Roleplaying Rules

[Unoriginal]

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


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


Like, if an interaction like this were to happen:

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

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



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

[BurgerBeast]

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


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


Like, if an interaction like this were to happen:

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

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

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


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

[BurgerBeast]

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

You don't see how this:

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

Is more specific than this:

...Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls, and so your Barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls.

Really?

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

Again, you are missing the point. Whether ad_hoc agrees is not the point. Asserting that you know what he knows, when you don't, is a problem, if you retroactively learn that you happened to be right.

[Unoriginal]

You don't see how this:



Is more specific than this:



Really?

Yes, really. I dont' see how "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when a crowd surrounds him" is more specific than "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when surrounded by a crowd".

Again, you are missing the point. Whether ad_hoc agrees is not the point. Asserting that you know what he knows, when you don't, is a problem, if you retroactively learn that you happened to be right.

It's a reasonable assumption that I got from reading several of his posts on the subject. However, it's true that I should have presented it as an assumption, and not a certainity.

[ad_hoc]

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

Not everyone does.

This thread was written primarily as a response to 2 ideas.

1) That breaking tropes is the/a primary way to be creative (I have seen this to varying degrees).
2) That everything about a character is up to the player.

I used the improv example to show that not only can you be creative while following the tropes/rules, but that breaking them is not in itself a sign of creativity. In improv it is likely a sign of a lack of creativity (well ability to think quickly on the spot at any rate).

I also made the case that as this is a social group game, your character is up to group consensus. You need to play the same game. This is largely about social etiquette and the like but it is also about everyone having buy-in in the game they are playing.

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

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

This is something that would be addressed at character creation in session 0. This is also not the sort of narration I would give in a game. Even if I were inclined to DM like this (which I'm not) I am far too busy to be worried about what each character is thinking. That's the player's job. We all work on the honour system.

What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.

Also, and this is an aside, you can grow up in a city and still be uncomfortable when around large groups of people. Plenty of people fit this description. I would say it is even fitting for a criminal who grew up on the streets to feel uncomfortable when "hedged in by walls and crowds" as they will have trouble getting away should something happen.

It would be like a Jedi character not believing in the force. Is it possible to play a game like that? Sure. But then, why are you playing a Jedi and why Star Wars? If everyone else at the table has different expectations of who Jedi are, then you're making it less fun for them. And I would argue, ultimately less fun for yourself. Come up with something new, but work within the tropes/archetypes/rules, just like the improv people do.

What do you need to do? That's up to you, but I encourage you to enforce at least some of the tropes and archetypes. I think they are good for the game and ultimately create a more fun and rewarding game for all involved.


Edit: I also agree with Tanarii and BurgerBeast's latest posts. Thanks for those.

[Unoriginal]

This is something that would be addressed at character creation in session 0. This is also not the sort of narration I would give in a game. Even if I were inclined to DM like this (which I'm not) I am far too busy to be worried about what each character is thinking. That's the player's job. We all work on the honour system.

What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.

Thanks for answering. Now, one last question: would you say that the RAW of the PHB forbid a Barbarian from having a personality trait like this, or would you say that it's not a rule, just a consensus some groups have?

[ad_hoc]

Thanks for answering. Now, one last question: would you say that the RAW of the PHB forbid a Barbarian from having a personality trait like this, or would you say that it's not a rule, just a consensus some groups have?

That's the default barbarian.

Groups are free to enforce it or not as they see fit. I would say that it is rude to make a character who goes against the archetypes as described in the PHB without group (or DM as acting voice thereof) consensus.

Asking if it is RAW is asking the wrong question. For example, you could ask whether it is RAW to be allowed to be constantly shouting. The answer is meaningless.

[Unoriginal]

That's the default barbarian.

Groups are free to enforce it or not as they see fit. I would say that it is rude to make a character who goes against the archetypes as described in the PHB without group (or DM as acting voice thereof) consensus.

