@SevenSidedDie I don't like that the fluff is so "locked in" there, yes, but there, at least, there's a reason for it (and the Code could be a drawback to the power of the Paladin).

But anyway, the paladin: the code makes sense, if you're playing a game of Charlemagne's Paladins, where everyone is a paladin. The rules enforcing the fluff enhances the setting. And there, refluffing simply doesn't make any sense, because that would just be eliminating setting stuff which is the point of the campaign proposed.

@JoshuaAslanSmith my sentence stands valid

(of course, as a side-issue that is, in a lot of ways, more significant, the Paladin itself lacked power justifying a drawback like that, and the Code itself was implemented terribly)

by optimized I mean hits 70% of the time against at level enemies, deals good damage for your role and does your role correctly

@SevenSidedDie I don't really have a problem with that if that's the game you're playing, but I would expect in such a game that I could use a different class, just accept the Code as a requirement of my association and the premise of the game, and go from there

@Zachiel yeah I 100% hate that then. I honestly believe that combat ability, utility, and story should not be mutually exclusive in terms of character creation and progression

in that case, I might want to refluff in the opposite direction: I might want to take on the fluff of the Paladin (and its Code), but use different mechanics (different training, different skills, etc)

@KRyan The Paladin in 3e kinda sucks, yeah. They don't match up to second-paradigm standards, as far as I can tell. They're OK in first-paradigm 3e, because power imbalances (for lots and lots of reasons) aren't as critical. In 2e they're pretty powerful.

@JoshuaAslanSmith I feel like D&D characters would greatly benefit by having two separate and not synergic sets of feats, one for combat and one for fluff things.

@Zachiel I've considered fixes and designs along those lines, yes

@Zachiel I think 4e tried to do that with the power/utiltity-power split, but perhaps didn't go far enough.

to really codify my separation of "what you can do" and "who you are/what job or title you have"

@SevenSidedDie and it frayed even what they had, since a number of utility powers were quite combat-valuable so once again, to get the utility or fluff you had to sacrifice combat power, which in 4e in particular is fairly inappropriate

@KRyan Personally, I just prefer games that allow who you are and what you can do to arise from the same mechanical choices, and still allow campaign effectiveness. Then there's no need to split them.

Or refluffing.

why I really love dungeon world is in part because I feel its character mechanics let you choose interesting story abilities

designing good and not synergisstic sets of things is as hard as playing Annalise, where you need to choose a second, non related stake for every roll one makes (e.g. the vampire bites me / Luke sees what happens)

@JoshuaAslanSmith Yeah, there's another example of unified crunch and fluff. And I love how well it works.

@SevenSidedDie but then my character in the Charlemagne game you mentioned would be required to have Smite Evil, lots of armor and weapon proficiencies, and so on

@KRyan I can agree with this though I did take the one at will utility that let you use athletics for strength checks, was totally worth it

when perhaps what I really wanted was a different sort of knight

possibly the Knight class

or even the Ranger

the King Arthur movie with Kiera Knightley basically had a D&D ranger in it

@KRyan Yeah that's exactly why I want them not to be relevant on a mechanic way. I mean, for my acrobat I really need skill focus: tumble. But I'm sure that taking skill focus: intimidate instead would open me a combat maneuver

@Zachiel actually, and this is another big problem I have with 3.5's feats, just getting +3 doesn't really open up new options, it just makes you marginally better at stuff you could already do

(also, Tumble's often considered the superior skill, char-op-wise)

@SevenSidedDie Hola - how goes it with Waterdeep?

@KRyan Well, that is a reason I wouldn't use 3e for it. Its re-alignment with the second paradigm means it doesn't bother catering to people who like unified crunch/fluff. Then I'd used 2e, which has a lot of kit options to customise the paladin class, or something different entirely.

@KRyan Ok, wrong example :)

@ArpLaszlo Right! I was just talking about Dungeon World. :)

@SevenSidedDie I just don't really see the point of that, though, when refluffing is much easier

It goes well, apart from an interruption in the session scedule; anything in particular you're wondering about?

ALL HAIL DUNGEON WORLD! @waxeagle

I mean, if they made a paladin archetype that just literally replaced its mechanics with the ranger's, but called it a paladin and gave it the Code, that would be better to you than the player effectively deciding the same thing (with DM approval, etc.)

@SevenSidedDie I skimmed the discussion on AD&D. I'm not even sure what version it was when I played (last time - '86/'87)

@KRyan It depends on what one personally gets out of RPGs. Some come for the aesthetics, fluff, etc. Then, refluffing really takes the point away. And, some games just don't need refluffing, like 2e.

but you know, I dedicated all my class, feat and skill chices to being the best contortionist ever (and after that I spent them in acrobatic-related ways) and this means my character is unable to defend herself. I'm also prioritizing items that make her better at her passion... which, again, makes it hard for her to survive if someone decides to rob her.

@SevenSidedDie I'm not stripping fluff, I'm just changing it around; I mean, doesn't Savage Worlds basically do that, where Edges are literally just "you get a bonus to this in this circumstance" and can explain that bonus any way you like (that makes sense/fits the group and setting and whatever)?

@KRyan Well, they wouldn't make it be a ranger, it would still be some kind of knightly warrior. Just, perhaps,... I don't know, re-optioned to be more like the Royal Guard, with bodyguard-ish mechanics. Or a dragonslayer, with dragon-slaying abilities instead of devil-smiting ones.

@SevenSidedDie and if I wanted to play that guy from King Arthur, with the dual swords and hawk and tracking skills?

@KRyan Yeah, Savage Worlds does that inherently. It does it from the ground up though. And it's done in such a way that the setting books can nail down the fluff.

I mean, the movie proves he can fit in among the Knights of the Round Table if you want him to

@KRyan Not a guy that belongs in a Charlemagne's Paladins campaign. So that would be backing up the "what do we play next" conversation.

