Roleplaying Rules

[ad_hoc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lombra]

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

[Arkhios]

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

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

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

[Nonah_Me]

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

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

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

Yeah, just no.

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

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

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

[mig el pig]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Addaran]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Naanomi]

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

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

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

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

[Naanomi]

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

[Steampunkette]

Roleplaying Rules?



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

[Hathorym]

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

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

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

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

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

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

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

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

[SLIMEPRIEST]

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

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

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Hate to break it to you, but both Paladins and Druids have embedded Roleplaying Rules in 5e.

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

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

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

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

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

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

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

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

[Honest Tiefling]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sigreid]

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

[SLIMEPRIEST]

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

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

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

[BurgerBeast]

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

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

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

[Razade]

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

[Honest Tiefling]

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

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

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

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

[Razade]

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

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

[SLIMEPRIEST]

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

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

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

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

[NorthernPhoenix]

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

[Razade]

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

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

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

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

[ad_hoc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SLIMEPRIEST]

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

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

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

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

[SLIMEPRIEST]

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

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

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

[ad_hoc]

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

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