the Life Domain" part of the cleric description.

Suggested Domain for Mask is Trickery. But since Mask is not an Evil Deity (unlike some earlier editions), the Life Domain is also an acceptable choice.

(Which is the choice I made in picking a Life Domain Cleric of Mask with the criminal background.)

Alternately, they could be leaving flexibility so that they can create more Domains in future supplements, which could be added to the Deity's portfolio or supplant the current Domain.

pretty much.

In the end it's ends up being

"Here's our suggestions, talk it out with your DM for your table though"

[Addaran]

Seems there's another way to interpret the part about life domaine.

Almost any non-evil deity can claim influence over this domain, particularly agricultural deities (such as Chauntea, Arawai, and Demeter), sun gods (such as Lathander, Pelor, and Re-Horakhty), gods of healing or endurance (such as Ilmater, Mishakal, Apollo, and Diancecht), and gods of home and community (such as Hestia, Hathor, and Boldrei).


Seems they are more talking about the setting and the actual gods then the player. They are saying a lot of portfolios can match the domain, even if the deity is not a "life deity" per say. Seems they are more saying "we know there's no link between Life and Selune goddess of the moon, but Selune claimed the domain anyway" then "your cleric of mystra can choose life cause he wants to".

That doesn't fit the side bar though.

With the way everything is written though, you could pick Life for Auril, cause the list is technically just suggestion and she's linked with endurance (her followers have to endure winter without protection in rituals to be worthy).

[Chaosmancer]

I can understand that it might annoy you. Roleplaying rules are often written to be somewhat strict so as to actually tell you what the hell is going on, yet flexibly so that they aren't a straight jacket. This is the case in 5e with Paladin Tenets and the undead creating necromancy rule. Also with Alignment, which is written so broadly it's hard to discern or qualify it as a 'rule' for many people at all. But not, interestingly, with the Druid armor rule.

See, I wouldn't mind it as much if they just picked a side, tell us all necromancy is evil (then we laugh as the life cleric commits evil by revivifying party members :smallwink: ) or allow it to be neutral.

Instead they say it is only evil if you do it "frequently" which is a meaninglessly vague middle ground. And they put it in a section that most players aren't going to read (the school descriptions in the back of the book) instead of where they will definitely see it (the description for the necromancer class).

It just feels wishy-washy.


(Which is the choice I made in picking a Life Domain Cleric of Mask with the criminal background.)

I don't know why, but I would love if that character either is or was at some point a "mob doctor" that would just end up being too perfect I think

[RedMage125]

It's valid for his campaign, but you may not like it in yours. (I personally think it's an overreach since people adapt as they grow and experience new things)
As DM he is master of rules at his table. That's in the book. He is not master of rules at your or my table.
See above.
You are incorrect.
ad_hoc was NOT talking about "his table". He was addressing the public (all of us here on the forums). He explicitly said "your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls". He explicitly said-ver batim-that people saying that "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" is "false". Check out his first post if you don't believe me. I copy/pasted it so I didn't misquote him.

So don't defend him as just talking about "his houserules", because he is ABSOLUTELY saying that everyone else is having badwrongfun, and worse, attacking the creativity of anyone who doesn't ONLY play characters inside the most common tropes/stereotypes. He REALLY IS that bad.

I wholeheartedly defend ANY DM's right to houserule whatever at their own table. You will never see me tell someone they're playing the game "wrong" as long as they and their players are enjoying the game and having fun. You will see me vehemently discussing what is or is not true regarding the RAW (especially on the 3.5e forums), but even that is not telling someone "don't houserule this thing". More like "houserule what you like, but the RAW say X". Which is either an addendum, in case they care, or an argument, when they are claiming the RAW says "Y". As a matter of principle, I do not tell people that they are having "badwrongfun", and on that same principle, I object to anyone with the unmitigated gall to come and say that to others.

ad_hoc needs to see that he is wrong.

Not has a different opinion. He can keep his opinions, and run his own game however he likes. I have no desire to alter or change how he and his players enjoy their ElfDragonFantasy Game. Even if it means playing solely with prescribed default tropes. Those tropes can be a great deal of fun.

But he should see that his assertion that there is only "One True Way", ESPECIALLY as far as telling an individual player "No, you don't decide what your character thinks or feels". Is 100%, flat-out, no-exceptions, WRONG.

Play how he likes, but don't tell others his way is "the only right way to play".


You and I are in violent agreement on this matter: I think you agree (violently) with ad_hoc here, based on what you have both written.
"Completely" is an overreach. Player still makes decisions in games, but some of what ad_hoc advocates seems to me heavy handed.
I do agree about "clerics must have deities" being fine, because that is a setting choice. But he ACTUALLY SAID in the OP that players do NOT get to decide that "[their] characetr's beliefs and actions are up to [them]". So "completely" is NOT an overreach, and you are defending him on grounds that he somehow "did not say" the very words that I can read with my own eyes in the OP.

Especially since he has now come after YOU, attacking your very statements which you said while defending him, you may want to reconsider your stance on his argument.



I'll add into my notes to self that if I were to play at ad-hoc's table, you won't be joining us.
If I ever had a DM tell me "your character and their beliefs and actions are not completely up to you". I would have some choice profanity for him before I packed up my dice and walked out on my own.

I reject the implication that the tropes/roleplaying rules/setting/fluff/etc are there for new players and that disregarding them is somehow a sign of skill, experience, or creativity. I will even go so far to say that if you can't create an interesting and unique character within these tropes/rules that you probably lack experience and creativity.
Your statement is entirely non-sequitur. You know that, right?

I, personally, enjoy the classic tropes. One of my longest-running, and highest-level characters I ever played was a Sun Elf Wizard. At low levels, he was full of typical Sun Elf racial disdain and superiority. He grew as a character, from adventuring in mixed company, and began to see that other races had much to offer the world that his ethnocentric view would have not conceived of. He started off as True Neutral, being a pure scholar, caring only for more magical secrets and mysteries to explore. As they faced foes seeking to twist magic itself and the world to their vision (the Shadovar), he began to feel more empathy for others and seeking to stop them for the sake of doing what was RIGHT. I even had a talk with my DM, that I felt his growth was starting to reflect an alignment change to Neutral Good, as that was the direction he was going.
He was a fun and creative character in line with typical tropes. My home campaign setting is also home to most things falling withing "default" tropes of D&D, because I want players comfortable with those tropes to have the kinds of characters that they want there. Most of my own characters tend to be me being creative "inside the box".

But I also enjoy when people "break the mold". I've seen some GREAT concepts that turn the default fluff on its ear. Fiend-pact Warlocks who did NOT sell their soul, Shamans who didn't come from a tribe and are just starting to view their power to speak with spirits as something other than a sign on encroaching madness, and more. here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?336579-Default-Class-Fluff-turned-on-its-ear) is a thread I made years ago about the matter.

You're way too dismissive of people having concepts outside the "default fluff" of classic tropes. "We've seen it all before" is incredibly condescending and rude. It's also inherently ignorant, as you never know when someone is going to come up with something radical and unique that has not been seen by you or your table before. That doesn't mean every character is going to a "special rainbow ultra-edgy snowflake", but some might be. And even having one or two at a table can be fun and NOT disruptive to the idiom of that particular group.

And there's nothing wrong with telling a player "Hey, that concept is unique and cool, but it's not going to mesh well with this particular group unless I make the whole story all about you. As a DM, I need to try and make sure everyone is having fun. I don't want to take the wind out of your sails because I enjoy your creativity, but could you make a less disruptive character concept?". That is TOTALLY FINE when a player comes to you with their character idea.

Telling them "you don't decide what your character believes, only what I say the rules say determines your character's personality" seems heavy-handed to me. But hey, it's your group, as long as everyone enjoys playing like that, it's totally fine (side note, I LITERALLY once had a gaming group who was paralyzed with indecision when given total agency of action, ask me to give them a railroad plotline).

When you come to the forums and tell all of US that your idea is the "One True Way", that it is supported by the rules, and that we're all "wrong" for believing otherwise...then you're just being a jerk.

Feel however you like. Play however you like. But I personally feel that you should amend your stance to "this is how I like to play" and retract your "this is the only right way to play" stance, and apologize for telling everyone that they were playing "incorrectly".


I come back to D&D, specifically 5e, because it has those strong tropes. I want to play a game where everyone works within them. My fun is diminished if a player breaks setting.
I bolded some words here that emphasize that you are only expressing your preference. Sometimes players can be different and creative without disrupting the group.

My last 5e game had a player who made a dragonborn fey-pact warlock. He loved the idea of a Faerie Dragon dragonborn. We went with poison as his breath weapon, and fluffed it as a hallucinogenic gas like a faerie dragon. For fluff, his scales changed through the various colors of the rainbow like an old 2e faerie dragon, and his eldritch blast was a bright and colorful beam of energy. Such a concept is no more disruptive to a group dynamic or idiom than a bog-standard fluff Fey Pact Warlock. But it was creative and different. And the player had an immense amount of fun.

Point is, new and creative concepts are not always as disruptive as you claim. Can they be? Yes. And one last time, as long as your players are having a good time and feeling like they are playing their characters how THEY want to, carry right on.

But your opinions are not objective facts.

Short answer- you're wrong

Long answer- People come to play D&D from all different manner of perspectives and types. Some people are using classes/races to make a character that fits those narratives, and that is a completely fine way to play the game. Others are taking classes/races to fit a character that they are trying to create.

For instance, if I was excited to play D&D to play Sub-Zero from mortal combat, I might make a Human Monk. Maybe I'll ignore the fluff text and just utilize the rules text in order to make a character that fits what I'm trying to create.

As with all things, there's a spectrum of how everyone comes to a decision about the type of character they're going to create.

In fact, if what you're saying is true, the characters like Drizzt could never have come into being since all dark elves are "evil".

You'd never have a fallen paladin since all paladins would have to follow their oaths and they'd be breaking the rules if they didn't.

What you do at your table is your business. If that's what makes you happy fine, but that doesn't mean that people must abide by the fluff unless that's their groups expectation.

So much this. All of this.

+1 MadBear. Bravo.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Seems there's another way to interpret the part about life domaine.

Almost any non-evil deity can claim influence over this domain, particularly agricultural deities (such as Chauntea, Arawai, and Demeter), sun gods (such as Lathander, Pelor, and Re-Horakhty), gods of healing or endurance (such as Ilmater, Mishakal, Apollo, and Diancecht), and gods of home and community (such as Hestia, Hathor, and Boldrei).


Seems they are more talking about the setting and the actual gods then the player. They are saying a lot of portfolios can match the domain, even if the deity is not a "life deity" per say. Seems they are more saying "we know there's no link between Life and Selune goddess of the moon, but Selune claimed the domain anyway" then "your cleric of mystra can choose life cause he wants to".

That doesn't fit the side bar though.

With the way everything is written though, you could pick Life for Auril, cause the list is technically just suggestion and she's linked with endurance (her followers have to endure winter without protection in rituals to be worthy).
Had to give it some thought, but I can really see how your interpretation of the Life Domain also matches the text.

I had read it to mean that any non evil Deity may have followers of the Life Domain, but the ones listed will have a greater number of Life Domain followers. All the listed Dieties do have the Life Domain in their portfolio.

If it was not for the Life and Death Domains sidebar on page 293, I would say that either of our interpretations could be valid, and it would be up to each table to decide what the intended rule was supposed to be.

But, as you noted, that does not fit the sidebar, which explitictly says that any cleric of a non evil Diety may chose the Life Domain. So yes, that player can choose to be a Life Cleric of Mystra because he wants to. That is what the rules are saying, and what was intended.

Of course, that does not preclude any table from deciding that is not how they want the Life Domain to work in their group. The book rule may be [x], but houserule [y] may fit better for a particular group.

[djreynolds]

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

Lets look at this.

I'm not saying Mad Max is a barbarian, I'm just using his character as an example of someone who for whatever reason cannot be apart of society or civilization.

We have all seen the Mad Max movies. Every time at the end he always turn from civilization... back to the road.

Its part of his character, perhaps he cannot let go of his past and his losses, his wife and kid(s) dying.

Perhaps a barbarian longs for the freedom of the natural word, away from civilization.

Perhaps its too complicated or lacks the danger of living on the frontier. The simple beauty of just surviving.

Often veterans of wars will re-up, to go again. Professional athletes will come out of retirement. Kings longing for the road, for adventure.

There are many stories like this out there. Why?

Perhaps once you have tasted something so "real", anything else pales in comparison.

I don't think ad_hoc is telling us how to behave, but I think there has to be something more to selecting barbarian than just grabbing reckless attack and rage.

For some players the game is more than just accumulating powers and items, for some it is once a week for 3-4 hours really playing a "barbarian".

So hedged in by walls... its a psychological state, a metaphor

Its not that they battlerager barbarian doesn't like fighting in tunnels... on the contrary, perhaps it is "not" fighting in tunnels that are his walls, his prison. Peace for him is a prison.

[RedMage125]

*snip*

Its not that they battlerager barbarian doesn't like fighting in tunnels... on the contrary, perhaps it is "not" fighting in tunnels that are his walls, his prison. Peace for him is a prison.

I love your metaphor. It's fantastic.

But ad_hoc LITERALLY said that what a character believes, how he feels and what actions he takes are NOT up to the player to decide.

If I want to play a samurai character modeled after the Crab Clan bushi from Legend of the Five Rings (specifically a Dead-Eyes Berserker). I want to make a Barbarian and go Path of the Berserker. My skill proficiencies are Athletics and Perception. I take the Noble background, and my character was raised in a noble family, and is quite comfortable in cities, inside buildings, and about as comfortable in court as any crab bushi (not great, he prefers enemies with weapons in hands, instead of false smiles on their faces, but not about to bolt, either). My character is exquisitely polite (until weapons are drawn), genteel, educated (prefers military history, but still proficient in History), and yet still an absolute terror on the battlefield.

ad_hoc thinks I'm "breaking the rules".

He is wrong. This character is 100% rules-legal with no houserules necessary.

Best proof he is wrong: backgrounds aren't limited to specific classes.

[BurgerBeast]

...But ad_hoc LITERALLY said that what a character believes, how he feels and what actions he takes are NOT up to the player to decide.

Did he LITERALLY say that? I must've missed it. I thought he said "your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls."

He didn't say anything close to this hyperbolic nonsense.

There is: "I will control your character while you watch."
There is: "There are some limits to the extent of control you have over your character, and some of the choices you make will impose some limits on your character."

And there's a vast gulf between them, filled with varying degrees of interference by the DM.

[djreynolds]

Before the awful Samurai archetype, I used the barbarian wolf totem as my samurai and just re-fluffed rage and all into bushido. Oath of ancestors, whatever, sounds cool

But you have to admit there are some silly combos out there... that do not make much sense and outrageous backstories as to why you are an OoA paladin/ assassin/ bladelock (which sounds really cool)

Its tough to weigh the players enjoyment out of developing something they truly wish to play... and not just power gaming.

I mean how does a totem warrior have an urchin background? It might be a reach.

So instead of making a PC reach, just tell me what skills you want. And then we will come up with a new background instead... and... you can get a deer mouse or a vole

[ad_hoc]

ad_hoc needs to see that he is wrong.


I am not wrong and no amount of strawmen will change that.

[Xetheral]

I mean how does a totem warrior have an urchin background? It might be a reach.

The Street Shaman is a traditional archetype. Sure, you don't see it often in D&D, but I certainly don't think it's a stretch.

[Tetrasodium]

Did he LITERALLY say that? I must've missed it. I thought he said "your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls."

He didn't say anything close to this hyperbolic nonsense.

There is: "I will control your character while you watch."
There is: "There are some limits to the extent of control you have over your character, and some of the choices you make will impose some limits on your character."

And there's a vast gulf between them, filled with varying degrees of interference by the DM.

Yes, he kinda did Take this one where someone talks about a hypothetical barbarian that comes fron a large tribe or the trobes have a yearly gathering where he takes issue with it
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21784106&postcount=402
Or this one where someone mentions knowing vegetarians who will eat meat if served accidentally by mistake or out of situational politeness & he does the same
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21782908&postcount=381
and more peppered through in the thread. That thread is really kind of required reading for this one since it's been a continuation from the thread title on down...


Of course, then again, in case there was any doubt, there is the first line of the opening post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21798806&postcount=1) in this very thread where he said "It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls."

But dob't take my word for it...

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

It's right there in the PHB. I was taken aback that some people didn't think it was possible for me to be serious about this. I have even seen a few people say something along the lines of "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you. There are a multitude of things you can try to do which your group with respond with "no" then you can either retract it, or leave.

One category of behaviours are ones which are socially unacceptable. The most common one to come up in play is probably attacking of other characters. It could be anything though including racism, etc. You're just not allowed to do that because the group doesn't accept it.

Then we have things which are deemed 'roleplaying rules'. These include the Barbarian example above but also include plenty of things which are unspoken. For example, most groups would probably find it unacceptable if you decided that your character suddenly believes they are from 18th century earth in a standard D&D game. Some might, but generally that sort of deviation from the setting is enough to derail a game so would be against the rules. An offshoot of this might be a character who knows the inner workings of all of the dungeons and such because the player has decided to read the adventure.

The argument I have seen against these 'roleplaying rules' is that it constricts creativity. I disagree. I think creating a unique character/story within the rules is the creative part.

I liken this to improv games. If an improv actor broke the rules/constraints of the game to do something unique it wouldn't be seen as creative, quite the opposite, it would be seen as lazy or unsporting.

D&D is a game of fantasy tropes. I think it is fun to create something unique using those tropes. Breaking them is lazy and the game suffers as a result.

Plus, that special character you made who goes against their archetype isn't as unique or interesting as you think they are. We've seen it all before. The interesting and creative moments happen during play with the collaboration of the group, just like in improv.

Of course, play with whatever 'roleplaying rules' you wish. Houserule the ones in the PHB if you like. Do keep some though, as they are important and enrich the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

You are incorrect. Thank you for your response, I see where we crossed wires on a couple of points. I don't think you are correct on the necessarily adversarial relationship between DM and player when it comes to where the bounds are, but I think that is usually worked out between player and DM at any given table. I think we agree that it if can't be, then the player/table is a poor fit and another table would be a better one.

There is: "There are some limits to the extent of control you have over your character, and some of the choices you make will impose some limits on your character." That (nicely summarized by BurgerBeast) seems to be the major point in the OP. But, as I noted above, there was also a bit of bear baiting going on, and I still have not received an answer to my three part question form the OP.

[MadBear]

I am not wrong and no amount of strawmen will change that.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a5/a5b1fa2e840b8b6934d42939d4f7ed6255a9d949072088b1a0 5be1dcc1f86d0f.jpg

[RedMage125]

Did he LITERALLY say that? I must've missed it. I thought he said "your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls."

He didn't say anything close to this hyperbolic nonsense.

Tetrasodium covered this nicely. It was in the OP for this thread. He even bolded the exact words.



I am not wrong and no amount of strawmen will change that.
Do you not know what a strawman is? A strawman means I have claimed something false about your point and am attacking that.

YOU SAID THOSE THINGS. Ergo, no strawman.

And to the point, you are wrong because you are claiming that your OPINIONS are somehow "objective truth" of how to play the game, and everyone else is having "BadWrongFun" when they play different from you. I've even said I am not trying to alter your OPINIONS, or how you play YOUR game. If I was doing that, I would be a total jerkbag.

Please ACTUALLY respond to what I directed at you in that post.

Thank you for your response, I see where we crossed wires on a couple of points. I don't think you are correct on the necessarily adversarial relationship between DM and player when it comes to where the bounds are, but I think that is usually worked out between player and DM at any given table. I think we agree that it if can't be, then the player/table is a poor fit and another table would be a better one.
I don't think the relationship is adversarial at all. I think ad_hoc makes it adversarial. But I have never had such contention between any DM I've ever had, nor any player. So I don't know why you think I am somehow advocating an "adversarial relationship". In fact, I don't know what I said that gave you that impression.


That (nicely summarized by BurgerBeast) seems to be the major point in the OP. But, as I noted above, there was also a bit of bear baiting going on, and I still have not received an answer to my three part question form the OP.
No one's bear baiting anything. And BurgerBeast was already proven to be wrong in the thing you quoted. Tetrasodium did so excellently. The OP didn't just say "there's some limits". He said "what your character believes is not up to you", along with the groundless claim that the rules somehow DO say what your character believes.

And I don't think you're going to get your response. I'm starting to get the impression that the OP may be trolling us.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think ad_hoc is telling us how to behave [...]


Did he LITERALLY say that? I must've missed it. I thought he said "your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls."

He didn't say anything close to this hyperbolic nonsense.

Well, let's check it, shall we:



The rules are clear: Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by crowds.

It baffles you that we follow the rules of a game we have all decided to play? Not much I can do to help you with that one.

Thanks Tetrasodium for finding the quote.

So, yes, ad_hoc is literally saying this hyperbolic nonsense and telling us a Barbarian must behave like that according to RAW.



So hedged in by walls... its a psychological state, a metaphor

Its not that they battlerager barbarian doesn't like fighting in tunnels... on the contrary, perhaps it is "not" fighting in tunnels that are his walls, his prison. Peace for him is a prison.

This and the rest you've talked about was pretty great, but sadly it's not what OP was talking about.



I am not wrong and no amount of strawmen will change that.

There was no strawman made in the post you're responding to.

[BurgerBeast]

So, yes, ad_hoc is literally saying this hyperbolic nonsense and telling us a Barbarian must behave like that according to RAW.

We appear to read differently. It's clear to me that he is not saying this at all. I'm not sure if we disagree over what literally means or if there is an underlying logical disagreement, or both. I emphasized LITERALLY for a reason. These are not literally the same, any more than:

(1) Vegans can not eat meat
(2) Vegans must only eat exactly what I say at any given time

...are LITERALLY the same. My point in my previous post remains.

[Unoriginal]

We appear to read differently. It's clear to me that he is not saying this at all. I'm not sure if we disagree over what literally means or if there is an underlying logical disagreement, or both. I emphasized LITERALLY for a reason.


The rules are clear: Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by crowds.

He's literally saying that the Barbarian IS like that according to RAW, no discussion.

If you're arguing that ad_hoc didn't use the word "must", then you are correct. However, the intent of their statement is clear: a Barbarian must be roleplayed as behaving like this to follow the game's rules.

So, yes, ad_hoc did say the hyperbolic nonsense.

[RedMage125]

We appear to read differently. It's clear to me that he is not saying this at all. I'm not sure if we disagree over what literally means or if there is an underlying logical disagreement, or both. I emphasized LITERALLY for a reason. These are not literally the same, any more than:

(1) Vegans can not eat meat
(2) Vegans must only eat exactly what I say at any given time

...are LITERALLY the same. My point in my previous post remains.

There's an underlying logical disagreement, and your vegan analogy is not a good fit, because he LITERALLY said this, quoted from the OP of the thread:

It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

It's right there in the PHB. I was taken aback that some people didn't think it was possible for me to be serious about this. I have even seen a few people say something along the lines of "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you.

He LITERALLY said the EXACT WORDS that you are claiming he did not say

[KorvinStarmast]

And I don't think you're going to get your response. I'm starting to get the impression that the OP may be trolling us. That is the bear baiting element I was referring to, particularly regarding the last three paragraphs of the OP. The reason I felt you were assuming an adversarial stance, besides the amount of vitriol in your posts to ad_hoc (but not to me, thank you), is that your reply came off as "any" infringement on your ideas would result in a "toys tossed out of the pram and I leave" response from you ... though in other exchanges with me I got the message that you and I agree on the collaborative approach I pointed out earlier in the thread. That tells me that you agree that there are some limits to getting all of what you want, and I don't think anyone disagrees that at a given table there's going to be some compromise.

From post #109 of this overly long series of rants and discussion ...

Now, let's go back to the closing passage in the OP:


D&D is a game of fantasy tropes. I think it is fun to create something unique using those tropes. Breaking them is lazy and the game suffers as a result.

Plus, that special character you made who goes against their archetype isn't as unique or interesting as you think they are. We've seen it all before. The interesting and creative moments happen during play with the collaboration of the group, just like in improv.

Of course, play with whatever 'roleplaying rules' you wish. Houserule the ones in the PHB if you like. Do keep some though, as they are important and enrich the game. I think the bolded part is the kind of comment that has some people up in arms. The italicized part ... hmm, someone bagged the limit. Do you understand what I meant by "someone bagged the limit" in that post?

Bottom Line: I am pretty sure I could have fun at ad_hoc's table, and at yours.

[BurgerBeast]

There's an underlying logical disagreement, and your vegan analogy is not a good fit, because he LITERALLY said this, quoted from the OP of the thread:

He LITERALLY said the EXACT WORDS that you are claiming he did not say

No, he didn't. I've read it. If you think these are the same, then I'm afraid that you are making a logical error. I explained it earlier and I'm sorry that you haven't understood it, but I see little point in repeating myself over and over again.

[edit: I hope this next bit helps, added after the fact.]

I never claimed that the OP (edit: never) said: "What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you." As far as I am concerned he is right.

I claimed that "What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you" does not mean what some people seem to think it means.

"You are not completely free" is not the same as "You have no freedom whatsoever and I control you."

[ad_hoc]

Of course, play with whatever 'roleplaying rules' you wish. Houserule the ones in the PHB if you like. Do keep some though, as they are important and enrich the game.

Here is the quote from the OP summarizing the post because people like to quote mine to argue against something that wasn't actually said.

