Roleplaying Rules

[Tetrasodium]

by a certain sub set of people who have this hobby. There are some people who do not accept the fluff dichotomy. And on that topic I'll say no more.


@Red Mage:
Thank you, I think we've wrapped it up. Appreciate the back and forth.

Regardless of how much weight that you place on it, Fluff/tropes/etc are still the generally accepted terms. No matter how many times marketers at the different individual automakers usenames like "Sport Activity Vehicle" to refer to their SUV's, they are still going to fall under the generally accepted term "SUV" because most people understand the general concept that the term conveys.

[Addaran]

To go with the city barbarian example, i'm currently reading a book where the character is exactly that.
The mayor's daughter, raised all proper in a small city. Being always stuck inside the small village, having to be polite and proper and eventually seeing people she cared about die unleashed her rage. Now she's a barbarian with berzerker-ish rages and she stays herself, even if it's not proper. On the other hand, she have no problem being hedged in walls (she'll even be happy to have comfort at the inn after a few weeks travel) because she choosed to be there. And she doesn't have any problems with crowd. She even went to the capital of the kingdom.

He said it's wrong "in the same way that there are wrong choices for roleplaying any character." He did not say it's wrong in the sense that it is not permitted, RAW. So, no citation needed because his claim isn't predicated on a citation.

I don't see how you can call that "wrong" if you're following the rules and choices. It's just personal preference and bias. For me it's extremely right and since RAW doesn't take a position here, it's just opinion vs opinion.

[Chaosmancer]

Time and again this thread stuns me. I really can't believe some people are so strict in their games.


Again I will ask, what exactly are you gaining by preventing a Noble background on a Barbarian character?


I've made a Totem Barbarian Sage who was the apprentice shaman for his tribe, and decided to leave and learn about the world.

I've made a Barbarian Knight, who is questing to prove their strength to their lord.


Are we really saying these characters are too crazy to be allowed, but would be fine if I made them Bards and Fighters instead? If a concept is bad for a game, it is bad for a game, not bad unless you picked a different class so you fit a more traditional archetype. The entire point of archetypes is that they change over time, that new ones are created by combinations of the old, that characters alter the archetype to make themselves unique characters instead of cardboard cut outs.

[djreynolds]

Lets stick with the barbarian.

Where does rage, more specifically, your rage come from... its source?

Were you part of a tribe and taught this? Years of young men and women beating each other like a wolf pack.

Are you a Viking warrior who is taught to tap into a primal whatever and berserk

Perhaps you were a rogue in a party... and got separated from the party and was forced to tap into your survival instincts just to survive, Drizzt comes to mind

Perhaps your rage comes from somewhere different, you are a rebel fighting oppression.

You rage comes from your undying love of your family or your squad

Or you need medication

I think what ad_hoc is saying is there is a cost perhaps to roleplaying this.

Is that so bad? Where does this rage come from? What makes you a barbarian?

I have no problem with someone multiclassing to a barbarian... but you should have a reason other than to obtain reckless attack. Perhaps the DM will allow an opportunity for this to happen.

Say a fighter in on a mission and his party dies and he is forced to survive.

A paladin down to his last hit point, channels his beliefs and spontaneously begins to rage. Or the same paladin lived with a tribe when they found him half-dead.

I can see a ruffian living on the streets, and instead of living by his wits like a rogue she taps into a primal aspect. And then you as a player has to explain how she learned to use all martial weapons, perhaps a city guard saw potential in her and taught her to swing a sword, and she was stoned by others and has unarmored defense.

Make it up

[BoringInfoGuy]

Before the rules on Race, Class, or Background, there are some rules about how the rules work.

An important one is that Specific Beats General.
Short version:
Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
See PHB pg 7 for the full reading.

Well,
Perhaps in some rulebooks, in the PHB however it's clearly indicated that the information in the class section is rules. Now, there's lots of variety in the way a Barbarian can be, but it's going to contain shared concepts, and mechanics aren't shared concepts.

It even says so: "Class shapes the way you think about the world and interact with it and your relationship with other people and powers in the multiverse." (PHB 45).

As a rule, Barbarians homelands are from the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt. (PHB 46)

As a general rule, a Barbarian homeland is tundra or grasslands or similar.

However, the Urchin background specifies the character grew up on the streets of a city. A specific statement / rule beats a general one, so the RAW rule is that any particular Barbarian with the Urchin background grew up in the City.

Why does it bother you so much that you aren't roleyplaying a Barbarian correctly by making them Urban?

Whether you take the view that the descriptions are fluff, or the entire book is rules, there is no justification to tell anyone that they are not playing a Barbarian correctly for picking any of the backgrounds found in the PHB. Certainly some backgrounds seem tailor made for certain classes. But to decide that means only those backgrounds are correct choices is NOT supported in the rules.

If it's really no skin off your back, you can do what you want and it's fine, why would you even bother to post?

This all suggests that it really does bother you that your way isn't the right way.

There is a difference between saying "This is how I like to play in my group, feel free to use whatever works for your group," and "My style is the right way to play, but hey, if you don't mind being wrong, do whatever you want."

Most people - hopefully - can recognize that just because a certain play style or gaming philosophy works for them, that does not make it a universal truth that should be applied to all groups.

Pretty much the same thing I'd do if I had a player who insisted that their Mary Sue character knew all languages or could cast Wish on demand all day every day, or invented their own Artifact.

All of these examples involve a player ignoring the specific rules on how languages are learned, Wish is cast, or artifacts are created.

ad_hoc didn't say, but it's implied, that the player was wrong to ignore the Barbarian class concept that offensively in the first place.

The class entry literally states: "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals...to a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue.... Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt." (PHB 46)

Creating an Urchin Barbarian and saying they come from the Big City, love going to hoity toity parties and adore as many people as possible in a room is literally the opposite of what a Barbarian is in D&D. So yeah, if you do that, you're doing it wrong, there's no two ways about it.

You can do it if your DM agrees, and that's fine, but you're wrong. And it's fine, nobody outside your game will care...but if you insist that you're doing it correctly, you're wrong.

Unlike the examples above, creating an Urchin Barbarian is well within the rules.

The rules for creating a character is to pick a race, a class, and a background. Nothing about having to only pick backgrounds that fit the standard class stereotypes. If a specific choice of background conficts with the general description of the class, then the specific rule wins.

Instead, you have ADDED a house rule that limits player options during character creation, and then declared everyone not following your house rule as playing wrong.

Adventurers are extraordinary people.
Not all from The Barbarian lands are of the Barbarian Class. Not all of those who are of the Barbarian Class take up the Life of an adventurer. If adventurers are extraordinary people, as said in the rules, then they are the ones who are very remarkable or unusual in some way.

Therefore players making character choices that vary from the norm is normal and expected.

[Arkhios]

Just food for thought...

John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke a.k.a. Tarzan, if anyone, is a Barbarian with the Noble background.

Isn't our imagination supposed to be fed by literature and other entertainment? Or are we now supposed to ignore anything most of us have grown up with reading, watching, or listening? Why on earth do you guys have so strict mindsets? Worse than the people who didn't have the privilege to play a (modern) roleplaying game with the characters they wrote about (being so new a hobby, considering that Tarzan of the Apes was first published in 1912 and The First Modern RPG: Dungeons & Dragons was published in 1974; 62 years apart).

[djreynolds]

So remember you have 2 levels before you take an archetype.

Level 1... you were born on streets and survived in the cement jungle

level 2.. you search for others like you, you have heard rumors of a tribe of Wildman that the city army fought off

level 3... you find the Wildman and they take you in and train you.

Whatever, make it up so that it is plausible

[Arkhios]

So remember you have 2 levels before you take an archetype a sub-class.

Fixed it for you.

Unless you're a Cleric (Domain; 1st level), a Druid (Circle; 2nd level), a Sorcerer (Sorcerous Origin; 1st level), or a Warlock (Patron; 1st level).

[NNescio]

Fixed it for you.

Unless you're a Cleric (Domain; 1st level), a Druid (Circle; 2nd level), a Sorcerer (Sorcerous Origin; 1st level), or a Warlock (Patron; 1st level).

Or Wizard (Arcane Tradition; 2nd level).

[Arkhios]

Or Wizard (Arcane Tradition; 2nd level).

Oops, forgot that one. Thanks!

[djreynolds]

But a barbarian has a couple levels to explain why

If your are a street urchin, how did the panda bears clan train you in the ways of Jack Black?

And I do not want to hear your village was killed by Orcs... by Halflings okay

Otherwise, that's the point a background and class creates an interesting backstory to tie it all together.

Like mine in a billionaire who's mother and father were killed, and I was raised by this crazy butler..........

[Arkhios]

Otherwise, that's the point a background and class creates an interesting backstory to tie it all together.

You have a point, no question there. I guess I just woke up on the wrong foot, since I had a compelling urge to be snide. My apologies.

Back to my post a way back in the thread (and multiple times before, elsewhere).

Being a Paladin, for example, is to answer a calling. It doesn't matter who you are, or where you were born.

Mine was born to a clan of a northern clan known as the Winter Wolves, who, by the way, despite their classification as a clan, live within a society of their own, settled in one place. Not precisely within a city, but a settlement with a ruler and rules to abide to which defines their own culture.
A Culture which might seem barbaric to the outsiders might not actually be so.

Vikings, for example, were very cultured in their own way, and despite their tendency to raid their neighbours regularly, they were much more than just barbaric raiders. They had a social hierarchy reminiscent to that of a kingdom, and Jarl actually translates to something akin to a king. Being a fearsome warrior was part of their cultural identity.

Similarly, for my paladin's people, being a warrior is both a life-style as well as cultural thing. Being a warrior does not, however, dictate that a person couldn't strive to achieve more or something else entirely.

Due to an ancestor who united the two previously separated clans of Winter Wolves and Tundra Wolves, my character was trained in the basics of Arcane knowledge as was everyone before him, just because the ancestor just happened to be an Archmage, and thus teaching the Nature of Magic became a family tradition, regardless of what career everyone chose to pursue later. Mine chose to become a blacksmith, who out of as much as necessity as duty to his clan, took part in several battles. In those battles he grew to be quite a remarkable warrior as well. Long story short, his family was devoted to the Old Faith (sort of like the druidic religion), and as a warrior he also revered Kord, the god of battle and storms, and so it happened that he felt a calling to become a paladin, and to protect the Old Faith and ancient traditions properly, he swore the Oath of the Ancients in the presence of the local Druidic Circles.

TL;DR: A character's background as a specific rule trumps the generic rule, but sometimes with a bit of creativity (and a DM's consent) you can entwine the class and background together seamlessly.

[djreynolds]

You have a point, no question there. I guess I just woke up on the wrong foot, since I had a compelling urge to be snide. My apologies.

Please no worries, you always have a valid opinion.

5E's issue, and it isn't one, is there is too much freedom to pick from that class and that class... but this allows players to create the character they want. That's always been the dilemma of a "free system"

I don't mind ad_hoc's idea, your atypical barbarian probably does feel hemmed in by walls and longs for the steps, like sailor to the sea... it freedom.

The issue with 5E is there is no real sacrifice or work to multiclassing, especially with bounded accuracy/CR and magic items... the minimum requirements can often be fine. I mean 16 as your attack stat is doable.

Just don't come to my table with crap, I have put work in as a DM, so should the PC

IMO, and I'll probably get hung for it, I don't think some classes should multiclass. Like once you become a paladin... that should be it. You are at the pinnacle.

[Contrast]

I said, it doesn't bother me what others do in their games, but in my games Barbarians are Barbarians in the PHB, and street thugs don't fit that motif.

Right I got that, but my question was why. I can roleplay my city bruiser identically if I use the fighter rules or the barbarian rules. The only person who will actively notice the difference during gameplay will be me because there will be different things written down on my character sheet, the character themselves is otherwise identical. So I don't see an argument that the character wouldn't fit into the setting. At which point you're saying no because...? I personally don't think 'if I was playing a barbarian that isn't how I would play them' is a good enough reason to tell someone else they're roleplaying wrong and they're not allowed.

