Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 287
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Banned
     
    Anderlith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    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.
    Last edited by Anderlith; 2017-03-14 at 11:47 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Banned
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    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)
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post

    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.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Banned
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    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?

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
    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.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    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.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    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.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    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."


    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Heh, this thread appears to be right in your wheel house.
    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.
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2017-03-15 at 09:13 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2017-03-15 at 09:36 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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
    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.
    Last edited by Knaight; 2017-03-15 at 09:39 AM.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    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".
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2017-03-15 at 09:56 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Banned
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Common sense in a more modern version means prudent and good judgement.

    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
    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?

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
    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.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
    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".

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Orlando FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    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.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Banned
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Vaz; 2017-03-15 at 11:25 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    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)

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Corsair14 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2017-03-15 at 11:26 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post

    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.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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)

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    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?
    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.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2017-03-15 at 01:06 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Banned
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    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 more than once; 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. 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".

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MadBear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    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.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    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.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Vinland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •