After reading through the excellent post by Jon Peterson (Does System Matter) and the related comment thread here, I was thinking of the very specific interplay of rules and fluff that occurs in D&D.
To move back for a second, for better or worse, D&D has always been a "class-based" system. People can, and do, argue about what a class means. Is it a job? A descriptor? An archetype? Just a convenient grabbag of abilities? Regardless of the exact nature of what a class is, D&D is a class sytem.
Assuming this classist system (ahem), what does that really mean? Well, I was thinking about this because D&D generally (and 5e) tends to have a mix of what, for lack of a better phrasing, you can call "lore" and "crunch." (lore is also fluff, crunch is also rules, and I often used the terms interchangeably). Sometimes, the lore can be heavy and will really influence the crunch (arguably, the TSR lines of D&D). Sometimes, the crunch will be at the front and the lore will follow (arguably 4e). 5e is a useful way to examine this; for example:
The PHB says, under dwarf traits, "Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in the dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. ..."
In that, we have both the system (rule) that provides specific language regarding how darkvision works if you play a dwarf, as well as additional color language (fluff) saying that it's because dwarves live underground.
Which brings up the question that many a D&D group has- what if the dwarves aren't living underground? Do tropical coconut dwarves living out on the islands have darkvision? Well, maybe only I have that question, but the general principle stands. At what point does the fluff interact and inform the rule, and at what point is the fluff just ... fluff, completely devoid of any rule-like substance or any impact on the game?
This becomes important when it comes to how people view classes in the world of D&D. A common example of this is the Druid.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal).
Initially, there has to be the determination of whether this is a rule or fluff. If it's a rule, what is the penalty? Does the druid explode? Cease to exist? If a captor encases the druid in plate armor, does the druid vanish into a singularity? If every other class can take advantage of some advantages of MC'ing, why not druids (see PHB 164). A paladin that falls from grace becomes an Oathbreaker; what happens to a druid that deliberately wears metal armor?
While this might seem nitpicky (most tables will just answer this with a resounding, "Duh, don't wear metal armor," while a minority will be all, "You can't tell me what to do!") the issue comes up fairly often when it comes to the correlation of class and lore. A warlock has a patron, while a cleric has a deity. What are the lore issues involved with those (and is this a DM or player-driven issue, and what happens when there is a conflict between patron and deity).
So I was wondering what the general outlook of people are given the way 5e is deigned today. It certainly reads as "lore heavy" in many ways, given the natural language it is written in. Nevertheless, many people play the classes as if they are more of a grab-bag of abilities, removed from any particular conception of what that class might "mean."
I looked for some prior threads on the subject, but didn't find much. On the advice of @Oofta I thought I'd put a poll up.
To move back for a second, for better or worse, D&D has always been a "class-based" system. People can, and do, argue about what a class means. Is it a job? A descriptor? An archetype? Just a convenient grabbag of abilities? Regardless of the exact nature of what a class is, D&D is a class sytem.
Assuming this classist system (ahem), what does that really mean? Well, I was thinking about this because D&D generally (and 5e) tends to have a mix of what, for lack of a better phrasing, you can call "lore" and "crunch." (lore is also fluff, crunch is also rules, and I often used the terms interchangeably). Sometimes, the lore can be heavy and will really influence the crunch (arguably, the TSR lines of D&D). Sometimes, the crunch will be at the front and the lore will follow (arguably 4e). 5e is a useful way to examine this; for example:
The PHB says, under dwarf traits, "Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in the dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. ..."
In that, we have both the system (rule) that provides specific language regarding how darkvision works if you play a dwarf, as well as additional color language (fluff) saying that it's because dwarves live underground.
Which brings up the question that many a D&D group has- what if the dwarves aren't living underground? Do tropical coconut dwarves living out on the islands have darkvision? Well, maybe only I have that question, but the general principle stands. At what point does the fluff interact and inform the rule, and at what point is the fluff just ... fluff, completely devoid of any rule-like substance or any impact on the game?
This becomes important when it comes to how people view classes in the world of D&D. A common example of this is the Druid.
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal).
Initially, there has to be the determination of whether this is a rule or fluff. If it's a rule, what is the penalty? Does the druid explode? Cease to exist? If a captor encases the druid in plate armor, does the druid vanish into a singularity? If every other class can take advantage of some advantages of MC'ing, why not druids (see PHB 164). A paladin that falls from grace becomes an Oathbreaker; what happens to a druid that deliberately wears metal armor?
While this might seem nitpicky (most tables will just answer this with a resounding, "Duh, don't wear metal armor," while a minority will be all, "You can't tell me what to do!") the issue comes up fairly often when it comes to the correlation of class and lore. A warlock has a patron, while a cleric has a deity. What are the lore issues involved with those (and is this a DM or player-driven issue, and what happens when there is a conflict between patron and deity).
So I was wondering what the general outlook of people are given the way 5e is deigned today. It certainly reads as "lore heavy" in many ways, given the natural language it is written in. Nevertheless, many people play the classes as if they are more of a grab-bag of abilities, removed from any particular conception of what that class might "mean."
I looked for some prior threads on the subject, but didn't find much. On the advice of @Oofta I thought I'd put a poll up.