To put a similar thought process. In your setting there are no dragons. Someone wants to play a dragon sorceror. You have two options - you either ban dragon sorceror or you just come up with an alternative fluff explanation for how they got their powers and let them play using the rules for a dragon sorceror. Option 1 leaves you with an annoyed player. Option 2 hurts no-one whatsoever (now sure, if they insist they want to be dragon related you have the right to say no, in much the same way that if your barbarians background was as an uneducated nomad and they're trying to roleplay them as an educated librarian you may have to step in). Some people in this thread seem to be advocating option 1 not only as the better option but as the always right one and for the life of me I don't understand why you would take that approach.

I said it earlier but I think it bears repeating - I'm not saying you shouldn't play a character who embraces the tropes sometimes (or even most of the time). But suggesting people have to or they're roleplaying wrong? That idea is laughable. As in I literally laughed out loud when I first read this thread.

[JellyPooga]

if your barbarians background was as an uneducated nomad and they're trying to roleplay them as an educated librarian you may have to step in

I agree with most of your post, but this...? I dunno, dude. Have you met many librarians? I'm not entirely convinced that the Immigrant Song isn't an appropriate "entrance theme" for some of them...

[Chaosmancer]

Just food for thought...

John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke a.k.a. Tarzan, if anyone, is a Barbarian with the Noble background.

Wait wait.

I'll admit my biggest exposure to Tarzan is from Disney.

But his real name is John Clayton, that.... that has the potential to be so symbolic if the Disney character Clayton is still supposed to show up in the Tarzan stories. Even if not, that has fascinating potential.

Man, I knew it was worth it to stick to this thread, thank you so much

[pwykersotz]

To go with the city barbarian example, i'm currently reading a book where the character is exactly that.
The mayor's daughter, raised all proper in a small city. Being always stuck inside the small village, having to be polite and proper and eventually seeing people she cared about die unleashed her rage. Now she's a barbarian with berzerker-ish rages and she stays herself, even if it's not proper. On the other hand, she have no problem being hedged in walls (she'll even be happy to have comfort at the inn after a few weeks travel) because she choosed to be there. And she doesn't have any problems with crowd. She even went to the capital of the kingdom.

I see you're reading NPCs. Great books.

[Tetrasodium]

I agree with most of your post, but this...? I dunno, dude. Have you met many librarians? I'm not entirely convinced that the Immigrant Song isn't an appropriate "entrance theme" for some of them...

as welcome to nightvale proved Librarians are some of the most fearsome creatures known to man.. but those poor kids will never be the same after their victory.

[Arial Black]

Barbarian character class != in-game barbarian culture.

The characters in our games are not aware of the 5E rules under which they are created. The meta game is un-knowable by them.

'Barbarian' was a Greek word that meant 'does nor speak Greek'. It took on connotations like 'uncivilised' because every culture thinks it's the best culture and the Greeks were no different in that regard.

So we use the term 'barbarian' to describe a culture that is not 'civilised' in terms of cities or the like. Or we use it pejoratively to describe 'bad' behaviour.

So we might describe a tribe of 'barbarians'. We know what you mean. You might even believe that any of them would feel 'hemmed in by walls', on the grounds that they have lived their lives in the open.

But the crucial thing here is they do not ALL have levels in the barbarian character class! The meta game idea of 'character class' is not the same thing as an in-game culture.

Not all 'barbarians' in the game world have levels in the Barbarian class; only a portion of the best warriors would have levels in the class, or levels at all!

Meanwhile, not all characters who have levels in the Barbarian class have anything to do with any in-world 'barbarian' culture. It's a set of game mechanics, not a background. That is provable by way of the 'Background' section!

Sure, an individual DM may insist weird things for his own campaign, but it is in no way official D&D 5E 'rules' that a PC with Barbarian levels MUST be from a 'barbarian' culture. Further, what the personality quirks of their PC is up to the player, insofar as such a quirk is possible. 'Not being claustrophobic' is up to the player, 'Not liking mobile phones' is not possible because there are none in his world.

[RedMage125]

Strange that the "can't come from a city and must be uncomfortable in crowds" class feature was left out of the SRD. Someone should let WotC know about that oversight.

Right?

That is beside the point. He said it's not completely up to the player. You attempted to claim he literally said it's not up to the player at all.

When he is telling a Barbarian player "no, you can't decide how your character feels about being in a city", he is taking away something that IS completely up to a player. And he IS saying that such is "not up to the player at all".

You seem to think you are arguing a fine point of word semantics, but are missing the forest through the trees. I am objecting because the things that he is saying are NOT "completely up to the player" include things like thoughts, beliefs, and feelings are things that are ONLY completely up to the player.

Stop Straw Manning what I have been saying. I have not claimed that he said "nothing about what a payer thinks or feels is up to the player". That's asinine. He HAS, however, advocated that there are times when a DM just gets to say "regardless of your character's background or personality, I have decided how he feels about this situation". THAT is what I have been arguing. If the only way you can possibly defend that is to twist what I've said and say "well, it's not 100% being taken away from the player, so you should stop arguing with him", then you have either COMPLETELY FAILED to understand what I have been saying, or you are trying to defend him just to be adversarial yourself.

You really do have a problem with taking something that someone says, completely misinterpreting it, and then broadcasting falsehoods about people. You should be more careful.

You are talking about Straw Man Fallacy, and you are incorrect.

He has LITERALLY said that a Barbarian character's player does not get to decide how they feel about being in a city. I am misinterpreting NOTHING. There is no straw man.

Except the one you and Tanarii have been building about my stance.

This isn't what you read. Go back and look. The difference is not even a subtle one. He said "What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you."

There are limits to the amount of control a player has over his character, period. This is such a minor example of it that I can't figure out why you've picked this sword to fall on.

What elements of a character's beliefs are NOT completely up to a player, according to you?

How does the player NOT have 100% complete and SOLE AGENCY to decide how THEIR character feels about being in a city?

If you want to defend ad_hoc, defend what he's actually saying, which is what I'm contesting. Don't play word semantics and argue "well, he only wants to take away MOST of a player's agency over their character, not all of it, so you shouldn't argue with him". Because that is how your defense of him is coming across.