@Zachiel That seems... like not a glowing endorsement of refluffing in that system? (4e, was it?)

@SevenSidedDie and ultimately that doesn't bother me, it's just mind-boggling to me that you feel that unless it's already been written up and affixed to the appropriate fluff, an option shouldn't be available. Particularly since you were decrying Wizards' "do you have the feat for that?" This is, in my mind, the same thing: do you have the class for that? (i.e. the Code)

@SevenSidedDie I know a D&D player who saw a battledancer roleplaying as Akasha from Queen of the Damned (sensual dancer with charging combat skills) and screamed to the top of her lungs because "battledancer fluff is clearly capoeira, she's playing her character wrong and it ruins the setting". I personally don't care as long as the character is cool but I understand that there is people who care a lot about mantaining the expectations set by the authors - or those they seem to have had

@SevenSidedDie 3.5, a character extremely ill-suited to high-level 3.5 in high-level 3.5

@ArpLaszlo Which AD&D discussion was that? (86 was probably 1st edition).

@Zachiel I think even d7 would agree that the person objecting was being far too narrow-minded

@KRyan That's an interesting point. And they are different to me, but I'm not sure how. Hm.

like, I don't have a problem with requiring fluff to match the setting and campaign

@SevenSidedDie 3.5e. I mean, I could easily have refluffed a working character into being a contortionist, but I wanted to get all the mechanical abilities and I got into the opposite problem.

and I don't have a problem with the idea that there might be some mechanics which aren't fitting no matter how you fluff them

but if the mechanic can be fluffed in a manner that's fitting to the campaign, I don't see how that would detract from the game

or, I can even see some cases where it would, but they're pretty limited

like, maybe that feature's pretty unique, and the DM was planning on it being the iconic feature of some secret cabal, and therefore doesn't want anyone who's not in the cabal (or otherwise justifies learning their secret techniques) having that feature

but that argument isn't going to apply everywhere

@Zachiel I think that really, really depends on why people are playing in a setting, which gets to really core "why am I here" stuff. If the point is the investment in setting, yeah, then violating or rewriting fluff is going to wreck the game for them. If setting is just a place to Rule of Cool, then fluff doesn't matter.

Rage gives you +2 Str/Con/Will for a limited time, a limited number of times per day; that could be a ton of different things completely unrelated to barbarians

@KRyan or maybe she was just bitching and wanted to make it clear she was the one doing it right, who knows? XD

@KRyan I think it's more that, if someone dislikes refluffing (like me), it's because the need to refluff something indicates there's something wrong (for them) with the campaign premise and the mechanics chosen to implement that campaign.

@SevenSidedDie (in the case of the example, the battledancer very definitely does not restrict itself to specifically being capoiera and that was a thing the player in question assumed on their own)

Hence, why I prefer games that either explicitly leave fluff off (Savage Worlds, GURPS), or that make fluff-the-rules (Dungeon World).

@KRyan (Yeah, not the best example possibly then. :) Assuming it was battledancer = X, "you're playing it Y, that's wrong", that indicates a fluff-investing player.)

@KRyan Oh, no, I think the original fluff for it was exactly that. Unless I've translated badly the name of the class. Base class, chaotic monk with full bab and no flurry.

@SevenSidedDie I mean, I guess I agree there's something "wrong" (they didn't write up a version of this generic bonus with the particular, desired fluff), but that seems to me to be a really minor "wrong" that's easily corrected by just saying that it now does exist

@SevenSidedDie I figured whatever is ongoing now, guessing when I saw '3.5' in chat

@Zachiel yeah, but it wasn't explicitly capoiera; from your description of Akasha, she's well within how the battledancer's described in the books

@ArpLaszlo Oh, this. Yeah, discussing cultural paradigms endemic to D&D 3rd edition, as they are different from those endemic to AD&D 2nd edition and earlier. :)

@SevenSidedDie Totally over my head :) I'm guessing I was on 2nd edition if it was '87.

@KRyan It still was hilarious having the gal with the Akasha Avatar telling me her shadow dancer hide in plain sight + Darkstalker was classical ballet positions her master had her memorize. XD

@KRyan If you're a fluff-investing player, when you read the fluff of a class, that is what gets you excited to play it, and see others play them. Refluffing defeats that.

@SevenSidedDie How goeth Waterdeep?

@ArpLaszlo It's going pretty well. Are you wondering just how the campaign's progressing, or more specifically about how I'm implementing it in Dungeon World?

@SevenSidedDie Both, tho more interested in the implementation. What is your source material? I found out that I own the Forgotten Realms & City System boxes (mint!). Are you using those or a module?

@SevenSidedDie I totally agree that it can get you excited to play the character. But telling me I'm playing my character wrong? None of your business, not in the least. You don't even have to know what word I wrote on my sheet for "class" you just know how my character looks and acts

@ArpLaszlo I'm mostly using my memory of having run a 2e campaign there using Volo's Guide to Waterdeep and the Undermountain boxed set.

I do (sometimes) get invested in the default fluff. other times I don't, or have my own fluff I like better

@ArpLaszlo I have the City System too, but I've never read it in detail. But the nice thing about Dungeon World is you just need the ideas, not the details, so I'm not doing the research. :)

@KRyan Yeah, and that's why I have a distaste for refluffing, but I recognise its value to a lot of people. It's one of those same-page things, I think.

@SevenSidedDie Volo's book looks really cool, I can see how that can spur some ideas. I haven't read my Waterdeep stuff yet - still need to finish the DW rules. I'm considering this for my first session w the kids: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3441990/…

@KRyan I liked that actual play of the guy who secretly played a paladin, but kept insulting the other characters allowing them to reroll dice and giving them morale bonuses and often saving their bums without them appreciating the effort.

@ArpLaszlo In terms of implementation, I'm using the adventure conversion guidelines starting on page 383 of the DW book.

@SevenSidedDie I'm quite far from there, still in the midst of the chapter on Fronts. Either that or I just finished Fronts.