Asking if it is RAW is asking the wrong question. For example, you could ask whether it is RAW to be allowed to be constantly shouting. The answer is meaningless.

Well, you did say it was a rule to have the barbarian behave like this, so I just wanted to make sure if you meant is as a "the group agreed to do it like that" rule or a "the game works like that" rule (like when the book says how much HP dice each class get, of the other features).

[ad_hoc]

Well, you did say it was a rule to have the barbarian behave like this, so I just wanted to make sure if you meant is as a "the group agreed to do it like that" rule or a "the game works like that" rule (like when the book says how much HP dice each class get, of the other features).

The game does work like that. The game also requires that people aren't constantly shouting, but it's not RAW.

You can also change what HP each class gets. There is nothing stopping you.

[ad_hoc]

There's a difference between 'here's the rule for trope / archetype and the suggested roleplay for it' and 'here is the roleplaying rule'.

The game works like both. However, I agree that most people do not refer to the former as a 'rule'. I kinda sorta do, because everything in the rulebook is a rule on how to use the system of D&D 5e. But a suggestion on how to roleplay a trope/archetype is definitely in a different category from a roleplaying rule, to me.

I'm having trouble with the semantics so when I use 'roleplaying rule' I usually put it in scare quotes like that.

I would describe it as the default expectation. I think there is value in adhering to them, but if you want to deviate anyway, you should get the group's buy-in. I don't think you should have a default assumption that your character can have or do any beliefs/personality/actions you want.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, really. I dont' see how "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when a crowd surrounds him" is more specific than "your barbarian feels uncomfortable when surrounded by a crowd".

Well, these are different. This is not in any way connected to what we are talking about, but they are different.

"The police officers surround you" is active. It makes "you" the object of an active verb.

"You are surrounded by police officers" might just mean you're in a doughnut shop.

Also, this isn't what I said. I'll leave it the other forum goers to look back at what I wrote and see that this is clearly a straw man (and yes, I've used it properly here). Since you want to play this game, though, I'll humour you. In your example, you specify:

(1) that it is a capital city (not just walls in general)
(2) that the barbarian's name is Grunok
(3) that the Grunok is nervous
(4) that the crowd is lively
(5) that this happens in a market
(6) that Steve is the player of the barbarian
(7) that Grunok grew up in this specific city
(8) that the DM's claim is that the rules "claim that he (Grunok) is feeling uncomfortable" - which is obviously ridiculous
(9) that Grunok has the criminal background
(10) that Grunok's background is that he grew up on the streets of this specific capital city

Those are ten differences. And every one of them is makes your example more specific than the general claim made by ad_hoc.

It's a reasonable assumption that I got from reading several of his posts on the subject. However, it's true that I should have presented it as an assumption, and not a certainity.

It's not reasonable at all. Which is why we're having this discussion.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm having trouble with the semantics so when I use 'roleplaying rule' I usually put it in scare quotes like that.

That is because the correct & generally accepted term is generally "fluff", "tropes", and similar. Rather than asking something like "how do I communicate that the descriptive stuff before the various classes like barbarians not being happy with crowds and such should be strictly enforced without deviation?" and getting an answer like "um... sounds kinda bizarre & unpleasant, but something like all fluff is written in stone should do it".... You are instead trying to coin a phrase for something with a name established decades ago & wondering why people don't see it your way.

Perhaps next you could go on to coining new terms for things like cars, trucks, computers & more?

[Tetrasodium]

Well, these are different. This is not in any way connected to what we are talking about, but they are different.

"The police officers surround you" is active. It makes "you" the object of an active verb.

"You are surrounded by police officers" might just mean you're in a doughnut shop.