Even you can come up with examples of this, I should hope. At my table, it isn't. You fit in or you f@#k off. No special snowflakes at my table.

You want to play a character who believes he is a character in a roleplaying game in my campaign? No. You want to play an evil character in my campaign? No. As soon as you behave in overtly evil ways, or have your alignment magically altered, your character is forfeited. Consider him dead and re-roll. Next! Oh, you don't like it? That's cool. Go play somewhere else.

That isn't what he's talking about. And it's not what I've been objecting to. If you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID, I did say that if a player had a concept that would be disruptive, telling that player "please come up with a less disruptive character concept" is fine.

You seem to be able to make distinctions about word semantics with what ad_hoc says, but you have COMPLETELY MISSED what I have said TWICE and are claiming that I object to things I have said (twice) are well within acceptable DM/Player dynamics. It's one thing to say "please don't make that disruptive character at my table", and quite another to EVER tell a player "you don't get to decide how your character feels about this stimulus, I do".

I even gave you an example of a Barbarian, well within the style of classical barbarian tropes, who, upon entering a city for the first time, is filled with a sense of wonder and awe. Who is not uncomfortable, but curious. ad_hoc REALLY IS saying that the player doesn't get to decide that, and the Barbarian MUST be uncomfortable.

This is not a Straw Man. We have seen, in EXACT WORDS that this specific example is true. So no trying to accuse me of strawmanning. No trying to make false accusations that I am somehow "ignoring" specific word semantics of what he is saying. And no trying to accuse me of claiming something else about his stance.

If you want to defend ad_hoc's stance, then ACTUALLY DEFEND IT, if you can. Because he is advocating a level of adversariel DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, he REALLY IS telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play his "One True Way". Vogon appears to advocate the same.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

I don't care how ad_hoc plays at his table. The only "wrong way" to play is a way that is not fun for the players. Telling everyone else that we aren't "playing the game right", or that we're using "house rules" because his way is the only "right" way is not okay.

No, we aren't. This is tiresome.

@RedMage125:

It's this distinction, identified above by Tanarii, that you keep missing. You should stop writing replies and take some time to really think about this. You have a misconception about either logic or language that is LITERALLY making it impossible for you to understand the opposing view, here, and it's the type of error that will continue to lead to miscommunications in your future.

It has to do with statements in the negative about universals.

If Bob says "I have complete control of my characters thoughts, feelings, and actions" and Sally says "no, you don't," then you need to really think about what this means.

Sally has not said: "Bob, you have zero control over your character's thoughts, feelings, and emotions." Yet you seem to keep making this logical error.

Sally has in fact said: "Bob, there is at least one case in which you do not have complete control over your character's thoughts, feelings, and actions."

Believe me, if you don't sit down and think this through, you're going to have a lot more arguments in your future. You should care, because you'll be wrong.

I'm quite capable of critical examination of semantics and distinguishing between absolutes in order to make an objective argument, thank you.

You and tanarii, in fact, have been the ones building Straw Men, in fact, because at no point have I ever claimed that ad_hoc was saying "players have zero control" over thoughts and feelings. And such is not what I have been arguing.

So why don't you take your own advice about logic and language, and making assumptions. Your own tone is condescending, arrogant, and insulting, and YOU are the only one responsible for that. So take some care to actually read what OTHERS are saying, because it will help YOU to not have miscommunication in the future.

So, once again, what I AM objecting to, if you're done trying to paint my stance as something other than what it is is this:

A characters THOUGHTS, and FEELINGS are things that should only EVER be up to the player. And yes, completely. A DM does not have the right to say, "no, your character feels x way about something" in direct defiance of what the player wants for his/her character. And that is something ad_hoc IS advocating.

We're not talking about specific instances where game mechanics, such as enchantments, may have an effect on a character's mindset. We're talking about specific agency of a player over a character that is in full possession of their faculties. Outside of things like mental control being exerted over a character, the player CAN and SHOULD have 100% COMPLETE agency over internal mental factors of their character. To include what their character thinks about a person, place or thing, and how they FEEL about it. Those REALLY ARE things that only a player gets to decide, and ad_hoc REALLY IS saying "no, I get to tell you what that is, and it's only ever one specific thing based on which class you have". So, according to him, EVERY Barbarian ONLY responds to being in a city ONE way.

Whether you take the view that the descriptions are fluff, or the entire book is rules, there is no justification to tell anyone that they are not playing a Barbarian correctly for picking any of the backgrounds found in the PHB. Certainly some backgrounds seem tailor made for certain classes. But to decide that means only those backgrounds are correct choices is NOT supported in the rules.

There is a difference between saying "This is how I like to play in my group, feel free to use whatever works for your group," and "My style is the right way to play, but hey, if you don't mind being wrong, do whatever you want."

Most people - hopefully - can recognize that just because a certain play style or gaming philosophy works for them, that does not make it a universal truth that should be applied to all groups.

My God, yes.

THIS has been the crux of my point this whole time.

[BurgerBeast]

Gregor Clegane is unquestionably a barbarian. Dressing him in fancy armor doesn't change the fact that everyone is made uncomfortable when he;s around a said parties with the exception of the sadist Joffrey. His background is probably gladiator/folk hero or something given his history of swinning tournaments.

Well, this might be part of the problem. Gregor Clegane is not a barbarian, in my view. He's a big, strong, evil fighter.

Regardless of how much weight that you place on it, Fluff/tropes/etc are still the generally accepted terms. No matter how many times marketers at the different individual automakers usenames like "Sport Activity Vehicle" to refer to their SUV's, they are still going to fall under the generally accepted term "SUV" because most people understand the general concept that the term conveys.

The term is not what is being refuted. The concept is. The claim was never that fluff is a silly word, it was that fluff is a word assigned to a concept that is not a realized concept.

To go with the city barbarian example, i'm currently reading a book where the character is exactly that.

It won't help to bring in fictional characters and then claim to know which D&D class they best represent. This is because there will be disagreement over which class best represents them. It comes down to one's personal judgment.

