How do you handle strict adherence to fluff? - Myth-Weavers


GM Workshop

A community-created and maintained place for Game Masters of all systems to bounce ideas around. It's a place for inspiration and sharing tips.


How do you handle strict adherence to fluff?

   
How do you handle strict adherence to fluff?

So I DM 5e irl. I tend to look at mechanics and not look at fluff. I find this to be beneficial in 5e because it lacks splatbooks. I allow my players to customize spell lists and reskin classes to better fit the character they are trying to build.

Taking Paladin levels does not make you a Paladin in game. I had a player use it as base to make a Psychic Warrior. We changed his Smite to Psychic Damage and customized his Expanded Spell list. It was a fairly simple change and no one had to learn any new mechanics. I was happy, the player was happy, win/win.

I have a new player that is uncomfortable with this concept or doesn't seem to grasp it. Which is fine, I leave room in my games to play bog standard races and classes. The problem is that they go off on rants sometimes about how it's not "how the book describes that" if a player describes something in an unusual manner. No mechanics change, just the visual.

I have tried to explain that it is a minor thing at my table and we are all just here to have fun but I can't seem to get the point across. He is a good player besides and not overly disruptive just...rigid.

Any thoughts?

There are two options -- he adapts to the group or the group adapts to him. It sounds like the group was having fun without him, so I'd suggest that he learn to get over himself and get along.

Well, if he doesn't like changed fluff, let him know he doesn't have to play with changed fluff. But the other characters can and will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raveled View Post
There are two options -- he adapts to the group or the group adapts to him. It sounds like the group was having fun without him, so I'd suggest that he learn to get over himself and get along.
Oh we all still have fun. It just kinda confounds me. It's a game of make-believe.

I could just be bored with the Classic Archtypes. Most of the Paladins & Druids I've seen over my D&D career have sort have merged into indistinct blobs. Those classes seem to get played a certain way. So I'm fine with a fresh approach and minor tweaks.

It could just be a matter of their preconceptions of the fantasy setting. I mean, you specifically mentioned your Paladin re-fluff/variant being Psychic Warrior, and I know a few DMs and players who just loathe the concept of psionic stuff in their campaign worlds for whatever reason. By the same token, I've seen some DMs/players go up in arms the moment someone asks about gunslinger stuff. Even in a game of make-believe you have be able to connect and invest with the world/setting, and some folks just have set-in-stone pet peeves.

@Cardamonelaw

Heh, it's funny you should mention gunslingers. I was reading the earlier posts and thinking "Well, shoot, this player sounds like a really rigid fellow. Shame." Then you mention gunslingers and I find myself going "Gunslingers? In my vision of D&D? Ewwwwhhh..."

...so yeah, who's being rigid now?

As you said, you have to be able to connect and invest in the setting. I seem to recall there being some kind of primitive guns in some D&D setting (or maybe it was Pathfinder), but they feel really alien to how I imagine D&D in my head. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone might find mere re-fluffing (which I personally enjoy, as long as it stays on-theme) off-putting.

@underling

You were asking for thoughts; unfortunately I don't have anything amazing to offer. I think you're already doing the one thing you can do, which is talking about it with the player in question. Either that's going to be enough to prevent this from becoming a problem at the table or it won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cairo View Post
I seem to recall there being some kind of primitive guns in some D&D setting (or maybe it was Pathfinder), but they feel really alien to how I imagine D&D in my head. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone might find mere re-fluffing (which I personally enjoy, as long as it stays on-theme) off-putting.
For anyone who knows historical Europe, they're more or less exactly as off-putting as full plate.

Plate armor was first developed in the 1350s or so.

The first handheld guns were developed in the 1100s. Took them a couple hundred years to migrate out of China, sure, but as far as history is concerned... full plate in a world *without* guns is actually far stranger than guns in D&D.

@TanaNari

Lucky for me, we’re discussing a fantasy make-belief setting which doesn’t have to go by historical facts. I’d hate to have to deal with actual, walk-among-men gods on my commute...

It comes back to the original topic of the thread: personal expectations on the internal logic of a fantasy make-belief world. Someone expects what’s written in the rulebooks, as selected for a given session / storyline, to be followed to the letter. Others who might consider themselves less strict at first blush simply have their lines drawn elsewhere, based on a different set of expectations.

And that’s really all I have to say on that.







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2018-09-23 09:00:06am local time
Myth-Weavers Status