@SevenSidedDie @KRyan As is to me the "should the DM have complete control over what I can or can't do", including splatbook banning

@KRyan My distaste for the need to refluff motivates my interest in systems where it's obviated or essential to the rules already. When I play D&D, I like the fluff to stick to the classes, so that the classes represent real in-world things.

@ArpLaszlo Essentially it says "steal liberally, mutilate freely, leave lots of blanks, and let the dynamic interaction of player moves and GM moves fill in the blanks in your memory and notes." DW works best when the GM doesn't have the world all figured out, so that they can improvise more fully with the ideas that emerge during play.

@SevenSidedDie I think I just read that in rules. I have no idea what page I'm on, I'm reading a .mobi in the Kindle app. The 'leaving blanks' is exciting but daunting.

My entire campaign arc (which has just come to a close) was inspired by a thing chose kind of at random to put down in a room that I hadn't prepared. It ended up leading to a story about the PCs uncovering a spirit that they eventually raised to demi-god status that I had in no way planned.

@ArpLaszlo It's daunting, but in practice works really well. I actually have to say that my greatest regret in the Waterdeep/Undermountain game is that I've used too much of the material, and I was wishing for less pre-determined details after a couple sessions.

@SevenSidedDie that sounds really cool

@SevenSidedDie How so?

To remedy that, the next arc will be taking us into the surrounding wilds, where all I've got is very high-level maps, and a vague idea of what stuff is there. So I'm going to find out more of what's there by bouncing off the players. My campaign arc for there might not even happen, but I have it in my pocket to drive the game if there is an idea lull.

@SevenSidedDie I think that works pretty poorly and also wasn't really the intent even from the beginning

the PHB explicitly describes the Rogue class as being used for a lot of different character fluffs

@KRyan It was the intent for PrCs from the beginning (just read the chapter in the 3e DMG). It wasn't implied either way for the base classes, but like we can tell what purpose anatomical features of later hominids were for by looking at what they did in ancestors, not saying it about base classes says that it's like 2e's assumptions.

Or rather, not saying either way, implies continuation of intent.

@ArpLaszlo I found that having the dungeon laid out for me was a mental block for creatively improvising things that DW really, really prefers to be improvised.

The best parts, and the ones that ended up snowballing into later major plot points, were those things I made up to fill blank rooms. The stuff that I used right from the dungeon notes ended up being less integrated into events, and not being built on much later.

I would have been better off using just the empty map, and not consulting the room key ever, just going off memory, and whatever improvised ideas best fit the the player's actions, choices, and move results.

@SevenSidedDie well, like I said, the rogue in particular explicitly says that it can be used for just about anyone who is skilled; it's implied to be the PC version of the expert class in the PHB description

PrCs, some yes, some no

Mystic Theurges never had much fluff

assassins and archmages had a lot

That's one of the reasons I haven't been consulting my Waterdeep materials, even not bothering to open Volo's Guide much ever. The stuff that stuck in my head about the city has been much more useful for improv than actually looking up the details. The version of the City of the Dead that we made up (me, though declarations, they, through answering my questions) is way more interesting, to us, than whatever is written in the official version of the graveyard.

@KRyan That's why I don't like mystic theurges or eldritch knights

They don't add to my character, and all they give mechanically looks like something I could have taken had I waited some more levels (even if I know that getting it earlier is important)

@KRyan Yeah, but that's be explicit in the "thief" fluff since OD&D too; that actually fits with the intent-momentum analysis.

@SevenSidedDie here's a question for you: would you have a problem with refluffing if it were done entirely by the DM ahead of time? For example, "in my world, there is no guild of assassins, but rather the secret arts of assassination are closely-guarded military secrets and all assassins are agents of some nation or another. As such, the Evil requirement is replaced by a Lawful requirement, and the special requirement is changed" would that bother you, ruining the fluff?

@SevenSidedDie fighters are also explicitly any kind of warrior (who isn't savage or blessed by a god)

etc etc

most of the base classes themselves are written to be fairly generic

excepting maybe the barbarian, bard, paladin, and monk

@KRyan No, that'd be fine. Fluff built to implement setting is fine. That's actually the explicit DM guidance for PrCs, and I like that as a setting-definition tool. Actually, that's it: fluff matters to me because it defines the setting. Refluffing goes against a defined DM-created setting. But it's fine then, to me, when the setting is undefined and collaboratively created by chargen.

@SevenSidedDie well, I do assume that refluffing has to be run past the DM, and thus any refluffing that does happen is incorporated into the setting, even if it was the player's idea first

That's also why creating a Warforged in the Forgotten Realms gives me a metaphorical aneurism.

@KRyan Yeah, and if that's the case, then it's fine. When that assumption is combined with the "the DM is not always right, the rules trump the DM, the rules don't say I can't refluff this", then refluffing is a problem (to me).

now, would you object to the same DM saying "there are some assassin guilds, and some assassins working for national governments, and some assassins who freelance, so you either have to be evil and complete the rite, or be lawful and a military officer, or find someone to teach you or otherwise learn the tricks of the trade," but no matter what you do you wind up with "assassin" written on your character sheet?

@KRyan Yeah, that'd be cool.

@SevenSidedDie I would say that you overstate the attitude a fair bit there

It's an attitude that exists, but I don't believe that's it's the only one, no. :)

@SevenSidedDie it's an extreme that I don't think is particularly common at that extreme

You have to admit that rules before DM does exist, though.

There are enough groups that believe that if the rules permit it, the DM has no business in disallowing it. The "banning splats is abhorrent" view is a variation on that.