Also, this isn't what I said. I'll leave it the other forum goers to look back at what I wrote and see that this is clearly a straw man (and yes, I've used it properly here). Since you want to play this game, though, I'll humour you. In your example, you specify:

(1) that it is a capital city (not just walls in general)
(2) that the barbarian's name is Grunok
(3) that the Grunok is nervous
(4) that the crowd is lively
(5) that this happens in a market
(6) that Steve is the player of the barbarian
(7) that Grunok grew up in this specific city
(8) that the DM's claim is that the rules "claim that he (Grunok) is feeling uncomfortable" - which is obviously ridiculous
(9) that Grunok has the criminal background
(10) that Grunok's background is that he grew up on the streets of this specific capital city

Those are ten differences. And every one of them is makes your example more specific than the general claim made by ad_hoc.



It's not reasonable at all. Which is why we're having this discussion.

What you are arguing for is fate style compels, d&d has never had mechanics even remotely similar to those. Charm person/monster could technically sorta do it in older versions, but not with how 5th edition handles it since it just puts the charmer at advantage socially.

[RedMage125]

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

I really don't know how you got that from what I said.

I even addressed him and said that if a player had a concept for a character and the DM said "Hey, that concept is unique and cool, but it's not going to mesh well with this particular group unless I make the whole story all about you. As a DM, I need to try and make sure everyone is having fun. I don't want to take the wind out of your sails because I enjoy your creativity, but could you make a less disruptive character concept?" would be totally fine.

Telling the player mid-game "No, your barbarian character feels uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" when the player does NOT agree is the DM stepping on the player's toes. The PLAYER decides how his/her character feels about such a situation. ad_hoc's assertion that there are "rules that say how your character MUST feel about x, based on class" is completely false. It's not "houseruling" anything to have a barbarian who is comfortable in a city.

A DM who told me "you don't get to decide how your character thinks/feels/acts" is what would make me leave a table. Rejecting a character concept and asking me (nicely) to make a character that meshes better with the rest of the group's dynamic is fine. But that's not what he's advocating. And worse, he's saying everyone else is "deviating from the rules" because HIS way is "the only right way to play by the rules".

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

I'm pretty easygoing as a DM. ad_hoc seems pretty adversarial and controlling. That's my impression, anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know how else to read "what your character thinks/feels is not up to you" can be read any other way. What a character THINKS and FEELS are things that SHOULD be completely up to the player. Those are internalized responses to the stimuli in the game. And the personality of the character is up to the player who created that character.

It's one thing to say "Hey, in my game, members of the barbarian class only come from primitive, tribal societies, because I want to encourage the default trope of that class, and it's how they fit in to my world". That's actually fine. But a player of a barbarian in such a world may have a different response to being in his first city. Maybe he decides his character is filled with a sense of wonderment at the stone walls, the narrow alleys that create shadows, and the noise of the hustle and bustle of a city. Maybe he is NOT uncomfortable, but curious. The player gets to decide that. There are no rules that give the DM the authority to dictate to the player what their character thinks or feels about a situation, especially when it overrides a player's agency to decide that.

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

No, I'm arguing against the EXACT WORDS you used.

It's not a "houserule" for a player to decide his barbarian may come from, and be comfortable in, a city. See my samurai example in post 154. Completely within the rules.

A house rule would be something like "everyone gets max hit points at level 2, because I don't want low-level characters to be as fragile". That's deviating from actual RULES (It's also one of the only houserules I use in 5e).

Letting the player decide how they want THEIR CHARACTER to think or feel is not a "houserule".

RedMage124:

This:


Does not mean this:


A is not completely up to you
vs
A is NOT up to [you].

Those are two different statements. The first, written by ad_hoc, says that only some of A is up to [the [player]. The second, written by you, says that none of A is up to [the player].

Edit: I really shouldn't have gotten involved in this one. I just know I'm going to regret it.

How is a character's beliefs NOT completely up to the player?

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


What some people disagree with, myself included, is that the descriptive text about classes is part of the rules. ad_hoc is saying that it IS part of the rules, and should be respected unless you decide to houserule it.
*snip*
Thinking that a statement of fact is incorrect is not the same as disagreeing about how much control the players have over their PCs' personalities and thoughts.

This, yes.

Not everyone does.

This thread was written primarily as a response to 2 ideas.