Time and again this thread stuns me. I really can't believe some people are so strict in their games.

Well, I'm glad you said this because I think this really is the point. I don't think anyone is as strict as the detractors are making them out to be. Imposing minor restrictions on player freedoms is not the same as taking all of their freedom away. It's a complete overreaction to start making such accusations.

Again I will ask, what exactly are you gaining by preventing a Noble background on a Barbarian character?

Again, a great question. I think there's more in this than many will recognize.

On one extreme, you can take the view that mechanics are simply mechanics. Names like Barbarian and Druid are only names, and have zero connotation. In this view, you can take any class and refluff it however you like.

On the other extreme, the "fluff" is enforceable to at least some extent. This is the view that druids must be tied to nature in some way, that warlocks must have an entity to which they form a pact, barbarians must be savages who prefer the wild, etc.

Ironically, it's the second camp that can best be described as the fluff matters camp, because they think that the barbarian is more than just a collection of mechanics. They think there is a narrative place and purpose to the class, and that these provide meaning to the class in the context of the setting. Another way to put this is, why call them barbarian and ranger at all? Why not just Fighter option 2 and fighter option 3? The answer is that the classes have a theme built into them. If you want to throw the theme out the window, then you throw much of the game's purpose (in my view) out the window. This is because, a big part of the appeal of playing D&D is that it tries to use mechanics that make some degree of sense in the particular fantasy context.

Are we really saying these characters are too crazy to be allowed, but would be fine if I made them Bards and Fighters instead? If a concept is bad for a game, it is bad for a game, not bad unless you picked a different class so you fit a more traditional archetype. The entire point of archetypes is that they change over time, that new ones are created by combinations of the old, that characters alter the archetype to make themselves unique characters instead of cardboard cut outs.

Yes, we are. If your backstory is that you are a barbarian outlander from a tribe that doesn't have a written language, and you've never interacted with civilized society, and you want to make a wizard, then you have a problem. This isn't a problem with my opinion. This is a problem with the setting and how wizards work. Wizards not only have to be able to read, they have to be able to read and study magic. I know it's a different example but it's an important one.

In the same way that the other side of this argument becomes enraged that anyone would dare to prevent total and complete player control over their character, I become enraged at the idea that the setting is irrelevant. The reason we have sorcerers, warlocks, bards, and wizards, is because they relate to the narrative in different ways. They are attempts to match the mechanics of the class to the narrative of the world. If you want to make character who has formed a pact but is really just a bard, then you're sort of saying f@#k you to the way the world works.

Yeah, you could fluff it your own way, but that's not the way the world is. (I'm fully aware that a different world might be this way, but any particular world has particular reasons for why classes are tied to it in particular ways.)

Lets stick with the barbarian.

Where does rage, more specifically, your rage come from... its source?...

Make it up

So this is another way of illustrating my point. It's more or less, "f@#k the fictional world and it's context, I'm going to do whatever I want."

Right I got that, but my question was why. I can roleplay my city bruiser identically if I use the fighter rules or the barbarian rules. The only person who will actively notice the difference during gameplay will be me because there will be different things written down on my character sheet, the character themselves is otherwise identical. So I don't see an argument that the character wouldn't fit into the setting. At which point you're saying no because...? I personally don't think 'if I was playing a barbarian that isn't how I would play them' is a good enough reason to tell someone else they're roleplaying wrong and they're not allowed.

And this is because you completely separate mechanics and setting, which I think is a mistake.

I said it earlier but I think it bears repeating - I'm not saying you shouldn't play a character who embraces the tropes sometimes (or even most of the time). But suggesting people have to or they're roleplaying wrong? That idea is laughable. As in I literally laughed out loud when I first read this thread.

"I laughed out loud" isn't an argument. Nobody is saying you have to role-play this exact way. They're saying you can't do this small set of things. There's a universe of difference between the two. I'm laughing out loud at you right now.

Nothing prevents a player, RAW, from playing Bart Simpson, a rogue who rides around on a skateboard in the middle of my Viking campaign, and has the tag line "Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger." But I don't allow that character in my campaign. I choose to be polite and say "this character doesn't match the tone of the campaign." But the truth is that the player is just an a@#hole who is disrespecting the narrative context and tone, and by extension disrespecting the people who got together to realize it.

I mean, you can sit at a table and play monopoly with the intention of losing. You can follow all of the rules and be respectful in your mannerisms when dealing with the other players, but you're disrespecting the competition, and by extensions the competitors.

Barbarian character class != in-game barbarian culture.

The characters in our games are not aware of the 5E rules under which they are created. The meta game is un-knowable by them.

We're not talking about the meta-game, here. We're talking about the rules that govern the character's universe. There might not be a narrative difference between a raging fighter and a raging barbarian, but the mechanical differences (advantage on athletics, damage bonus) manifest in the narrative and become part of the reality for the character.

When you try to completely separate mechanics from the narrative context, you are messing with this, and to some of us this matters. In fact, it matters to you, too. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if someone said "you can't be a barbarian based on your background. You must be a fighter," because (as you say) there would be no relevant difference in the game world. The answer to this, of course, is that "differences on your character sheet manifest differently in the narrative and do affect how your character is perceived in-game." So we would probably agree on this in the end.

'Barbarian' was a Greek word that meant 'does nor speak Greek' It took on connotations like 'uncivilised' because every culture thinks it's the best culture and the Greeks were no different in that regard.

The word comes from the Greeks referring to the Berbers. But this has zero relevance to the conversation. The words wizard and diviner come from the common people's explanation of mundane occurrences as supernatural. Should we use this as context for how wizards work? No.

The barbarian class and the wizard class are what come about when we imagine that the common folklore had some truth to it, not when we reduce the folklore to the B.S. that it is.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, RedMage125, for a start: If you want to say that ad_hoc is "literally" saying something, it has to be a direct quote. It can't be something that follows, or something that you've deduced from what he said. It can't be a quote that you've changed in any way, either.

Spoiler: A long list of nit-picky back-and-forth

Show

When he is telling a Barbarian player "no, you can't decide how your character feels about being in a city", he is taking away something that IS completely up to a player. And he IS saying that such is "not up to the player at all".

