Character Class Fluff Format [Archive] - Wizards Community

Character Class Fluff Format [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Arkonth
01-08-07, 11:22 PM After reading various thread on various topics, I became interested in how character class "fluff" (the description of persona and motivation driving classes and the non-rules parts of class write-ups) was done in WotC books.

I think the various opinion on this writeup can be synthesized into a few simple viewpoints as follows (if none of these is indicative of your opinion please explain and I'll edit).

Viewpoint 1: Fluff as written is inherent to class. If you take levels in a class, you must portray something of what is written. Classes can be considered job descriptions. A rogue is a thief or dungeon expert or manipulator etc. It stretches belief for a fighter to take a single wizard level. Prestige classes are frequently part of organizations.

This makes multi classing, especially into more than 2 classes, a complicated and potentially very confusing venture. In fact multi classing beyond a certain point isn't logical or believable.

Viewpoint 2: Fluff as written influences characters. A rogue could be anything, but will be affected by the rogue archetype. Perhaps at least in the past this person was a thief or silver tongued diplomat/dungeon engineer. Prestige classes may generally part of organizations but aren't necessarily.

This option allows much broader multi classing, but still requires some justification in terms of the classes chosen. A fighter/wizard seems more plausible especially with eldritch knight levels.

Viewpoint 3: Fluff as written is at best a suggestion and has no bearing on play. A warlock could derive his powers from certain deep sea monsters, and a rogue could be an extremely lucky scholar who manages to unlock without even knowing how.

This option leave multi classing wide open, and makes classes little more than convenient ways to arrange abilities.

Fluff, as written, gravitates towards the first two. Especially in the modern longer format for prestige classes, written fluff often assigns those classes specific affiliations and roleplay responsibilities. Classes like the warlock and the warblade have a lot of expectations built into them as base classes with the fluff as written.

My real question is whether or not this format is preferred. I'm a little wishy washy myself.

One argument is that removing flavor completely creates more options, and uses less paper :P . I think this is a little extreme and only would work if all DnD players were brilliant roleplayers who didn't need inspiration, and always came up with their own ideas.

Another is that without fluff in classes, roleplaying would die off or be diminished. Given only numbers, players would neglect the personalities their characters (which is an acceptable playstyle to some people, but not the norm and would presumably diminish the game as a whole).

I'm a little annoyed with people who view (unconsciously or intentionally) class flavor as a straitjacket. However, I think complete removal is extreme and just as damaging as overly descriptive fluff.

Therefore, I've got several ideas for fluff placement that would enhance the experience.

1) Fluff listed with classes, but in a format of short blocks specifically denoting themselves as ideas and not the be-all end all of personas for a given class.

2) Fluff divorced from classes, instead lists of character concepts in standing with theme of each book in a separate section. I like this in theory, but I'm wary aobut how it may be applied.

3) VERY VERY generic fluff. That is to say, fighters fight. They use weapons of some kind with which to kill things and do not cast spells. Fluff specifically derived from mechanics that offers no other input.

Problem with all these ideas:They would make books much shorter, or require more crunch in them, which is harder to write (IMHO and I believe from the viewpoint of WotC, but will happily be corrected or modified) and is thus not really in WotC's interest.

Any thoughts from the rest of the community?
JagAgemo
01-08-07, 11:53 PM hmmm... I would say I am a little of all view points.

you should have a character concept and stick with it regardless of the class you are actually taking. It was from Miko Miyazaki OOTS that said:

"why is it so difficult to believe that without having a class with the word "samurai" in the title?? can there be no facets of life that are not defind solely by class"
comic No. 209 order of the stick

In other words. feel free to call your self a "fighter" being a lvl 15 rogue.
or a gladiator being a 6th lvl monk. so long as it makes sense (a psion is NOT a barbarian). sure!