[Unoriginal]

Pretty much everyone agrees that there are limits, and that there are things that are not up to the player.


What some people disagree with, myself included, is that the descriptive text about classes is part of the rules. ad_hoc is saying that it IS part of the rules, and should be respected unless you decide to houserule it.


Like, if an interaction like this were to happen:

-DM: "So, your group enters the capital city. Grunok the Barbarian is starting to feel nervous and uncomfortable as the lively crowd of the market surrounds you..."
-Steve: "What are you talking about? My Barbarian grew up in this city."
-DM: "Your character is a Barbarian, Dave, the rules says that he's feeling uncomfortable."
-Steve: "That's bs. I've got the Criminal background and my backstory was that Grunok grew up in the streets of the capital city. There is no reason for him to feel uncomfortable in a crowd."
-DM: "It's not what the PHB says."

... ad_hoc is saying that the DM is the one in the right.



Thinking that a statement of fact is incorrect is not the same as disagreeing about how much control the players have over their PCs' personalities and thoughts.

[BurgerBeast]

Pretty much everyone agrees that there are limits, and that there are things that are not up to the player.


What some people disagree with, myself included, is that the descriptive text about classes is part of the rules. ad_hoc is saying that it IS part of the rules, and should be respected unless you decide to houserule it.


Like, if an interaction like this were to happen:

-DM: "So, your group enters the capital city. Grunok the Barbarian is starting to feel nervous and uncomfortable as the lively crowd of the market surrounds you..."
-Steve: "What are you talking about? My Barbarian grew up in this city."
-DM: "Your character is a Barbarian, Dave, the rules says that he's feeling uncomfortable."
-Steve: "That's bs. I've got the Criminal background and my backstory was that Grunok grew up in the streets of the capital city. There is no reason for him to feel uncomfortable in a crowd."
-DM: "It's not what the PHB says."

... ad_hoc is saying that the DM is the one in the right.

I haven't heard ad_hoc's opinion on this, and neither have you, which highlights the problem.

Ad_hoc said some things. You don't get to use them to invent his views on other things. This is a new example that is more specific than the one he commented on.

[Unoriginal]

I haven't heard ad_hoc's opinion on this, and neither have you, which highlights the problem.

Ad_hoc said some things. You don't get to use them to invent his views on other things. This is a new example that is more specific than the one he commented on.

I don't see how it's more specific, but fair is fair.


ad_hoc, I apologize for assuming knowing your answer. Could you please tell us if you think the DM of my exemple is correct or not?

[BurgerBeast]

I don't see how it's more specific, but fair is fair.

You don't see how this:


-DM: "So, your group enters the capital city. Grunok the Barbarian is starting to feel nervous and uncomfortable as the lively crowd of the market surrounds you..."
-Steve: "What are you talking about? My Barbarian grew up in this city."
-DM: "Your character is a Barbarian, Dave, the rules says that he's feeling uncomfortable."
-Steve: "That's bs. I've got the Criminal background and my backstory was that Grunok grew up in the streets of the capital city. There is no reason for him to feel uncomfortable in a crowd."
-DM: "It's not what the PHB says."

Is more specific than this:


...Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

Really?


ad_hoc, I apologize for assuming knowing your answer. Could you please tell us if you think the DM of my exemple is correct or not?

Again, you are missing the point. Whether ad_hoc agrees is not the point. Asserting that you know what he knows, when you don't, is a problem, if you retroactively learn that you happened to be right.

[Unoriginal]

You don't see how this:



Is more specific than this:



Really?



Yes, really. I dont' see how "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when a crowd surrounds him" is more specific than "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when surrounded by a crowd".



Again, you are missing the point. Whether ad_hoc agrees is not the point. Asserting that you know what he knows, when you don't, is a problem, if you retroactively learn that you happened to be right.


It's a reasonable assumption that I got from reading several of his posts on the subject. However, it's true that I should have presented it as an assumption, and not a certainity.

[ad_hoc]

Pretty much everyone agrees that there are limits, and that there are things that are not up to the player.

Not everyone does.

This thread was written primarily as a response to 2 ideas.

1) That breaking tropes is the/a primary way to be creative (I have seen this to varying degrees).
2) That everything about a character is up to the player.

I used the improv example to show that not only can you be creative while following the tropes/rules, but that breaking them is not in itself a sign of creativity. In improv it is likely a sign of a lack of creativity (well ability to think quickly on the spot at any rate).

I also made the case that as this is a social group game, your character is up to group consensus. You need to play the same game. This is largely about social etiquette and the like but it is also about everyone having buy-in in the game they are playing.



-DM: "So, your group enters the capital city. Grunok the Barbarian is starting to feel nervous and uncomfortable as the lively crowd of the market surrounds you..."
-Steve: "What are you talking about? My Barbarian grew up in this city."
-DM: "Your character is a Barbarian, Dave, the rules says that he's feeling uncomfortable."
-Steve: "That's bs. I've got the Criminal background and my backstory was that Grunok grew up in the streets of the capital city. There is no reason for him to feel uncomfortable in a crowd."
-DM: "It's not what the PHB says."

... ad_hoc is saying that the DM is the one in the right.


This is something that would be addressed at character creation in session 0. This is also not the sort of narration I would give in a game. Even if I were inclined to DM like this (which I'm not) I am far too busy to be worried about what each character is thinking. That's the player's job. We all work on the honour system.

What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.

Also, and this is an aside, you can grow up in a city and still be uncomfortable when around large groups of people. Plenty of people fit this description. I would say it is even fitting for a criminal who grew up on the streets to feel uncomfortable when "hedged in by walls and crowds" as they will have trouble getting away should something happen.

It would be like a Jedi character not believing in the force. Is it possible to play a game like that? Sure. But then, why are you playing a Jedi and why Star Wars? If everyone else at the table has different expectations of who Jedi are, then you're making it less fun for them. And I would argue, ultimately less fun for yourself. Come up with something new, but work within the tropes/archetypes/rules, just like the improv people do.

What do you need to do? That's up to you, but I encourage you to enforce at least some of the tropes and archetypes. I think they are good for the game and ultimately create a more fun and rewarding game for all involved.


Edit: I also agree with Tanarii and BurgerBeast's latest posts. Thanks for those.

[Unoriginal]

This is something that would be addressed at character creation in session 0. This is also not the sort of narration I would give in a game. Even if I were inclined to DM like this (which I'm not) I am far too busy to be worried about what each character is thinking. That's the player's job. We all work on the honour system.

What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.

Thanks for answering. Now, one last question: would you say that the RAW of the PHB forbid a Barbarian from having a personality trait like this, or would you say that it's not a rule, just a consensus some groups have?

[ad_hoc]

Thanks for answering. Now, one last question: would you say that the RAW of the PHB forbid a Barbarian from having a personality trait like this, or would you say that it's not a rule, just a consensus some groups have?

That's the default barbarian.

Groups are free to enforce it or not as they see fit. I would say that it is rude to make a character who goes against the archetypes as described in the PHB without group (or DM as acting voice thereof) consensus.

Asking if it is RAW is asking the wrong question. For example, you could ask whether it is RAW to be allowed to be constantly shouting. The answer is meaningless.

[Unoriginal]

That's the default barbarian.

Groups are free to enforce it or not as they see fit. I would say that it is rude to make a character who goes against the archetypes as described in the PHB without group (or DM as acting voice thereof) consensus.

Asking if it is RAW is asking the wrong question. For example, you could ask whether it is RAW to be allowed to be constantly shouting. The answer is meaningless.

Well, you did say it was a rule to have the barbarian behave like this, so I just wanted to make sure if you meant is as a "the group agreed to do it like that" rule or a "the game works like that" rule (like when the book says how much HP dice each class get, of the other features).

[ad_hoc]

Well, you did say it was a rule to have the barbarian behave like this, so I just wanted to make sure if you meant is as a "the group agreed to do it like that" rule or a "the game works like that" rule (like when the book says how much HP dice each class get, of the other features).

The game does work like that. The game also requires that people aren't constantly shouting, but it's not RAW.

You can also change what HP each class gets. There is nothing stopping you.

[ad_hoc]

There's a difference between 'here's the rule for trope / archetype and the suggested roleplay for it' and 'here is the roleplaying rule'.

The game works like both. However, I agree that most people do not refer to the former as a 'rule'. I kinda sorta do, because everything in the rulebook is a rule on how to use the system of D&D 5e. But a suggestion on how to roleplay a trope/archetype is definitely in a different category from a roleplaying rule, to me.

I'm having trouble with the semantics so when I use 'roleplaying rule' I usually put it in scare quotes like that.

I would describe it as the default expectation. I think there is value in adhering to them, but if you want to deviate anyway, you should get the group's buy-in. I don't think you should have a default assumption that your character can have or do any beliefs/personality/actions you want.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, really. I dont' see how "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when a crowd surrounds him" is more specific than "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when surrounded by a crowd".

Well, these are different. This is not in any way connected to what we are talking about, but they are different.

"The police officers surround you" is active. It makes "you" the object of an active verb.

"You are surrounded by police officers" might just mean you're in a doughnut shop.

Also, this isn't what I said. I'll leave it the other forum goers to look back at what I wrote and see that this is clearly a straw man (and yes, I've used it properly here). Since you want to play this game, though, I'll humour you. In your example, you specify:

(1) that it is a capital city (not just walls in general)
(2) that the barbarian's name is Grunok
(3) that the Grunok is nervous
(4) that the crowd is lively
(5) that this happens in a market
(6) that Steve is the player of the barbarian
(7) that Grunok grew up in this specific city
(8) that the DM's claim is that the rules "claim that he (Grunok) is feeling uncomfortable" - which is obviously ridiculous
(9) that Grunok has the criminal background
(10) that Grunok's background is that he grew up on the streets of this specific capital city

Those are ten differences. And every one of them is makes your example more specific than the general claim made by ad_hoc.


It's a reasonable assumption that I got from reading several of his posts on the subject. However, it's true that I should have presented it as an assumption, and not a certainity.

It's not reasonable at all. Which is why we're having this discussion.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm having trouble with the semantics so when I use 'roleplaying rule' I usually put it in scare quotes like that.


That is because the correct & generally accepted term is generally "fluff", "tropes", and similar. Rather than asking something like "how do I communicate that the descriptive stuff before the various classes like barbarians not being happy with crowds and such should be strictly enforced without deviation?" and getting an answer like "um... sounds kinda bizarre & unpleasant, but something like all fluff is written in stone should do it".... You are instead trying to coin a phrase for something with a name established decades ago & wondering why people don't see it your way.

Perhaps next you could go on to coining new terms for things like cars, trucks, computers & more?

[Tetrasodium]

Well, these are different. This is not in any way connected to what we are talking about, but they are different.

"The police officers surround you" is active. It makes "you" the object of an active verb.

"You are surrounded by police officers" might just mean you're in a doughnut shop.

Also, this isn't what I said. I'll leave it the other forum goers to look back at what I wrote and see that this is clearly a straw man (and yes, I've used it properly here). Since you want to play this game, though, I'll humour you. In your example, you specify:

(1) that it is a capital city (not just walls in general)
(2) that the barbarian's name is Grunok
(3) that the Grunok is nervous
(4) that the crowd is lively
(5) that this happens in a market
(6) that Steve is the player of the barbarian
(7) that Grunok grew up in this specific city
(8) that the DM's claim is that the rules "claim that he (Grunok) is feeling uncomfortable" - which is obviously ridiculous
(9) that Grunok has the criminal background
(10) that Grunok's background is that he grew up on the streets of this specific capital city

Those are ten differences. And every one of them is makes your example more specific than the general claim made by ad_hoc.



It's not reasonable at all. Which is why we're having this discussion.

What you are arguing for is fate style compels, d&d has never had mechanics even remotely similar to those. Charm person/monster could technically sorta do it in older versions, but not with how 5th edition handles it since it just puts the charmer at advantage socially.

[RedMage125]

That is the bear baiting element I was referring to, particularly regarding the last three paragraphs of the OP. The reason I felt you were assuming an adversarial stance, besides the amount of vitriol in your posts to ad_hoc (but not to me, thank you), is that your reply came off as "any" infringement on your ideas would result in a "toys tossed out of the pram and I leave" response from you ... though in other exchanges with me I got the message that you and I agree on the collaborative approach I pointed out earlier in the thread. That tells me that you agree that there are some limits to getting all of what you want, and I don't think anyone disagrees that at a given table there's going to be some compromise.
I really don't know how you got that from what I said.

I even addressed him and said that if a player had a concept for a character and the DM said "Hey, that concept is unique and cool, but it's not going to mesh well with this particular group unless I make the whole story all about you. As a DM, I need to try and make sure everyone is having fun. I don't want to take the wind out of your sails because I enjoy your creativity, but could you make a less disruptive character concept?" would be totally fine.

Telling the player mid-game "No, your barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" when the player does NOT agree is the DM stepping on the player's toes. The PLAYER decides how his/her character feels about such a situation. ad_hoc's assertion that there are "rules that say how your character MUST feel about x, based on class" is completely false. It's not "houseruling" anything to have a barbarian who is comfortable in a city.

A DM who told me "you don't get to decide how your character thinks/feels/acts" is what would make me leave a table. Rejecting a character concept and asking me (nicely) to make a character that meshes better with the rest of the group's dynamic is fine. But that's not what he's advocating. And worse, he's saying everyone else is "deviating from the rules" because HIS way is "the only right way to play by the rules".


Bottom Line: I am pretty sure I could have fun at ad_hoc's table, and at yours.
I'm pretty easygoing as a DM. ad_hoc seems pretty adversarial and controlling. That's my impression, anyway.

No, he didn't. I've read it. If you think these are the same, then I'm afraid that you are making a logical error. I explained it earlier and I'm sorry that you haven't understood it, but I see little point in repeating myself over and over again.

[edit: I hope this next bit helps, added after the fact.]

I never claimed that the OP (edit: never) said: "What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you." As far as I am concerned he is right.

I claimed that "What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you" does not mean what some people seem to think it means.

"You are not completely free" is not the same as "You have no freedom whatsoever and I control you."
I don't know how else to read "what your character thinks/feels is not up to you" can be read any other way. What a character THINKS and FEELS are things that SHOULD be completely up to the player. Those are internalized responses to the stimuli in the game. And the personality of the character is up to the player who created that character.

It's one thing to say "Hey, in my game, members of the barbarian class only come from primitive, tribal societies, because I want to encourage the default trope of that class, and it's how they fit in to my world". That's actually fine. But a player of a barbarian in such a world may have a different response to being in his first city. Maybe he decides his character is filled with a sense of wonderment at the stone walls, the narrow alleys that create shadows, and the noise of the hustle and bustle of a city. Maybe he is NOT uncomfortable, but curious. The player gets to decide that. There are no rules that give the DM the authority to dictate to the player what their character thinks or feels about a situation, especially when it overrides a player's agency to decide that.


Here is the quote from the OP summarizing the post because people like to quote mine to argue against something that wasn't actually said.
No, I'm arguing against the EXACT WORDS you used.

It's not a "houserule" for a player to decide his barbarian may come from, and be comfortable in, a city. See my samurai example in post 154. Completely within the rules.

A house rule would be something like "everyone gets max hit points at level 2, because I don't want low-level characters to be as fragile". That's deviating from actual RULES (It's also one of the only houserules I use in 5e).

Letting the player decide how they want THEIR CHARACTER to think or feel is not a "houserule".


RedMage124:

This:


Does not mean this:


A is not completely up to you
vs
A is NOT up to [you].

Those are two different statements. The first, written by ad_hoc, says that only some of A is up to [the [player]. The second, written by you, says that none of A is up to [the player].

Edit: I really shouldn't have gotten involved in this one. I just know I'm going to regret it. :smallyuk:
How is a character's beliefs NOT completely up to the player?


Pretty much everyone agrees that there are limits, and that there are things that are not up to the player.


What some people disagree with, myself included, is that the descriptive text about classes is part of the rules. ad_hoc is saying that it IS part of the rules, and should be respected unless you decide to houserule it.
*snip*
Thinking that a statement of fact is incorrect is not the same as disagreeing about how much control the players have over their PCs' personalities and thoughts.
This, yes.

Not everyone does.

This thread was written primarily as a response to 2 ideas.

1) That breaking tropes is the/a primary way to be creative (I have seen this to varying degrees).
2) That everything about a character is up to the player.

I used the improv example to show that not only can you be creative while following the tropes/rules, but that breaking them is not in itself a sign of creativity. In improv it is likely a sign of a lack of creativity (well ability to think quickly on the spot at any rate).

I also made the case that as this is a social group game, your character is up to group consensus. You need to play the same game. This is largely about social etiquette and the like but it is also about everyone having buy-in in the game they are playing.
You seem to reject the idea that breaking tropes is EVER a way to be creative. Which is ridiculous.

And everything about a character's PERSONALITY, to include internal factors, such as thoughts, beliefs, feelings ARE entirely up to the player. The rules DON'T say "all barbarians think x".

And your assertion that everyone who doesn't play like such IS a rule is "houseruling changes" is rude, dismissive, and condescending. And that's on you to take responsibility for how you come across.



What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.
According to your OPINION.

Not facts.



It would be like a Jedi character not believing in the force. Is it possible to play a game like that? Sure. But then, why are you playing a Jedi and why Star Wars? If everyone else at the table has different expectations of who Jedi are, then you're making it less fun for them. And I would argue, ultimately less fun for yourself. Come up with something new, but work within the tropes/archetypes/rules, just like the improv people do.
Your jedi argument is non-sequitur, because not every barbarian MUST be a tribal savage. Jedi have actual class features that result from using the Force. A Force adept could believe that they are tapping into MAGIC, but actually be using the Force, but a Jedi specifically means a member of a specific order.


What do you need to do? That's up to you, but I encourage you to enforce at least some of the tropes and archetypes. I think they are good for the game and ultimately create a more fun and rewarding game for all involved.
That is an OPINION, not an objective fact.



Edit: I also agree with Tanarii and BurgerBeast's latest posts. Thanks for those.

They are both claiming you didn't say the words that you said. Words that can be quoted ver batim.

[Chaosmancer]

What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.

What do you need to do? That's up to you, but I encourage you to enforce at least some of the tropes and archetypes. I think they are good for the game and ultimately create a more fun and rewarding game for all involved.

See, I don’t see what is added to the game or people’s fun by that first paragraph. I can’t imagine anyone in a group I’m familiar with caring that much whether the barbarian likes or hates cities, but I do think that a player who is immediately shut down on such a trivial matter could find themselves struggling to have as much enjoyment as they would otherwise have.

It has the potential to create one problem, and combats a problem I have never seen in a group at my table.

The second paragraph I also find interesting. I do appreciate tropes and archetypes. I’m an amateur writer, so of course I do. However, I also know that things become tropes and archetypes because someone did them first.

Merlin and Gandalf are wizards, they existed long before a lot of other characters. In fact, Merlin being significantly older definitely influenced Gandalf.

Harry Dresden is still a wizard, he’s also a bit of Noir Detective. He combines to archetypes and has become something new. And of course, you will agree this is okay, it has to be, that is how literature evolves.

So, if a player came to my table wanting to play Dresden, they are playing something that is new, that combines old archetypes, but has fired their imagination.

Now, Noir detectives are hard to pull off in DnD, detectives in general are hard to pull off, but this concept applies widely. Tropes are good, but they are only as good as they stay useful. I don’t think we should stick to them when we don’t need to or desire to.




I would say that it is rude to make a character who goes against the archetypes as described in the PHB without group (or DM as acting voice thereof) consensus.

I also find this strange. I have not gotten a perfect session 0 yet, I have them, but invariably a lot of things fall through the cracks as I have 4 hours to talk to six people about their characters and help build them some of the time.

However, I have never considered a player making, for example, an AL legal character rude for not running every aspect of it by the rest of the group.

I can’t even imagine the conversation very well. “Why didn’t you tell us you were playing an Amnesiac Warlock instead of a Dr. Faust Warlock. That is so rude man.”

I mean… isn’t that a bit ridiculous? I completely agree talk about your character with the rest of the party, make sure people are on the same page with tone and setting, power level and etiquette like no stealing from the party or no PVP, but going so far as to say someone is rude for making any non-standard decision without having it peer reviewed seems… off.

[RedMage125]

See, I don’t see what is added to the game or people’s fun by that first paragraph. I can’t imagine anyone in a group I’m familiar with caring that much whether the barbarian likes or hates cities, but I do think that a player who is immediately shut down on such a trivial matter could find themselves struggling to have as much enjoyment as they would otherwise have.

It has the potential to create one problem, and combats a problem I have never seen in a group at my table.

The second paragraph I also find interesting. I do appreciate tropes and archetypes. I’m an amateur writer, so of course I do. However, I also know that things become tropes and archetypes because someone did them first.
*snip*

I mean… isn’t that a bit ridiculous? I completely agree talk about your character with the rest of the party, make sure people are on the same page with tone and setting, power level and etiquette like no stealing from the party or no PVP, but going so far as to say someone is rude for making any non-standard decision without having it peer reviewed seems… off.
I concur completely.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's called 'roleplaying' and not 'ruleplaying' for a reason: I can roleplay a barbarian as the paladin of a tribe or even a city, the book suggests typical tropes that you could follow, there are no rules on roleplaying by the definition of roleplay.

Well, Barbarians don't have cities, so in that respect you can't do that.

Also, Barbarians are described "as a protector of the people and a leader in times of war." (PHB 46)

So, that might be viewed as akin to a Paladin...except Paladins are all about fighting the good fight against evil, and Barbarians, purely as a class concept, are not.


MY Barbarian is a city-rat half-breed Urchin who grew up in the slums of the big city.

Your DM may be lenient in that regard, but I would not allow such a huge deviation from the concept of the Barbarian class.

Barbarians are "fierce warriors of primative background" (PHB 45). What you've described is just a Fighter or Rogue.


Rulebooks are for describing the mechanics. Everything needs a name for convenience's sake. Otherwise we wouldn't know what the hell we're talking about. These names however are only for talking about the rules themselves. Although the name offers guidelines these aren't written in stone and are, during gameplay, subordinate to the setting/world/background.

Perhaps in some rulebooks, in the PHB however it's clearly indicated that the information in the class section is rules. Now, there's lots of variety in the way a Barbarian can be, but it's going to contain shared concepts, and mechanics aren't shared concepts.

It even says so: "Class shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and powers in the multiverse." (PHB 45).

As a rule, Barbarians homelands are from the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt. (PHB 46)


If you want to demand that all Barbarians have panic-attacks when underground or enclosed, then whatever; that's your table, your characters.
But do not start pulling interpretations out of your butt to tell me how I'm not playing my character right, at an entirely different table.
Because ultimately, what's it matter to you? Did I ask for a ruling on barbarians' agoraphobia? Is my urban barbarian ruining your play experience?

Why does it bother you so much that you aren't roleyplaying a Barbarian correctly by making them Urban?

If it's really no skin off your back, you can do what you want and it's fine, why would you even bother to post?

This all suggests that it really does bother you that your way isn't the right way.


Well and that is really the crux of it isn't it? What do you do when the player insists their Druid puts on the armor?

Pretty much the same thing I'd do if I had a player who insisted that their Mary Sue character knew all languages or could cast Wish on demand all day every day, or invented their own Artifact.


Yes, that's right. Even if that were not the case, this isn't just a case of not worshipping/getting their power from a Deity, the character didn't believe they existed at all. This would be fine in Ravenloft, but not a setting where deities actively engage in the world (maybe a rare character exception, but certainly not a Cleric).

Here I would differ somewhat in that the section on Clerics indicates that a Deity might actually choose someone who is unwilling.

On that basis, I could see a Cleric who is a non-believer, but is basically engaged in a struggle over belief with the Deity who has taken some sort of interest in them.

This would be a very rare bird in the Forgotten Realms (or most other settings) given that interaction with deities and the effects of magic/divine magic are blatantly routine. They'd have to be an extreme, practically irrational, sceptic.


Edit2: What's really weird is that for some time now I've had it in my head that 5e clerics must match the Alignment of their Deity. But I can't find that rule while I was looking today. I'm assuming at this point that I carried it over from an earlier edition.

That might stem from the arguments about the Death Domain and the requirement that such a Cleric be evil, even when certain Death domain deities are Neutral (and so therefore presumably they would have followers who are the same).


The Street Shaman is a traditional archetype.

I had never heard of such a thing, and Google only turns up Shadowrun references, which basically means it's the term for a "Gritty" Techno-Druid. (I really want to emphasize the Air Quotes around Gritty, because the whole concept sounds like gibberish).


Like, if an interaction like this were to happen:

-DM: "So, your group enters the capital city. Grunok the Barbarian is starting to feel nervous and uncomfortable as the lively crowd of the market surrounds you..."
-Steve: "What are you talking about? My Barbarian grew up in this city."
-DM: "Your character is a Barbarian, Dave, the rules says that he's feeling uncomfortable."
-Steve: "That's bs. I've got the Criminal background and my backstory was that Grunok grew up in the streets of the capital city. There is no reason for him to feel uncomfortable in a crowd."
-DM: "It's not what the PHB says."

... ad_hoc is saying that the DM is the one in the right.

ad_hoc didn't say, but it's implied, that the player was wrong to ignore the Barbarian class concept that offensively in the first place.

The class entry literally states: "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals...to a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue.... Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt." (PHB 46)

Creating an Urchin Barbarian and saying they come from the Big City, love going to hoity toity parties and adore as many people as possible in a room is literally the opposite of what a Barbarian is in D&D. So yeah, if you do that, you're doing it wrong, there's no two ways about it.

