Roleplaying Rules

[LordVonDerp]

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.

I found the bit you're describing, but it's not in the rules, it's in the fluff text that precedes the class.

[RedMage125]

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

That's the point though...you're flat wrong. There are ZERO rules that say "based on race/class/alignment your characters can only think x, feel y or act in z manner".

None.

No rules.

If you think this is true in the rules, you are just incorrect and that is all there is to it.

D&D thrives on houserules and customization, so play however makes you and the players at your table happy. If your group enjoys staying within the boundaries of default tropes, cool. More power to you.

But the moment you tell everyone else that the rules ONLY support your way of playing and everyone else is wrong, then YOU are the one who is wrong.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Its nice to be able to role play something besides what is exactly in the book.

My group seems to seek inspiration from the book to create our back stories.

Then we seek inspiration from our back stories to determine what our characters would do in any situation.

[Millstone85]

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.

That sounds like a discussion on the GNS theory:
* "We are not here to play a board game!"
* "We are not here to help Bob with his story!"
* "We are not here for improvisational theatre!"

[LordVonDerp]

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)

Basically, yes.

Do RP rules still exist? A few...

Maybe

Paladin Oaths,

They're pretty vague.

Cleirc Gods via divine intervention,

Maybe.

Druid armor restrictions,

Don't exist in 5e

[Cybren]

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.

Honestly I think It's one of the most true things ever said on this forum. There is no difference between mechanics and fluff, in that they should both reflect each other. Ideally there is a harmony between the two, and it makes the game weaker when there isn't (see the above example someone gave with regards to a monster described as "tough" having low HP and AC).

[SLIMEPRIEST]

That sounds like a discussion on the GNS theory:
* "We are not here to play a board game!"
* "We are not here to help Bob with his story!"
* "We are not here for improvisational theatre!"

I guess technically it could be. I've never found that play was that easy to break down into 3 categorIes. In my experience it's really a mix of all three most of the time. I love being part of a Dm's story. I'm just not sure how to participate if role-playing is discouraged.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't exist in 5e

Yes they do, per that 20+ page long thread, but a DM can relax that if it fits the table better.

@ad_hoc:
I am curious as to whether your are taking this position as a player or as a DM?

1. If as a player, then apply it as appropriate to your character, but don't get all in the business of other players if your DM has a more flexible attitude.
2. If you are the DM, you can make the guidelines on role playing more stringent or not, but I strongly encourage you to get with your Barbarian player and discuss how to flesh out the "who and why" of that Barbarian so that the player and you both buy into just who this particular Barbarian is.

While I side with Tanarii on the "fluff" fallacy issue, I appreciate that at each table the balance on that will move a bit.

So what is your situation, ad_hoc?

Are you

1. trying to make a broad, general statement on how the game should be played?
2. uncomfortable with how some fellow players play Barbarians?
3. as a DM more inclined to tighten the guidelines on some class tropes?

The reason I ask is that I'm not sure what your motive is in making the OP.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

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

I can't find a single rule that prescribes anything like this. 'unspoken' rules? Is that like guess what the DM's thinking? Also, it's got to be hard to inforce rules about what characters feel and think.

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other.
Check this example:

Jeff the dwarf and his friends are out adventuring. Jeff comes across an abandoned brood of goblin children. "Awe," says Jeff, "look how cute."
NO! says the DM, YOU ARE A DWARF YOU HATE ALL GOBLINS! Another player chimes in "you pretty much have to attack them Jeff, you are a dwarf and a fighter." The DM makes his call: IT'S IN THE RULZ.

As Jeff hacks the goblin children to bits, he feels disgusted. Though he literally 'had' to do this, he can't help feeling that it's somehow wrong. Lucky this was the final good deed required to put him over the top. His alignment shifts from neutral good to lawful good...

Is this what you have in mind?

[KorvinStarmast]

As usual for people who wrongly believe roleplaying is collective storytelling, you've got it exactly back to front. If you are there to collectively storytell, you would all be sitting there while the group took turns writing or telling a story, and your characters would never interact with the adventure or world they live in.

As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

Whether or not you'd all get bored and go home is entirely on what kind of people you are.