If a class has some but not all of your final concept go ahead an multiclass, just stay true to the original and final idea as it is the only one that really matters.
Arkonth
01-09-07, 12:00 AM hmmm... I would say I am a little of all view points.

you should have a character concept and stick with it regardless of the class you are actually taking. It was from Miko Miyazaki OOTS that said:

"why is it so difficult to believe that without having a class with the word "samurai" in the title?? can there be no facets of life that are not defind solely by class"
comic No. 209 order of the stick

I agree with this style for character construction and personality. I believe class should have no effect on a character's personality. But I think fluff placement and format currently disparages this style of play, or at least doesn't clarify it as an option.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arkonth 01-08-07, 11:22 PM	After reading various thread on various topics, I became interested in how character class "fluff" (the description of persona and motivation driving classes and the non-rules parts of class write-ups) was done in WotC books. I think the various opinion on this writeup can be synthesized into a few simple viewpoints as follows (if none of these is indicative of your opinion please explain and I'll edit). Viewpoint 1: Fluff as written is inherent to class. If you take levels in a class, you must portray something of what is written. Classes can be considered job descriptions. A rogue is a thief or dungeon expert or manipulator etc. It stretches belief for a fighter to take a single wizard level. Prestige classes are frequently part of organizations. This makes multi classing, especially into more than 2 classes, a complicated and potentially very confusing venture. In fact multi classing beyond a certain point isn't logical or believable. Viewpoint 2: Fluff as written influences characters. A rogue could be anything, but will be affected by the rogue archetype. Perhaps at least in the past this person was a thief or silver tongued diplomat/dungeon engineer. Prestige classes may generally part of organizations but aren't necessarily. This option allows much broader multi classing, but still requires some justification in terms of the classes chosen. A fighter/wizard seems more plausible especially with eldritch knight levels. Viewpoint 3: Fluff as written is at best a suggestion and has no bearing on play. A warlock could derive his powers from certain deep sea monsters, and a rogue could be an extremely lucky scholar who manages to unlock without even knowing how. This option leave multi classing wide open, and makes classes little more than convenient ways to arrange abilities. Fluff, as written, gravitates towards the first two. Especially in the modern longer format for prestige classes, written fluff often assigns those classes specific affiliations and roleplay responsibilities. Classes like the warlock and the warblade have a lot of expectations built into them as base classes with the fluff as written. My real question is whether or not this format is preferred. I'm a little wishy washy myself. One argument is that removing flavor completely creates more options, and uses less paper :P . I think this is a little extreme and only would work if all DnD players were brilliant roleplayers who didn't need inspiration, and always came up with their own ideas. Another is that without fluff in classes, roleplaying would die off or be diminished. Given only numbers, players would neglect the personalities their characters (which is an acceptable playstyle to some people, but not the norm and would presumably diminish the game as a whole). I'm a little annoyed with people who view (unconsciously or intentionally) class flavor as a straitjacket. However, I think complete removal is extreme and just as damaging as overly descriptive fluff. Therefore, I've got several ideas for fluff placement that would enhance the experience. 1) Fluff listed with classes, but in a format of short blocks specifically denoting themselves as ideas and not the be-all end all of personas for a given class. 2) Fluff divorced from classes, instead lists of character concepts in standing with theme of each book in a separate section. I like this in theory, but I'm wary aobut how it may be applied. 3) VERY VERY generic fluff. That is to say, fighters fight. They use weapons of some kind with which to kill things and do not cast spells. Fluff specifically derived from mechanics that offers no other input. Problem with all these ideas:They would make books much shorter, or require more crunch in them, which is harder to write (IMHO and I believe from the viewpoint of WotC, but will happily be corrected or modified) and is thus not really in WotC's interest. Any thoughts from the rest of the community?
JagAgemo 01-08-07, 11:53 PM	hmmm... I would say I am a little of all view points. you should have a character concept and stick with it regardless of the class you are actually taking. It was from Miko Miyazaki OOTS that said: "why is it so difficult to believe that without having a class with the word "samurai" in the title?? can there be no facets of life that are not defind solely by class" comic No. 209 order of the stick In other words. feel free to call your self a "fighter" being a lvl 15 rogue. or a gladiator being a 6th lvl monk. so long as it makes sense (a psion is NOT a barbarian). sure! If a class has some but not all of your final concept go ahead an multiclass, just stay true to the original and final idea as it is the only one that really matters.
Arkonth 01-09-07, 12:00 AM	hmmm... I would say I am a little of all view points. you should have a character concept and stick with it regardless of the class you are actually taking. It was from Miko Miyazaki OOTS that said: "why is it so difficult to believe that without having a class with the word "samurai" in the title?? can there be no facets of life that are not defind solely by class" comic No. 209 order of the stick I agree with this style for character construction and personality. I believe class should have no effect on a character's personality. But I think fluff placement and format currently disparages this style of play, or at least doesn't clarify it as an option.