@SevenSidedDie yes, but, well... the most vocal proponents of that, at least the way I imagine you're talking about, are those frequently referred to as munchkins, and are typically fairly immature (and/or young enough that their maturity is perfectly appropriate, but still "low"), so while it certainly exists, I'm not inclined to give it a whole lot of thought or care since they wouldn't be good roleplayers anyway and the fundamental problem is more maturity than it is rules or DM or whatever

(though a mature group might be able to instill some maturity in them, sure)

@SevenSidedDie I merely said that "banning an entire book wholesale is abhorrent, because there is no book (for 3.5) that is going to be completely, 100% inappropriate for a game. Though I suppose, if I'm being honest, I'd add yet more qualifications to that (for instance, I don't agree with it, but I can see banning setting-specific books when not in that setting)

(and also I was assuming that access and familiarity weren't issues, which they very well may be but bans still happen even when they aren't)

@KRyan I don't know about that. There are enough high-voted answers in the [problem-gm] tag that say if the DM isn't playing RAW, they're wrong, that my perception is that it's pretty common.

@SevenSidedDie I don't think that's exactly what's being said, though to be perfectly honest I ignore those questions as often as not

@KRyan Whereas to me, it wouldn't even occur to me that banning a setting-specific book when not playing in that setting is even something that needs to be said.

mostly, I suspect that in many of them it isn't that the DM isn't playing by RAW that is, itself, the problem, but rather that the deviations are either those which the answerer (and those up-voting it) disagree with, or that those deviations were sprung on players in a manner considered inappropriate

@SevenSidedDie it would not be something I'd assume with a new DM, but I would ask if it became relevant to me

(and plenty of rather-generic options are presented in setting-specific books)

@KRyan Yeah, that's often the case. Their solutions are usually "get the DM to detail all house rules" though, which is still an attempt to get the rules firmly into the player-space, rather than allowing the DM to be the arbiter.

(and plenty of setting-specific books explicitly provide Adaptation material for how to use them in other settings)

@SevenSidedDie yes, I accept that there is a pretty prominent part of the community that feels that, for the most part, the rules should be well-known to everyone playing

(I certainly tend to feel that way)

but that's not the same as saying the DM cannot or should not be judging things on the fly

obviously, things are going to come up that weren't considered

@KRyan They do, but that's as far as I can tell there because second-paradigm groups will use it anyway, might as well make it easier for them. And that leads to groups considering it RAW that Warforged can be in FR, which is... well, to people who care about a setting, a travesty.

or things that were considered wind up being more problematic than originally imagined

@SevenSidedDie That's really good to know. It's so different from all the D&D modules I've experienced.

@SevenSidedDie FR has plenty of golems and other living things that would otherwise be inanimate, so I'm not sure why that specific example is a "travesty," but I'll stipulate that there exist material from setting A that should not (to those who care deeply about the canon version of it) be in setting B

(also, warforged are also detailed in a non-Eberron book explicitly written for including Eberron races in other settings)

@SevenSidedDie vive 4e's FR!

@Zachiel this is literally the first I have ever heard anyone say anything good about 4e's FR

@KRyan There's a line somewhere between players knowing the rules and players having... I don't know, ownership? over the rules. I think it's a fairly fine line, and one that causes a bunch of group playstyle conflicts. The former is kinda needed by anyone who likes the charop sub-game though, while the latter is needed by DMs who tightly manage the setting's believability.

(I myself banned players from making Muls in my FR game)

@SevenSidedDie I tend to advocate the undermining of absolute DM authority and tend to consider the game as working best when the ruleset is more group agreed-upon

@KRyan I wasn't that attached to the old setting but introducing catlike shifters into any world looks like a good thing to me

the DM being there for playing the NPCs and for judging things that the group hasn't considered

@Zachiel FR is so big and weird, and has such large amounts of magic, that it's hard to imagine much of anything not working there

@KRyan Warforged are a thing that simply didn't exist in 2e Forgotten Realms, and have no need to be added. Adding sorcerers to FR is distasteful enough (where did they suddenly come from?), but importing a whole race from an entirely separate setting is beyond just adapting to core-class updates.

now, if this were Dark Sun, I think the argument would be much easier, cuz Dark Sun absolutely falls apart if you include... a lot of things

Dark Sun is defined, in large part, by lack

FR, though...

eh, whatever

I dislike FR and don't really know it that well

@KRyan That leads, in my experience, to not being able to run the kinds of campaigns in D&D 3.x that I used to run with 2e. There's too much "sugar" in the vast array of options in 3.x for players, that I can't expect people to choose campaign-appropriate salad instead.

@KRyan FR is mostly defined by a particular set of regional aesthetics. Kitchen-sink D&D doesn't go well with that, making FR pointless to play in then.

@SevenSidedDie I still feel that the appropriate response to this is to nix specific things (or even just white-list specific things), rather than just saying "only the PHB!"

@ArpLaszlo Yeah, Dungeon World is very different. It's a complete re-thinking of how the game works.

I mean, if Fighter and Paladin are appropriate, fluff-wise, it's hard to imagine that the Knight is not

for that matter, it's hard to imagine that the Warblade and Crusader are not

@KRyan Nixing specific things requires a charop-oriented mind, though. That's a degree of familiarity that DMs with no interest or facility with estimating build option quality will ever do.

and now maybe the Truenamer just isn't ever going to fit, but then does that mean there's nothing in Tome of Magic that works?

@SevenSidedDie ok, but now we're talking about different things; the concern you're raising here is one of power and ability rather than one of fluff and appropriate-ness

@KRyan yet it has no god with death and planning domains [grumbles]

and again, I'm coming at this specifically from the hypothetical scenario where book access and familiarity are no object

@KRyan Those people are more likely to default to a restricted set, and then add select things, rather than default to everything and then nix selected things. So, no ToM classes, but maybe just the spells or something.

@KRyan Yeah, but that's a hypothetical that makes many views on splat banning just incomprehensible.