You can do it if your DM agrees, and that's fine, but you're wrong. And it's fine, nobody outside your game will care...but if you insist that you're doing it correctly, you're wrong.

[KorvinStarmast]

That is because the correct & generally accepted term is generally "fluff", by a certain sub set of people who have this hobby. There are some people who do not accept the fluff dichotomy. And on that topic I'll say no more.


@Red Mage:
Thank you, I think we've wrapped it up. Appreciate the back and forth.

[Lombra]

ad_hoc didn't say, but it's implied, that the player was wrong to ignore the Barbarian class concept that offensively in the first place.

The class entry literally states: "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals...to a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue.... Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt." (PHB 46)

Creating an Urchin Barbarian and saying they come from the Big City, love going to hoity toity parties and adore as many people as possible in a room is literally the opposite of what a Barbarian is in D&D. So yeah, if you do that, you're doing it wrong, there's no two ways about it.

You can do it if your DM agrees, and that's fine, but you're wrong. And it's fine, nobody outside your game will care...but if you insist that you're doing it correctly, you're wrong.

What did I just read? There is a wrong way to play a character? Really? "Barbarian" is just the name of a class, it doesn't imply how you are supposed to play your chatacter. You can be an urchin big guy who's job is the assassin and who's class is the barbarian that uses brute strength to kill his targets. Would you say that he is a barbarian? No he is an assassin, but mechanically he's a barbarian. Now it does depend on the adventure's setting, obviously, but I really can't see why a set of abilities and skills named "class" should determinate your character's behaviour.

[TheIronGolem]

Strange that the "can't come from a city and must be uncomfortable in crowds" class feature was left out of the SRD. Someone should let WotC know about that oversight.

[Naanomi]

For those advocating 'enforced adherence to class fluff'; how do you handle multiclassing? For example, I have a character that is a rogue/Barbarian (half-orc) whose 'story arc' was an escaped slave doing anything to survive (rogue pirate); who eventually grew to reembrace their childhood heritage (totem Barbarian)... the class fluff between rogue and Barbarian are pretty incompatible though so...? Not an acceptable character in a strong archetype game I guess?

[Contrast]

Why does it bother you so much that you aren't roleyplaying a Barbarian correctly by making them Urban?



Your DM may be lenient in that regard, but I would not allow such a huge deviation from the concept of the Barbarian class.

You answered your own question - its pretty objectionable being told you're not allowed to play your character for no other reason than 'well thats not how I'd want to play that character'. To flip the question round on you - why does it bother you so much that someone elses city bruiser uses the rules for a barbarian rather than a fighter or rogue? Because an introductary segment to the class gives some broad fluff which is already completely contradicted directly in the rulebook before the player does anything by the ability to choose any background you like?

How would you feel if my barbarian liked classical music but was otherwise a stereotypical barbarian. Overheard it from a bard the other day. Am I allowed that or is that too civilized? Percussion instruments only? :smalltongue:

[ad_hoc]

For those advocating 'enforced adherence to class fluff'; how do you handle multiclassing? For example, I have a character that is a rogue/Barbarian (half-orc) whose 'story arc' was an escaped slave doing anything to survive (rogue pirate); who eventually grew to reembrace their childhood heritage (totem Barbarian)... the class fluff between rogue and Barbarian are pretty incompatible though so...? Not an acceptable character in a strong archetype game I guess?

We don't have multiclassing at our tables for pretty much this very reason, that and multiclassing is clunky in 5e and subclasses fill that need.

You need to do it like how the class chassis are combined. Mashed together.

[BurgerBeast]

What you are arguing for is fate style compels, d&d has never had mechanics even remotely similar to those. Charm person/monster could technically sorta do it in older versions, but not with how 5th edition handles it since it just puts the charmer at advantage socially.

What? Is this a mistake? I'm saying two examples are different. How you went from that to telling me that I am advocating a system that I am not advocating is beyond me. There's no connection at all.


A DM who told me "you don't get to decide how your character thinks/feels/acts" is what would make me leave a table. Rejecting a character concept and asking me (nicely) to make a character that meshes better with the rest of the group's dynamic is fine. But that's not what he's advocating. And worse, he's saying everyone else is "deviating from the rules" because HIS way is "the only right way to play by the rules".

You really do have a problem with taking something that someone says, completely misinterpreting it, and then broadcasting falsehoods about people. You should be more careful.


I don't know how else to read "what your character thinks/feels is not up to you" can be read any other way.

This isn't what you read. Go back and look. The difference is not even a subtle one. He said "What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you."

There are limits to the amount of control a player has over his character, period. This is such a minor example of it that I can't figure out why you've picked this sword to fall on.


How is [sic] a character's beliefs NOT completely up to the player?

Even you can come up with examples of this, I should hope. At my table, it isn't. You fit in or you f@#k off. No special snowflakes at my table.

You want to play a character who believes he is a character in a roleplaying game in my campaign? No. You want to play an evil character in my campaign? No. As soon as you behave in overtly evil ways, or have your alignment magically altered, your character is forfeited. Consider him dead and re-roll. Next! Oh, you don't like it? That's cool. Go play somewhere else.


They are both claiming you didn't say the words that you said. Words that can be quoted ver batim.

No, we aren't. This is tiresome.


That is beside the point. He said it's not completely up to the player. You attempted to claim he literally said it's not up to the player at all.

@RedMage125:

It's this distinction, identified above by Tanarii, that you keep missing. You should stop writing replies and take some time to really think about this. You have a misconception about either logic or language that is LITERALLY making it impossible for you to understand the opposing view, here, and it's the type of error that will continue to lead to miscommunications in your future.

It has to do with statements in the negative about universals.

If Bob says "I have complete control of my characters thoughts, feelings, and actions" and Sally says "no, you don't," then you need to really think about what this means.

Sally has not said: "Bob, you have zero control over your character's thoughts, feelings, and emotions." Yet you seem to keep making this logical error.

Sally has in fact said: "Bob, there is at least one case in which you do not have complete control over your character's thoughts, feelings, and actions."

Believe me, if you don't sit down and think this through, you're going to have a lot more arguments in your future. You should care, because you'll be wrong.

[Vogonjeltz]

What did I just read? There is a wrong way to play a character? Really? "Barbarian" is just the name of a class, it doesn't imply how you are supposed to play your chatacter. You can be an urchin big guy who's job is the assassin and who's class is the barbarian that uses brute strength to kill his targets. Would you say that he is a barbarian? No he is an assassin, but mechanically he's a barbarian. Now it does depend on the adventure's setting, obviously, but I really can't see why a set of abilities and skills named "class" should determinate your character's behaviour.

Yes, of course, in the same way that there are wrong choices for roleplaying any character. Not every origin or background carries verisimilitudinous for every class.


For those advocating 'enforced adherence to class fluff'; how do you handle multiclassing? For example, I have a character that is a rogue/Barbarian (half-orc) whose 'story arc' was an escaped slave doing anything to survive (rogue pirate); who eventually grew to reembrace their childhood heritage (totem Barbarian)... the class fluff between rogue and Barbarian are pretty incompatible though so...? Not an acceptable character in a strong archetype game I guess?

For starters, I'd switch backgrounds, Pirates aren't slaves, so that doesn't scan at all. If the character was enslaved for a lengthy period of time, escaping and eventually finding their way home whereupon they learned the ways of the warrior, then that would make sense as say an Urchin Rogue (Thief probably) into Totem Warrior.

That being said, someone who values their tribal heritage enough to commit to such a path almost certainly would buy into traditional Barbarian values of the open tundra/plains/jungle, etcetera.

It's not different than say, a Rogue into a Warlock, the switch necessarily must be justified, which is one reason that multiclassing is DM optional.


You answered your own question - its pretty objectionable being told you're not allowed to play your character for no other reason than 'well thats not how I'd want to play that character'. To flip the question round on you - why does it bother you so much that someone elses city bruiser uses the rules for a barbarian rather than a fighter or rogue? Because an introductary segment to the class gives some broad fluff which is already completely contradicted directly in the rulebook before the player does anything by the ability to choose any background you like?

How would you feel if my barbarian liked classical music but was otherwise a stereotypical barbarian. Overheard it from a bard the other day. Am I allowed that or is that too civilized? Percussion instruments only? :smalltongue:

I said, it doesn't bother me what others do in their games, but in my games Barbarians are Barbarians in the PHB, and street thugs don't fit that motif.

[Addaran]

Yes, of course, in the same way that there are wrong choices for roleplaying any character. Not every origin or background carries verisimilitudinous for every class.


Can you give a citation or page number? I'm pretty sure RAW you can mix any classes with any background.

What you're implying is like saying that some races can't select some classes or AT (from the PHB only, i know about SCAG's AT) when it's said absolutly nowhere.

[Naanomi]

For starters, I'd switch backgrounds, Pirates aren't slaves, so that doesn't scan at all. If the character was enslaved for a lengthy period of time, escaping and eventually finding their way home whereupon they learned the ways of the warrior, then that would make sense as say an Urchin Rogue (Thief probably) into Totem Warrior.
I disagree, shanghai'ing primitive people and forcing to serve on your pirate crew as a slave has a long tradition

[BurgerBeast]

Can you give a citation or page number? I'm pretty sure RAW you can mix any classes with any background.

He said it's wrong "in the same way that there are wrong choices for roleplaying any character." He did not say it's wrong in the sense that it is not permitted, RAW. So, no citation needed because his claim isn't predicated on a citation.


What you're implying is like saying that some races can't select some classes or AT (from the PHB only, i know about SCAG's AT) when it's said absolutly nowhere.

And yet, there are two things to say here: (1) any DM can say this if they want to; (2) everyone is actually aware of the identified concerns, on an intuitive or common sense level, because, for example, when someone first creates a dwarven fighter, nobody expects much by way of explanation. However, when you create your first bugbear cleric of Gond Wonderbringer, with the noble background, who sits on the council in Waterdeep (or whatever)... we all realize, on some level, that you've got some explaining to do. Where you choose to place your limits is a matter of personal preference, but we all have to place our limit somewhere, in any given context. At some point, no amount of explaining is going to suffice.

[Tetrasodium]

Creating an Urchin Barbarian and saying they come from the Big City, love going to hoity toity parties and adore as many people as possible in a room is literally the opposite of what a Barbarian is in D&D. So yeah, if you do that, you're doing it wrong, there's no two ways about it.


I'm going to use some game of thrones examples because as badly as the book to hbo translation was hacked apart, they are good & a significant number of folks here should be at ;least somewhat familiar with it

Gregor Clegane (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Gregor_Clegane) is unquestionably a barbarian. Dressing him in fancy armor doesn't change the fact that everyone is made uncomfortable when he;s around a said parties with the exception of the sadist Joffrey. His background is probably gladiator/folk hero or something given his history of swinning tournaments.
His Brother Sandor Clegane (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Sandor_Clegane) is probably a fighter. Like Gregor, he is often kind of not so great at fitting in during those sorts of things; but he is so many orders of magnitude less bad at it that it makes a perfect example. His background is most likely soldier where he learned to hate the knighted Ser's.
Jaime Lannister (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Jaime_Lannister) is at the other end of the spectrum & unquestionably a noble knight backgrounded fighter
Brienne of Tarth (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Brienne_of_Tarth) is likely a noble background paladin of devotion or similar.
In stark contrast to Gregor, Mance rayder (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Mance_Rayder) is probably a barbarian with some social skills & a background along the lines of a soldier or possibly noble since I can't recall his hisstory pre-nightwatch.
Arya Stark (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Arya_Stark) is some variant of noble background rogue.
Tyrion Lannister (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrion_Lannister) is most likely a noble background valor bard
Bran Stark (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Bran) is certainly a druid & most likely either noble, urchin, or some combination as background.
Rattleshirt/Lord of Bones[/url] is also a druid, but probably something like outlander or something sage-like (almost all of his development never made it out of the books though), but on hbo criminal might be closer
Ygritte (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Ygritte) is probably an outlander that might be either ranger or some fighterish blend.
Hodor is hodor.
so on & so forth
Every single one of them would fit seamlessly in just about any d&d campaign. The only real change would need to be Tywin & casterly rock are far away/smaller/etc. Once that's done... it doesn't fecking matter if Jaime is somewhere in the line of succession for lordship over a few acres called Casterly Rock & all sorts of fun possabilities can be hooked in there.

[Tetrasodium]

by a certain sub set of people who have this hobby. There are some people who do not accept the fluff dichotomy. And on that topic I'll say no more.


@Red Mage:
Thank you, I think we've wrapped it up. Appreciate the back and forth.

Regardless of how much weight that you place on it, Fluff/tropes/etc are still the generally accepted terms. No matter how many times marketers at the different individual automakers usenames like "Sport Activity Vehicle" to refer to their SUV's, they are still going to fall under the generally accepted term "SUV" because most people understand the general concept that the term conveys.

[Addaran]

To go with the city barbarian example, i'm currently reading a book where the character is exactly that.
The mayor's daughter, raised all proper in a small city. Being always stuck inside the small village, having to be polite and proper and eventually seeing people she cared about die unleashed her rage. Now she's a barbarian with berzerker-ish rages and she stays herself, even if it's not proper. On the other hand, she have no problem being hedged in walls (she'll even be happy to have comfort at the inn after a few weeks travel) because she choosed to be there. And she doesn't have any problems with crowd. She even went to the capital of the kingdom.


He said it's wrong "in the same way that there are wrong choices for roleplaying any character." He did not say it's wrong in the sense that it is not permitted, RAW. So, no citation needed because his claim isn't predicated on a citation.


I don't see how you can call that "wrong" if you're following the rules and choices. It's just personal preference and bias. For me it's extremely right and since RAW doesn't take a position here, it's just opinion vs opinion.

[Chaosmancer]

Time and again this thread stuns me. I really can't believe some people are so strict in their games.


Again I will ask, what exactly are you gaining by preventing a Noble background on a Barbarian character?


I've made a Totem Barbarian Sage who was the apprentice shaman for his tribe, and decided to leave and learn about the world.

I've made a Barbarian Knight, who is questing to prove their strength to their lord.


Are we really saying these characters are too crazy to be allowed, but would be fine if I made them Bards and Fighters instead? If a concept is bad for a game, it is bad for a game, not bad unless you picked a different class so you fit a more traditional archetype. The entire point of archetypes is that they change over time, that new ones are created by combinations of the old, that characters alter the archetype to make themselves unique characters instead of cardboard cut outs.

[djreynolds]

Lets stick with the barbarian.

Where does rage, more specifically, your rage come from... its source?

Were you part of a tribe and taught this? Years of young men and women beating each other like a wolf pack.

Are you a Viking warrior who is taught to tap into a primal whatever and berserk

Perhaps you were a rogue in a party... and got separated from the party and was forced to tap into your survival instincts just to survive, Drizzt comes to mind

Perhaps your rage comes from somewhere different, you are a rebel fighting oppression.

You rage comes from your undying love of your family or your squad

Or you need medication

I think what ad_hoc is saying is there is a cost perhaps to roleplaying this.

Is that so bad? Where does this rage come from? What makes you a barbarian?

I have no problem with someone multiclassing to a barbarian... but you should have a reason other than to obtain reckless attack. Perhaps the DM will allow an opportunity for this to happen.

Say a fighter in on a mission and his party dies and he is forced to survive.

A paladin down to his last hit point, channels his beliefs and spontaneously begins to rage. Or the same paladin lived with a tribe when they found him half-dead.

I can see a ruffian living on the streets, and instead of living by his wits like a rogue she taps into a primal aspect. And then you as a player has to explain how she learned to use all martial weapons, perhaps a city guard saw potential in her and taught her to swing a sword, and she was stoned by others and has unarmored defense.

Make it up

[BoringInfoGuy]

Before the rules on Race, Class, or Background, there are some rules about how the rules work.

An important one is that Specific Beats General.
Short version:
Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
See PHB pg 7 for the full reading.

Well,
Perhaps in some rulebooks, in the PHB however it's clearly indicated that the information in the class section is rules. Now, there's lots of variety in the way a Barbarian can be, but it's going to contain shared concepts, and mechanics aren't shared concepts.

It even says so: "Class shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and powers in the multiverse." (PHB 45).

As a rule, Barbarians homelands are from the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt. (PHB 46)
As a general rule, a Barbarian homeland is tundra or grasslands or similar.

However, the Urchin background specifies the character grew up on the streets of a city. A specific statement / rule beats a general one, so the RAW rule is that any particular Barbarian with the Urchin background grew up in the City.


Why does it bother you so much that you aren't roleyplaying a Barbarian correctly by making them Urban?

Whether you take the view that the descriptions are fluff, or the entire book is rules, there is no justification to tell anyone that they are not playing a Barbarian correctly for picking any of the backgrounds found in the PHB. Certainly some backgrounds seem tailor made for certain classes. But to decide that means only those backgrounds are correct choices is NOT supported in the rules.


If it's really no skin off your back, you can do what you want and it's fine, why would you even bother to post?

This all suggests that it really does bother you that your way isn't the right way.
There is a difference between saying "This is how I like to play in my group, feel free to use whatever works for your group," and "My style is the right way to play, but hey, if you don't mind being wrong, do whatever you want."

Most people - hopefully - can recognize that just because a certain play style or gaming philosophy works for them, that does not make it a universal truth that should be applied to all groups.


Pretty much the same thing I'd do if I had a player who insisted that their Mary Sue character knew all languages or could cast Wish on demand all day every day, or invented their own Artifact.

All of these examples involve a player ignoring the specific rules on how languages are learned, Wish is cast, or artifacts are created.


ad_hoc didn't say, but it's implied, that the player was wrong to ignore the Barbarian class concept that offensively in the first place.

The class entry literally states: "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals...to a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue.... Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt." (PHB 46)

Creating an Urchin Barbarian and saying they come from the Big City, love going to hoity toity parties and adore as many people as possible in a room is literally the opposite of what a Barbarian is in D&D. So yeah, if you do that, you're doing it wrong, there's no two ways about it.

You can do it if your DM agrees, and that's fine, but you're wrong. And it's fine, nobody outside your game will care...but if you insist that you're doing it correctly, you're wrong.
Unlike the examples above, creating an Urchin Barbarian is well within the rules.

The rules for creating a character is to pick a race, a class, and a background. Nothing about having to only pick backgrounds that fit the standard class stereotypes. If a specific choice of background conficts with the general description of the class, then the specific rule wins.

Instead, you have ADDED a house rule that limits player options during character creation, and then declared everyone not following your house rule as playing wrong.

Adventurers are extraordinary people.
Not all from The Barbarian lands are of the Barbarian Class. Not all of those who are of the Barbarian Class take up the Life of an adventurer. If adventurers are extraordinary people, as said in the rules, then they are the ones who are very remarkable or unusual in some way.

Therefore players making character choices that vary from the norm is normal and expected.

[Arkhios]

Just food for thought...

John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke a.k.a. Tarzan, if anyone, is a Barbarian with the Noble background.

Isn't our imagination supposed to be fed by literature and other entertainment? Or are we now supposed to ignore anything most of us have grown up with reading, watching, or listening? Why on earth do you guys have so strict mindsets? Worse than the people who didn't have the privilege to play a (modern) roleplaying game with the characters they wrote about (being so new a hobby, considering that Tarzan of the Apes was first published in 1912 and The First Modern RPG: Dungeons & Dragons was published in 1974; 62 years apart).

[djreynolds]

So remember you have 2 levels before you take an archetype.

Level 1... you were born on streets and survived in the cement jungle

level 2.. you search for others like you, you have heard rumors of a tribe of Wildman that the city army fought off

level 3... you find the Wildman and they take you in and train you.

Whatever, make it up so that it is plausible

[Arkhios]

So remember you have 2 levels before you take an archetype a sub-class.

Fixed it for you.

Unless you're a Cleric (Domain; 1st level), a Druid (Circle; 2nd level), a Sorcerer (Sorcerous Origin; 1st level), or a Warlock (Patron; 1st level).

[NNescio]

Fixed it for you.

Unless you're a Cleric (Domain; 1st level), a Druid (Circle; 2nd level), a Sorcerer (Sorcerous Origin; 1st level), or a Warlock (Patron; 1st level).

Or Wizard (Arcane Tradition; 2nd level).

[Arkhios]

Or Wizard (Arcane Tradition; 2nd level).

Oops, forgot that one. Thanks!

[djreynolds]

But a barbarian has a couple levels to explain why

If your are a street urchin, how did the panda bears clan train you in the ways of Jack Black?

And I do not want to hear your village was killed by Orcs... by Halflings okay

Otherwise, that's the point a background and class creates an interesting backstory to tie it all together.

Like mine in a billionaire who's mother and father were killed, and I was raised by this crazy butler..........

[Arkhios]

Otherwise, that's the point a background and class creates an interesting backstory to tie it all together.

You have a point, no question there. I guess I just woke up on the wrong foot, since I had a compelling urge to be snide. My apologies.

Back to my post a way back in the thread (and multiple times before, elsewhere).

Being a Paladin, for example, is to answer a calling. It doesn't matter who you are, or where you were born.

Mine was born to a clan of a northern clan known as the Winter Wolves, who, by the way, despite their classification as a clan, live within a society of their own, settled in one place. Not precisely within a city, but a settlement with a ruler and rules to abide to which defines their own culture.
A Culture which might seem barbaric to the outsiders might not actually be so.

Vikings, for example, were very cultured in their own way, and despite their tendency to raid their neighbours regularly, they were much more than just barbaric raiders. They had a social hierarchy reminiscent to that of a kingdom, and Jarl actually translates to something akin to a king. Being a fearsome warrior was part of their cultural identity.

Similarly, for my paladin's people, being a warrior is both a life-style as well as cultural thing. Being a warrior does not, however, dictate that a person couldn't strive to achieve more or something else entirely.

Due to an ancestor who united the two previously separated clans of Winter Wolves and Tundra Wolves, my character was trained in the basics of Arcane knowledge as was everyone before him, just because the ancestor just happened to be an Archmage, and thus teaching the Nature of Magic became a family tradition, regardless of what career everyone chose to pursue later. Mine chose to become a blacksmith, who out of as much as necessity as duty to his clan, took part in several battles. In those battles he grew to be quite a remarkable warrior as well. Long story short, his family was devoted to the Old Faith (sort of like the druidic religion), and as a warrior he also revered Kord, the god of battle and storms, and so it happened that he felt a calling to become a paladin, and to protect the Old Faith and ancient traditions properly, he swore the Oath of the Ancients in the presence of the local Druidic Circles.

TL;DR: A character's background as a specific rule trumps the generic rule, but sometimes with a bit of creativity (and a DM's consent) you can entwine the class and background together seamlessly.

[djreynolds]

You have a point, no question there. I guess I just woke up on the wrong foot, since I had a compelling urge to be snide. My apologies.



Please no worries, you always have a valid opinion.

5E's issue, and it isn't one, is there is too much freedom to pick from that class and that class... but this allows players to create the character they want. That's always been the dilemma of a "free system"

I don't mind ad_hoc's idea, your atypical barbarian probably does feel hemmed in by walls and longs for the steps, like sailor to the sea... it freedom.

The issue with 5E is there is no real sacrifice or work to multiclassing, especially with bounded accuracy/CR and magic items... the minimum requirements can often be fine. I mean 16 as your attack stat is doable.

Just don't come to my table with crap, I have put work in as a DM, so should the PC

IMO, and I'll probably get hung for it, I don't think some classes should multiclass. Like once you become a paladin... that should be it. You are at the pinnacle.

[Contrast]

I said, it doesn't bother me what others do in their games, but in my games Barbarians are Barbarians in the PHB, and street thugs don't fit that motif.

Right I got that, but my question was why. I can roleplay my city bruiser identically if I use the fighter rules or the barbarian rules. The only person who will actively notice the difference during gameplay will be me because there will be different things written down on my character sheet, the character themselves is otherwise identical. So I don't see an argument that the character wouldn't fit into the setting. At which point you're saying no because...? I personally don't think 'if I was playing a barbarian that isn't how I would play them' is a good enough reason to tell someone else they're roleplaying wrong and they're not allowed.

To put a similar thought process. In your setting there are no dragons. Someone wants to play a dragon sorceror. You have two options - you either ban dragon sorceror or you just come up with an alternative fluff explanation for how they got their powers and let them play using the rules for a dragon sorceror. Option 1 leaves you with an annoyed player. Option 2 hurts no-one whatsoever (now sure, if they insist they want to be dragon related you have the right to say no, in much the same way that if your barbarians background was as an uneducated nomad and they're trying to roleplay them as an educated librarian you may have to step in). Some people in this thread seem to be advocating option 1 not only as the better option but as the always right one and for the life of me I don't understand why you would take that approach.

I said it earlier but I think it bears repeating - I'm not saying you shouldn't play a character who embraces the tropes sometimes (or even most of the time). But suggesting people have to or they're roleplaying wrong? That idea is laughable. As in I literally laughed out loud when I first read this thread.

[JellyPooga]

if your barbarians background was as an uneducated nomad and they're trying to roleplay them as an educated librarian you may have to step in

I agree with most of your post, but this...? I dunno, dude. Have you met many librarians? I'm not entirely convinced that the Immigrant Song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRjH_gJbUqQ) isn't an appropriate "entrance theme" for some of them...:smalleek:

[Chaosmancer]

Just food for thought...

John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke a.k.a. Tarzan, if anyone, is a Barbarian with the Noble background.

Wait wait.