1) That breaking tropes is the/a primary way to be creative (I have seen this to varying degrees).
2) That everything about a character is up to the player.

I used the improv example to show that not only can you be creative while following the tropes/rules, but that breaking them is not in itself a sign of creativity. In improv it is likely a sign of a lack of creativity (well ability to think quickly on the spot at any rate).

I also made the case that as this is a social group game, your character is up to group consensus. You need to play the same game. This is largely about social etiquette and the like but it is also about everyone having buy-in in the game they are playing.

You seem to reject the idea that breaking tropes is EVER a way to be creative. Which is ridiculous.

And everything about a character's PERSONALITY, to include internal factors, such as thoughts, beliefs, feelings ARE entirely up to the player. The rules DON'T say "all barbarians think x".

And your assertion that everyone who doesn't play like such IS a rule is "houseruling changes" is rude, dismissive, and condescending. And that's on you to take responsibility for how you come across.

What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.

According to your OPINION.

Not facts.

It would be like a Jedi character not believing in the force. Is it possible to play a game like that? Sure. But then, why are you playing a Jedi and why Star Wars? If everyone else at the table has different expectations of who Jedi are, then you're making it less fun for them. And I would argue, ultimately less fun for yourself. Come up with something new, but work within the tropes/archetypes/rules, just like the improv people do.

Your jedi argument is non-sequitur, because not every barbarian MUST be a tribal savage. Jedi have actual class features that result from using the Force. A Force adept could believe that they are tapping into MAGIC, but actually be using the Force, but a Jedi specifically means a member of a specific order.

What do you need to do? That's up to you, but I encourage you to enforce at least some of the tropes and archetypes. I think they are good for the game and ultimately create a more fun and rewarding game for all involved.

That is an OPINION, not an objective fact.

Edit: I also agree with Tanarii and BurgerBeast's latest posts. Thanks for those.

They are both claiming you didn't say the words that you said. Words that can be quoted ver batim.

[Chaosmancer]

What would I do? I would forbid a barbarian from having a personality trait that says they are at peace when hedged in by crowds. That goes against what it means to be a barbarian.

What do you need to do? That's up to you, but I encourage you to enforce at least some of the tropes and archetypes. I think they are good for the game and ultimately create a more fun and rewarding game for all involved.

See, I don’t see what is added to the game or people’s fun by that first paragraph. I can’t imagine anyone in a group I’m familiar with caring that much whether the barbarian likes or hates cities, but I do think that a player who is immediately shut down on such a trivial matter could find themselves struggling to have as much enjoyment as they would otherwise have.

It has the potential to create one problem, and combats a problem I have never seen in a group at my table.

The second paragraph I also find interesting. I do appreciate tropes and archetypes. I’m an amateur writer, so of course I do. However, I also know that things become tropes and archetypes because someone did them first.

Merlin and Gandalf are wizards, they existed long before a lot of other characters. In fact, Merlin being significantly older definitely influenced Gandalf.

Harry Dresden is still a wizard, he’s also a bit of Noir Detective. He combines to archetypes and has become something new. And of course, you will agree this is okay, it has to be, that is how literature evolves.

So, if a player came to my table wanting to play Dresden, they are playing something that is new, that combines old archetypes, but has fired their imagination.

Now, Noir detectives are hard to pull off in DnD, detectives in general are hard to pull off, but this concept applies widely. Tropes are good, but they are only as good as they stay useful. I don’t think we should stick to them when we don’t need to or desire to.

I would say that it is rude to make a character who goes against the archetypes as described in the PHB without group (or DM as acting voice thereof) consensus.

I also find this strange. I have not gotten a perfect session 0 yet, I have them, but invariably a lot of things fall through the cracks as I have 4 hours to talk to six people about their characters and help build them some of the time.

However, I have never considered a player making, for example, an AL legal character rude for not running every aspect of it by the rest of the group.

I can’t even imagine the conversation very well. “Why didn’t you tell us you were playing an Amnesiac Warlock instead of a Dr. Faust Warlock. That is so rude man.”