I like to put it this way:
The story happens as a result of role play; (usually helps if one of the players keeps a journal).
That result is a synthesis of the setting/challenges the DM has presented and the decisions the players (and mostly the player characters) make.
Without the world (DM stuff) as the party's foil, there isn't a story to tell via this means.

[Contrast]

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.

Ahahahaha...

...Oh, you're serious?

Ignoring the (vast numbers) of people who just want to use the barbarian rules to play a thug or bruiser or whatever, lets take the example of Thrag the Stereotypical Barbarian^TM. He is a half orc who grew up in a nomadic warrior band before joining up with the PCs as part of his mystical vision quest/quest for vengence/insert heroic or conflicted backstory here.

He enters a town for the first time:

PC: Thrag is amazed at the number of people wandering around. After spending the day walking around in a daze at the people and items, he retires to an inn. He's delighted by the comforts on offer and finds himself wondering why no-one ever told him that living life could be so easy. He falls to sleep, the bed much nicer than any bedroll, and resolves that he will strive to live every day in this sort of comfort!
DM: Actually no, you find the whole day very unsettling and the walls and blankets feel like a suffocating embrace around you. You pick up your stuff and spend the night outside under the stars where you're much more comfortable.

Is that honestly how you think that exchange should go?

Edit - ninjad by Slimepriest

What I'm really sensing here is that you're fed up of people being bored with the stereotypes and feeling the need to make non-conformist characters ('MY dwarf doesn't like ale, have a beard or use an axe!'). I see where you're coming from but at the same time we play roleplaying games precisely so we can let our imaginations run wild and have the freedom to do what we want. Some of my favourite characters have come from playing against type and some of my favourite characters have come from embracing stereotypes.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

As usual for people who wrongly believe roleplaying is collective storytelling, you've got it exactly back to front. If you are there to collectively storytell, you would all be sitting there while the group took turns writing or telling a story, and your characters would never interact with the adventure or world they live in.

As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

Whether or not you'd all get bored and go home is entirely on what kind of people you are.

I see. I was misusing the terminology. That's fine.

I support player agency in d&d. Years and years of play have taught me that the game is more fun when the players do things the way they want. Why would you want to arbirarily shut out potentially fun ideas by using the book as cudgle.

I'm fine if we skip the debate about whether rpgs are collective storytelling.

[Arkhios]

Yes they do, per that 20+ page long thread, but a DM can relax that if it fits the table better.

What the player community thinks means nothing. It doesn't matter whether there is 20, 200, or just 2 posts in a thread saying something is or isn't so.

Druids don't have a hard restriction for their armor. It's only a taboo why they generally prefer not to use certain types of armor. 5th edition rules (as written) do not deprive a druid wearing metal armor his or her powers. It's only considered not-kosher. If a DM chose to stick with old rules instead of current rules, that's his call, not the game's.

That it's only a taboo has been confirmed by Crawford, and that's what I hold much more weight in ruleswise than the community - who were not there designing the edition.

[KorvinStarmast]

Druids don't have a hard restriction for their armor.

Let us leave that debate for that thread, where we all did a great job of beating it to death from either side. OK? At each table there's room from the DM to choose one way or the other by playing "Master of Rules" ...
I'd like to go back to the point first made in the OP:

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.

I think this observation is being misunderstood by some of the respondents.

For the case of 5e ... the book describes the creation of the character, the background, and the back story as a cooperative effort between the DM and the player. The key issue here is that the back story fits into the world at large that the DM has. Some DM's will solicit (my last one loved this) input from players on how the world is shaped, others have a much more organized and more fleshed out world for their players to act in. Thus, what ad_hoc says there is completely true in paragraph 1. DM and player need to come to a consensus on a number of character details, and need to do that (IMO) in a face to face conversation. (or a phone con, or a back and forth series of emails ... DIALOGUE is the point here).

The second paragraph is also true of the boundaries that exist at a table. If you are the My Guy who thinks it's OK to PvP and the rest are not into that, you don't get to do that at that table with that DM and with that group.

If you want to play an LG paladin, and the rest of the party is mostly evil or neutral to evil, is this party really a good fit? Maybe you should look at the party and consider a different choice, unless the whole group is interested in internal tension within the party as a feature of play.