@SevenSidedDie the "spells" as such aren't regular spells and couldn't be used by the default classes; the classes in ToM are each basically tailored to their own systems

@SevenSidedDie but my original statement was that wholesale banning of a splatbook that you are familiar with and have access to makes no sense

@KRyan Having never had any interest in it, yeah, I don't know the details. :)

@SevenSidedDie the binder is awesome and I've actually been barred from playing it on the basis that it's too based on FR, for what it's worth

highly recommended

the other two-thirds of the book... are really mediocre

@KRyan Sure it can. "We're playing intrigue in Waterdeep. No, we're not using Tome of Battle."

though the Shadowcaster could be a really cool way to differentiate Shadow Weave users from Mystra's Weave users

@KRyan Where's the Shadowcaster from?

@SevenSidedDie that was continuing the aside about ToM

(The shadow weave is a whole other ball of setting-purist wax. It was added to the Realms just to fit shadow-descriptor spells into the setting.)

unfortunately, the Shadowcaster is drastically limited compared to a Wizard, which may make it not so hot as a counterpart

@SevenSidedDie didn't know that, so if you don't like the Shadow Weave I suppose the shadowcaster truly has no merit

@SevenSidedDie I'm finding myself loving the possibilities. It's like a fire that was out for years has been stoked again.

but anyway, the binder's super-cool, both in its fluff and its ability

@KRyan Ironically, to first-paradigm players and DMs who are not big on the "build" way of looking at characters, it might be fine compared to the wizard.

it's pretty tightly balanced, for all you don't care that much, but it's also got a really solid fluff that references FR a fair amount for a supposedly generic class

@SevenSidedDie ultimately what I mean is that it has some serious disconnects between what the fluff says it does well, and how its "spells" actually work

like the fluff says they're masters of manipulating magic

@KRyan A class like the binder is something I could see adding to a campaign's options, weaving it into the setting. Much like how the shadow weave was added to justify the shadow spells. Again, it's the difference between DM-defined campaign and player-brought kitchen sinks. Why it's in the game makes a big difference to some DMs.

and, to be fair, they do get a lot of abilities that target other spells, which isn't something regular spellcasters see a lot

@KRyan Ah, well that's just unfortunate.

but then their version of dispel magic randomly takes a penalty that wizards don't have, and it's 4th-level instead of 3rd

@SevenSidedDie going back to this, are you using the Fighter, Monk, and Paladin in this campaign? because the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader are very-nearly fluff-equivalent, just designed better mechanically

I mean, I know FR has martial arts traditions and particular places train special techniques and the like

Tome of Battle just provides a superior execution of that concept

@ArpLaszlo I get the same from Dungeon World. The greatest part about it, for me with a busy schedule, is that I can set the wheels in motion and then there's very little work I need to do between sessions. It's all just daydreaming possible stuff to include between sessions (which I'll do anyway), and just letting the game unfold during the session. The lack of prep and the density of stuff that play generates, and quickly, makes it actually play as if it had very detailed pre-plotting.

@SevenSidedDie that is a very cool feature

@KRyan It really depends. I ran a core+nothing D&D, so I don't know the classes. If the fluff doesn't matter because it's so similar, then that's actually a strike against using them. They need to be distinct to merit inclusion, because the fluff needs to matter. (For example, what Crusade is this Crusader from? I'd have to add one to my FR campaign...)

@SevenSidedDie Looking forward to it, very curious to see what kind of stuff the kids come up with.

@SevenSidedDie unfortunate? Usual D&D 3.x design I say -.-

@ArpLaszlo Just remember your GM Principles and use your moves to fulfill the GM Agenda, and you'll be fine. Especially, ask lots of questions. It's one of the key techniques that let you let go of needing to have all the answers via prep.

@Zachiel Yeah... that's another reason why the plethora of options doesn't seem to be really something to embrace, to a GM like me. :)

@SevenSidedDie Crusader is just "we want to call it paladin but we already have a paladin out there" issue. You could just use them instead of paladins or, if you care about letting your players do the traditional paladin builds, just have them be two different paladin training, just like nightsong inquisitors/enforcers (same organization, different training)

@SevenSidedDie Thx, will keep that in mind. I seem to be on the Creating Worlds chapter as it is. This G+ guy has made some great vids explaining DW, my son watched the one on characters to get a nice overview of who he can be.

@SevenSidedDie I think I like the concept, not the implementation

@Zachiel There are so many things in there that aren't even relevant to my decision process for this! :) "Builds" are a foreign concept (I'm a "concept" type), and if it says "Crusader" on the tin, then either it is a crusader, or they're not going to be included in the game.

but you were ok to refluffing things as a DM, making your crusader into let's say sacred warrior, right?

@Zachiel Yeah, as a DM. But given the web of RPGing priorities that attitude is part of for me, it means I simply wouldn't bother in the first place. We've got a paladin already, right?

@SevenSidedDie I'm out, have a good one!

I can see replacing things if you discover that part of the game is broken, but if your experience is that the game isn't broken there, why fix it.

@ArpLaszlo You too! Good luck. :)

@SevenSidedDie except, as you yourself said earlier, it kind of sucks. It's also kind of magical in ways a holy warrior may not need to be, and also works poorly for warriors anointed by non-LG gods

If you don't care about builds, I'd call the crusader paladin and give that to my players, just because the things he can do are cooler. (Or you could use crusader for all the gods that don't have paladin orders, since it'a alignment free)

and I know for a fact that non-LG FR gods have paladins

@Zachiel it's not precisely alignment-free, but more options are available

@KRyan Sune

@KRyan Paladins suck in the second-paradigm playstyles, but they're fine in first-paradigm.

@KRyan Ok, it's not restricted to a single alignment but to its god's one

@Zachiel I think it's the same as clerics, actually, but I might be wrong

@Zachiel The only reasons to have paladins, to my mind, is because of their alignment stuff, so non-aligned paladin replacements aren't appealing.