Right, so the only real place of disagreement here is whether it is completely up to the player. You say it is. I say it is not.

Stop Straw Manning what I have been saying. I have not claimed that he said "nothing about what a payer thinks or feels is up to the player". That's asinine. He HAS, however, advocated that there are times when a DM just gets to say "regardless of your character's background or personality, I have decided how he feels about this situation". THAT is what I have been arguing. If the only way you can possibly defend that is to twist what I've said and say "well, it's not 100% being taken away from the player, so you should stop arguing with him", then you have either COMPLETELY FAILED to understand what I have been saying, or you are trying to defend him just to be adversarial yourself.

It's not that I've misunderstood this. It's very clear that you think taking away one instance of freedom is the problem. The problem is that your arguments do to follow from it. Your arguments follow from the notion that there is zero freedom granted.

You are talking about Straw Man Fallacy, and you are incorrect.

I'm talking about more than that, and with the way "straw man" gets thrown around these forums, usually incorrectly, it's more effective to just say what happened.

He has LITERALLY said that a Barbarian character's player does not get to decide how they feel about being in a city. I am misinterpreting NOTHING. There is no straw man.

Yes there is. What you are quoting about here is a general statement that has a different meaning. For example, a DM can say that you must feel uncomfortable, but still allow the player to make decisions about how the character feels. For example, I feel uncomfortable, nervous, and edgy... I need to have a drink," or "I feel uncomfortable, but I also feel very strongly that my purpose here is important, so I suppress the feeling in order to accomplish my goal." Do you see how in this example, the DM tells the player how their character feels, but still does allow the player to decide how his character feels?

What elements of a character's beliefs are NOT completely up to a player, according to you?

I've never claimed there are limits to character beliefs, but I'm sure there examples which would be problematic. I claimed that there are limits to player freedom over character thoughts, feelings, and actions. In my games, PVP is not allowed. That's a limit. In my campaigns, you can't be evil. That's a limit.

So for me, the very presumption of complete control is problematic. It will inevitably lead to arguments.

Has it occurred to you that real people do not have complete control over their thoughts and feelings? That's sort of what makes people interesting, and makes stories compelling. I mean, there would be no such thing as jealousy if people could control it.

How does the player NOT have 100% complete and SOLE AGENCY to decide how THEIR character feels about being in a city?

For the record, I've never contested this. I contested the idea that the character has complete control over how the character (collectively - not individually - because that's how it was presented) thinks, feels, and acts. From the very first post, I made it pretty clear that I don't agree with ad_jhoc in the particular example, but I disagree with the 100% SOLE AGENCY argument you are making.

If you want to defend ad_hoc, defend what he's actually saying, which is what I'm contesting. Don't play word semantics and argue "well, he only wants to take away MOST of a player's agency over their character, not all of it, so you shouldn't argue with him". Because that is how your defense of him is coming across.

I'm not trying to defend ad_hoc. I'm arguing against your reasoning. If you want to contest him, do it better. Also, you didn't even paraphrase me properly. At least you didn't try to claim it was literal in this case.

That isn't what he's talking about. And it's not what I've been objecting to. If you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I SAID, I did say that if a player had a concept that would be disruptive, telling that player "please come up with a less disruptive character concept" is fine.

Okay, so you tell me: how can a character be disruptive if it does not come from character beliefs, thoughts, or actions? And if players are not 100% free to be disruptive, then how can you advocate complete player control over their characters? Because it appears that you are arguing against yourself. What am I missing?

You seem to be able to make distinctions about word semantics with what ad_hoc says, but you have COMPLETELY MISSED what I have said TWICE and are claiming that I object to things I have said (twice) are well within acceptable DM/Player dynamics. It's one thing to say "please don't make that disruptive character at my table", and quite another to EVER tell a player "you don't get to decide how your character feels about this stimulus, I do".

So what if you say "please don't make that character at my table," and the player says "too bad. I'm free to make this character at any table." Are they free to make this character or not?

I even gave you an example of a Barbarian, well within the style of classical barbarian tropes, who, upon entering a city for the first time, is filled with a sense of wonder and awe. Who is not uncomfortable, but curious. ad_hoc REALLY IS saying that the player doesn't get to decide that, and the Barbarian MUST be uncomfortable.

ad_hoc is not saying that. You are outright lying, now. ad_hoc even replied to you, and gave a clear answer. It was not what you are claiming, here.

This is not a Straw Man. We have seen, in EXACT WORDS that this specific example is true. So no trying to accuse me of strawmanning. No trying to make false accusations that I am somehow "ignoring" specific word semantics of what he is saying. And no trying to accuse me of claiming something else about his stance.

See above, you just did this. Again. Don't say "exact words" unless you use the exact words. Paraphrasing is not the same.

If you want to defend ad_hoc's stance, then ACTUALLY DEFEND IT, if you can. Because he is advocating a level of adversariel DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, he REALLY IS telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play his "One True Way". Vogon appears to advocate the same.

THIS IS NOT OKAY.

This is a total misrepresentation. Saying it doesn't make it true. I can read what ad_hoc said, myself, and I can see that it is not what you are claiming, here.

I don't care how ad_hoc plays at his table. The only "wrong way" to play is a way that is not fun for the players. Telling everyone else that we aren't "playing the game right", or that we're using "house rules" because his way is the only "right" way is not okay.

How is this not what you are doing? ad_hoc and I say that we don't grant players complete control over their characters, and you say it's wrong. Seems pretty cut and dried, to me.

I'm quite capable of critical examination of semantics and distinguishing between absolutes in order to make an objective argument, thank you.

I'll judge that for myself, thanks.

You and tanarii, in fact, have been the ones building Straw Men, in fact, because at no point have I ever claimed that ad_hoc was saying "players have zero control" over thoughts and feelings. And such is not what I have been arguing.

No, but you have gone so far as to say that he LITERALLY said things which he did not literally say. That's a problem.

So why don't you take your own advice about logic and language, and making assumptions. Your own tone is condescending, arrogant, and insulting, and YOU are the only one responsible for that. So take some care to actually read what OTHERS are saying, because it will help YOU to not have miscommunication in the future.