The point being made is that In Group Activities, there is an element of compromise and sacrifice that each of us makes.

Thus this point

"your character and their beliefs and actions are completely up to you" which is false.

is true most of the time ... unless you are interested in a dysfunctional table. We each have to accommodate the others at the table for a good table environment.

For the case of the original game: except for my every first dungeon crawl when we were all very new, every DM I ever played with ( and then me as a DM because I learned from them) included a bit of a background story for each character as part of getting the group together. This was before anything was ever formal. This was ... well ... part of the fun and most DM's on their own initiative would drop something into the story from a background story somewhere along the line.

(In one case, our Fighter had died a horrible death as we had gone into a tower to defeat a vampire's minions, so we found my cousin (per my back story) as a prisoner chained to the wall. Imagine my surprise!

The DM had created an NPC Ranger who was my cousin (I was playing a druid). It was almost too easy: our Fighter played this new Ranger, and a reason to join the party was premade. Given how darned hard it was to roll up a Ranger in those days, we were all grateful and it was great fun. (He had cool bonuses versus Giant Class creatures, and saved us from being surprised with some frequency ...)

[Contrast]

Thus this point is true most of the time ... unless you are interested in a dysfunctional table. We each have to accommodate the others at the table for a good table environment.

Except I'm not talking about someone choosing to be unco-operative or PVP in a table who doesn't want to PVP. Ad_hoc specifically suggested it was against the 'rules' for anyone playing the barbarian class to feel comfortable in a city. If someone playing such a barbarian would be harmful to your play experience then I would suggest the issue is with you, not with them.

[Naanomi]

What the player community thinks means nothing. It doesn't matter whether there is 20, 200, or just 2 posts in a thread saying something is or isn't so.

Druids don't have a hard restriction for their armor. It's only a taboo why they generally prefer not to use certain types of armor. 5th edition rules (as written) do not deprive a druid wearing metal armor his or her powers. It's only considered not-kosher. If a DM chose to stick with old rules instead of current rules, that's his call, not the game's.

That it's only a taboo has been confirmed by Crawford, and that's what I hold much more weight in ruleswise than the community - who were not there designing the edition.

I'll leave this alone given there are probably 100 pages on the subject on this forum alone; except to say that at the very least there are people who disagree with this interpretation.

That aside, I think roleplaying 'rules' as much as they are (and I do think that some exist to a degree even in 5e, even though they are lighter and more adaptable than ever before) should never come up with a skilled roleplayer. As a GM I shouldn't have to be stepping in and telling you 'um, you are charmed, you have to treat him like a friend; not sabotage his plans' or 'that might violate your paladin Oaths': if you are magically compelled, have taken sacred oaths to the degree of getting supernatural powers from your conviction, have intense religious taboos integral to every aspect of your (again supernaturally empowered) belief system, have had your alignment changed to chaotic evil from your vampirism or lycanthropy... *in general* you shouldn't need reminders to act accordingly.

Does this mean there cannot be exceptions? Of course not... if you want to do a 'fall from grace' storyline and have your Paladin slowly descend from their lofty ideals I'm all for it, come talk to me about it and we will make it work. If you immediately start butchering orphans and when I inform you it violates your oaths you say 'meh, I like the Oathbreaker power set anyways' then maybe we have some deeper 'table philosophy' issues to work out.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except I'm not talking about someone choosing to be unco-operative or PVP in a table who doesn't want to PVP. Ad_hoc specifically suggested it was against the 'rules' for anyone playing the barbarian class to feel comfortable in a city.

If you would do me the kindness of reading my whole post, that would be nice. It appears that you only responded to part of it. (You can skip my story about back in the stone age ...)

Let's go back to the point on how the DM and player collaborate on creating the character within the world the DM is running. As I pointed out, some DM's have wider boundaries than others on what is or isn't consistent with the rules (guidelines) on character tropes and classes. They are not by default wrong, but you or I may well disagree with them on a given PoV. What is necessary is consensus building between the DM and the player, not the players by default asserting "you deny me agency" any time they disagree.

I suspect we disagree more than we don't, but are coming at this from slightly different angles.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

The point being made is that In Group Activities, there is an element of compromise and sacrifice that each of us makes.