I mean… isn’t that a bit ridiculous? I completely agree talk about your character with the rest of the party, make sure people are on the same page with tone and setting, power level and etiquette like no stealing from the party or no PVP, but going so far as to say someone is rude for making any non-standard decision without having it peer reviewed seems… off.

[RedMage125]

See, I don’t see what is added to the game or people’s fun by that first paragraph. I can’t imagine anyone in a group I’m familiar with caring that much whether the barbarian likes or hates cities, but I do think that a player who is immediately shut down on such a trivial matter could find themselves struggling to have as much enjoyment as they would otherwise have.

It has the potential to create one problem, and combats a problem I have never seen in a group at my table.

The second paragraph I also find interesting. I do appreciate tropes and archetypes. I’m an amateur writer, so of course I do. However, I also know that things become tropes and archetypes because someone did them first.
*snip*

I mean… isn’t that a bit ridiculous? I completely agree talk about your character with the rest of the party, make sure people are on the same page with tone and setting, power level and etiquette like no stealing from the party or no PVP, but going so far as to say someone is rude for making any non-standard decision without having it peer reviewed seems… off.

I concur completely.

[Vogonjeltz]

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

Well, Barbarians don't have cities, so in that respect you can't do that.

Also, Barbarians are described "as a protector of the people and a leader in times of war." (PHB 46)

So, that might be viewed as akin to a Paladin...except Paladins are all about fighting the good fight against evil, and Barbarians, purely as a class concept, are not.

MY Barbarian is a city-rat half-breed Urchin who grew up in the slums of the big city.

Your DM may be lenient in that regard, but I would not allow such a huge deviation from the concept of the Barbarian class.

Barbarians are "fierce warriors of primative background" (PHB 45). What you've described is just a Fighter or Rogue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well and that is really the crux of it isn't it? What do you do when the player insists their Druid puts on the armor?

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

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

Here I would differ somewhat in that the section on Clerics indicates that a Deity might actually choose someone who is unwilling.

On that basis, I could see a Cleric who is a non-believer, but is basically engaged in a struggle over belief with the Deity who has taken some sort of interest in them.

This would be a very rare bird in the Forgotten Realms (or most other settings) given that interaction with deities and the effects of magic/divine magic are blatantly routine. They'd have to be an extreme, practically irrational, sceptic.

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

That might stem from the arguments about the Death Domain and the requirement that such a Cleric be evil, even when certain Death domain deities are Neutral (and so therefore presumably they would have followers who are the same).

The Street Shaman is a traditional archetype.

I had never heard of such a thing, and Google only turns up Shadowrun references, which basically means it's the term for a "Gritty" Techno-Druid. (I really want to emphasize the Air Quotes around Gritty, because the whole concept sounds like gibberish).

Like, if an interaction like this were to happen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

That is because the correct & generally accepted term is generally "fluff",

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


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

[Lombra]

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

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

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

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

What did I just read? There is a wrong way to play a character? Really? "Barbarian" is just the name of a class, it doesn't imply how you are supposed to play your chatacter. You can be an urchin big guy who's job is the assassin and who's class is the barbarian that uses brute strength to kill his targets. Would you say that he is a barbarian? No he is an assassin, but mechanically he's a barbarian. Now it does depend on the adventure's setting, obviously, but I really can't see why a set of abilities and skills named "class" should determinate your character's behaviour.

[TheIronGolem]

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

[Naanomi]

For those advocating 'enforced adherence to class fluff'; how do you handle multiclassing? For example, I have a character that is a rogue/Barbarian (half-orc) whose 'story arc' was an escaped slave doing anything to survive (rogue pirate); who eventually grew to reembrace their childhood heritage (totem Barbarian)... the class fluff between rogue and Barbarian are pretty incompatible though so...? Not an acceptable character in a strong archetype game I guess?