Give me a reason and I'll be happy to. I'm not interested in winning this argument. I'm interesting in finding out what your point is, and you don't seem overly concerned with it. Beyond that, you don;t seem very concerned with representing your opponent accurately.

So, once again, what I AM objecting to, if you're done trying to paint my stance as something other than what it is is this:

A characters THOUGHTS, and FEELINGS are things that should only EVER be up to the player. And yes, completely. A DM does not have the right to say, "no, your character feels x way about something" in direct defiance of what the player wants for his/her character. And that is something ad_hoc IS advocating.

No it isn't. You continue to make this simple logical fallacy. If I forbid you from feeling a certain way, that doesn't mean I am forcing you to believe a particular feeling. "You can't feel comfortable" is not the same as "you must feel angry." One is a limit to your freedom. The other is taking control. This is the difference. It is a logical one.

We're not talking about specific instances where game mechanics, such as enchantments, may have an effect on a character's mindset.

Well then you need to qualify your statements, more. I mean, I've given you the benefit of the doubt here, but much of what you've said here could LITERALLY be taken to mean that you think players have more authority than the rules of the game.

We're talking about specific agency of a player over a character that is in full possession of their faculties. Outside of things like mental control being exerted over a character, the player CAN and SHOULD have 100% COMPLETE agency over internal mental factors of their character.

Why? Again, I submit that real people are not capable of this.

To include what their character thinks about a person, place or thing, and how they FEEL about it. Those REALLY ARE things that only a player gets to decide, and ad_hoc REALLY IS saying "no, I get to tell you what that is, and it's only ever one specific thing based on which class you have".

No, he is not. This is the same simple logical distinction. "Uncomfortable" is not a complete description of feelings. So no, ad_hoc is not saying "I get to tell you what you that is." This is a misrepresentation. He is saying "I am placing limits on what you can feel, with reasons, but you're still able to select from the array of possibilities within this context. So you're completely wrong here, but refuse to either see or acknowledge it. This is why I implore you to take a moment and think about it.

So, according to him, EVERY Barbarian ONLY responds to being in a city ONE way.

This is ultimately why you're wrong. There's more than one way to feel uncomfortable. It's really that simple. Choose any form of uncomfortable that suits you. This is why you have misrepresented ad_hoc. It's because you made the illogical conclusion that uncomfortable is exactly one feeling.

Here's another attempt to show you what I mean:

A child walks into Baskin Robbins. There are 31 flavours of iced cream available. The child says "I want blue bubble gum." The clerk says "I'm sorry but we don't have blue bubble gum, you can't have blue bubble gum."

Your claim: this is a denial of child's freedom because the child wants blue bubble gum, and you won't let him have it. He should have 100% total freedom over his actions, and he wants to eat blue bubble gum. The clerk is trying to control the child.

My claim: this is not a denial of freedom, because the clerk is not saying: "you must eat pink bubble gum." The clerk is saying "you can still choose whatever you want, from what's available, but blue bubble gum is not available.

Analogous context:

A barbarian walks into a city. There are a multitude of emotional states available. The player says "I want to feel total comfort." The DM says "I'm sorry but total comfort is not an available emotional state for barbarians when in cities, so you can't have total comfort."

Your claim: this is a denial of a player's freedom because the player wants total comfort, and you won't let him have it. He should have 100% total freedom over his emotions, and he wants total comfort. The DM is trying to control the player.

My claim: this is not a denial of freedom, because the DM is not saying: "you must feel uneasy, edgy, and afraid." The DM is saying "you can still choose whatever you want, from what's available, but total comfort is not available.

[KorvinStarmast]

The issue with 5E is there is no real sacrifice or work to multiclassing, especially with bounded accuracy/CR and magic items... the minimum requirements can often be fine. I mean 16 as your attack stat is doable. Just don't come to my table with crap, I have put work in as a DM, so should the PC

IMO, and I'll probably get hung for it, I don't think some classes should multiclass. Like once you become a paladin... that should be it. You are at the pinnacle.

My take on multiclassing is that is has to have a strong basis in the in world narrative and the story as it is developing during play, very much a collaborative effort between player and DM.
I also agree that certain classes seem a terrible fit for multi-classing.

[BurgerBeast]

My take on multiclassing is that is has to have a strong basis in the in world narrative and the story as it is developing during play, very much a collaborative effort between player and DM.
I also agree that certain classes seem a terrible fit for multi-classing.

How dare you deny me my freedom to multi-class into whatever class I want! <searches desperately for pitchfork>

You are advocating a level of adversarial DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, you REALLY ARE telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play your "One True Way".

[mr-mercer]

I for one am disgusted by the notion that the DM should have authority over what the PCs feel about something. The PC is the only thing the character's player has active authority on in the campaign, so they should be allowed to retain as much of that as possible. If they're being Suish and trying to take advantages without any disadvantages then feel free to reign them in, but barbarians not being uncomfortable in cities isn't anywhere close to that: not everyone in a given culture thinks exactly the same way, after all.

[BurgerBeast]

I for one am disgusted by the notion that the DM should have authority over what the PCs feel about something.

"I am disgusted by it" isn't an argument. I don't care what disgusts you. Gnomes disgust me. I don't expect you to care.

The PC is the only thing the character's player has active authority on in the campaign, so they should be allowed to retain as much of that as possible.

We appear to agree. We probably disagree over how much is possible, but at least we are starting from the same place.

...but barbarians not being uncomfortable in cities isn't anywhere close to that: not everyone in a given culture thinks exactly the same way, after all.

This is just a matter of where one places the bar. I'm not going to get into a fight over your personal level of tolerance for what constitutes too much or too little control. The point is that players have something less than complete and total freedom to have their character think, believe, and act. Sometimes the freedom is restricted by the rules, sometimes by the social contract, sometimes by the narrative (tone, setting, etc).

I'm cool with you having your tolerance levels and me having mine. But when a conflict arises, it needs to be resolved.