Thus this point is true most of the time ... unless you are interested in a dysfunctional table. We each have to accommodate the others at the table for a good table environment

Yes. I totally agree. I think it's easier to accomplish this by allowing more freedom but whatever.

My objection: the OP claims is making the games less fun for him if my barbarian doesn't feel uncomfortable indoors. I'd like to mske everyone happy, but I don't think he's accommodating me by forcing my character to be uncomfortable for half the game. This is all moot because he thinks the rules say that barbarians always feel uncomfortable indoors. There goes any hope of accommodation. My non uncomfortable barbarian is breaking the rules. He's basically bullied me with the rules into playing my character the way he wants. This I object to.

[KorvinStarmast]

My non uncomfortable barbarian is breaking the rules. He's basically bullied me with the rules into playing my character the way he wants. This I object to.

And what about all of those barbarians who grew up living in a cave?

If the disagreement is strong enough, either play a different class or play at a different table. Consensus needs to be reached, and I think we agree.

[King539]

What your character believes in and what they do are not completely up to you.

It honestly seems like you're being sarcastic.

[Contrast]

I did read your post...quoting the entire thing in my response seemed a tad excessive though

I'm not disagreeing with you that creating a character is a co-operative enterprise between the DM and all the players (hence why I didn't really respond to this segment of your argument).

What I (and others) have objected to is ad_hoc conflating this with having to play your class according to trope. That is an entirely different beast and should be treated as such. I play a rogue who has never stolen anything. Am I playing my rogue wrong? Based on what ad_hoc has said I am.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

Let's try one more example from real life:
Personally, I prefer playing in a human-centric world. I prefer playing 1e. The game I play in is 5e and literally none of the other pcs (or most npc)are human. I could try to get everyone to do it my way because of my hurt feelings. I could try to use the books to prove that a tiefling and a dragonborn pally world never adventure together.

Instead I'm enjoying walking through this weird world and learning about new cultures. The pcs come up with most of the culture stuff through play.

This is what consensus looks like. Having the the courage to let other players play their characters so that everyone can have fun.

DMs, please no railroading.

[Unoriginal]

As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

That's wrong, though. Stories can be acted. Stories can be lived.

A RPG scession is a story, although it's true it's more story-acting than strictly only story-telling.

I think this observation is being misunderstood by some of the respondents.

Not really, OP is saying that if you want to play a Barbarian who's comfortable in a city, you can't, because according to them the RP suggestions in the PHB are rules that shall not be broken.

[Ruslan]

Druid armor restrictions,

Don't exist in 5e

Did you know that if you squint hard enough, you can make whole sections of the PHB disappear?

[Unoriginal]

Did you know that if you squint hard enough, you can make whole sections of the PHB disappear?

I call that closing my eyes.

[Chaosmancer]

Seems like a bad idea to quote most of the thread, so I'll refrain.


We've got a few different examples from the OP and therefore we have a few different conversations going on.


Should players be able to justify metagaming through backstory?

This seems to be the biggest thing for a lot of people. "If we allow players to do whatever they want then their grandfather will have passed down his staff of the Magi and armor of invulnerability and I don't want to deal with a 1st level character breaking the game like that"

I agree that if a player tries this I generally try and reframe what they are attempting. I have a friend who wanted his 1st level paladin to be a cursed immortal who devoured the souls of the wicked to power his abilities. I told him no. I tried to work with him to re-imagine a paladin he was happy with, but I was not going to let him play a demi-god when I wanted a story of people caught up in a war between nations.



This is a completely different issue than some of the others though

A second issue is table etiquette

Does allowing a player to play any character he wants mean allowing him to murder party members or play a misogynist? Or less extreme, someone who breaks with the party dynamic like a lawful good player in an evil party.


Well, it depends on which end we're talking about and how comfortable the party is. You adjust yourself to the table. If you want to steal from the party, and the party isn't cool with that style of game, then you need to have a discussion with the group and probably just not do it. However, this isn't always obvious. I played a "lawful good" (we don't play with official alignments) character in a group that turned out over the course of the game to be highly amoral, and it caused friction. I had asked the DM about my character before the game started, and I don't think anyone expected the party to turn out the way it did, however, the group had a blast, so it was okay, but we all acknowledge the party is dysfunctional and only sticking together because the game demands it.