[Contrast]

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

Your DM may be lenient in that regard, but I would not allow such a huge deviation from the concept of the Barbarian class.

You answered your own question - its pretty objectionable being told you're not allowed to play your character for no other reason than 'well thats not how I'd want to play that character'. To flip the question round on you - why does it bother you so much that someone elses city bruiser uses the rules for a barbarian rather than a fighter or rogue? Because an introductary segment to the class gives some broad fluff which is already completely contradicted directly in the rulebook before the player does anything by the ability to choose any background you like?

How would you feel if my barbarian liked classical music but was otherwise a stereotypical barbarian. Overheard it from a bard the other day. Am I allowed that or is that too civilized? Percussion instruments only?

[ad_hoc]

For those advocating 'enforced adherence to class fluff'; how do you handle multiclassing? For example, I have a character that is a rogue/Barbarian (half-orc) whose 'story arc' was an escaped slave doing anything to survive (rogue pirate); who eventually grew to reembrace their childhood heritage (totem Barbarian)... the class fluff between rogue and Barbarian are pretty incompatible though so...? Not an acceptable character in a strong archetype game I guess?

We don't have multiclassing at our tables for pretty much this very reason, that and multiclassing is clunky in 5e and subclasses fill that need.

You need to do it like how the class chassis are combined. Mashed together.

[BurgerBeast]

What you are arguing for is fate style compels, d&d has never had mechanics even remotely similar to those. Charm person/monster could technically sorta do it in older versions, but not with how 5th edition handles it since it just puts the charmer at advantage socially.

What? Is this a mistake? I'm saying two examples are different. How you went from that to telling me that I am advocating a system that I am not advocating is beyond me. There's no connection at all.

A DM who told me "you don't get to decide how your character thinks/feels/acts" is what would make me leave a table. Rejecting a character concept and asking me (nicely) to make a character that meshes better with the rest of the group's dynamic is fine. But that's not what he's advocating. And worse, he's saying everyone else is "deviating from the rules" because HIS way is "the only right way to play by the rules".

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

I don't know how else to read "what your character thinks/feels is not up to you" can be read any other way.

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

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

How is [sic] a character's beliefs NOT completely up to the player?

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

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

They are both claiming you didn't say the words that you said. Words that can be quoted ver batim.

No, we aren't. This is tiresome.

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

@RedMage125:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vogonjeltz]

What did I just read? There is a wrong way to play a character? Really? "Barbarian" is just the name of a class, it doesn't imply how you are supposed to play your chatacter. You can be an urchin big guy who's job is the assassin and who's class is the barbarian that uses brute strength to kill his targets. Would you say that he is a barbarian? No he is an assassin, but mechanically he's a barbarian. Now it does depend on the adventure's setting, obviously, but I really can't see why a set of abilities and skills named "class" should determinate your character's behaviour.

Yes, of course, in the same way that there are wrong choices for roleplaying any character. Not every origin or background carries verisimilitudinous for every class.

For those advocating 'enforced adherence to class fluff'; how do you handle multiclassing? For example, I have a character that is a rogue/Barbarian (half-orc) whose 'story arc' was an escaped slave doing anything to survive (rogue pirate); who eventually grew to reembrace their childhood heritage (totem Barbarian)... the class fluff between rogue and Barbarian are pretty incompatible though so...? Not an acceptable character in a strong archetype game I guess?

For starters, I'd switch backgrounds, Pirates aren't slaves, so that doesn't scan at all. If the character was enslaved for a lengthy period of time, escaping and eventually finding their way home whereupon they learned the ways of the warrior, then that would make sense as say an Urchin Rogue (Thief probably) into Totem Warrior.

That being said, someone who values their tribal heritage enough to commit to such a path almost certainly would buy into traditional Barbarian values of the open tundra/plains/jungle, etcetera.

It's not different than say, a Rogue into a Warlock, the switch necessarily must be justified, which is one reason that multiclassing is DM optional.