I'll admit my biggest exposure to Tarzan is from Disney.

But his real name is John Clayton, that.... that has the potential to be so symbolic if the Disney character Clayton is still supposed to show up in the Tarzan stories. Even if not, that has fascinating potential.

Man, I knew it was worth it to stick to this thread, thank you so much :smallbiggrin:

[pwykersotz]

To go with the city barbarian example, i'm currently reading a book where the character is exactly that.
The mayor's daughter, raised all proper in a small city. Being always stuck inside the small village, having to be polite and proper and eventually seeing people she cared about die unleashed her rage. Now she's a barbarian with berzerker-ish rages and she stays herself, even if it's not proper. On the other hand, she have no problem being hedged in walls (she'll even be happy to have comfort at the inn after a few weeks travel) because she choosed to be there. And she doesn't have any problems with crowd. She even went to the capital of the kingdom.

I see you're reading NPCs. Great books. :smallsmile:

[Tetrasodium]

I agree with most of your post, but this...? I dunno, dude. Have you met many librarians? I'm not entirely convinced that the Immigrant Song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRjH_gJbUqQ) isn't an appropriate "entrance theme" for some of them...:smalleek:

as welcome to nightvale (http://www.welcometonightvale.com/) proved Librarians are some of the most fearsome creatures known to man.. but those poor kids will never be the same after their victory.

[Arial Black]

Barbarian character class != in-game barbarian culture.

The characters in our games are not aware of the 5E rules under which they are created. The meta game is un-knowable by them.

'Barbarian' was a Greek word that meant 'does nor speak Greek'. It took on connotations like 'uncivilised' because every culture thinks it's the best culture and the Greeks were no different in that regard.

So we use the term 'barbarian' to describe a culture that is not 'civilised' in terms of cities or the like. Or we use it pejoratively to describe 'bad' behaviour.

So we might describe a tribe of 'barbarians'. We know what you mean. You might even believe that any of them would feel 'hemmed in by walls', on the grounds that they have lived their lives in the open.

But the crucial thing here is they do not ALL have levels in the barbarian character class! The meta game idea of 'character class' is not the same thing as an in-game culture.

Not all 'barbarians' in the game world have levels in the Barbarian class; only a portion of the best warriors would have levels in the class, or levels at all!

Meanwhile, not all characters who have levels in the Barbarian class have anything to do with any in-world 'barbarian' culture. It's a set of game mechanics, not a background. That is provable by way of the 'Background' section!

Sure, an individual DM may insist weird things for his own campaign, but it is in no way official D&D 5E 'rules' that a PC with Barbarian levels MUST be from a 'barbarian' culture. Further, what the personality quirks of their PC is up to the player, insofar as such a quirk is possible. 'Not being claustrophobic' is up to the player, 'Not liking mobile phones' is not possible because there are none in his world.

[RedMage125]

Strange that the "can't come from a city and must be uncomfortable in crowds" class feature was left out of the SRD. Someone should let WotC know about that oversight.
Right?


That is beside the point. He said it's not completely up to the player. You attempted to claim he literally said it's not up to the player at all.
When he is telling a Barbarian player "no, you can't decide how your character feels about being in a city", he is taking away something that IS completely up to a player. And he IS saying that such is "not up to the player at all".

You seem to think you are arguing a fine point of word semantics, but are missing the forest through the trees. I am objecting because the things that he is saying are NOT "completely up to the player" include things like thoughts, beliefs, and feelings are things that are ONLY completely up to the player.

Stop Straw Manning what I have been saying. I have not claimed that he said "nothing about what a payer thinks or feels is up to the player". That's asinine. He HAS, however, advocated that there are times when a DM just gets to say "regardless of your character's background or personality, I have decided how he feels about this situation". THAT is what I have been arguing. If the only way you can possibly defend that is to twist what I've said and say "well, it's not 100% being taken away from the player, so you should stop arguing with him", then you have either COMPLETELY FAILED to understand what I have been saying, or you are trying to defend him just to be adversarial yourself.



You really do have a problem with taking something that someone says, completely misinterpreting it, and then broadcasting falsehoods about people. You should be more careful.
You are talking about Straw Man Fallacy, and you are incorrect.

He has LITERALLY said that a Barbarian character's player does not get to decide how they feel about being in a city. I am misinterpreting NOTHING. There is no straw man.

Except the one you and Tanarii have been building about my stance.


This isn't what you read. Go back and look. The difference is not even a subtle one. He said "What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you."

There are limits to the amount of control a player has over his character, period. This is such a minor example of it that I can't figure out why you've picked this sword to fall on.
What elements of a character's beliefs are NOT completely up to a player, according to you?

How does the player NOT have 100% complete and SOLE AGENCY to decide how THEIR character feels about being in a city?

If you want to defend ad_hoc, defend what he's actually saying, which is what I'm contesting. Don't play word semantics and argue "well, he only wants to take away MOST of a player's agency over their character, not all of it, so you shouldn't argue with him". Because that is how your defense of him is coming across.


Even you can come up with examples of this, I should hope. At my table, it isn't. You fit in or you f@#k off. No special snowflakes at my table.

You want to play a character who believes he is a character in a roleplaying game in my campaign? No. You want to play an evil character in my campaign? No. As soon as you behave in overtly evil ways, or have your alignment magically altered, your character is forfeited. Consider him dead and re-roll. Next! Oh, you don't like it? That's cool. Go play somewhere else.
That isn't what he's talking about. And it's not what I've been objecting to. If you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID, I did say that if a player had a concept that would be disruptive, telling that player "please come up with a less disruptive character concept" is fine.

You seem to be able to make distinctions about word semantics with what ad_hoc says, but you have COMPLETELY MISSED what I have said TWICE and are claiming that I object to things I have said (twice) are well within acceptable DM/Player dynamics. It's one thing to say "please don't make that disruptive character at my table", and quite another to EVER tell a player "you don't get to decide how your character feels about this stimulus, I do".

I even gave you an example of a Barbarian, well within the style of classical barbarian tropes, who, upon entering a city for the first time, is filled with a sense of wonder and awe. Who is not uncomfortable, but curious. ad_hoc REALLY IS saying that the player doesn't get to decide that, and the Barbarian MUST be uncomfortable.

This is not a Straw Man. We have seen, in EXACT WORDS that this specific example is true. So no trying to accuse me of strawmanning. No trying to make false accusations that I am somehow "ignoring" specific word semantics of what he is saying. And no trying to accuse me of claiming something else about his stance.

If you want to defend ad_hoc's stance, then ACTUALLY DEFEND IT, if you can. Because he is advocating a level of adversariel DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, he REALLY IS telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play his "One True Way". Vogon appears to advocate the same.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

I don't care how ad_hoc plays at his table. The only "wrong way" to play is a way that is not fun for the players. Telling everyone else that we aren't "playing the game right", or that we're using "house rules" because his way is the only "right" way is not okay.


No, we aren't. This is tiresome.

@RedMage125:

It's this distinction, identified above by Tanarii, that you keep missing. You should stop writing replies and take some time to really think about this. You have a misconception about either logic or language that is LITERALLY making it impossible for you to understand the opposing view, here, and it's the type of error that will continue to lead to miscommunications in your future.

It has to do with statements in the negative about universals.

If Bob says "I have complete control of my characters thoughts, feelings, and actions" and Sally says "no, you don't," then you need to really think about what this means.

Sally has not said: "Bob, you have zero control over your character's thoughts, feelings, and emotions." Yet you seem to keep making this logical error.

Sally has in fact said: "Bob, there is at least one case in which you do not have complete control over your character's thoughts, feelings, and actions."

Believe me, if you don't sit down and think this through, you're going to have a lot more arguments in your future. You should care, because you'll be wrong.
I'm quite capable of critical examination of semantics and distinguishing between absolutes in order to make an objective argument, thank you.

You and tanarii, in fact, have been the ones building Straw Men, in fact, because at no point have I ever claimed that ad_hoc was saying "players have zero control" over thoughts and feelings. And such is not what I have been arguing.

So why don't you take your own advice about logic and language, and making assumptions. Your own tone is condescending, arrogant, and insulting, and YOU are the only one responsible for that. So take some care to actually read what OTHERS are saying, because it will help YOU to not have miscommunication in the future.

So, once again, what I AM objecting to, if you're done trying to paint my stance as something other than what it is is this:

A characters THOUGHTS, and FEELINGS are things that should only EVER be up to the player. And yes, completely. A DM does not have the right to say, "no, your character feels x way about something" in direct defiance of what the player wants for his/her character. And that is something ad_hoc IS advocating.

We're not talking about specific instances where game mechanics, such as enchantments, may have an effect on a character's mindset. We're talking about specific agency of a player over a character that is in full possession of their faculties. Outside of things like mental control being exerted over a character, the player CAN and SHOULD have 100% COMPLETE agency over internal mental factors of their character. To include what their character thinks about a person, place or thing, and how they FEEL about it. Those REALLY ARE things that only a player gets to decide, and ad_hoc REALLY IS saying "no, I get to tell you what that is, and it's only ever one specific thing based on which class you have". So, according to him, EVERY Barbarian ONLY responds to being in a city ONE way.




Whether you take the view that the descriptions are fluff, or the entire book is rules, there is no justification to tell anyone that they are not playing a Barbarian correctly for picking any of the backgrounds found in the PHB. Certainly some backgrounds seem tailor made for certain classes. But to decide that means only those backgrounds are correct choices is NOT supported in the rules.

There is a difference between saying "This is how I like to play in my group, feel free to use whatever works for your group," and "My style is the right way to play, but hey, if you don't mind being wrong, do whatever you want."

Most people - hopefully - can recognize that just because a certain play style or gaming philosophy works for them, that does not make it a universal truth that should be applied to all groups.
My God, yes.

THIS has been the crux of my point this whole time.

[BurgerBeast]

Gregor Clegane (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Gregor_Clegane) is unquestionably a barbarian. Dressing him in fancy armor doesn't change the fact that everyone is made uncomfortable when he;s around a said parties with the exception of the sadist Joffrey. His background is probably gladiator/folk hero or something given his history of swinning tournaments.

Well, this might be part of the problem. Gregor Clegane is not a barbarian, in my view. He's a big, strong, evil fighter.


Regardless of how much weight that you place on it, Fluff/tropes/etc are still the generally accepted terms. No matter how many times marketers at the different individual automakers usenames like "Sport Activity Vehicle" to refer to their SUV's, they are still going to fall under the generally accepted term "SUV" because most people understand the general concept that the term conveys.

The term is not what is being refuted. The concept is. The claim was never that fluff is a silly word, it was that fluff is a word assigned to a concept that is not a realized concept.


To go with the city barbarian example, i'm currently reading a book where the character is exactly that.

It won't help to bring in fictional characters and then claim to know which D&D class they best represent. This is because there will be disagreement over which class best represents them. It comes down to one's personal judgment.


Time and again this thread stuns me. I really can't believe some people are so strict in their games.

Well, I'm glad you said this because I think this really is the point. I don't think anyone is as strict as the detractors are making them out to be. Imposing minor restrictions on player freedoms is not the same as taking all of their freedom away. It's a complete overreaction to start making such accusations.


Again I will ask, what exactly are you gaining by preventing a Noble background on a Barbarian character?

Again, a great question. I think there's more in this than many will recognize.

On one extreme, you can take the view that mechanics are simply mechanics. Names like Barbarian and Druid are only names, and have zero connotation. In this view, you can take any class and refluff it however you like.

On the other extreme, the "fluff" is enforceable to at least some extent. This is the view that druids must be tied to nature in some way, that warlocks must have an entity to which they form a pact, barbarians must be savages who prefer the wild, etc.

Ironically, it's the second camp that can best be described as the fluff matters camp, because they think that the barbarian is more than just a collection of mechanics. They think there is a narrative place and purpose to the class, and that these provide meaning to the class in the context of the setting. Another way to put this is, why call them barbarian and ranger at all? Why not just Fighter option 2 and fighter option 3? The answer is that the classes have a theme built into them. If you want to throw the theme out the window, then you throw much of the game's purpose (in my view) out the window. This is because, a big part of the appeal of playing D&D is that it tries to use mechanics that make some degree of sense in the particular fantasy context.


Are we really saying these characters are too crazy to be allowed, but would be fine if I made them Bards and Fighters instead? If a concept is bad for a game, it is bad for a game, not bad unless you picked a different class so you fit a more traditional archetype. The entire point of archetypes is that they change over time, that new ones are created by combinations of the old, that characters alter the archetype to make themselves unique characters instead of cardboard cut outs.

Yes, we are. If your backstory is that you are a barbarian outlander from a tribe that doesn't have a written language, and you've never interacted with civilized society, and you want to make a wizard, then you have a problem. This isn't a problem with my opinion. This is a problem with the setting and how wizards work. Wizards not only have to be able to read, they have to be able to read and study magic. I know it's a different example but it's an important one.

In the same way that the other side of this argument becomes enraged that anyone would dare to prevent total and complete player control over their character, I become enraged at the idea that the setting is irrelevant. The reason we have sorcerers, warlocks, bards, and wizards, is because they relate to the narrative in different ways. They are attempts to match the mechanics of the class to the narrative of the world. If you want to make character who has formed a pact but is really just a bard, then you're sort of saying f@#k you to the way the world works.

Yeah, you could fluff it your own way, but that's not the way the world is. (I'm fully aware that a different world might be this way, but any particular world has particular reasons for why classes are tied to it in particular ways.)


Lets stick with the barbarian.

Where does rage, more specifically, your rage come from... its source?...

Make it up

So this is another way of illustrating my point. It's more or less, "f@#k the fictional world and it's context, I'm going to do whatever I want."


Right I got that, but my question was why. I can roleplay my city bruiser identically if I use the fighter rules or the barbarian rules. The only person who will actively notice the difference during gameplay will be me because there will be different things written down on my character sheet, the character themselves is otherwise identical. So I don't see an argument that the character wouldn't fit into the setting. At which point you're saying no because...? I personally don't think 'if I was playing a barbarian that isn't how I would play them' is a good enough reason to tell someone else they're roleplaying wrong and they're not allowed.

And this is because you completely separate mechanics and setting, which I think is a mistake.


I said it earlier but I think it bears repeating - I'm not saying you shouldn't play a character who embraces the tropes sometimes (or even most of the time). But suggesting people have to or they're roleplaying wrong? That idea is laughable. As in I literally laughed out loud when I first read this thread.

"I laughed out loud" isn't an argument. Nobody is saying you have to role-play this exact way. They're saying you can't do this small set of things. There's a universe of difference between the two. I'm laughing out loud at you right now.

Nothing prevents a player, RAW, from playing Bart Simpson, a rogue who rides around on a skateboard in the middle of my Viking campaign, and has the tag line "Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger." But I don't allow that character in my campaign. I choose to be polite and say "this character doesn't match the tone of the campaign." But the truth is that the player is just an a@#hole who is disrespecting the narrative context and tone, and by extension disrespecting the people who got together to realize it.

I mean, you can sit at a table and play monopoly with the intention of losing. You can follow all of the rules and be respectful in your mannerisms when dealing with the other players, but you're disrespecting the competition, and by extensions the competitors.


Barbarian character class != in-game barbarian culture.

The characters in our games are not aware of the 5E rules under which they are created. The meta game is un-knowable by them.

We're not talking about the meta-game, here. We're talking about the rules that govern the character's universe. There might not be a narrative difference between a raging fighter and a raging barbarian, but the mechanical differences (advantage on athletics, damage bonus) manifest in the narrative and become part of the reality for the character.

When you try to completely separate mechanics from the narrative context, you are messing with this, and to some of us this matters. In fact, it matters to you, too. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if someone said "you can't be a barbarian based on your background. You must be a fighter," because (as you say) there would be no relevant difference in the game world. The answer to this, of course, is that "differences on your character sheet manifest differently in the narrative and do affect how your character is perceived in-game." So we would probably agree on this in the end.


'Barbarian' was a Greek word that meant 'does nor speak Greek' It took on connotations like 'uncivilised' because every culture thinks it's the best culture and the Greeks were no different in that regard.

The word comes from the Greeks referring to the Berbers. But this has zero relevance to the conversation. The words wizard and diviner come from the common people's explanation of mundane occurrences as supernatural. Should we use this as context for how wizards work? No.

The barbarian class and the wizard class are what come about when we imagine that the common folklore had some truth to it, not when we reduce the folklore to the B.S. that it is.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, RedMage125, for a start: If you want to say that ad_hoc is "literally" saying something, it has to be a direct quote. It can't be something that follows, or something that you've deduced from what he said. It can't be a quote that you've changed in any way, either.


When he is telling a Barbarian player "no, you can't decide how your character feels about being in a city", he is taking away something that IS completely up to a player. And he IS saying that such is "not up to the player at all".

Right, so the only real place of disagreement here is whether it is completely up to the player. You say it is. I say it is not.


Stop Straw Manning what I have been saying. I have not claimed that he said "nothing about what a payer thinks or feels is up to the player". That's asinine. He HAS, however, advocated that there are times when a DM just gets to say "regardless of your character's background or personality, I have decided how he feels about this situation". THAT is what I have been arguing. If the only way you can possibly defend that is to twist what I've said and say "well, it's not 100% being taken away from the player, so you should stop arguing with him", then you have either COMPLETELY FAILED to understand what I have been saying, or you are trying to defend him just to be adversarial yourself.

It's not that I've misunderstood this. It's very clear that you think taking away one instance of freedom is the problem. The problem is that your arguments do to follow from it. Your arguments follow from the notion that there is zero freedom granted.


You are talking about Straw Man Fallacy, and you are incorrect.

I'm talking about more than that, and with the way "straw man" gets thrown around these forums, usually incorrectly, it's more effective to just say what happened.


He has LITERALLY said that a Barbarian character's player does not get to decide how they feel about being in a city. I am misinterpreting NOTHING. There is no straw man.

Yes there is. What you are quoting about here is a general statement that has a different meaning. For example, a DM can say that you must feel uncomfortable, but still allow the player to make decisions about how the character feels. For example, I feel uncomfortable, nervous, and edgy... I need to have a drink," or "I feel uncomfortable, but I also feel very strongly that my purpose here is important, so I suppress the feeling in order to accomplish my goal." Do you see how in this example, the DM tells the player how their character feels, but still does allow the player to decide how his character feels?


What elements of a character's beliefs are NOT completely up to a player, according to you?

I've never claimed there are limits to character beliefs, but I'm sure there examples which would be problematic. I claimed that there are limits to player freedom over character thoughts, feelings, and actions. In my games, PVP is not allowed. That's a limit. In my campaigns, you can't be evil. That's a limit.

So for me, the very presumption of complete control is problematic. It will inevitably lead to arguments.

Has it occurred to you that real people do not have complete control over their thoughts and feelings? That's sort of what makes people interesting, and makes stories compelling. I mean, there would be no such thing as jealousy if people could control it.


How does the player NOT have 100% complete and SOLE AGENCY to decide how THEIR character feels about being in a city?

For the record, I've never contested this. I contested the idea that the character has complete control over how the character (collectively - not individually - because that's how it was presented) thinks, feels, and acts. From the very first post, I made it pretty clear that I don't agree with ad_jhoc in the particular example, but I disagree with the 100% SOLE AGENCY argument you are making.


If you want to defend ad_hoc, defend what he's actually saying, which is what I'm contesting. Don't play word semantics and argue "well, he only wants to take away MOST of a player's agency over their character, not all of it, so you shouldn't argue with him". Because that is how your defense of him is coming across.

I'm not trying to defend ad_hoc. I'm arguing against your reasoning. If you want to contest him, do it better. Also, you didn't even paraphrase me properly. At least you didn't try to claim it was literal in this case.


That isn't what he's talking about. And it's not what I've been objecting to. If you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID, I did say that if a player had a concept that would be disruptive, telling that player "please come up with a less disruptive character concept" is fine.

Okay, so you tell me: how can a character be disruptive if it does not come from character beliefs, thoughts, or actions? And if players are not 100% free to be disruptive, then how can you advocate complete player control over their characters? Because it appears that you are arguing against yourself. What am I missing?


You seem to be able to make distinctions about word semantics with what ad_hoc says, but you have COMPLETELY MISSED what I have said TWICE and are claiming that I object to things I have said (twice) are well within acceptable DM/Player dynamics. It's one thing to say "please don't make that disruptive character at my table", and quite another to EVER tell a player "you don't get to decide how your character feels about this stimulus, I do".

So what if you say "please don't make that character at my table," and the player says "too bad. I'm free to make this character at any table." Are they free to make this character or not?


I even gave you an example of a Barbarian, well within the style of classical barbarian tropes, who, upon entering a city for the first time, is filled with a sense of wonder and awe. Who is not uncomfortable, but curious. ad_hoc REALLY IS saying that the player doesn't get to decide that, and the Barbarian MUST be uncomfortable.

ad_hoc is not saying that. You are outright lying, now. ad_hoc even replied to you, and gave a clear answer. It was not what you are claiming, here.


This is not a Straw Man. We have seen, in EXACT WORDS that this specific example is true. So no trying to accuse me of strawmanning. No trying to make false accusations that I am somehow "ignoring" specific word semantics of what he is saying. And no trying to accuse me of claiming something else about his stance.

See above, you just did this. Again. Don't say "exact words" unless you use the exact words. Paraphrasing is not the same.


If you want to defend ad_hoc's stance, then ACTUALLY DEFEND IT, if you can. Because he is advocating a level of adversariel DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, he REALLY IS telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play his "One True Way". Vogon appears to advocate the same.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

This is a total misrepresentation. Saying it doesn't make it true. I can read what ad_hoc said, myself, and I can see that it is not what you are claiming, here.


I don't care how ad_hoc plays at his table. The only "wrong way" to play is a way that is not fun for the players. Telling everyone else that we aren't "playing the game right", or that we're using "house rules" because his way is the only "right" way is not okay.

How is this not what you are doing? ad_hoc and I say that we don't grant players complete control over their characters, and you say it's wrong. Seems pretty cut and dried, to me.


I'm quite capable of critical examination of semantics and distinguishing between absolutes in order to make an objective argument, thank you.

I'll judge that for myself, thanks.


You and tanarii, in fact, have been the ones building Straw Men, in fact, because at no point have I ever claimed that ad_hoc was saying "players have zero control" over thoughts and feelings. And such is not what I have been arguing.

No, but you have gone so far as to say that he LITERALLY said things which he did not literally say. That's a problem.


So why don't you take your own advice about logic and language, and making assumptions. Your own tone is condescending, arrogant, and insulting, and YOU are the only one responsible for that. So take some care to actually read what OTHERS are saying, because it will help YOU to not have miscommunication in the future.

Give me a reason and I'll be happy to. I'm not interested in winning this argument. I'm interesting in finding out what your point is, and you don't seem overly concerned with it. Beyond that, you don;t seem very concerned with representing your opponent accurately.


So, once again, what I AM objecting to, if you're done trying to paint my stance as something other than what it is is this:

A characters THOUGHTS, and FEELINGS are things that should only EVER be up to the player. And yes, completely. A DM does not have the right to say, "no, your character feels x way about something" in direct defiance of what the player wants for his/her character. And that is something ad_hoc IS advocating.

No it isn't. You continue to make this simple logical fallacy. If I forbid you from feeling a certain way, that doesn't mean I am forcing you to believe a particular feeling. "You can't feel comfortable" is not the same as "you must feel angry." One is a limit to your freedom. The other is taking control. This is the difference. It is a logical one.


We're not talking about specific instances where game mechanics, such as enchantments, may have an effect on a character's mindset.

Well then you need to qualify your statements, more. I mean, I've given you the benefit of the doubt here, but much of what you've said here could LITERALLY be taken to mean that you think players have more authority than the rules of the game.


We're talking about specific agency of a player over a character that is in full possession of their faculties. Outside of things like mental control being exerted over a character, the player CAN and SHOULD have 100% COMPLETE agency over internal mental factors of their character.

Why? Again, I submit that real people are not capable of this.


To include what their character thinks about a person, place or thing, and how they FEEL about it. Those REALLY ARE things that only a player gets to decide, and ad_hoc REALLY IS saying "no, I get to tell you what that is, and it's only ever one specific thing based on which class you have".

No, he is not. This is the same simple logical distinction. "Uncomfortable" is not a complete description of feelings. So no, ad_hoc is not saying "I get to tell you what you that is." This is a misrepresentation. He is saying "I am placing limits on what you can feel, with reasons, but you're still able to select from the array of possibilities within this context. So you're completely wrong here, but refuse to either see or acknowledge it. This is why I implore you to take a moment and think about it.


So, according to him, EVERY Barbarian ONLY responds to being in a city ONE way.

This is ultimately why you're wrong. There's more than one way to feel uncomfortable. It's really that simple. Choose any form of uncomfortable that suits you. This is why you have misrepresented ad_hoc. It's because you made the illogical conclusion that uncomfortable is exactly one feeling.

Here's another attempt to show you what I mean:

A child walks into Baskin Robbins. There are 31 flavours of iced cream available. The child says "I want blue bubble gum." The clerk says "I'm sorry but we don't have blue bubble gum, you can't have blue bubble gum."

Your claim: this is a denial of child's freedom because the child wants blue bubble gum, and you won't let him have it. He should have 100% total freedom over his actions, and he wants to eat blue bubble gum. The clerk is trying to control the child.

My claim: this is not a denial of freedom, because the clerk is not saying: "you must eat pink bubble gum." The clerk is saying "you can still choose whatever you want, from what's available, but blue bubble gum is not available.