@SevenSidedDie which is why I corrected him

alignment definitely matters to the crusader

it's just that crusaders exist for other alignments

@KRyan ok, you got what I meant, hopefully

@SevenSidedDie I like the idea of different gods having their champions they gift with "magic" powers

@KRyan That's what I mean though: the point of the paladin is that they're unique to a particular worldview; if there's one for every worldview then there's no point to having paladins or even paladin replacements.

@Zachiel We call those "clerics". ;)

In my games, not all clergy are clerics, it's only the ones who are champions who get miraculous powers.

@SevenSidedDie or Divine Templar PrC or what's the name

But that's a old-style holdover that 3e doesn't communicate.

@SevenSidedDie they have adepts but... adepts look like cabal cultists to me, familiar et al

@Zachiel But again, generic, every-faction-has-them PrCs defeat their point for me. If a PrC isn't there to mechanically implement a special faction, they simply don't exist.

Same argument as non-core classes. If swordsages don't represent something specific in the world, they just aren't going to get included. They're not going to just be ambiently around in the setting.

Actually, that's part of why my enthusiasm for 4e so quickly turned to "never again" within a couple months of its release. If the names and fluff don't matter, why am I picking this class or that class; for the mechanics, ok yeah, but mechanics isn't why I play RPGs.

@SevenSidedDie by the same token, though, if they're the same thing, why would you object to a player playing one "as a" (fighter or paladin or monk)?

if the player's going to enjoy it more, and the fluff is the same and therefore they have a place, albeit the same place already handled by some other class, why is that a problem?

@KRyan Because then the fluff really doesn't matter.

Same fluff = different abilities is a problem when you care about fluff, because when you care about fluff, you care about it being 1:1 with the mechanics as much as possible.

@SevenSidedDie but you suggested having different kits as a solution earlier

The unteathering of fiction and its rules implementation defeats the desired purpose of engaging with that fiction via given rules.

anyway, this has been a fascinating conversation that I'd like to continue

but I have to go

@KRyan Yeah, those tie fluff and mechanics together, they're not a la carte and separable.

I hope to see you on chat again some time to ask a few more questions

@KRyan I think it has been rather productive, if spammy. :)

@SevenSidedDie in this case, they just kind of... rewrote the paladin fluff, more-or-less. Slight differences, like the non-LG versions. they didn't explicitly call it a kit (or ACF in 3.5 lingo), I think, for marketing reasons

ACFs are harder to sell than new classes, and it also verges close to admitting they made design mistakes with the original classes

anyway, gotta go

later

@KRyan Ah, that's slightly more interesting. Still possible that the problems are ones that don't matter in a given playstyle, though, so it depends.

@KRyan Later!

@SevenSidedDie to me, it's for using mechanics in a GURPS way. I look for mechanical choices that let my character do the fluff I want. (Because wherever it's a ball of fire or a ray of blue plasma, a Fire power deals Fire damage, however you fluff it. And one that prones, well, prones, no matter if you lash a whip against your opponent's legs.) We had a player who wanted to be a necromancer, we strongly considered powers that let him summon spirits. The Shaman enters.

(he later went for warlock and cold damage)

@Zachiel I've been getting the impression that that's how most people who refluff see it. To my mind, that's not what D&D is for, so I don't use it that way, and it kinda interferes with what I do see D&D being for. I'd rather just play GURPS if we're going to do that. ^^

@SevenSidedDie The difference with me is that I don't really want to bother with getting everyone to learn GURPS - it's been hard enough to convert some players to 4e, and in my eyes 4e plays way more smoothly than GURPS could in my hands, basically because I have problems, as a DM, in finding some way to make my stories interesting without aiming for combat balance. (In other words I don't have the skillset for DMing GURPS)

Not to talk about the skillset for playing DW

I'd be a horrible DW master

@Zachiel You might be surprised. I came to DW with a style of DMing with a slight lean toward improv, but it taught me much more than I brought with me.

@Zachiel The combat balance was actually a large part of why 4e fell flat for me. I've never had trouble with balance, so all the rules it has designed to ensure balance weren't something I needed, and just interefered with the other parts of the game, for me. And combats were too long, and too separate from non-combat. :(

@SevenSidedDie I appreciate combats being long. It leaves me sessions with so few non-combat events that I can think about what happens next between sessions, instead of during sessions, which is also why I go in deep crysis with DW. (Plus, I like boardgames)

Long story short, when I need to improvise my world loses a lot of realism

@Zachiel I'm still unconvinced that DW would leave you hanging that badly (its innovation is in large part because it always tells you what to do next), but I can see how long 4e combat would be a feature then.

@SevenSidedDie I'm not sure it really tells me what to do. It gives me very good constraints, but ultimately what happens is in my hands and I'm the final judge of whether my idea is really adherent to the principles

@Zachiel I won't claim that I never stop to think for a moment. But when I don't know what to do next, just picking a GM move more or less at random works. If I land on "use up their resources", that tells me to look at what stuff they've been risking just now or very recently, and expend it (ammo, food, HP, that nice cloak they're carrying the body in tears, etc.)

You also need to take into account that I'm often paralyzed by choice. I think I'd be good as a co-DM of some game, but when I did that theere were so many times I tought the DM was doing poorly and I wanted to step in...

@Zachiel That'll do nicely ;) Thank you

@Zachiel Yeah, ok, analysis paralysis is not something DW is going to play nice with. :) Its pick-list design works really well for a lot of people, but that's not a failure mode that it handles well.

@SevenSidedDie that's the name I've been trying to remember for days, thank you. And now, I'm going to bed.

ttfn

@Zachiel 'Night!

@SevenSidedDie You've been mentioning first-paradigm and second-paradigm roleplaying today. What does that mean? Google is less than helpful to me here.

@DuckTapeal I made them up in the context of that big chat conversation.

Aha.

Ah, found it. I guess I just didn't go back far enough.