You answered your own question - its pretty objectionable being told you're not allowed to play your character for no other reason than 'well thats not how I'd want to play that character'. To flip the question round on you - why does it bother you so much that someone elses city bruiser uses the rules for a barbarian rather than a fighter or rogue? Because an introductary segment to the class gives some broad fluff which is already completely contradicted directly in the rulebook before the player does anything by the ability to choose any background you like?

How would you feel if my barbarian liked classical music but was otherwise a stereotypical barbarian. Overheard it from a bard the other day. Am I allowed that or is that too civilized? Percussion instruments only?

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

[Addaran]

Yes, of course, in the same way that there are wrong choices for roleplaying any character. Not every origin or background carries verisimilitudinous for every class.

Can you give a citation or page number? I'm pretty sure RAW you can mix any classes with any background.

What you're implying is like saying that some races can't select some classes or AT (from the PHB only, i know about SCAG's AT) when it's said absolutly nowhere.

[Naanomi]

For starters, I'd switch backgrounds, Pirates aren't slaves, so that doesn't scan at all. If the character was enslaved for a lengthy period of time, escaping and eventually finding their way home whereupon they learned the ways of the warrior, then that would make sense as say an Urchin Rogue (Thief probably) into Totem Warrior.

I disagree, shanghai'ing primitive people and forcing to serve on your pirate crew as a slave has a long tradition

[BurgerBeast]

Can you give a citation or page number? I'm pretty sure RAW you can mix any classes with any background.

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

What you're implying is like saying that some races can't select some classes or AT (from the PHB only, i know about SCAG's AT) when it's said absolutly nowhere.

And yet, there are two things to say here: (1) any DM can say this if they want to; (2) everyone is actually aware of the identified concerns, on an intuitive or common sense level, because, for example, when someone first creates a dwarven fighter, nobody expects much by way of explanation. However, when you create your first bugbear cleric of Gond Wonderbringer, with the noble background, who sits on the council in Waterdeep (or whatever)... we all realize, on some level, that you've got some explaining to do. Where you choose to place your limits is a matter of personal preference, but we all have to place our limit somewhere, in any given context. At some point, no amount of explaining is going to suffice.

[Tetrasodium]

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

I'm going to use some game of thrones examples because as badly as the book to hbo translation was hacked apart, they are good & a significant number of folks here should be at ;least somewhat familiar with it

• Gregor Clegane is unquestionably a barbarian. Dressing him in fancy armor doesn't change the fact that everyone is made uncomfortable when he;s around a said parties with the exception of the sadist Joffrey. His background is probably gladiator/folk hero or something given his history of swinning tournaments.
• His Brother Sandor Clegane is probably a fighter. Like Gregor, he is often kind of not so great at fitting in during those sorts of things; but he is so many orders of magnitude less bad at it that it makes a perfect example. His background is most likely soldier where he learned to hate the knighted Ser's.
• Jaime Lannister is at the other end of the spectrum & unquestionably a noble knight backgrounded fighter
• Brienne of Tarth is likely a noble background paladin of devotion or similar.
• In stark contrast to Gregor, Mance rayder is probably a barbarian with some social skills & a background along the lines of a soldier or possibly noble since I can't recall his hisstory pre-nightwatch.
• Arya Stark is some variant of noble background rogue.
• Tyrion Lannister is most likely a noble background valor bard
• Bran Stark is certainly a druid & most likely either noble, urchin, or some combination as background.
• Rattleshirt/Lord of Bones[/url] is also a druid, but probably something like outlander or something sage-like (almost all of his development never made it out of the books though), but on hbo criminal might be closer
• Ygritte is probably an outlander that might be either ranger or some fighterish blend.
• Hodor is hodor.
• so on & so forth

Every single one of them would fit seamlessly in just about any d&d campaign. The only real change would need to be Tywin & casterly rock are far away/smaller/etc. Once that's done... it doesn't fecking matter if Jaime is somewhere in the line of succession for lordship over a few acres called Casterly Rock & all sorts of fun possabilities can be hooked in there.