Analogous context:

A barbarian walks into a city. There are a multitude of emotional states available. The player says "I want to feel total comfort." The DM says "I'm sorry but total comfort is not an available emotional state for barbarians when in cities, so you can't have total comfort."

Your claim: this is a denial of a player's freedom because the player wants total comfort, and you won't let him have it. He should have 100% total freedom over his emotions, and he wants total comfort. The DM is trying to control the player.

My claim: this is not a denial of freedom, because the DM is not saying: "you must feel uneasy, edgy, and afraid." The DM is saying "you can still choose whatever you want, from what's available, but total comfort is not available.

[KorvinStarmast]

The issue with 5E is there is no real sacrifice or work to multiclassing, especially with bounded accuracy/CR and magic items... the minimum requirements can often be fine. I mean 16 as your attack stat is doable. Just don't come to my table with crap, I have put work in as a DM, so should the PC

IMO, and I'll probably get hung for it, I don't think some classes should multiclass. Like once you become a paladin... that should be it. You are at the pinnacle.
My take on multiclassing is that is has to have a strong basis in the in world narrative and the story as it is developing during play, very much a collaborative effort between player and DM.
I also agree that certain classes seem a terrible fit for multi-classing.

[BurgerBeast]

My take on multiclassing is that is has to have a strong basis in the in world narrative and the story as it is developing during play, very much a collaborative effort between player and DM.
I also agree that certain classes seem a terrible fit for multi-classing.

How dare you deny me my freedom to multi-class into whatever class I want! <searches desperately for pitchfork>

You are advocating a level of adversarial DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, you REALLY ARE telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play your "One True Way".

[mr-mercer]

I for one am disgusted by the notion that the DM should have authority over what the PCs feel about something. The PC is the only thing the character's player has active authority on in the campaign, so they should be allowed to retain as much of that as possible. If they're being Suish and trying to take advantages without any disadvantages then feel free to reign them in, but barbarians not being uncomfortable in cities isn't anywhere close to that: not everyone in a given culture thinks exactly the same way, after all.

[BurgerBeast]

I for one am disgusted by the notion that the DM should have authority over what the PCs feel about something.

"I am disgusted by it" isn't an argument. I don't care what disgusts you. Gnomes disgust me. I don't expect you to care.


The PC is the only thing the character's player has active authority on in the campaign, so they should be allowed to retain as much of that as possible.

We appear to agree. We probably disagree over how much is possible, but at least we are starting from the same place.


...but barbarians not being uncomfortable in cities isn't anywhere close to that: not everyone in a given culture thinks exactly the same way, after all.

This is just a matter of where one places the bar. I'm not going to get into a fight over your personal level of tolerance for what constitutes too much or too little control. The point is that players have something less than complete and total freedom to have their character think, believe, and act. Sometimes the freedom is restricted by the rules, sometimes by the social contract, sometimes by the narrative (tone, setting, etc).

I'm cool with you having your tolerance levels and me having mine. But when a conflict arises, it needs to be resolved.

[KorvinStarmast]

How dare you deny me my freedom to multi-class into whatever class I want! <searches desperately for pitchfork> All kidding aside ... if I'm the DM, that's not even a question. The canned response is, once the aforementioned collaboration has gone on in character creation ... "I run this world .. play in it or play elsewhere."

If I am a fellow player, I'd probably stay out of it and if the mood of the table is good, roll with it. If not, more than one of us would likely leave anyway.

You are advocating a level of adversarial DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, you REALLY ARE telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play your "One True Way". Heh, parody is fun.

Gnomes disgust me. I don't expect you to care. Andi called, she wants a date. :smallbiggrin: (As soon as she sorts out this "who is in charge of the Mechane" thing.

The point is that players have something less than complete and total freedom to have their character think, believe, and act. Sometimes the freedom is restricted by the rules, sometimes by the social contract, sometimes by the narrative (tone, setting, etc). What's funny is that we played for so many years without ever having to have that come up in conversation other than in a dialogue. The internet seems to create a "turn up the volume to 11" feature, or bug, on some topics.

Well, that and

Alignment
The everyone gets a trophy philosophy. *ducks* :smallcool:

[mr-mercer]

Fair enough that the notion disgusts you. That's your feeling and your right to feel it. But I do have two follow up questions:

Given that every version of D&D written to date has many things written into both the core rulebooks and many adventures that dictate how PCs feel about something, how do you reconcile your disgust with what the RAW of D&D says?

Given that in real life, you are not the only person thing in control of what you think or feel, and that this holds true for every human being alive, how do you reconcile your feelings of disgust that that a game should be the same way?

In response to the first question, I just don't use those things unless a character that I have in mind would fit into them or I'm playing with a DM that I know would want to waive these restrictions as much as I do. The only concessions a player should have to make are the ones that are required for the plot to progress (e.g. not flat-out refusing to partake in the story) and for them to gel properly with the other PCs (which would be dealt with at session 0 and so shouldn't be an issue) and I can't see how the barbarian being comfortable in the city could possibly get in the way of that sort of thing. Uthrig the Chill isn't going to burn the last remaining evidence of corruption in the country's government just because he's okay with an urban environment.

In response to the second, I actually disagree with you. No person inherently controls what another is thinking or feeling: if person A makes person B angry, it's because A did something that makes B angry, deliberately or otherwise. But even if person A knows what person B's emotional triggers are, they can't flat-out change them: I couldn't walk up to you and suddenly convince you that you are terrified of daffodils. If I convince another person of something, that's because they made the decision that what I am saying is true, not because I told them that they believe me.

In summary, there is a world of difference between external factors influencing someone's thoughts and someone flat-out telling them that they think something other than what they actually think.

[mr-mercer]

I knew I was going to regret getting involved in this. :smallyuk: /peace

Fair enough. This isn't the kind of argument that's likely to end amicably. I think we can all safely select the people here we'd rather not play with (in spite of appearances, you aren't one of them on my list) and pack the discussion up: continuing would only serve to further divide people into incompatible groups.

I should use Uthrig the Chill as a character at some point: I like that name.

[BurgerBeast]

...I can't see how the barbarian being comfortable in the city could possibly get in the way of that sort of thing.

And what does "your character feels uncomfortable" get in the way of? What does feeling uncomfortable prevent you from doing? Nothing. It literally has no effect on the game. It has effects in the effect of the mind of one special snowflake who insists on having authorship of something that they can't possible author and is entirely irrelevant. At best, it does nothing. At worst it creates yet another special snowflake who insists that disagreeing with him is an "offence to his existence." (Or in this case to his imaginary character's existence - which is more absurd since his imaginary doesn't actually exist.)

What's even more bizarre is that real people can't control how comfortable they feel without acting to change it. Think about it. Who chooses to feel uncomfortable?

The complete lack of relevance of this discussion is what is so baffling to me. If the DM says: "Your character feels uncomfortable right now." I can just say "cool." And then do exactly what I was going to do. But no, not for our special snowflakes! They are willing to shut down the entire campaign and accuse the DM of the most heinous crimes... and for what? For nothing. For their own self-important right to have complete authorship over an imaginary character in a game that is ultimately pointless.

Imagine I was playing a game of monopoly, and someone told me that my iron felt uncomfortable. Now imagine me becoming indignant and insisting that that person is an authoritative jerk. "I and only I have authorship over the feelings of the iron!" What a socially degenerate thing to do. How about this: "cool," and then move your iron seven spaces on the board.

Likewise: "your barbarian feels uncomfortable." "Cool. I walk into the weapons dealer and check out his wares." END OF STORY.

What kind of person finds this so offensive? And on what basis? Are you offended at reality every time you feel angry or sad, too? Because like it or not, nobody chooses how they feel. If they could, they would not be believable as a person. They'd be pretty close to, if not completely, a robot.


In response to the second, I actually disagree with you. No person inherently controls what another is thinking or feeling: if person A makes person B angry, it's because A did something that makes B angry, deliberately or otherwise. But even if person A knows what person B's emotional triggers are, they can't flat-out change them: I couldn't walk up to you and suddenly convince you that you are terrified of daffodils. If I convince another person of something, that's because they made the decision that what I am saying is true, not because I told them that they believe me.

In summary, there is a world of difference between external factors influencing someone's thoughts and someone flat-out telling them that they think something other than what they actually think.

You've completely missed the point here. We're not saying that others have the ability to dictate what you feel. This is the exact same fallacy, again.

We're saying that, given that you are feeling sad, you can't just choose to be happy and hen be happy. If you could, we wouldn't have trouble with grieving or jealousy or unreciprocated love.


Fair enough. This isn't the kind of argument that's likely to end amicably. I think we can all safely select the people here we'd rather not play with (in spite of appearances, you aren't one of them on my list) and pack the discussion up: continuing would only serve to further divide people into incompatible groups.

I should use Uthrig the Chill as a character at some point: I like that name.

Those people are in incompatible groups regardless of whether they know it or not, so it hardly hurts talk about it. At the very least, we learn who we don;t want to play with.

[Sigreid]

'Barbarian' was a Greek word that meant 'does nor speak Greek'. It took on connotations like 'uncivilised' because every culture thinks it's the best culture and the Greeks were no different in that regard.



As I understand it it was basically a slur for anyone who didn't speak a proper language. The joke was it sounded like they were just saying bar bar bar, hence barbarian. :smallsmile:

[MadBear]

aybe it'd be beneficial to go back to the original post.

after having re-read this a few times over, I've put my thoughts down in red.


It came up in another thread that people thought I was joking when I said that Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

It's right there in the PHB. I was taken aback that some people didn't think it was possible for me to be serious about this. I have even seen a few people say something along the lines of "your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

One problem is you have combined 2 ideas here one of which is true, and one of which is not. Your character and their beliefs and actions is of course, not 100% within your control. But the implicit assumption here is that what the PHB fluff says has anything to do with what your character says or thinks. It doesn't. Actually, to be more precise there is no RAW reason it has any effect on your character, and you've not made any compelling case why it should.

What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you. There are a multitude of things you can try to do which your group with respond with "no" then you can either retract it, or leave.

I actually agree with this. This has nothing to do with rules, this is about group norms.

One category of behaviours are ones which are socially unacceptable. The most common one to come up in play is probably attacking of other characters. It could be anything though including racism, etc. You're just not allowed to do that because the group doesn't accept it.

agreed

Then we have things which are deemed 'roleplaying rules'. These include the Barbarian example above but also include plenty of things which are unspoken. For example, most groups would probably find it unacceptable if you decided that your character suddenly believes they are from 18th century earth in a standard D&D game. Some might, but generally that sort of deviation from the setting is enough to derail a game so would be against the rules. An offshoot of this might be a character who knows the inner workings of all of the dungeons and such because the player has decided to read the adventure.

you need to make a case that these are in any way rules. They're not. These are tropes that you can follow if you wish, or break if you wish. Nothing about the game compels you to follow them. In the end this is just an opinion. In which case, I don't care what your opinion is.

The argument I have seen against these 'roleplaying rules' is that it constricts creativity. I disagree. I think creating a unique character/story within the rules is the creative part.

I think this is a point of where people are diverging. I think (although I'm not positive), many people are disagreeing with you that the opening fluff of a class is part of a "roleplaying rules".

I liken this to improv games. If an improv actor broke the rules/constraints of the game to do something unique it wouldn't be seen as creative, quite the opposite, it would be seen as lazy or unsporting.

True, but now you've switched from actual rules of improv (at least I assume so, since I'm not a person who really cares much about improv), to something you've claimed to be a rule but never demonstrated

D&D is a game of fantasy tropes. I think it is fun to create something unique using those tropes. Breaking them is lazy and the game suffers as a result.

again, you've stated two ideas one of which is true and the other isn't. Your first sentence is true. The rest.... That's just like your opinion man. *in best Dude voice*

Plus, that special character you made who goes against their archetype isn't as unique or interesting as you think they are. We've seen it all before. The interesting and creative moments happen during play with the collaboration of the group, just like in improv.

again, this is all baseless wasted space. It's nothing more then your opinion. Which is why titling this section "role-play rules" is deceptive. This thread is more like "ad-Hocs opinions on how you should play a character.

Of course, play with whatever 'roleplaying rules' you wish. Houserule the ones in the PHB if you like. Do keep some though, as they are important and enrich the game.

There aren't any roleplaying rules in the PHB (at least not if you mean the Fluff at the beginning of the classes). Those are tropes to help with making a character. Or if you think they actually are real rules, make an argument for that, because without one it's a bald assertion. And a claim made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.


But upon re-reading, I really noticed that this thread is barely about role-play rules. It's more of a "here's my opinion".

So if that's what this thread is about, I give my opinion.

One way to create a cool and interesting character is to pick a classic fantasy trope using the fluff and make that character.

Another way is to pick a really cool concept from literature that you want to simulate. From there you pick the mechanics from the classes that help create that character and have fun. That character is usually also fun and interesting.

Another way to have fun is to pick what you want your character to be good at and maximize that potential with whatever class combinations that it takes you to get there. That's not my style, but it's a perfectly fine way to play the game.

There are no roleplaying rules. Instead, there are norms that different tables expect you to follow. Some of these rules are more universal then others.

Most tables probably expect you to bathe at least once in awhile, and you'll be in a bit of trouble when no one wants to sit next to you. But that's not every group. There was a group in college that I spent one day with, that all smelled of horrid BO. that norm was not followed there, and as a result I left.

At the end of the day if I really want to play Gutts from Beserk, I might play a barbarian. The mechanics of that class fit the bill of the character really well (He's tough as nails, goes into an unstoppable rage, uses a stupidly big weapon, can't really be frightened), but he was raised a mercenary. he wasn't in any way tribal. Saying that anyone who builds that character isn't creative because they're being lazy for ignoring the fluff, is being ridiculous. They're putting just as much thought into their character as someone playing a common trope of the character.

[Chaosmancer]

Well, I'm glad you said this because I think this really is the point. I don't think anyone is as strict as the detractors are making them out to be. Imposing minor restrictions on player freedoms is not the same as taking all of their freedom away. It's a complete overreaction to start making such accusations.

There is some difference though between “minor restrictions”. While yes, how your barbarian feels within the walls of a city is a minor choice, the entirety of that choice is being taken away.

To put this into government policy terms (I’m taking a politics class right now so this is my headspace on certain days) it is similar to a law mandating you have to put your left shoe on before your right shoe. Yes, it is a minor, nearly inconsequential detail, but because it is a minor detail, why is it locked in iron clad law?

At the table, while the game is going on, no one is going to notice whether or not Bob the Barbarian is fidgety in town or comfortable in town unless that part is emphasized, but Bob’s choice in that matter is null and void under some of these arguments. If that minor of a choice is not allowed, what other things are not allowed? It becomes worrisome, because it is a minor detail that shouldn’t be a big deal and it is completely removed from your agency. Does that mean larger decisions are going to be similarly limited?

Are you going to be allowed to choose how you react to your tribe invading lands to the North? Or is the DM going to tell you? He already told you that you have to be uncomfortable in the city, when the mayor of a town wants to meet you is he going to tell how you react to him?

In fact, are you going to be 100% comfortable playing your character, or are you going to have to stop and check your mental image of what the DM wants your character to be so that you don’t have the DM confronting you with trying to play a special snowflake character and ruining everyone else’s fun by playing wrong.

I think that is something that is getting missed here, yes it is a small and minor restriction over all, but because it is a small and minor detail that is iron clad and inflexible, you begin to wonder how far up the chain of hierarchy these iron restrictions go.





Ironically, it's the second camp that can best be described as the fluff matters camp, because they think that the barbarian is more than just a collection of mechanics. They think there is a narrative place and purpose to the class, and that these provide meaning to the class in the context of the setting. Another way to put this is, why call them barbarian and ranger at all? Why not just Fighter option 2 and fighter option 3? The answer is that the classes have a theme built into them. If you want to throw the theme out the window, then you throw much of the game's purpose (in my view) out the window. This is because, a big part of the appeal of playing D&D is that it tries to use mechanics that make some degree of sense in the particular fantasy context.

Again, yes and no, because your theme already breaks down when you add in subclasses, and theme has nothing to do with background.

Barbarians represent the savage Vikings with Frenzy.
They represent versions of shamanic warriors and tribal peoples like the Aztec and various American Indians with Totem and Ancestral
They represent Holy warriors with Zealots
They represent mystical dervishes and beings like Thor with Storm Herald.

If I want to play an Aztec Prince, who calls upon the Guardian spirit of his nation to protect and strengthen him in battle, I would clearly play a Totem Barbarian. However, this character would also be a noble, if the nation was large enough, he would probably have met with other foreign dignitaries, been to large cities before, spoken in front of large crowds. In fact, he may even take the Inspirational Leader feat to represent his sway over a crowd and commanding presence.

Or perhaps my character is a Desert Nomad, who calls upon the fierce desert winds when they fight. A Storm Herald who protects the trade caravans as they move from city to city selling goods, he’s a merchant, a man who sells the raw materials to city dwellers unable to face the strength pf the desert. He’d constantly go to marketplaces, that is his job as a merchant to sell things found in the desert.

I can picture any of these characters in a fantasy setting, perhaps not medieval Europe, but fantasy goes beyond that to cover a wide range of things.

The variety of themes within the Barbarian alone cover a lot of ground. By saying that all barbarians must be savages, must live in tribes, must have no cities or high civilization, must dislike cities and crowds, must wear furs, must use large weapons, must must must, all you are doing is slicing off those other concepts the barbarian covers and saying that those don’t count, because only the classical view of the barbarian is correct, ignoring what other concepts have fallen under than umbrella.



Yes, we are. If your backstory is that you are a barbarian outlander from a tribe that doesn't have a written language, and you've never interacted with civilized society, and you want to make a wizard, then you have a problem. This isn't a problem with my opinion. This is a problem with the setting and how wizards work. Wizards not only have to be able to read, they have to be able to read and study magic. I know it's a different example but it's an important one.

In the same way that the other side of this argument becomes enraged that anyone would dare to prevent total and complete player control over their character, I become enraged at the idea that the setting is irrelevant. The reason we have sorcerers, warlocks, bards, and wizards, is because they relate to the narrative in different ways. They are attempts to match the mechanics of the class to the narrative of the world. If you want to make character who has formed a pact but is really just a bard, then you're sort of saying f@#k you to the way the world works.

Yeah, you could fluff it your own way, but that's not the way the world is. (I'm fully aware that a different world might be this way, but any particular world has particular reasons for why classes are tied to it in particular ways.)

So this is another way of illustrating my point. It's more or less, "f@#k the fictional world and it's context, I'm going to do whatever I want."

And this is because you completely separate mechanics and setting, which I think is a mistake.

Nothing prevents a player, RAW, from playing Bart Simpson, a rogue who rides around on a skateboard in the middle of my Viking campaign, and has the tag line "Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger." But I don't allow that character in my campaign. I choose to be polite and say "this character doesn't match the tone of the campaign." But the truth is that the player is just an a@#hole who is disrespecting the narrative context and tone, and by extension disrespecting the people who got together to realize it.

I put this all in one big quote, because to a degree this is all the same conversation.

To start with the Wizard. You say that character has a problem, but looking it over, the only potential problem I see is that they do not have a written language, which is a detail that was added in by the player I would assume.

Now, how do wizards work (since you say that is the root of the problem)

Well, wizards study magic and keep spellbooks.

Studying magic in that sort of setting is no problem. Nothing about being from a tribe that has not interacted with other societies or has a written language prevents this. Magic is everywhere in the world (barring anti-magic zones) and therefore you can study it anywhere. Perhaps you use the dust of animal bones and various herbs in wooden bowls instead of in beakers, but nothing about wizardly study requires advanced materials unless you say it has to.

Keeping the spellbook then is the problem, because you have no written language. Now, this can be solved, but it requires knowing exactly what is meant by “written language”. Do they have a number system? Pictograms? As long as they have some sort of physical thing that can represent an idea, then they have enough to make a spellbook.

Because the spellbook is just notes, it simply is a record of what is needed to cast the spell and how it works.

One of my first long-term campaigns was in Darksun, and I remember reading about Preservers and how their spellbooks were knotted ropes and lengths of beads, which encoded the information, but hid it from the Sorcerer-Kings. 5e does not explicitly allow this, but implicitly I think it could still work.

So, this Tribal Outlander could be someone who studied magic under an elder, learned to record the knowledge in lengths of colored beads and pictures the details of which represent the complex ideas behind the spell.

It is a harder stretch than just leaving your tribe to go to a wizard school, or simply having a tribe that does have a written language, but it is completely doable within the trope of the wizard, it simply cuts closer to that old “magic-man” archetype, instead of the studious librarian archetype.

Now, this is where the rest of the quoted material comes in, where by doing this I am ignoring the setting.

I think that is debatable. Let us say for a moment that all wizards required the written word as we think of it today, glass beakers, and fancy telescopes. High level technology or wizardry does not exist.

Then how does wizardry exist at all? We cannot assume that within this setting the world has always had a technological level high enough to support wizardry. At some point, wizardry had to be represented by something older, something less refined. Shall we say that Bardic magic or Sorcery is an older form and Wizardry evolved from it? Possible, though problematic, and nothing is then to say it could not have evolved differently in different areas, or that a particular branch was cut off long ago. In fact, many of the most popular settings state that we are in a low point, magic and wizardry was better in the old days than it is now.

In a setting like that, where the fallen kingdoms of magic are part of the history, who is to say some of those descendants could never have fallen back into more primitive modes, but kept the necessary knowledge to do arcane magic, and passed it on as best as they knew how?

Yeah, setting lore like that is the purview of the DM, but this whole situation is only because you added the no written language line. And at some point, the character would most likely learn to read, unless the player really wanted to make life hard on themselves, because by RAW every player races speaks, writes, and reads the common tongue, or at least some language.


None of what I’ve written in this post ignores the setting, in fact, some of it relies heavily on the setting. What kind of desert warrior could exist in a world without a desert? What kind of tribal leader could I be, if no tribes exist in the world? But these unusual concepts can just as easily dive deep and enrich a setting as they can ignore it. It depends on what the player is doing and how much they collaborate with the DM.






This is ultimately why you're wrong. There's more than one way to feel uncomfortable. It's really that simple. Choose any form of uncomfortable that suits you. This is why you have misrepresented ad_hoc. It's because you made the illogical conclusion that uncomfortable is exactly one feeling.

Here's another attempt to show you what I mean:

A child walks into Baskin Robbins. There are 31 flavours of iced cream available. The child says "I want blue bubble gum." The clerk says "I'm sorry but we don't have blue bubble gum, you can't have blue bubble gum."

Your claim: this is a denial of child's freedom because the child wants blue bubble gum, and you won't let him have it. He should have 100% total freedom over his actions, and he wants to eat blue bubble gum. The clerk is trying to control the child.

My claim: this is not a denial of freedom, because the clerk is not saying: "you must eat pink bubble gum." The clerk is saying "you can still choose whatever you want, from what's available, but blue bubble gum is not available.

Analogous context:

A barbarian walks into a city. There are a multitude of emotional states available. The player says "I want to feel total comfort." The DM says "I'm sorry but total comfort is not an available emotional state for barbarians when in cities, so you can't have total comfort."

Your claim: this is a denial of a player's freedom because the player wants total comfort, and you won't let him have it. He should have 100% total freedom over his emotions, and he wants total comfort. The DM is trying to control the player.

My claim: this is not a denial of freedom, because the DM is not saying: "you must feel uneasy, edgy, and afraid." The DM is saying "you can still choose whatever you want, from what's available, but total comfort is not available.


The difference is between a physical object that can run out (ice cream) and an emotional reaction which can never run out.

To place your ice cream example in a more analogous way:

{A child walks into Baskin Robbins. There are 31 flavours of iced cream available. The child says "I want blue bubble gum." The clerk says "I'm sorry but we don't have blue bubble gum, you can't have blue bubble gum."

As the child you are not allowed to be okay with this, you must be upset in some way }

Why must this child be upset? Why can they not be okay with a different ice cream?

Emotional states are very binary in a way, and something like “comfortable” is a neutral state. By saying we cannot be comfortable, then we cannot be neutral (that is a comfort) and we cannot be good (that is also comfort) so our only option is to feel bad.

Now sure, I could decide my barbarian’s uncomfortableness expresses itself as fear or anger or despair, but that is all bad for my character. You’ve taken a three-way choice (comfortable or neutral or uncomfortable) and then removed all but one of the options, to satisfy a narrowly defined archetype that may not even apply to the character in question.

Maybe my tribal barbarian is comfortable in a city, because he knows he could kill every single one of these weakling townies and he knows that like a herd, if something truly dangerous were to approach, they would alert him with their fleeing. He has nothing to fear here, unlike out in the wilderness where his strength can actually be challenged.

Sticks with the archetype, but is not allowed because I must be “uncomfortable”.


And what does "your character feels uncomfortable" get in the way of? What does feeling uncomfortable prevent you from doing? Nothing. It literally has no effect on the game. It has effects in the effect of the mind of one special snowflake who insists on having authorship of something that they can't possible author and is entirely irrelevant. At best, it does nothing. At worst it creates yet another special snowflake who insists that disagreeing with him is an "offence to his existence." (Or in this case to his imaginary character's existence - which is more absurd since his imaginary doesn't actually exist.)

What's even more bizarre is that real people can't control how comfortable they feel without acting to change it. Think about it. Who chooses to feel uncomfortable?

