Roleplaying Rules

[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 ) 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.

Spoiler

Show

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 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/shows...&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/shows...&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 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.

[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.