[KorvinStarmast]

How dare you deny me my freedom to multi-class into whatever class I want! <searches desperately for pitchfork>

All kidding aside ... if I'm the DM, that's not even a question. The canned response is, once the aforementioned collaboration has gone on in character creation ... "I run this world .. play in it or play elsewhere."

If I am a fellow player, I'd probably stay out of it and if the mood of the table is good, roll with it. If not, more than one of us would likely leave anyway.

You are advocating a level of adversarial DM control over things that a player should only ever be the one to decide. And worse, you REALLY ARE telling EVERYONE ELSE, that they're playing the game "wrong" (or that they're houseruling deviations from the rules) when they don't play your "One True Way".

Heh, parody is fun.

Gnomes disgust me. I don't expect you to care.

Andi called, she wants a date. (As soon as she sorts out this "who is in charge of the Mechane" thing.

The point is that players have something less than complete and total freedom to have their character think, believe, and act. Sometimes the freedom is restricted by the rules, sometimes by the social contract, sometimes by the narrative (tone, setting, etc).

What's funny is that we played for so many years without ever having to have that come up in conversation other than in a dialogue. The internet seems to create a "turn up the volume to 11" feature, or bug, on some topics.

Well, that and

1. Alignment
2. The everyone gets a trophy philosophy. *ducks*

[mr-mercer]

Fair enough that the notion disgusts you. That's your feeling and your right to feel it. But I do have two follow up questions:

Given that every version of D&D written to date has many things written into both the core rulebooks and many adventures that dictate how PCs feel about something, how do you reconcile your disgust with what the RAW of D&D says?

Given that in real life, you are not the only person thing in control of what you think or feel, and that this holds true for every human being alive, how do you reconcile your feelings of disgust that that a game should be the same way?

In response to the first question, I just don't use those things unless a character that I have in mind would fit into them or I'm playing with a DM that I know would want to waive these restrictions as much as I do. The only concessions a player should have to make are the ones that are required for the plot to progress (e.g. not flat-out refusing to partake in the story) and for them to gel properly with the other PCs (which would be dealt with at session 0 and so shouldn't be an issue) and I can't see how the barbarian being comfortable in the city could possibly get in the way of that sort of thing. Uthrig the Chill isn't going to burn the last remaining evidence of corruption in the country's government just because he's okay with an urban environment.

In response to the second, I actually disagree with you. No person inherently controls what another is thinking or feeling: if person A makes person B angry, it's because A did something that makes B angry, deliberately or otherwise. But even if person A knows what person B's emotional triggers are, they can't flat-out change them: I couldn't walk up to you and suddenly convince you that you are terrified of daffodils. If I convince another person of something, that's because they made the decision that what I am saying is true, not because I told them that they believe me.

In summary, there is a world of difference between external factors influencing someone's thoughts and someone flat-out telling them that they think something other than what they actually think.

[mr-mercer]

I knew I was going to regret getting involved in this. /peace

Fair enough. This isn't the kind of argument that's likely to end amicably. I think we can all safely select the people here we'd rather not play with (in spite of appearances, you aren't one of them on my list) and pack the discussion up: continuing would only serve to further divide people into incompatible groups.

I should use Uthrig the Chill as a character at some point: I like that name.

[BurgerBeast]

...I can't see how the barbarian being comfortable in the city could possibly get in the way of that sort of thing.

And what does "your character feels uncomfortable" get in the way of? What does feeling uncomfortable prevent you from doing? Nothing. It literally has no effect on the game. It has effects in the effect of the mind of one special snowflake who insists on having authorship of something that they can't possible author and is entirely irrelevant. At best, it does nothing. At worst it creates yet another special snowflake who insists that disagreeing with him is an "offence to his existence." (Or in this case to his imaginary character's existence - which is more absurd since his imaginary doesn't actually exist.)

What's even more bizarre is that real people can't control how comfortable they feel without acting to change it. Think about it. Who chooses to feel uncomfortable?

The complete lack of relevance of this discussion is what is so baffling to me. If the DM says: "Your character feels uncomfortable right now." I can just say "cool." And then do exactly what I was going to do. But no, not for our special snowflakes! They are willing to shut down the entire campaign and accuse the DM of the most heinous crimes... and for what? For nothing. For their own self-important right to have complete authorship over an imaginary character in a game that is ultimately pointless.

Imagine I was playing a game of monopoly, and someone told me that my iron felt uncomfortable. Now imagine me becoming indignant and insisting that that person is an authoritative jerk. "I and only I have authorship over the feelings of the iron!" What a socially degenerate thing to do. How about this: "cool," and then move your iron seven spaces on the board.

Likewise: "your barbarian feels uncomfortable." "Cool. I walk into the weapons dealer and check out his wares." END OF STORY.

What kind of person finds this so offensive? And on what basis? Are you offended at reality every time you feel angry or sad, too? Because like it or not, nobody chooses how they feel. If they could, they would not be believable as a person. They'd be pretty close to, if not completely, a robot.

In response to the second, I actually disagree with you. No person inherently controls what another is thinking or feeling: if person A makes person B angry, it's because A did something that makes B angry, deliberately or otherwise. But even if person A knows what person B's emotional triggers are, they can't flat-out change them: I couldn't walk up to you and suddenly convince you that you are terrified of daffodils. If I convince another person of something, that's because they made the decision that what I am saying is true, not because I told them that they believe me.

In summary, there is a world of difference between external factors influencing someone's thoughts and someone flat-out telling them that they think something other than what they actually think.

You've completely missed the point here. We're not saying that others have the ability to dictate what you feel. This is the exact same fallacy, again.

We're saying that, given that you are feeling sad, you can't just choose to be happy and hen be happy. If you could, we wouldn't have trouble with grieving or jealousy or unreciprocated love.

Fair enough. This isn't the kind of argument that's likely to end amicably. I think we can all safely select the people here we'd rather not play with (in spite of appearances, you aren't one of them on my list) and pack the discussion up: continuing would only serve to further divide people into incompatible groups.

I should use Uthrig the Chill as a character at some point: I like that name.

Those people are in incompatible groups regardless of whether they know it or not, so it hardly hurts talk about it. At the very least, we learn who we don;t want to play with.