The complete lack of relevance of this discussion is what is so baffling to me. If the DM says: "Your character feels uncomfortable right now." I can just say "cool." And then do exactly what I was going to do. But no, not for our special snowflakes! They are willing to shut down the entire campaign and accuse the DM of the most heinous crimes... and for what? For nothing. For their own self-important right to have complete authorship over an imaginary character in a game that is ultimately pointless.

Imagine I was playing a game of monopoly, and someone told me that my iron felt uncomfortable. Now imagine me becoming indignant and insisting that that person is an authoritative jerk. "I and only I have authorship over the feelings of the iron!" What a socially degenerate thing to do. How about this: "cool," and then move your iron seven spaces on the board.

Likewise: "your barbarian feels uncomfortable." "Cool. I walk into the weapons dealer and check out his wares." END OF STORY.



So… the reason you are fine with this is because you’ll just ignore it?

Because if your character is uncomfortable in a situation and you act the same as if they were comfortable then they are comfortable in that environment not uncomfortable.

When I’m talking to friends I’m comfortable talking with, I’m potentially loud, I’ll laugh, I’ll joke. If I’m amongst strangers and uncomfortable I’ll be silent, withdrawn, and probably only respond if spoken to.

My actions are completely different because my emotional state is different

If the player is allowed to just act the same regardless then it doesn’t matter what the DM says, it’s just meaningless noise.


Of course, if your character in the game has the same emotional complexity and depth as a Monopoly playing piece… well then, we are talking from such completely different ideas of what game we are playing that I frankly don’t know what to do with all this.

Every character I have ever played is more than a lump of metal to be moved around the board. Otherwise I wouldn’t have even bothered to sit down at the table.

[Addaran]

And what does "your character feels uncomfortable" get in the way of? What does feeling uncomfortable prevent you from doing? Nothing. It literally has no effect on the game. It has effects in the effect of the mind of one special snowflake who insists on having authorship of something that they can't possible author and is entirely irrelevant. At best, it does nothing. At worst it creates yet another special snowflake who insists that disagreeing with him is an "offence to his existence." (Or in this case to his imaginary character's existence - which is more absurd since his imaginary doesn't actually exist.)

What's even more bizarre is that real people can't control how comfortable they feel without acting to change it. Think about it. Who chooses to feel uncomfortable?

The complete lack of relevance of this discussion is what is so baffling to me. If the DM says: "Your character feels uncomfortable right now." I can just say "cool." And then do exactly what I was going to do. But no, not for our special snowflakes! They are willing to shut down the entire campaign and accuse the DM of the most heinous crimes... and for what? For nothing. For their own self-important right to have complete authorship over an imaginary character in a game that is ultimately pointless.

Imagine I was playing a game of monopoly, and someone told me that my iron felt uncomfortable. Now imagine me becoming indignant and insisting that that person is an authoritative jerk. "I and only I have authorship over the feelings of the iron!" What a socially degenerate thing to do. How about this: "cool," and then move your iron seven spaces on the board.

Likewise: "your barbarian feels uncomfortable." "Cool. I walk into the weapons dealer and check out his wares." END OF STORY.


If you're just saying Cool but doing exactly what you were gonna do, even if it clashes with the statement, you're not actually accepting what the DM told you. And Ad_hoc mentionned that not accepting the "roleplaying rules" is a red flag and possibly wouldn't play again with them.

"DM: Your barbarian feels uncomfortable in that huge city. Now what do you all do with your one month down time?" "Barbarian:Cool i'm uncomfortable. I go rent the biggest chamber in the best Inn and attend social parties all month long." "DM: ..."



For some of us, the "you feel uncomfortable because you're a barbarian" feels as silly as the DM interrupting the rogue player who wants to save children from slavers being told: "you're a rogue, you like illegal things so you're okay with children being captured and forced to work illegally".





It won't help to bring in fictional characters and then claim to know which D&D class they best represent. This is because there will be disagreement over which class best represents them. It comes down to one's personal judgment.


The character's class is barbarian because it's mentioned in the book. It's one that is heavily influenced by D&D. Disagreeing about her class would be like disagreeing about the barbarian having D12 for HP.

[BurgerBeast]

There is some difference though between “minor restrictions”. While yes, how your barbarian feels within the walls of a city is a minor choice, the entirety of that choice is being taken away.

What is it with you people and the word "entirety"? First of all, the entirety of the choice is not being taken away. Second of all, even if it were, the choice is so insignificant that the entirety of it is insignificant.

First: it's not the entirety of the choice. Being told that you feel uncomfortable is does not describe the entirety of your character's feelings at any given moment. I've explained this.

Second: it's how your character feels. It has essentially no consequence.


To put this into government policy terms (I’m taking a politics class right now so this is my headspace on certain days) it is similar to a law mandating you have to put your left shoe on before your right shoe. Yes, it is a minor, nearly inconsequential detail, but because it is a minor detail, why is it locked in iron clad law?

No, it is not the same at all. You're confusing the matter, in the exact same way that has been done numerous times in this thread. You can't X is not the same as you must X. This is clearly a case of you can't X. Your shoe example is clearly an example of you must X.


...If that minor of a choice is not allowed, what other things are not allowed? It becomes worrisome, because it is a minor detail that shouldn’t be a big deal and it is completely removed from your agency. Does that mean larger decisions are going to be similarly limited?

This is crossing the bridge before you get to it. What you're describing is more or less unjustified panic, which is also part of my point. If you're not sure, don't jump to conclusions. Just ask.


Are you going to be allowed to choose how you react to your tribe invading lands to the North? Or is the DM going to tell you? He already told you that you have to be uncomfortable in the city, when the mayor of a town wants to meet you is he going to tell how you react to him?

Again, just ask. If you don't like the answers, then don't play. Pretty simple.


In fact, are you going to be 100% comfortable playing your character, or are you going to have to stop and check your mental image of what the DM wants your character to be so that you don’t have the DM confronting you with trying to play a special snowflake character and ruining everyone else’s fun by playing wrong.

This doesn't follow, at all. This is more irrational panic. Ask.

And this is what most of this thread comes down to: the DM said something that I disagree with, therefore "how can I ever trust the DM to not sabotage me at any second?" Stop projecting your insecurities. Find out. Then move on.


I think that is something that is getting missed here, yes it is a small and minor restriction over all, but because it is a small and minor detail that is iron clad and inflexible, you begin to wonder how far up the chain of hierarchy these iron restrictions go.

So find out. Don't jump to conclusions and make false accusations about imaginary crimes that haven't happened yet. There's a principle of law for you.


Again, yes and no, because your theme already breaks down when you add in subclasses, and theme has nothing to do with background.

You're doing it again. There is a theme to the class. It may be true that different subclasses have varaations and/or changes to the theme, but he class itself still has a theme.


The variety of themes within the Barbarian alone cover a lot of ground. By saying that all barbarians must be savages, must live in tribes, must have no cities or high civilization, must dislike cities and crowds, must wear furs, must use large weapons, must must must, all you are doing is slicing off those other concepts the barbarian covers and saying that those don’t count, because only the classical view of the barbarian is correct, ignoring what other concepts have fallen under than umbrella.

And different DMs, different settings, different tones, and different narrative themes do different amounts of slicing. That's ultimately what it comes down to. I say there is no problem with some slicing. The other side seems to have precisely zero tolerance for even the most minor slice.


To start with the Wizard. You say that character has a problem, but looking it over, the only potential problem I see is that they do not have a written language, which is a detail that was added in by the player I would assume.

No, and this illustrates my point. In a setting where a particular tribe of people do not have language, and wizards use language, then wizards don't come from that tribe. And that's okay. People have to learn that the amount of freedom they have is contingent on other things that are bigger than they are.


Now, how do wizards work (since you say that is the root of the problem)

Not: How do wizards work?
Rather: Can the type of wizard I want to play be found in this world?

If the answer is no, it's no. It should not be: well I'm going to reinvent the world to suit my desire to play a particular character.

Just take no for an answer. That's ultimately what it comes down to.


Because the spellbook is just notes, it simply is a record of what is needed to cast the spell and how it works.

This is one acceptable operational definition. But if traditional books with pages and words are the way wizards work in this setting, then you don;t get to demand that the world changes for you.


One of my first long-term campaigns was in Darksun, and I remember reading about Preservers and how their spellbooks were knotted ropes and lengths of beads, which encoded the information, but hid it from the Sorcerer-Kings. 5e does not explicitly allow this, but implicitly I think it could still work.

Yes, in a specific setting when you play by the setting's rules. But if you want to play a wizard that is neither defiler nor preserver, the DM has every right to say no because that's not how Athas works. Likewise if you want to play a cleric of Light, the DM can say "too bad. On Athas you must take either Air, Earth, Fire, or Water, because the other domains don't exist here." And, no matter how much your concept depends on playing a Life cleric, the DM can just say no.

In summary, your freedom to make choices as a player are limited. Get over it.


None of what I’ve written in this post ignores the setting, in fact, some of it relies heavily on the setting. What kind of desert warrior could exist in a world without a desert? What kind of tribal leader could I be, if no tribes exist in the world? But these unusual concepts can just as easily dive deep and enrich a setting as they can ignore it. It depends on what the player is doing and how much they collaborate with the DM.

And it depends on how a player responds when the answer is simply "no." No, there are no deserts on this world, so there are no desert barbarians and no desert druids and no desert rangers. This is a much bigger restriction than: "you can play the class but you feel uncomfortable sometimes." Yet it is totally reasonable.


The difference is between a physical object that can run out (ice cream) and an emotional reaction which can never run out.

Not a relevant difference, sorry.


To place your ice cream example in a more analogous way:

This is a much worse attempt. In your analogy, you've changed the DM from the CPU that runs the reality simulation into a character in the story. Sorry. That's pure butchery.


Emotional states are very binary in a way, and something like “comfortable” is a neutral state. By saying we cannot be comfortable, then we cannot be neutral (that is a comfort) and we cannot be good (that is also comfort) so our only option is to feel bad.

This is unfounded nonsense.


So… the reason you are fine with this is because you’ll just ignore it?

No, it's because people can act like they are comfortable when they are uncomfortable. This is what it means to be mature or professional. You can be filled with hatred and still behave with dignity.


Because if your character is uncomfortable in a situation and you act the same as if they were comfortable then they are comfortable in that environment not uncomfortable.

No, that's not true. And I would have thought it was obviously so.


When I’m talking to friends I’m comfortable talking with, I’m potentially loud, I’ll laugh, I’ll joke. If I’m amongst strangers and uncomfortable I’ll be silent, withdrawn, and probably only respond if spoken to.

Well why do you let strangers tell you how to feel? How dare they?

Anyway, we all have different degrees of maturity. Part of social norms is to act comfortably even we're not comfortable. I realize that special snowflakes care more about themselves than social norms, but that's sort of the point. If you show this outwardly, you're immature.


My actions are completely different because my emotional state is different

So why don't you just control your mental state? Oh, yeah... because it's subject to external factors... just like a barbarian character's mental state in a narrative story about said character. So, just like you can't control your own mental state, neither can the barbarian character, which helps with suspension of disbelief.


If the player is allowed to just act the same regardless then it doesn’t matter what the DM says, it’s just meaningless noise.

Precisely. How your character feels has literally no significance to anything in the universe (real or fake) except in the head of the particular player, who is probably the only person who thinks about it anyway.


Of course, if your character in the game has the same emotional complexity and depth as a Monopoly playing piece… well then, we are talking from such completely different ideas of what game we are playing that I frankly don’t know what to do with all this.

This is, in a nutshell, special snowflake syndrome. Your character is the sum total of the actions and events that take place at the table. Even your backstory is meaningless until it manifests at the table. The only place any of it matters is in the head of the player until it enters the game.


Every character I have ever played is more than a lump of metal to be moved around the board. Otherwise I wouldn’t have even bothered to sit down at the table.

Well, it's no less meaningful. You can add the special meaning you like, but at the end of the day, your character comes down to what happened at the table during the sessions.


If you're just saying Cool but doing exactly what you were gonna do, even if it clashes with the statement, you're not actually accepting what the DM told you. And Ad_hoc mentionned that not accepting the "roleplaying rules" is a red flag and possibly wouldn't play again with them.

Yes, I am accepting what the DM tells me. I accept that my character feels uncomfortable. Then as a player in a role-playing game, I put myself in my character's head, acknowledge that I feel uncomfortable, consider the circumstances, and take an action. I am free to do that. It's that simple.

And ad_hoc is right to assert that if I completely ignored it all the time, it would be a red flag, but the character is still my character. I'm still playing the character, and I still get to decide how my character responds whenever he feels uncomfortable. I can do this while acknowledging that my character feels uncomfortable.

This is a lot different than saying "f@#k that, I'm not uncomfortable, I'll do what I want." Which is a refusal to participate in the narrative fiction, and a refusal to role-play, and a refusal to treat the game honestly, which are all big red flags.


"DM: Your barbarian feels uncomfortable in that huge city. Now what do you all do with your one month down time?" "Barbarian:Cool i'm uncomfortable. I go rent the biggest chamber in the best Inn and attend social parties all month long." "DM: ..."

Well, presumably you care about roleplaying your character and you're willing to accept that you feel uncomfortable, and you actually use role-play to come to your decision.

Maybe "Cool, I'm uncomfortable, but I came to this city for a reason, and I am very motivated to see this through. I rent a chamber in the inn and I do my best to attend social parties, masking my discomfort. Presumably some days are better than others, and I fluctuate between very good days, where I behave like a proper socialite, and very bad days, where I simply have to leave the city to be outside the walls, and everything in between."

Or "Cool, I am feeling uncomfortable. Even though I feel that this task is very important, I inevitably can't manage to stay in the city. I get a chamber at the inn, but I only stay there 1-2 nights a week, more often leaving the city to be under the open sky."


For some of us, the "you feel uncomfortable because you're a barbarian" feels as silly as the DM interrupting the rogue player who wants to save children from slavers being told: "you're a rogue, you like illegal things so you're okay with children being captured and forced to work illegally".

I don't care how silly it feels to you. The second example is sillier. Period.

Maybe it seems silly to you for dwarves to feel uncomfortable under an open sky. Maybe it seems silly to for you for a desert nomad who can't swim to feel uncomfortable on a boat in the middle of a stormy sea. Maybe it feels silly for you for a rich noble to feel uncomfortable spending three months living among orcs and goblins.



The character's class is barbarian because it's mentioned in the book. It's one that is heavily influenced by D&D. Disagreeing about her class would be like disagreeing about the barbarian having D12 for HP.

I don't know who the character is and I don't really care. Neither her class nor her d12 HD are any part of her reality.

[Contrast]

So this is another way of illustrating my point. It's more or less, "f@#k the fictional world and it's context, I'm going to do whatever I want."


Nothing prevents a player, RAW, from playing Bart Simpson, a rogue who rides around on a skateboard in the middle of my Viking campaign, and has the tag line "Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger." But I don't allow that character in my campaign. I choose to be polite and say "this character doesn't match the tone of the campaign." But the truth is that the player is just an a@#hole who is disrespecting the narrative context and tone, and by extension disrespecting the people who got together to realize it.

For me these two quotes are the heart of our disagreement. I simply do not equate wanting to create a barbarian who isn't a 100% stereotypical barbarian as being disruptive to absolutely anything. Regarding the tone argument - you're not objecting to how the character is being roleplayed though or their backstory. We're working on the assumption that the player is roleplaying an otherwise perfectly acceptable character. You just think they should be forced to play them as a different class because apparently we have classes so we can force people to roleplay them certain ways.

According to you, would creating any character other than a barbarian be acceptable in your viking game? How about if I wanted to be from a nomadic tribe, love the wilderness and be uncomfortable in town... but want to play a fighter or a bard? Would I be told I had to play a barbarian or ranger instead? If anything, being more flexible is likely to allow players to fit much more easily into your campaign setting, otherwise any type of campaign immediately excludes a lot of archetypes. Campaign in a city? Sorry your ranger, barbarian and druid wouldn't be here. Oh your character has a personal reason to be here you say? Sorry nope, that would be against your archetype, roll up a wizard instead please. Actually scrap that the archetypal wizard would stay in his tower and hire some adventurers, roll up a fighter please. Wait, you want to use the solider background? Nope that means you're off at war roll up something else. And so on.

It occurs to me on checking the bard description - bards have no mechanical connection to music in their rules anymore but are still described as such in the fluff section preceding (ala the issue at hand with barbarians). Would you force a player wanting to play a bard to play a musical instrument like you seem keen to foist barbarism on the barbarian? Would you tell them to play another class or just let them play a bard who doesn't play a musical instrument?

You object to viewing the class as a collection of mechanics due to the loss of flavour - its the players job to give their character flavour, not the Players Handbook. You have done your job poorly if my memory is 'Oh yeah X played Hranth. He was a barbarian'. You have done your job well if my memory is 'Oh yeah X played Hranth who was this awesome burly dude with an eyepatch who loved headbutting people. Man this one time...'. The players handbook tries to encourage players (and giving thematic advice is one way it does that - another is the background system) but at the end of the day its up to the player to take those prompts and come up with a character for their character.

[BurgerBeast]

For me these two quotes are the heart of our disagreement. I simply do not equate wanting to create a barbarian who isn't a 100% stereotypical barbarian as being disruptive to absolutely anything.

Neither do I. This is a separate issue.


Regarding the tone argument - you're not objecting to how the character is being roleplayed though or their backstory. We're working on the assumption that the player is roleplaying an otherwise perfectly acceptable character. You just think they should be forced to play them as a different class because apparently we have classes so we can force people to roleplay them certain ways.

No. The reason we have barbarians and rangers is because some people like the narrative differences to manifest mechanically. It is not so that you can select whichever class mechanics you like best and then re-fluff. If that was the intent the designers could have done things differently, such as not have classes to begin with, or give the classes names that don't carry connotations.


According to you, would creating any character other than a barbarian be acceptable in your viking game?

Yes.


How about if I wanted to be from a nomadic tribe, love the wilderness and be uncomfortable in town... but want to play a fighter or a bard? Would I be told I had to play a barbarian or ranger instead?

Nope.


If anything, being more flexible is likely to allow players to fit much more easily into your campaign setting, otherwise any type of campaign immediately excludes a lot of archetypes. Campaign in a city? Sorry your ranger, barbarian and druid wouldn't be here. Oh your character has a personal reason to be here you say? Sorry nope, that would be against your archetype, roll up a wizard instead please. Actually scrap that the archetypal wizard would stay in his tower and hire some adventurers, roll up a fighter please. Wait, you want to use the solider background? Nope that means you're off at war roll up something else. And so on.

You won't find disagreement, here. I'm not sure you understand my stance on this.


It occurs to me on checking the bard description - bards have no mechanical connection to music in their rules anymore but are still described as such in the fluff section preceding (ala the issue at hand with barbarians). Would you force a player wanting to play a bard to play a musical instrument like you seem keen to foist barbarism on the barbarian? Would you tell them to play another class or just let them play a bard who doesn't play a musical instrument?

The don't allow bards in most of my campaigns, but if I did I wouldn't force them to do anything. You're making the same mistake that reoccurs throughout this thread. I do not force characters to do anything. I just sometimes limit their choices. So, you're misrepresenting my stance when you say that I foist barbarism on barbarians.


You object to viewing the class as a collection of mechanics due to the loss of flavour - its the players job to give their character flavour, not the Players Handbook.

You've incorrectly represented my position, here. Also, I disagree. The Player's handbook could have been created with only two classes: fighter and wizard. Players could just pick one and fluff it however they like. But the designers of the game did not do this, and there's a lesson in that. I submit that it goes beyond simply adding variety (because variety can be added in other ways) and that it goes beyond simply honouring tradition (because class based systems are sometimes better than modular systems).

[Arial Black]

We're not talking about the meta-game, here. We're talking about the rules that govern the character's universe. There might not be a narrative difference between a raging fighter and a raging barbarian, but the mechanical differences (advantage on athletics, damage bonus) manifest in the narrative and become part of the reality for the character.

When you try to completely separate mechanics from the narrative context, you are messing with this, and to some of us this matters. In fact, it matters to you, too. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if someone said "you can't be a barbarian based on your background. You must be a fighter," because (as you say) there would be no relevant difference in the game world. The answer to this, of course, is that "differences on your character sheet manifest differently in the narrative and do affect how your character is perceived in-game." So we would probably agree on this in the end.

No-one is advocating to elimination of narrative. What the player is doing is doing the narrating himself rather than copy someone else's. It's a principle that is at the core of RPGs.


The word comes from the Greeks referring to the Berbers.

No, it comes from the fact that their languages sounded like "bar bar bar"; hence: 'barbarian'.

[Arial Black]

Here's another attempt to show you what I mean:

A child walks into Baskin Robbins. There are 31 flavours of iced cream available. The child says "I want blue bubble gum." The clerk says "I'm sorry but we don't have blue bubble gum, you can't have blue bubble gum."

Your claim: this is a denial of child's freedom because the child wants blue bubble gum, and you won't let him have it. He should have 100% total freedom over his actions, and he wants to eat blue bubble gum. The clerk is trying to control the child.

My claim: this is not a denial of freedom, because the clerk is not saying: "you must eat pink bubble gum." The clerk is saying "you can still choose whatever you want, from what's available, but blue bubble gum is not available.

A better analogy for the "no, your barbarian feels uncomfortable!" thing is this:-

A child walks into Baskin Robbins. There are 31 flavours of iced cream available. The child says "I want blue bubble gum, it's my favourite flavour!"

The clerk says "No, it is not. I decide what your favourite flavour is, not you! How dare you attempt to ruin my ice cream store with your special snowflake favourite flavour! Other patrons can have blue bubble gum as their favourite flavour, but you can't because I read something once that said kids like chocolate flavour, you're a kid, so the rules are that chocolate is your favourite flavour. Stop trying to wreck my happy ice cream store!

It's all about lines of demarcation. In RPGs, both the player and DM can collaborate on the game world and the game rules if they want, but the final say belongs to the DM, no doubt about it. The DM is in charge of everything in his game world....except the PCs.

The player and DM can collaborate on the background and personality and rules about character creation, if they want. It's a good idea. But the final say about non-rules stuff (like personality) belongs to the player.

The player says that his PC's favourite colour is blue. The DM says no, your PC's favourite colour is red. There is no idea space available in my game world that allows for people with class levels in barbarian to have blue as their favourite colour, and you are trying to spoil my game!

[pwykersotz]

A better analogy for the "no, your barbarian feels uncomfortable!" thing is this:-

A child walks into Baskin Robbins. There are 31 flavours of iced cream available. The child says "I want blue bubble gum, it's my favourite flavour!"

The clerk says "No, it is not. I decide what your favourite flavour is, not you! How dare you attempt to ruin my ice cream store with your special snowflake favourite flavour! Other patrons can have blue bubble gum as their favourite flavour, but you can't because I read something once that said kids like chocolate flavour, you're a kid, so the rules are that chocolate is your favourite flavour. Stop trying to wreck my happy ice cream store!

It's all about lines of demarcation. In RPGs, both the player and DM can collaborate on the game world and the game rules if they want, but the final say belongs to the DM, no doubt about it. The DM is in charge of everything in his game world....except the PCs.

The player and DM can collaborate on the background and personality and rules about character creation, if they want. It's a good idea. But the final say about non-rules stuff (like personality) belongs to the player.

The player says that his PC's favourite colour is blue. The DM says no, your PC's favourite colour is red. There is no idea space available in my game world that allows for people with class levels in barbarian to have blue as their favourite colour, and you are trying to spoil my game!

Not to speak with any kind of authority for BurgerBeast, but you just made the same reversal that everyone else is making. You assume the GM/table is dictating what must be as opposed to what must not be.

This is reminding me of my college logic class with Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens and all that.

Edit: I should add that I don't feel strongly about the core topic, but that I am very interested in the logic and the portrayal of viewpoints, and that I think that BurgerBeast has the best constructed argument so far.

[Sigreid]

Just two quick points.

1. I could easily see a tribal barbarian being uncomfortable in cities as the dangers, customs and acceptable responses would be alien to him "What's the problem? He hit me with a chair, I cut his head off. If he wasn't ready to fight he shouldn't have started one". But, given time and experience this would wear off. He might always be more comfortable squatting in the woods, but that doesn't mean he will never be comfortable in a fortified city. I think it's more likely the city folk will always be uncomfortable with him.

2. I've been in a lot of major cities around the world and I've yet to see one that doesn't have groups that could reasonably be called barbarian tribes, in the city but clearly separate from the society.

[Chaosmancer]

Second: it's how your character feels. It has essentially no consequence.
I rarely say it, but this deserves it. That is bullsh*t. Completely, utterly, and without question. It may be minor, but it has consequence.


First: it's not the entirety of the choice. Being told that you feel uncomfortable is does not describe the entirety of your character's feelings at any given moment. I've explained this.

No, uncomfortable doesn’t describe everything, but it sure is pretty darn limiting ain’t it? I can’t be happy, I can’t be joyful, I can’t be peaceful, I can’t be secure, I can’t be casual.

But you see, that isn’t how the phrase is used. That is an effect of the phrase. You keep saying that the rule doesn’t tell us what we have to do, only what we can’t do. But you are wrong. It tells us we must be uncomfortable, that has weight, that has meaning, that has consequence.

Can I buy a weapon while uncomfortable? Sure, but I probably won’t haggle the price because I’m uncomfortable and want to leave as soon as possible.

Can I go to a party while uncomfortable? Sure, but I probably won’t mingle and make connections because I instead want the event to be over so I can leave as soon as possible. Or perhaps I’d find an excuse and leave early, not staying out the entire night.