And then finally, does the game demand you follow tropes.


Can I play a Barbarian with the Noble (knight) background? Yes, nothing in the rules prevents this. Even if you include fluff=rules, the backgrounds in the PHB do not say "Only fighters can take the soldier background and only thieves can take the criminal background" so there is no rule against mixing and matching and you are encouraged to do so.

And I think most of us on this thread are in agreement, there is no reason to force people into specific characters.

Does your elf hate orcs or not? Player's choice

Is your thief greedy or generous? Player's choice

Does your cleric militantly proselytize or simply lead by example? Player's choice


My Half-Orc Fighter (samurai) Soldier has superstitions like burying rocks outside our base when we leave for good luck, or taking the weapons of those who dropped him to zero in case the weapons "have his name" on them. I didn't talk to the DM about it, but I don't think I needed to (and he hasn't complained to me) because what my character believes and acts on is my choice.



Some people get very upset about "snowflakism", but this seems to be an ever changing goal. You as the DM may have seen 600 players who decided their rogue is a generous archaeologist , but this new player has never played that character and is sick of playing rogues who are sneak thieves and criminals. You'd love them to play a criminal instead, but they don't want to. Are they trying to be a "snowflake"? Who gets to decide that?

In part, I come at this as a DM who rarely gets to play. When I sit down to play a character, I want to play the character who interests me. I don't really care if the DM finds my concept boring, if it doesn't break the world please let me enjoy the character I want to enjoy.

And, if every character is only defined by their broadest strokes, then yeah things are going to get boring. But then your characters are not fully developed people and of course they are going to be boring. Tropes aren't going to make that better

This is where I disagree with the OP. Yes, talk to your DM about your character, but the DM doesn't have the right to tell you what superstitions, beliefs, or behaviors your character has, as long as they don't move into the realm of harming the group dynamics at the table, and if you are so strict in your fun that not being a caricature harms the group dynamics.... then I really don't understand your table at all

[Hathorym]

If a player came to me with a concept of a Dwarven barbarian/Underdark druid who guards the mines and homes of his people and wears medium metal armor, I would oblige.

Why?

First, he came to me and asked.
Second, we discussed his concept and it fit with the setting.
Third, because it breaks absolutely nothing. The concept fits within the mechanics of both classes and the role-playing aspect of the character is utilized.

He's a barbarian surrounded by walls and a druid wearing metal armor and the only person who will be impacted by my decision is the player. And he gets to have fun.

It affects absolutely nothing to allow the player to play the character he has in mind. Not everything has to be so rigid.

[pwykersotz]

I'm okay with people making their characters behave in a multitude of ways, but I do ask that if you remove a bit of RP fluff, you add another equivalent one back in. That city Barbarian who is at home in the walls? I would expect that he's no longer "uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" but is now "uncomfortable in wide open spaces". Your Druid who wears metal armor? I would expect him to have a taboo against a common use of wood or stone. It's the same with the benefits. If your Monk isn't capable of "whirling through foes, knocking their blows aside, and sending them reeling", then come up with something else awesome that you can do.

[KorvinStarmast]

I did read your post...quoting the entire thing in my response seemed a tad excessive though

Fair enough, and it appears that we agree more than we disagree.

What I (and others) have objected to is ad_hoc conflating this with having to play your class according to trope. That is an entirely different beast and should be treated as such.

That's not a bad way to play, though. I've seen it done. It is, and can be, fun. I object to the assertion that it is somehow wrong, in terms of a DM for a given table making that preference known up front, but then we are back to the collaboration bit on character creation.

I play a rogue who has never stolen anything. Am I playing my rogue wrong?

I don't know, since a rogue isn't by default a thief (as the original class was.)

Based on what ad_hoc has said I am.

I had asked the OP a three part question and not gotten a response, so I'm going to wait for that before going further.

[Xetheral]

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.

Out of curiousity, what is the value to you, personally, in requiring PCs with levels in the Barbarian class to feel hedged in by walls?

I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from, so more explanation would be helpful.