@SevenSidedDie What if you just make a chart / spinny-wheel of common "hard moves" or whatever? :D

Something like "risk their resources" is almost always appropriate somehow

Basically, there are two major paradigms for approaching D&D's rules, regardless of edition. One paradigm was in effect when 3e was written: the paradigm that reigned during the pre-3e RPG era. The second paradigm arose partway through 3.x's life and was a direct outgrowth of its rules. The charop community is firmly in the second paradigm.

My thesis is that the apparent broken bits in 3.x are really only broken in this second paradigm, because they aren't flaws from within the first paradigm that the rules were written in. (And both paradigms are valid, that's important.)

@SevenSidedDie I'm kinda just blundering into this conversation but I want to hear more about this.

"Broken" is stuff like 3.0 Haste and "CODzilla" and money-generating loops?

@AlexP Stuff like that, and things like the 15-minute adventuring day, the Paladin's Code being "bad" for the game, quadratic wizards and linear fighters, the whole concept of "suboptimal" builds, CR being unreliable, stuff like that.

@SevenSidedDie Hmm. I'm not sure I buy that, then. If I run 3.5 like AD&D/BD&D, how does the 15-minute adventure day suddenly go away?

The whole thing is complicated by WotC very naturally following the money (I mean, the alternative was bankruptcy) and late-3.x D&D actually did conform to the second paradigm.

So, I do think there's a dramatic, like, transition that happens between 3.0 and 3.5 or so. 3.0 creates a framework for multiclassing that then turns into "classes aren't really classes, they're packets of abilities you glue together to make your real character."

Could you give a one-sentence thesis statement on each of these two paradigms? I think I'm a little confused about what you mean.

@AlexP In an AD&D-context, resting was a decent strategic option, but not overwhelmingly so, because it carried the risks of wandering monsters.

@AlexP That's one of the parts of the paradigm change. But it wasn't the 3.0 to 3.5 change, it was a cultural thing beyond the text, while being informed by it.

@SevenSidedDie Yes. Exactly.

@DuckTapeal I can try, but I'm not sure I managed to distill it down that much.

Hm, it's really a web of assumptions, actually. That's why I use the term "paradigm": it's a way of thinking of the game, less a creed or something that can be summarised.

Things like "DMs have absolute veto over character choices" is a caricature of one idea from the former paradigm, while "banning splat books is unacceptable tyranny" is an extreme example of and idea that belongs to the second.

Sounds like a variation of "rules vs. rulings?"

"The game rules define the structure of the game" vs. "The GM creates the structure of the game and inserts the game rules into that structure," maybe?

Those would be examples of ideas that are embedded in the two paradigms, yeah. I'm not saying the examples are identities with the paradigms, but the paradigms are made up of a bunch of attitudes like those.

Another example would be the two contradictory ideas of: the rules exist to provide a framework the players can rely on; versus, the rules exist to implement the DM's campaign premise/reality.

Or even things as simple as "refluffing is OK / not OK" are paradigm differences.

It seems weird to me to have a system where the players can't depend on the rules. It makes sense for a GM to make things happen that aren't described in the rules, but it seems like if you're using a system, then you should use that system.

@DuckTapeal In my experience, a good(*) system is as much about asking you questions as providing you answers.

[* - Good = a thing I like.]

Well, yeah, that works totally fine. But in that case, the system says, "you should ask questions".

@SevenSidedDie So, this hits on something about modern-day D&D. I think it's a very idiosyncratic community.

If the system says "Here's what you are allowed to do." and the GM changes that with no warning or reasoning, then there's a problem.

Like, the game described in this question doesn't make any sense to me.

@DuckTapeal That's a good example of the position of the second paradigm. :) That wasn't the common understanding of RPGs two decades ago.

Again, I use "paradigm" very, very deliberately. It describes a fundamental approach to thinking of a subject that is nearly impenetrable/incomprehensible to someone of a competing paradigm.

So, "refluffing." I don't disagree with the idea of "refluffing" at all, but I think the conceptual space it occupies is a bit silly.

@DuckTapeal Let me posit, for a second, a world where "you should ask questions" is something that everyone know. They know it so thoroughly, so well, so fundamentally, that everyone forgets to say it. It appears in no RPG books, because it goes without saying.

What I'm saying is that, the RPG community actually was like that at one point. Now it's not. Or it is, but now we're split across two paradigms.

Agh, and there's my "go get das Kind" alarm. And thus ends my window of self-directed time.

Like, to me, game mechanics not grounded in the fiction are kinda senseless. (I can see a use for some, e.g. pure pacing mechanics, but I think of them as things to generally avoid.) I create new stuff based on preexisting mechanical stuff all the time. Even if it's just a 1:1 thing. "You are marked by a demon" is the same as "You have a magically-scrambled aura?" Why not!

@SevenSidedDie That tells me that the people who wrote the rules did so poorly. IIRC, the FATE core rules have a few lines that specifically state that stuff.

But I see that as, like, a structural act. Whereas "refluffing" seems to treat this as not-a-thing. You just always separate fiction from mechanics by default. That's weird to me!

@DuckTapeal Current RPGs are written poorly then, if we posit a future paradigm shift. That's nonsense though. They were written to the existing audience, completely unaware of assumptions that didn't need saying, or if they were aware of them, knew it would be ridiculous to say them.

@SevenSidedDie I think you have a higher opinion of old RPG stuff than I do. :)

@AlexP It's just one example. There are lots of assumptions. Take the classic "how can I tell how hard a fight is?!?" question that modern D&D players ask when they look at a non-D&D system. The idea that we got along for nigh on three decades without needing a clear challenge rating system is nearly incomprehensible, because it belongs to a specific paradigm.

Most trad games don't bother telling the GM how to balance encounters, because a) balancing encounters isn't a thing, why would you do that? b) if you want to estimate how hard the monsters are, just look at what they can do, what good is a blanket number? Those games just don't bother, because it was taken for granted as a skill GMs either had, or would develop.

(gotta go, will check back in 30 minutes or so, but still be mostly busy)

@SevenSidedDie Okay, that part definitely makes sense to me.