No, it's because people can act like they are comfortable when they are uncomfortable. This is what it means to be mature or professional. You can be filled with hatred and still behave with dignity.

Anyway, we all have different degrees of maturity. Part of social norms is to act comfortably even we're not comfortable. I realize that special snowflakes care more about themselves than social norms, but that's sort of the point. If you show this outwardly, you're immature.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, and is offensively phrased. I don’t disagree that people can mask their emotions to a degree, but if you know someone you can tell at least half the time. And this has nothing to do with maturity. At all.

If a person is uncomfortable, they try and end the state that is making them uncomfortable. They might avoid a certain person, leave a situation as soon as possible, or react in any number of ways, but they will attempt to go from a state of feeling badly into a state of feeling good, because that is how people work,

Yes, with significant enough reasons a person can “tough it out” but they will still find the earliest opportunity to change the situation to make themselves comfortable. This is pretty inherent in the terms we are using right now, so I don’t see how this matters at all to the point.



So why don't you just control your mental state? Oh, yeah... because it's subject to external factors... just like a barbarian character's mental state in a narrative story about said character. So, just like you can't control your own mental state, neither can the barbarian character, which helps with suspension of disbelief.

Okay, so now we have to talk about the difference between real life and making a character in a game.

When you sit down at the table does the DM tell you “You are a tiefling born to a cultist wheat farmer named Jon. He was abusive to you and your mother, who was named Clara, and eventually due to infernal influences he was able to become mayor of your small town. However, the church learned of his actions and an inquisition rolled through, killing your mother and father and imprisoning you”

If he does, then that’s like real life, where you don’t get to choose your parents, the events in the world around you, how you were raised, or really much of anything else.

If he doesn’t, that’s because you are playing a game where those life decisions are not made for you because you are crafting a character.


Being told what my character feels, especially if it has zero connection to my mental image of my character, does not help with suspension of disbelief, in fact it harms it significantly.

If I’m playing a cleric who came from a monastery, and I decide my character wants to catalogue other religions. Then the DM describes for us this primitive religious ritual with dance and fire and singing done naked in the moonlight and I’m thinking “my character would be fascinated by this. It is so different from the dusty religion he grew up with, it’s passionate and wild and he’s starting to think about how to bring a piece of that passion back to his church” and my DM says “You are disgusted by this display of barbarism that is so far removed from the serene practices of your own church” then my suspension is broken. I’m being told that I feel one way, while my character’s experiences are telling me that he would probably feel a different way.

Sure, it could be both, I could resolve the difference and let the DM tell me how I feel, maybe I’ll even be surprised by the DM’s assertion and realize that that reaction is part of it as well, but I’m out of character at that point, I’ve been thrown out of the magic of the scene by considering how to resolve this difference.

Our emotional reactions are based on outside stimulus. A person who is scared of dogs because they were mauled as a child has no choice in that aspect of their lives, they will be scared of dogs, but since the DM should never be telling me who my parents are, how I became an adventurer and what events shaped my life without my participation in that discussion, they also cannot tell me I am scared of dogs because I was mauled as a child. They do not get to make those decisions.



This is, in a nutshell, special snowflake syndrome. Your character is the sum total of the actions and events that take place at the table. Even your backstory is meaningless until it manifests at the table. The only place any of it matters is in the head of the player until it enters the game.

When I made my Half-Orc fighter soldier, I placed in his inventory a Goblin Dagger. I got it from the starting equipment section for the trophy from an enemy. I decided that he got that dagger during a battle against a hobgoblin led unit. That the particular goblin had jumped out of hiding and shanked him, nearly killing him, and that he kept the dagger both because of his superstitious belief in weapons having “the names” of the person they are meant to kill compelling him to try and gather the weapons that nearly kill him, and the reminder that even the smallest blade is deadly, to help tie into his “philosophy of the blade” which is the core of his belief using the “samurai” class which was the school of fighting he grew up with under his father.

Once that dagger was in my inventory, that backstory entered the game. Now, I sent all this to my DM (along with other things) and he never mentioned any of it as conflicting with his view of the world. In fact, he also didn’t mind me being the son of a happily married human adventurers and orc woman, or my half-orc being an officer in the army before being put on reserve and becoming a mercenary.

My dislike of goblins has also subtly manifested, we’ve fought a few goblin bandit groups, and my character has been harsher towards them than towards a lot of other enemies. Though I don’t think my companions have noticed that small detail yet.

All of these factors have entered the game world. All of them have tied into an action I have taken or the items in my inventory. I decided all of it, sent it to my DM so they would be aware of it, and I may have been willing to talk out points with them if they had wanted to. But they did not.

My backstory as an officer in the military also got tied back to three other people’s backstories since we were collaborating to a degree, bringing those into the table space as well.

Yes, anything that has not been explicitly stated could be open to change, but once you have enough anchors buried into a story, it can’t move much without creating problems. And my decision making process is first filtered through my character’s backstory and experiences, which would make it rather difficult to go back and change certain things, since they have already been quietly active in the story, just not front and center.

I also reject the entire concept of “special snowflakes” in these sort of discussions. There are disruptive characters and non-disruptive characters. Trying to play a character from the future is disruptive, as is trying to play a barbarian who is uncomfortable with cities, and therefore decides to smash them like he does other things that make him uncomfortable. The desire to be interesting or different is not necessarily going to lead to disruptive behaviors.

As to the Wizard, I was simply responding to your example. A culture with zero language is different than a culture with zero written language which is different that a culture with no way to record ideas into a permanent media. We have cave drawings from Neaderthals which represent great hunts. To be at a level where there is no way to record any idea is extreme and unlikely.

I will also point out, that a traditional book is just a formatting choice. Unless the books are magical choosing to write in a book with letters is no different than writing on bones with pictograms. The signs on the material are symbols that represent ideas, they are a tool. If a fighter can choose their personal favored tool for doing their job, a wizard should be able to do the same.

Very few players are even going to attempt this, and if they did, frankly I’d find it more interesting than going down the well-tread path of wizarding that we’ve seen before. I haven’t detailed every savage tribe in my setting, I don’t think even the Forgotten Realms is so heavily detailed that a place couldn’t easily be found for a savage tribe with arcane practices.

After all, by your own admission, until it happens at the table it isn’t real. If you have never taken your group to those particular plains then nothing is there, the world doesn’t change, it just gets revealed.


And to tie this back to the discussion of themes within the classes, the more restrictive those themes are Wizards must only use traditional books, Barbarians must be uncomfortable in cities, ect, the more you say no before the question is even asked. That seems backwards. You leave it open, consider it, and then decide. I had a world where nature had gone primal and hated everyone, and druidic magic was nearly gone. In fact, only a single elven family had it, and in secret, to help provide food to the tower city.

Then a player wanted to multi-class into Druid. I told him the setting made it difficult if not impossible but I would find a way to work with him. I’m very glad I did, because the events that have cascaded from how we made it work have been a boon to my campaign, and leave the door open for certain aspects of this world to be explored where they might have been more difficult before that.

My setting wasn’t altered to be something else, it was deepened to be a more complex and interesting world.

[BurgerBeast]

No-one is advocating to elimination of narrative. What the player is doing is doing the narrating himself rather than copy someone else's. It's a principle that is at the core of RPGs.

I completely agree, except for the bit about the player advocating narrating himself. I also advocate for players narrating themselves. This isn't the issue.


No, it comes from the fact that their languages sounded like "bar bar bar"; hence: 'barbarian'.

Yes. And "Bar bar bar" came to be Ber ber or Berber and sometimes, in the specific case of where they came from, even Berbera or Berberia and the people from them were were referred to as Barbarians (from the land of Ber ber ber) in the same may that I am referred to as Canadian. Check this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_(region)) out.


A better analogy for the "no, your barbarian feels uncomfortable!" thing is this:-

No that's not better analogy for my stance. That's an analogy for the straw man stance that everyone keeps repeating, in place of my actual stance.


It's all about lines of demarcation. In RPGs, both the player and DM can collaborate on the game world and the game rules if they want, but the final say belongs to the DM, no doubt about it. The DM is in charge of everything in his game world....except the PCs.

Good. The only difference, for me, is that the DM has some control over the PCs. For example, the minute a PC turns in evil in my campaigns (through action or magic), I remove the character from the player's control. That is very high degree of control, and it's totally fine.


The player and DM can collaborate on the background and personality and rules about character creation, if they want. It's a good idea. But the final say about non-rules stuff (like personality) belongs to the player.

It's really not collaborating when one person has more authority - but that's a nit-pick. I'm not being argumentative when I say that I do not think this is a good idea. Generally, the more exceptions a players asks for, the more "special snowflake" he is, and even if he isn't, it just opens the door for more misunderstandings between the player and the DM, with higher stakes because the investment is higher.


The player says that his PC's favourite colour is blue. The DM says no, your PC's favourite colour is red. There is no idea space available in my game world that allows for people with class levels in barbarian to have blue as their favourite colour, and you are trying to spoil my game!

Well, you've said two different things here:

"The DM says no, your PC's favourite colour is red." - this is a major problem, as has rightly been pointed out by many people. But that's also why I've never advocated it (which many people seem to misunderstand). When the DM says "your PC's favourite colour is red" he has crossed a line.

"There is no idea space available in my game world that allows for people with class levels in barbarian to have blue as their favourite colour," - this is different. The DM is not deciding for you, in this case. He is merely limiting the available choices. Hey, he might even have a good reason. This is why it would be better to just ask/clarify than to become indignant.


Not to speak with any kind of authority for BurgerBeast, but you just made the same reversal that everyone else is making. You assume the GM/table is dictating what must be as opposed to what must not be.

This is reminding me of my college logic class with Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens and all that.

Edit: I should add that I don't feel strongly about the core topic, but that I am very interested in the logic and the portrayal of viewpoints, and that I think that BurgerBeast has the best constructed argument so far.

Well, you've represented me properly, so thanks for that. I actually don't feel very strongly about this specfic topic, either. Regardless, what's right is still what's right. Beyond this, though, this same mentality that has been shown throughout this thread of reversing my arguments (seeming inadvertently, but with disproportionate conviction and emotional investment), is quite literally destroying our society. It's just happening at a lag, so it's hard to notice. (How's that for dramatic?)


Just two quick points.

1. I could easily see a tribal barbarian being uncomfortable in cities as the dangers, customs and acceptable responses would be alien to him "What's the problem? He hit me with a chair, I cut his head off. If he wasn't ready to fight he shouldn't have started one". But, given time and experience this would wear off. He might always be more comfortable squatting in the woods, but that doesn't mean he will never be comfortable in a fortified city. I think it's more likely the city folk will always be uncomfortable with him.

Yes, I understand this. But I would say that is, to at least a small degree, disingenuous to the Barbarian Class. So any typical barbarian could fit the exact mould you've described. But if you want to be the particular type of barbarian that has the mechanical class, you're not a typical barbarian. You're the embodiment of the tribal values of an entire fantasy people. One of the trade-offs you make, for gaining all of the mechanical abilities that come from the barbarian class (as opposed to fighter or rogue) is that you buy-in to this.


These barbarians, different as they might be, are defined by their rage: unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury. More than a mere emotion, their anger is the ferocity of a cornered predator, the unrelenting assault of a storm, the churning turmoil of the sea. (PHB 46)

These barbarians are defined by their rage. You need to buy into that if you're making a barbarian. It's the definition of these barbarians - the ones with the barbarian class.

Further, rage is defined as "unbridled, unquenchable, and unthinking fury." So, for those players who want to re-fluff the barbarian's rage as a sort of meditative trance or battle rhythm, you are not being true to the theme of the barbarian. I'm cool with it, and quite like the idea, but the collective class (edit: taken in its entirety) doesn't support it very well because the mechanical class was built on the premise that rage is something different.

Now here's the thing: If you are truly buying-in, and not just picking up the mechanical benefits because you like them and want to ignore the rest, then how do you reconcile the fact that you are defined by "unquenchable, unthinking fury" with "being comfortable in cities?" You can't. So, you really like the mechanical benefits of the barbarian but you don't want to be restricted by the flavour limitations.

My suggestion: then don't take the class. Do the mature thing, and understand that you don't want to adhere to the limitations of the class, and therefore shouldn't take the class. Make a barbarian that has a different class.

Do not: take the class anyway, insist that it is purely mechanical, and completely ignore the fact that the barbarian class comes with baggage. This is going against the spirit of the game.

For added context: there were, at some point, various rules around berserkers that caused them to inadvertently enter their rage, and be unable to stop. The designers understood that this would be a good way to mechanically represent the unpredictability and lack of control over rages. They could've done it here, and then players would essentially be forced to be uncomfortable in cities. As times have changed, the designers realized that this takes away a lot of the freedom a player has over their character. So they changed the rules to give the player control over their rages, which is a nice gesture to the people who like the class.

But as is usually the case when you cater to special snowflakes, it's never enough. It's not enough that players of the berserker archetype were given more control. You must have whatever you want whenever you want it, exactly as you want it, and if anyone tries to impose even the most minor restriction, you cry "you're controlling me!"

And I'm not even really opposed to this, except that you are acting without realizing the consequences. You see, once you ultimately accomplish the goal, the barbarian is not a barbarian anymore. It's just a UA fighter variant. And then themes are divorced from mechanics. Once you get what you are pushing for, you'll realize that you never actually wanted it.

Now, I understand that some of you will throw my "overreactions and jumping to conclusions" backing my face, here. But this is actually different. The reason I say this is because we're not actually debating about barbarians and city walls, here. We're debating the notion that other people, or stories, or mechanical structures, sort rules, can justifiably restrict your behaviour. And some people simply won't accept any restrictions on their behaviour. We have words for them.


2. I've been in a lot of major cities around the world and I've yet to see one that doesn't have groups that could reasonably be called barbarian tribes, in the city but clearly separate from the society.

They may be barbarian tribes, but none of them have the barbarian class.

@MadBear: your post deserves a response, and I've been meaning to get to it. I will, so sorry about ignoring it for so long.

[JellyPooga]

Edit: I should add that I don't feel strongly about the core topic, but that I am very interested in the logic and the portrayal of viewpoints, and that I think that BurgerBeast has the best constructed argument so far.

Don't make the mistake of believing someone just because they make a good case; sometimes a good case can still turn out wrong. A well constructed argument is not necessarily any more correct than a well presented or charismatic oration. It might sound good and even make a certain logical sense; you may even want it to be the truth, but that doesn't make it right. I could, for example, put forth an eloquent and well referenced argument that the earth is in fact flat and not a sphere...but I'd still be wrong (probably). Some of the smartest and most revolutionary thinkers in history have been the least convincing and many of the most convincing people in history have been so entirely wrong.

Jus' sayin'.

Tl;dr - Charisma =/= Intelligence

[BurgerBeast]

Don't make the mistake of believing someone just because they make a good case; sometimes a good case can still turn out wrong.

No doubt, but this is dangerous territory you're wandering into. Regardless of the fact that a well-reasoned case could be wrong, it is still true that the more well-reasoned the argument and the more supporting evidence there is, the more likely it is to be true.

If you take the view that "well, you could still be wrong" in combination with "quality of reasoning does't matter"... you're basically arguing against reason.


A well constructed argument is not necessarily any more correct than a well presented or charismatic oration.

Well, you care correct: it is not necessarily more correct. It's just immensely more likely to be correct. See the Gorgias by Plato for a discussion on the differences between rhetoric and dialectic, or in his terms/examples: the arts versus the flatteries.


It might sound good and even make a certain logical sense; you may even want it to be the truth, but that doesn't make it right. I could, for example, put forth an eloquent and well referenced argument that the earth is in fact flat and not a sphere...but I'd still be wrong (probably).

No, this is really the point. You can't put forth a well-referenced argument that the earth is flat. Not unless we disagree on what well-referenced means.


Some of the smartest and most revolutionary thinkers in history have been the least convincing and many of the most convincing people in history have been so entirely wrong.

Jus' sayin'.

Tl;dr - Charisma =/= Intelligence

This really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You've said two things here, and both are true. But the first is really something that most people are very aware of already, and the second (Charisma =/= Intelligence) has very little bearing on this conversation, because, even acknowledging that Charisma can come through in written text, it very rarely does and very rarely to a high degree. It's one of the better qualities (in my opinion) of online forums.

[pwykersotz]

Don't make the mistake of believing someone just because they make a good case; sometimes a good case can still turn out wrong. A well constructed argument is not necessarily any more correct than a well presented or charismatic oration. It might sound good and even make a certain logical sense; you may even want it to be the truth, but that doesn't make it right. I could, for example, put forth an eloquent and well referenced argument that the earth is in fact flat and not a sphere...but I'd still be wrong (probably). Some of the smartest and most revolutionary thinkers in history have been the least convincing and many of the most convincing people in history have been so entirely wrong.

Jus' sayin'.

Tl;dr - Charisma =/= Intelligence

You're right of course, a logical argument isn't necessarily a valid one. And Chaosmancer raised some interesting counterpoints. A limitation can sometimes do things like break immersion and feel heavy handed. The thing is that I don't see this as some sort of cardinal sin.

When the GM tells me I feel calm at the peaceful serenity of the vista, even if I wasn't feeling calm before, I have my character play it out. If I'm told that the torrent of fire before me is terrifying, it doesn't matter if I'm a Phoenix Sorcerer and can make bigger fires, that fire is freaking scary, and that's okay. Sure, it temporarily breaks my immersion, but I recalibrate and come back to the scenario much more in step with the tone that the GM is setting.

At a tabletop game, we don't have complex visuals and other sensory stimuli to work with. We just have our imaginations, and while powerful, they are limited. So some top-down calibrations can really help the table gel. That includes being told how I feel by the master of the world. And I also feel free to ask the GM "Hey, I can make fires bigger than this. Am I really scared?" And then I abide by the answer I'm given.

Because of this, I find it rather silly that people saying that varying degrees of imposition on their characters beliefs and feelings is always wrong. Or always right. The difference between most of the arguments here and BurgerBeast's (and a few others) is that he has taken a nuanced view that recognizes that there can be value to that imposition. He's not saying it must happen or that it must not happen, just that it does not rob a player of meaningful choice, and that it can be an asset to the game. (Again, my paraphrasing here.)

Like Tanarii, I see value in the fluff, and see it as an endorsement of the default world.
Like BurgerBeast, I see that depriving the character or player of a single choice is not depriving them of all choices.
Like many who wish they were writers, I see value in placing artificial limits on our imaginations to encourage creativity, and I see that it is often boring and encourages laziness to have no limits.
And again like BurgerBeast, I see a lot more passion than thought being used in this thread. It's cool to vie for one-true-way complete (or for those who have accepted some limitations, semi-complete) character control. I have my gaming matters I feel strongly about as well. But misunderstanding the opposing point is regrettable and worth correcting.

[JellyPooga]

@BurgerBeast:

Although my previous post was indirectly aimed at you, it applies to both sides of this debate. There have been good arguments on both sides, but that doesn't mean either is right. Nor that either is wrong. One of the nice things about the subject, which is also the frustration of debating it, is that what is "right" will depend heavily on who is playing. Unlike the rules, which are clearly spelled out, this discussion is debating something that is, after all's said and done, a matter of opinion.

It's ok for a player to feel a certain frustration at a GM enforcing roleplaying restrictions, just as much as it's ok for a GM to feel the same frustration at a player who wants to play a bit looser with the setting and is throwing the toys out of the pram over it. So long as everyone is mature and willing to discuss the subject, even bend a little if need be, all's well. It's when someone, either GM or Player, refuses to compromise that problems emerge and it's there that the original post by ad_hoc (and those advocating the same position) comes across as unfavourable...it's an inflexible stance in a game that's inherently intended to be at least somewhat flexible.

I'm not saying that insisting Barbarians must be uncomfortable in cities is wrong; in the right campaign it can be the right call, as much as insisting that Sorcerers must all be from the nobility can be the right call in a given campaign. Insisting that all Barbarians in all campaigns must; that's where the line gets crossed.

To weigh in with my own opinion on the subject; it's not a "house rule" to divorce the Barbarian from the suggested roleplaying implications of the Class because those suggestions are just that; suggestions. If they weren't, then every character would be a mish-mash of conflicting personalities and stereotypes as, for example, every Fighter wears plate armour and a shield whilst simultaneously wearing studded leather and wielding a bow as well as attempting to be a knight, an overlord, a royal champion, a mercenary and a bandit, all at once.

Not to mention however the Class suggestions might conflict with a characters Background. How do we reconcile the Barbarian with the Urchin? One states a character from the wilderness, uncomfortable in the city, the other that the character grew up on those same city streets. Without divorcing the Barbarian from his "Class Fluff" we can't give him the Urchin Background (or perhaps vice versa) and no rule prohibits such a combination; only the campaign setting and/or GM might...which would be considered a rule specific to that campaign/table and as such would be the exception to the norm; i.e. that the "Class fluff" isn't a hard and fast rule. It might, perhaps, be the "norm" for members of that Class, but aren't PCs supposed to be (in most cases) the exceptions to that norm?

Edit: my apologies if I'm repeating anything that's already been covered; I'll admit to skipping a few pages...:smallredface:

[Sigreid]

@Burgerbeast, I think you missed my points. My points were 1. people change, grow and adapt, and so should characters. and 2. It isn't really the walls that define a barbarian, it's the rejection of civilized society. A barbarian new in his first city may well find it far more comfortable to hang with the homeless. "These people I understand!"

[Chaosmancer]

Good. The only difference, for me, is that the DM has some control over the PCs.

This I can agree with.

The disagreement comes with where the limits of that control are and how strict the control is.

[Contrast]

The don't allow bards in most of my campaigns, but if I did I wouldn't force them to do anything. You're making the same mistake that reoccurs throughout this thread. I do not force characters to do anything. I just sometimes limit their choices. So, you're misrepresenting my stance when you say that I foist barbarism on barbarians.

So for clarity, you don't force anyone to do anything. If I turned up with a character using the barbarian class from the city or tried to roleplay a barbarian otherwise comfortable in the city I would just be...strongly encouraged to change my class/character concept or asked politely to leave? :smalltongue:

Apologies as I'm not quite sure what I'm misinterpreting - you were the one who compared turning up to a game with a barbarian city thug as being equivilent to turning up with a character called Bart Simpson on a skateboard and described such players as *******s and disrespectful.

[Chaosmancer]

So for clarity, you don't force anyone to do anything. If I turned up with a character using the barbarian class from the city or tried to roleplay a barbarian otherwise comfortable in the city I would just be...strongly encouraged to change my class/character concept or asked politely to leave? :smalltongue:

Apologies as I'm not quite sure what I'm misinterpreting - you were the one who compared turning up to a game with a barbarian city thug as being equivilent to turning up with a character called Bart Simpson on a skateboard and described such players as *******s and disrespectful.

The difference they are espousing (as best as I understand it) is this:

They do not tell you you must do A
They tell you cannot do B


Where I struggle with this semantic interpretation though is that A and B are opposites. Therefore being unable to do B means you must do A

To use something other than lettters

"I'm not telling you must stay awake, I'm telling you you cannot fall asleep"

Of course, I will probably be told this is an inaccurate portrayal or a bad analogy, but it is how I can best explain the distinction as I understand it.

[BurgerBeast]

@BurgerBeast:

Although my previous post was indirectly aimed at you, it applies to both sides of this debate. There have been good arguments on both sides, but that doesn't mean either is right. Nor that either is wrong. One of the nice things about the subject, which is also the frustration of debating it, is that what is "right" will depend heavily on who is playing. Unlike the rules, which are clearly spelled out, this discussion is debating something that is, after all's said and done, a matter of opinion.

I'm not trying to be argumentative when I say that I disagree with some of this. I don't think that what is "right" depends on who is playing, ever. But I recognize that we probably mean different things. My sense is that, given time to have a proper discussion, we'd agree on most things or at least respect each other's opinions.

Without getting deeper into the issue, the word "subjective" is often used incorrectly to describe things that are "qualitatively objective," and I think that's what has happened here.


It's ok for a player to feel a certain frustration at a GM enforcing roleplaying restrictions, just as much as it's ok for a GM to feel the same frustration at a player who wants to play a bit looser with the setting and is throwing the toys out of the pram over it. So long as everyone is mature and willing to discuss the subject, even bend a little if need be, all's well. It's when someone, either GM or Player, refuses to compromise that problems emerge and it's there that the original post by ad_hoc (and those advocating the same position) comes across as unfavourable...it's an inflexible stance in a game that's inherently intended to be at least somewhat flexible.

Again, I mostly agree, but I would guess that I place far less value in compromise than you do. I think compromise is over-rated and most instances of compromise lead to worse games.


I'm not saying that insisting Barbarians must be uncomfortable in cities is wrong; in the right campaign it can be the right call, as much as insisting that Sorcerers must all be from the nobility can be the right call in a given campaign. Insisting that all Barbarians in all campaigns must; that's where the line gets crossed.

Well, yeah. That's where these discussions get weird. It would never occur to me to tell people they have to play my way, but I have every right to tell them what I think about how they play, if they ask (or broadcast it to a public audience).


To weigh in with my own opinion on the subject; it's not a "house rule" to divorce the Barbarian from the suggested roleplaying implications of the Class because those suggestions are just that; suggestions. If they weren't, then every character would be a mish-mash of conflicting personalities and stereotypes as, for example, every Fighter wears plate armour and a shield whilst simultaneously wearing studded leather and wielding a bow as well as attempting to be a knight, an overlord, a royal champion, a mercenary and a bandit, all at once.

Here we disagree. I don't think they are suggestions any more than the mechanics are suggestions, for example. Also, I don't think it leads down the rabbit hole you've presented here.


Not to mention however the Class suggestions might conflict with a characters Background. How do we reconcile the Barbarian with the Urchin? One states a character from the wilderness, uncomfortable in the city, the other that the character grew up on those same city streets. Without divorcing the Barbarian from his "Class Fluff" we can't give him the Urchin Background (or perhaps vice versa) and no rule prohibits such a combination; only the campaign setting and/or GM might...which would be considered a rule specific to that campaign/table and as such would be the exception to the norm; i.e. that the "Class fluff" isn't a hard and fast rule. It might, perhaps, be the "norm" for members of that Class, but aren't PCs supposed to be (in most cases) the exceptions to that norm?

I disagree somewhat, here, too. To start with, one should recognize the conflict presented by the Barbarian Class and the Urchin Background. It stands to reason that a Barbarian Urchin requires more explaining than a Barbarian Outlander. This is not a straightjacket. It's just an understanding of the Urchin and the Barbarian, an acceptance of what they are, and the respect to realize that there is some conflict there to overcome. And a part of this is, as a player, realizing that in some contexts (as you have pointed out), some Class/Backgrounds will be irreconcilable and the answer given by the DM will have to be no. To take it further, it may even be fair to allow the combo to one player, but not to another, because, for example, one character's tribe is compatible but the other's is not.

Doubtless, there is a special snowflake out there who will take umbridge with the fairness comment. Regardless, it is fair. It is not a case of treating characters differently. This is because, if any player makes the same choices, they will get the same treatment. It's the choices, not the particular player, that determine the result.


@Burgerbeast, I think you missed my points. My points were 1. people change, grow and adapt, and so should characters. and 2. It isn't really the walls that define a barbarian, it's the rejection of civilized society. A barbarian new in his first city may well find it far more comfortable to hang with the homeless. "These people I understand!"

1. No duh
2. I don't see any reason to disagree with this. "More comfortable" does not imply comfort. Some supermodels are "more ugly" than others.


So for clarity, you don't force anyone to do anything. If I turned up with a character using the barbarian class from the city or tried to roleplay a barbarian otherwise comfortable in the city I would just be...strongly encouraged to change my class/character concept or asked politely to leave? :smalltongue:



First, I don't necessarily enforce the specific rule that is the topic of this thread. I say that only to be clear, not to dismiss your question. So, assuming that I did enforce the uncomfortable Barbarian:

That's right. I'm sorry that you don't see the difference, but you don't. See, I never forced you to make that character. You chose to do that. If you had asked me, I'd have told you it wasn't allowed. Your choice, your actions, the consequences if which are on you. Own up and take responsibility, and do it right this time if you want to play. Next!


Apologies as I'm not quite sure what I'm misinterpreting - you were the one who compared turning up to a game with a barbarian city thug as being equivilent to turning up with a character called Bart Simpson on a skateboard and described such players as *******s and disrespectful.

I never made that comparison. It's very apparent to me that you will not understand this, but I didn't. I offered the Bart Simpson as a different example. That is not the same, no matter how much you think it is.

This isn't my first Rodeo.

[Sigreid]

So, 8 pages in we still have two views. One side sees the mechanics as the rules and the fluff as helpful suggestions. The other side sees the mechanics and the fluff both as rules. I think the only thing we can agree on is that everyone should agree on a norm for the table, and if they can't accept a particular table's norm, find another table.

[Xetheral]

Without getting deeper into the issue, the word "subjective" is often used incorrectly to describe things that are "qualitatively objective," and I think that's what has happened here.

I am unfamiliar with the phrase "qualitatively objective". How are you defining it?

[BurgerBeast]

I am unfamiliar with the phrase "qualitatively objective". How are you defining it?

Just both qualitative and objective.

People often confuse absolute/relative, quantitative/qualitative, and objective/subjective.

It often underlies semantic disagreements over the various types of opinions and their appropriate weights. It can be helpful to consider where a concept fits on each scale before considering how to approach it.

As an example, when people dismiss the grade given to them by an English professor as "subjective," they're almost always wrong.

[BurgerBeast]

So, 8 pages in we still have two views. One side sees the mechanics as the rules and the fluff as helpful suggestions. The other side sees the mechanics and the fluff both as rules. I think the only thing we can agree on is that everyone should agree on a norm for the table, and if they can't accept a particular table's norm, find another table.

In my opinion this is a misrepresentation of the disagreement.

Two my understanding, the two camps are:

1. People who think players have or ought to have 100% control over their own character's thoughts, feelings, and actions, under any and all circumstances, as a basic tenet of D&D, and if they do not they are being treated unjustly
2. People who disagree

The fluff/mechanics dispute doesn't seem to necessarily match up with this, as the views on fluff/mechanics seem more diverse among the camps, and both camps seem less "dug-in" on this issue.

[Arial Black]

Not to speak with any kind of authority for BurgerBeast, but you just made the same reversal that everyone else is making. You assume the GM/table is dictating what must be as opposed to what must not be.

He's saying that PCs with levels in barbarian:-

* ARE uncomfortable with city walls (dictating what MUST be)

AND

* saying that there is no idea space that allows for such PCs that ARE comfortable with city walls (dictating what CANNOT be in official D&D 5E games, unless they houserule)

So he is dictating both what must be and what must not be.

In my first example he dictated both that the kid must not have blue bubble gum as his favourite flavour, AND dictating that it must be chocolate.

In my second example he dictated that my barbarian PC must not have blue as his favourite colour, and dictated that it must be red.

What difference are you seeing that I'm not?

[Arial Black]

No that's not better analogy for my stance. That's an analogy for the straw man stance that everyone keeps repeating, in place of my actual stance.

Your stance, according to your posts, is that PCs with levels in barbarian MUST be uncomfortable within city walls, AND that there is no idea space which allows for PCs with levels in barbarian to be comfortable within city walls, AND that these are 'rules' just as much as the rule that barbarians hit die is a d12.

If that is not your stance, let us know.


Good. The only difference, for me, is that the DM has some control over the PCs. For example, the minute a PC turns in evil in my campaigns (through action or magic), I remove the character from the player's control. That is very high degree of control, and it's totally fine.

That's not the same thing. The DM can decide the consequences for what the player chose to do, but the DM cannot choose for the PCs to act a certain way (sans magic) because it's the player who makes those choices.

The problem we are having is that you are making those choices (how the PC feels) that belong to the player, not the DM.


It's really not collaborating when one person has more authority - but that's a nit-pick. I'm not being argumentative when I say that I do not think this is a good idea. Generally, the more exceptions a players asks for, the more "special snowflake" he is, and even if he isn't, it just opens the door for more misunderstandings between the player and the DM, with higher stakes because the investment is higher.

If a player creates an urchin barbarian who was brought up in a city and has no problem with walls, he is not 'asking for an exception to the rules' because that is a completely rules-legal choice!

You've mentioned that 'the rules' say that Rage is the core ability of the barbarian character class. Not every member of a barbarian culture will have levels in the barbarian class, only those warriors who embrace that rage.

Cool. No argument here.

All a player needs to do to justify realising his character concept using the barbarian class is to explain how the Rage is embraced at the core of his character. Being a member of a barbarian tribe is not a requirement! Being brought up outside a city is not a requirement. The only requirement is that the Rage makes sense for this character.

My latest PC is a Scourge Aasimar, the kind that is full of fury and hates evil and can burn with radiant energy which consumes anyone within 10 feet including the aasimar, including himself. That's where my Rage makes sense for this level 3 Berserker barbarian noble background aasimar. Aasimar are born to human parents, and his noble parents took his birth as a blessing. Note that I chose the Berserker path because it better represents the Rage AND because I felt that choosing an animal totem was inappropriate for someone who is very definitely not from a barbarian culture.

Why would my PC be afraid of walls?

If you want to limit yourself to stereotypes, you can; they have their place. But it is simply untrue that the rules of 5E allow only stereotypes as PCs!


Well, you've said two different things here:

"The DM says no, your PC's favourite colour is red." - this is a major problem, as has rightly been pointed out by many people. But that's also why I've never advocated it (which many people seem to misunderstand). When the DM says "your PC's favourite colour is red" he has crossed a line.

"There is no idea space available in my game world that allows for people with class levels in barbarian to have blue as their favourite colour," - this is different. The DM is not deciding for you, in this case. He is merely limiting the available choices. Hey, he might even have a good reason. This is why it would be better to just ask/clarify than to become indignant.

That's bogus. If a DM states that any PC with levels in barbarian MUST be from a barbarian culture, then his claim that 'these are the rules' is unfounded. There is no rule which says so, and there are quotable rules that give the lie to such a notion; specifically the rules which allow any class to have any background.

Further, even if the player chooses to play a barbarian from an actual barbarian culture and who has never seen a city wall before, it is still wrong for a DM to compel any feeling or behaviour. The DM might, as part of his narration, suggest that the walls are making you feel uncomfortable, but if the player decides to explore a ruined cellar/basement then the DM is acting beyond his authority if he denies that option for that PC on 'uncomfortable with walls' grounds that the DM chose. It's up to the player, not the DM, to decide how his PC copes with walls or anything else, sans magic.

[pwykersotz]

He's saying that PCs with levels in barbarian:-

* ARE uncomfortable with city walls (dictating what MUST be)

AND

* saying that there is no idea space that allows for such PCs that ARE comfortable with city walls (dictating what CANNOT be in official D&D 5E games, unless they houserule)

So he is dictating both what must be and what must not be.

In my first example he dictated both that the kid must not have blue bubble gum as his favourite flavour, AND dictating that it must be chocolate.

In my second example he dictated that my barbarian PC must not have blue as his favourite colour, and dictated that it must be red.

What difference are you seeing that I'm not?

Your first point is, I think, the crux of the misunderstanding. It illustrates why you reframed your examples as you did. When I refer to 'what must be' I don't mean laying down any particular restriction or environmental detail. I mean forcing a specific character action. Telling someone that they feel comfortable or uncomfortable or hot or cold or joyful or miserable does not force character action, it frames it. So by the definition you appear to be using, it's saying what must be. By the definition I am using it is not, because the character has utter freedom within that idea space.

They don't have the freedom to ignore that idea space, but they do have the freedom to choose how to interact with it. They could not want to haggle or party like Chaosmancer mentioned. They could express a nervous tic. They could go get drunk. They could find the local arena and fight until their blood boils enough that they can overcome the unease of the walls.

I hope that illustrates the divide as I see it a bit.

Edit: With regards to your Urchin Barbarian, the goal should not be to handwave restrictions. It should be to reconcile them. Urchin doesn't specify that you aren't uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, so this should be totally possible, if a little unintuitive.

[mgshamster]

Without getting deeper into the issue, the word "subjective" is often used incorrectly to describe things that are "qualitatively objective,"

Oh my God, the new manager at my work did that to me the other week and it pissed me off.

I've got these these R&D parts that require hundred of measurements that I have to do manually in order to determine exactly where the failure point is. It's a huge pain in the ass and requires a lot of time.

I was discussing the data with the new manager, and he said (paraphrased), "Looks like you don't always know where the failure point is. That sounds​ like subjective data to me. On this part it could be here, on that part it could be there. Pretty subjective."

Oh my God, no! That's not what subjective means!

Also, I just noticed that I originally read your sentence wrong. You said Qualitatively Objective. My boss tried to claim something that was Quantitatively Objective was actually subjective.

[Arial Black]

Your first point is, I think, the crux of the misunderstanding. It illustrates why you reframed your examples as you did. When I refer to 'what must be' I don't mean laying down any particular restriction or environmental detail. I mean forcing a specific character action. Telling someone that they feel comfortable or uncomfortable or hot or cold or joyful or miserable does not force character action, it frames it. So by the definition you appear to be using, it's saying what must be. By the definition I am using it is not, because the character has utter freedom within that idea space.

They don't have the freedom to ignore that idea space, but they do have the freedom to choose how to interact with it. They could not want to haggle or party like Chaosmancer mentioned. They could express a nervous tic. They could go get drunk. They could find the local arena and fight until their blood boils enough that they can overcome the unease of the walls.

Alright, how I choose to 'interact with that idea space' is for my PC to act like he isn't bothered by walls one tiny bit.


Edit: With regards to your Urchin Barbarian, the goal should not be to handwave restrictions. It should be to reconcile them. Urchin doesn't specify that you aren't uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, so this should be totally possible, if a little unintuitive.

That's the point: it is not a restriction for the barbarian class to be uncomfortable within city walls! There is no restriction to handwave!

The idea that the examples of class fluff are actual 5E 'rules' with the same veracity as hit die type is entirely bogus. The rules are in the rules part, entitled Class Features. 'Uncomfortable within city walls' is not a class feature of the barbarian.

If the fluff were actually game 'rules' then every single PC with levels in the barbarian class would be required to be ALL of these:-

* a human with furs and an axe

AND

* a half-orc who fights bare-handed

AND

* a dwarf frothing at the mouth

But the book then says that these are different barbarians. Oh, so that means that PC barbarians MUST be one of these three, because it would be breaking the 'rules' to play a different (special snowflake) barbarian!

It is an utterly absurd notion that any fluff for any of the classes are 'rules'. The 'rules' for each class are their Class Features; no more, no less.

[Xetheral]

Just both qualitative and objective.

People often confuse absolute/relative, quantitative/qualitative, and objective/subjective.

It often underlies semantic disagreements over the various types of opinions and their appropriate weights. It can be helpful to consider where a concept fits on each scale before considering how to approach it.

As an example, when people dismiss the grade given to them by an English professor as "subjective," they're almost always wrong.

I think you may be using a non-standard definition of either "qualitative" or "objective".

A given quality is either well-defined, or it is not well-defined. Making a judgment regarding a quality that is not well-defined requires first forming an opinion on which definition of that quality to use, and/or how to apply that definition. But, to be objective a judgment must not be influenced by opinion.

So, the quality in question being well-defined is a necessary condition for a judgment regarding that quality to be objective. The question then becomes: how often are the judged qualities well-defined? This may vary by field, but in my experience qualities are usually defined descriptively, and the ambiguities inherent in language make a well-defined descriptive definition extraordinarily rare.

Unless there exists well-defined qualitative grading rubrics for English professors, and English professors almost always use such rubrics, your claim that English professors "almost always" do not grade subjectively cannot be true. (Alternatively, if they almost always use well-defined quantitative rubrics, your claim may be true, but would then not be an example of your broader point.)

Perhaps you're using "objective" to mean "unbiased"? If so I certainly agree that its possible most English professors give unbiased grades. But while objective and unbiased are synonyms, not everything that is unbiased will be objective, and vice versa, so they aren't equivalent.

It is, of course, also possible that I'm the one using non-standard definitions. If you think that is the case, please explain why. For reference, I used Oxford definitions of "objective", "qualitative", "quality", and "opinion". I'm using "well-defined" in the same sense it has in mathematics.

[pwykersotz]

Alright, how I choose to 'interact with that idea space' is for my PC to act like he isn't bothered by walls one tiny bit.

That's the point: it is not a restriction for the barbarian class to be uncomfortable within city walls! There is no restriction to handwave!

The idea that the examples of class fluff are actual 5E 'rules' with the same veracity as hit die type is entirely bogus. The rules are in the rules part, entitled Class Features. 'Uncomfortable within city walls' is not a class feature of the barbarian.

If the fluff were actually game 'rules' then every single PC with levels in the barbarian class would be required to be ALL of these:-

* a human with furs and an axe

AND

* a half-orc who fights bare-handed

AND

* a dwarf frothing at the mouth

But the book then says that these are different barbarians. Oh, so that means that PC barbarians MUST be one of these three, because it would be breaking the 'rules' to play a different (special snowflake) barbarian!

It is an utterly absurd notion that any fluff for any of the classes are 'rules'. The 'rules' for each class are their Class Features; no more, no less.

:smallsigh:

Your actions are ignoring the ideaspace, not working within it. You could just as easily have said "I try to ignore my discomfort, but I end up talking a little more loudly than I otherwise would and tightly gripping the haft of my axe occasionally." Of course you know this. I don't know why I'm bothering, other than I really want a mutual understanding on this for some reason. I'm not under the illusion there will be an agreement, of course.

In terms of the fluff, you're right insofar as you try to interpret things through the lens of strict RAW. But fluff still matters. And the shared imagination of the table matters. And if you didn't believe that, you wouldn't have bothered to justify your Rage for your Scourge Aasimar. You can just as easily say "A name isn't rules. It's just fluff. I activate my Rage by thinking happy thoughts of kittens and it fills me with joy that activates this feature." That you bothered to justify the Rage at all shows that you are more in agreement with the point than you let on. That fluff matters. That restrictions make a character interesting. That breaking preconceived table notions requires justification. And that it's lazy and unimaginative to break those notions without justification. You might not agree with others (and I have disagreements myself) about the severity of where the line is drawn, but I think you have demonstrated that you intuitively agree that there is a line.

If I'm mistaken on this, let me know.

[Xetheral]

Just both qualitative and objective.

People often confuse absolute/relative, quantitative/qualitative, and objective/subjective.

It often underlies semantic disagreements over the various types of opinions and their appropriate weights. It can be helpful to consider where a concept fits on each scale before considering how to approach it.

As an example, when people dismiss the grade given to them by an English professor as "subjective," they're almost always wrong.

As a follow-up, I overlooked an even simpler argument that you are using non-standard definitions: your post suggests that objective/subjective is a scale, whereas the Oxford definition of "objective" implies that it is binary. Under that definition, if a judgment is "influenced by personal feelings or opinions" it is not objective. Only the presence of the influence matters, not the degree, and that makes objectiveness a binary determination.

[Unoriginal]

People should remember that subverting, playing with or breaking a trope is STILL a trope. And despite those who screams "special snowflakes" or "Mary Sue" or other terms like that anytime a character does so, not conforming to the trope at 100% is often more memorable.



A lot less people would remember Merlin if authors didn't give make him the son of the Devil despite being on the side of the heroes, for exemple.

[Vaz]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with this philosophy, but...

Problems arise when one character's actions become irreconcilable with another party member, with the rest of the group, or with the story. If one character decides to commit immoral acts in front of the others, who have decided to play good heroes, then the game degenerates into PVP, which may be disagreeable to one or more players. If one player wants to abandon the adventuring life to rule a kingdom, then they are essentially requesting that table time be devoted to a personal side-project when everyone else is expecting to adventure for the whole time. If one player decides to focus on taking over the major city of the campaign, then he may be up against an impossible task, because of the sheer number of high-level, organized power groups who will simply not let it happen, and the player may feel like they've been "cheated" out of a fair game by a DM who doesn't play properly because "anything should be possible."

Which is regardless, completely and utterly of the fact that a barbarian is 'ruled' to not like walls.

Would you like to try again?

I can play a character who can (maybe) pretend to not speak common, or any other language of the rest of the party. Why? No reason. Just because. It can even be a mukticlass Druid/Paladin/Barbarian that doesn't like walls, wears leather armour and follows and Oath. None of that is respective of the fact that my character just would not fit within the group.

You need to rule zero the **** and if nkt session zero, or out of Character, in front of group, discuss what is happening.

I've run party schisms before and had written a campaign so that parties come back together, and had other campaigns include the death of former party members who have broken stories.

As a DM, I have an overarching story. Who gives a **** if the BBEG ended up getting away or not being the target, because the [Epsilon] class decided to attack the [Ypsilon] class based on in character decisions and had to prevent the [Epsilon] from raising the Undead?

What would have happened had Gimli disagreed to the extent of attacking Aragorn and preventing bringing the traitorous spirits to account for breaking their oath? The grand storyline would change. But it would allow for the players to have a PvP bit. I would seriosuly stop a game when it came to unplanned PvP and make sure everyone was on board beforehand.

If a player tried to sneak attack a fellow party member, the other players (not characters) are made infinitely aware of what the attackers action is.

Let's use my example of a Warlock. My warlock was a newcomer to the party. The party often made use of sending stones to jump between one and the other. The fighter was a big user of them; i got randomly given a stone that I knew out of character was a sending stone. My 'intro' to the group was as part of a subplot fighting teleporting phase shifting teleporters. A few sessions after, the fighter use the stone for the first time to bump next to me. I consult my notes, check it's the the first time I ever seen it in use. The fighter is on low HP because of a previous combat. But it looks like any other teleport I've seen so far.

I quickly talk with DM and the fighter, let them know my thought process. I get told to make an Arcana Check. I fail. And unleash Eldritch Blast and a Quickened Armor of Agathys, a 'lucky' crit downing the fighter, and then at least allowing my +8+d4 to Perception checks to realise that in the teleport afterglow it was a party member. Natural 1.

Let's put another into it, there goes a Death Save. At that, the DM says it's clear the 'warlock done ****ed up' and I realise it's the fighter, at which i manage to Spare the Dying on him.

How was this solved? An OOC chat with DM and relevant player and the knowledge that other party members could join in if they wished on either side.

None of that in integral to class based RP limitations which are utter horse**** and need throwing out the window. Imagine if the warlock had been written that a Warlock had been written that it was unsure of any overt magical display it would instantly go on full on attack mode on the caster, even if they are familiar with the user. That is along the lines of thinking that these 'RP rules' have been written, because they are how a certain type of individual would react and then thanks to idiotic wording gives credence to moronic thinking like the OP's post.

[Vaz]

People should remember that subverting, playing with or breaking a trope is STILL a trope. And despite those who screams "special snowflakes" or "Mary Sue" or other terms like that anytime a character does so, not conforming to the trope at 100% is often more memorable.



A lot less people would remember Merlin if authors didn't give make him the son of the Devil despite being on the side of the heroes, for exemple.
Subverting the trope os thentrope, not necessarily how, or in what mannernthey subvert the trope.

Having a CG Drow is hardly bounds for 'oh he's Drizzt Mk2', but making Drizzt Mk2 is being Drizzt Mk2. Being different for the sake of being different is also a trope, but there's nothing to say that there are no High Elf Barbarians or Dragonborn Wizards who subvert the synergistic options/expectant trope (cool story, i mistyped trope as tripe and it seemed accurate) 'just because'.

[Chaosmancer]

In my opinion this is a misrepresentation of the disagreement.

Two my understanding, the two camps are:

1. People who think players have or ought to have 100% control over their own character's thoughts, feelings, and actions, under any and all circumstances, as a basic tenet of D&D, and if they do not they are being treated unjustly
2. People who disagree

The fluff/mechanics dispute doesn't seem to necessarily match up with this, as the views on fluff/mechanics seem more diverse among the camps, and both camps seem less "dug-in" on this issue.

I have yet to see someone taking the first stance you laid out.

Yes, players ought to have 100% control over their characters thoughts, feelings and actions under most circumstances but there are exceptions. Very very few of these exceptions are tied to specific classes though.

As was brought up earlier in this thread or in the Druid thread, Paladins must hold an oath, but the exact nature of that oath and whether or not the player chooses to follow it is up to the player. Clerics must have a deity, but which deity, which domain, and how they feel about that deity are all up to the player.


That fluff matters. That restrictions make a character interesting. That breaking preconceived table notions requires justification. And that it's lazy and unimaginative to break those notions without justification. You might not agree with others (and I have disagreements myself) about the severity of where the line is drawn, but I think you have demonstrated that you intuitively agree that there is a line.

Why is “I was born to a noble family” not enough of a justification for the barbarian to not feel uncomfortable in a city?

Why is “I find these large structures and fortifications fascinating” not enough of a justification?

Words like “lazy” “umimaginative” “special snowflake” keep getting tossed around, but we aren’t anywhere close to where I think those lines are normally drawn.

In fact, the problem isn’t that I need to justify my character’s existence (I do that myself when writing the character because that is one of the joys of character creation) it is that no justification seems to be good enough. I’ve been called a “special snowflake” multiple times on this thread, and I’ve only stretched the limits of good character design once, and that was the wizard with no written language, but everyone alternative barbarian who it wouldn’t make sense to be uncomfortable within the city (they are nobility, lived on the streets, just doesn’t care) have all also been called “special snowflakes” who would be unacceptable at the table. This is frustrating, as it seems to be limits for the purpose of limits with no possible exception.

[Unoriginal]

The disagreement is between people who think "a character must follow the archetypal RP suggestions of their classes as described in the PHB, and there is no place at the table for characters who don't do it", and those who disagree.

[BurgerBeast]

The disagreement is between people who think "a character must follow the archetypal RP suggestions of their classes as described in the PHB, and there is no place at the table for characters who don't do it", and those who disagree.

No, it isn't. This is a blatant mischaracterization.

No one has made the claim that "characters must follow the archetypal RP suggestions of their classes as described in the PHB, and there is no place at the table for characters who don't do it." In fact, the people who have been accused of this have repeatedly replied that they respect and even appreciate deviations from the archetype.

On the other hand, when I characterized the argument as:


Two my understanding, the two camps are:

1. People who think players have or ought to have 100% control over their own character's thoughts, feelings, and actions, under any and all circumstances, as a basic tenet of D&D, and if they do not they are being treated unjustly
2. People who disagree

I was not inventing this stance. It's right here:


...if you're done trying to paint my stance as something other than what it is is this:

A characters THOUGHTS, and FEELINGS are things that should only EVER be up to the player. And yes, completely. A DM does not have the right to say, "no, your character feels x way about something" in direct defiance of what the player wants for his/her character.

If you can't see this, you're just being willfully arrogant.