(What's the original context of this conversation? I may be able to pick up where SSD left off, if it's about explaining AW/DW.)

I don't know. I wasn't around for the start.

I think it was something about the question that came up on main about the at-will CLW item.

And what 'broken' means in 3.x.

But I might be way off base, I haven't read the whole thing.

Well, what do you want to talk about? :D

@DuckTapeal Started there, yeah. It was KRyan saying that the rules assume plentiful healing. When read through the lens of one paradigm they do, but they don't through the lens of the other paradigm. The rules don't actually say anything on the topic, so it's an interesting example of "what everyone knows" filling in the crucial details.

I guess it would be more fair to say that the rules make plentiful healing easy to come by.

Given how cheap low-level wands are in the mid-to-end game.

D&D is a strange artifact because each new version is partially based on the old version. So rule A can be written based on Edition N-1's rule B. And then Edition N's rule B is actually different.

(More so a matter of playstyle assumptions than rules per se, perhaps?)

@DuckTapeal That's just the thing though. In one paradigm that's true, in another it isn't. There's no text in the game that says "magic items can be bought by PCs easily."

@SevenSidedDie I agree with the separation thing and can see how the length thing could be a problem, but I wonder if there weren't things that could be done to avoid the interference. Would depend on what that interference was, I suppose.

@SevenSidedDie I largely think that you can only make that statement because, under the first paradigm, you consider a broken thing that the DM can change to be not-broken to not be broken in the first place, and I flatly disagree with that definition of "broken." "Fixable" doesn't mean "not broken," simply not needing fixing means not being broken

@KRyan The interference was largely structural; as in, the whole structure of the game fought the kind of game I enjoy. So what 4e excels at wasn't important to me, and what it sacrifices in order to excel at that unimportant thing is exactly what I want an RPG to deliver.

Meanwhile, Create Wand [item creation]

[steps out]

@SevenSidedDie that really doesn't "go away" in what you're calling the second paradigm; part of it is that the abilities available to 3.5 characters to prevent being attacked by wandering monsters are simply too good

@KRyan Still not Oberoni's fallacy I'm appealing to. It's not that it's not-broken because fixable, it's not-broken because... uh, metaphor time... we never thought to try to use that thing as a structural support, so it never broke.

@KRyan It's not a risk then, right?

@SevenSidedDie even though the rules say you can and should?

how is it not a valid critique of the system, valid to say the system is broken, if the system says you can rely on something that you cannot?

@SevenSidedDie it can be made into a fairly remote risk

@KRyan Again, what the rules appear to say is necessarily filtered through your existing viewpoint on what an RPG's rules are for. It's entirely possible to never interpret D&D to be saying "let PCs buy magic items".

to the point where, if you end up getting attacked more than rarely, breaks immersion because logically it's so hard to get you like that

@SevenSidedDie letting PCs buy items helps a lot of the balance issues, you know

because so many of them are from magic being so powerful, and so allowing people to have magic items to shore up their lack of magic is a helpful thing in that regard

@KRyan Web of assumptions, again. Remember, balance isn't a problem that people have coming from the first paradigm. :)

@SevenSidedDie In fact, there is text saying that magical equipment is easily available to players. DMG 137: "The gold piece limit is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community. ... Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical."

So, this is why I like game texts that can coherently describe what they're for.

D&D3.x really didn't do that.

@AlexP No, it really didn't.

@SevenSidedDie I know, but it's still "broken" for it to claim one thing (creatures of the same level are of at least similar power, and are reasonably challenged by things of the same CR) and for that not to be true

and those are claims implicit in the existence of both levels and CR

@AlexP My assertion is that it didn't, because the writers were operating in the first paradigm, but the text itself conveyed the second.

About as far as it goes is to tell you to not use rules and instead just spend two hours talking to a shopkeeper. (DMG "deep-immersion storytelling" seciton.)

see, my fundamental point is that, because as we agreed, 3.5 lies to you (and to itself), it is broken, because if you believe those lies you are likely to find yourself with a very undesirable situation

@KRyan They're implicit, but only in isolation. HD used to be exactly the same, but "everyone knew" that it wasn't an exact science. Nobody coming from that paradigm mistook CR for an exact science either, and so they didn't run afoul of that. Something can only be said to be broken if it fails at its job, but what happens if people disagree what it's job is? To some it won't be broken, to others it will.

@SevenSidedDie I don't pretend it should be an exact science, but they are wildly off

I mean, fighters are good at fighting, that's their forte

In other words, the "first paradigm" when it comes to D&D3.x is implicitly "I've played D&D before, so now I will use these rules to play My D&D," yes?

@KRyan Oh, I'll agree to that. It lies, and that's its fundamental brokenness. But specific rules aren't also broken inherently on their own, without context of their use.

a straight-up arena match is not really the best indicator of a class's power, but ultimately it's biased in favor of the fighter if anything

in a series of matches, level 13 wizards consistently beat level 20 fighters

Sweet Asmodeus is this still happening?

@KRyan More interacting things there, though. CR is only a bit off with charop out of the picture. With it in the picture (second paradigm), CR is massively off.

@Lord_Gareth this has been one of the most interesting and engaging conversations I've ever been in on this site

@SevenSidedDie don't agree there

I mean, it's not that useful to cite only the most notorious examples, but they exist

adamantine horrors are CR 9

they get disintegration and disjunction at-will

they don't have some secret weakness, either, so they're not a puzzle monster

@SevenSidedDie Oh hell no this is really inaccurate. CR is off on both sides of the scale constantly. WotC even admitted to deliberately under-CRing certain monsters (such as dragons) to make them artificially harder.

@Lord_Gareth (actually, in the context of this conversation, that isn't that big a flaw)

Run, mostly. CR is a loose measure of many diverse things that can't possibly be gathered under one number. And, WotC was under pressure to make it work better, which probably lead to them mucking it up worse.