There's also the larger question of whether the ninja in your setting are based on real-life ninjas or ninja movie ninjas. Much like the knights in your setting being based on real life medieval European knights or on Knights of the Round Table or other fictional/legendary sources.
While many aspects of fantasy Japan has been included in the development of Kaidan such as inclusion of gunslingers, "furry" races like hengeyokai, some "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" maneuvers at least in the presentation of tengu, that might cater to anime and wushu fans, most of the effort has been towards a grittier, more realistic Japan setting. So while I could see many fans of the orient using Kaidan, I'd be perfectly happy if it only attracted those looking for a more authentic setting, relegating the less historically interested types in playing in Minkai, Golarion, instead.
It would be nice to be considered the default fantasy Japan setting for most RPG gamers, but I don't need Kaidan to fit that role. I just as soon only attract those more interested in authenticity, as opposed to the anime-wushu fanbase - which is not really the targetted audience.
I am now somewhat curious as to when the ninja costume made the transition from just being a Kabuki stagehands outfit to being the popular image of a ninja. Before "Ninja" really became a popular thing in the West, I assume, but how long before?
Looking around the web, there do seem to be some ninja images in the stereotypical black outfit in woodcuts from the early 19th century. Anything earlier?
Unfortunately I cannot name you the specific kabuki play where this motive of ninja as stagehand first appeared. However, in the same way that Hollywood creates tropes that was historically nonexistent in its depiction of many historical concepts like King Arthur wearing 15th century armor or ninja in black pajamas, the Kabuki theater was feudal Japan's version of national media. So when the first play to include ninja in the storyline used the back stagehand costume - it became a trope. So ever after in any performance depiction of ninja, the stagehand costume was used to indicate who was a ninja. As far as I know that play was first presented in the 18th century, so the trope existed at least since that time. I would state that this is a trope in Japan as well, not just in western depictions of Japan in movies - its just that the Japanese realize it isn't meant to be a historically accurate portrayal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also enjoying Digitalelf's post, though I'm finding my ability to reply limited by my relative lack of experience with 2E.
I've shown several times now, where the 2nd edition Player's Handbook states that classes should be looked at as being professions or careers, and if you are to do that, then that makes the fluff of the classes very important (and that is just the primary example of the books stating that the fluff of a class is important). YOU can choose to ignore that, and play them however you want, but the text is there...
Does fluff being important equate to it being immutable?
A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. If you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D game.
Your character's class represents their profession and requires some training - but that might not mean that one class always has to represent the same profession and training (even without kits).
Also, is that statement consistent throughout the edition? Several other supplements seem to take a more flexible view towards the fluff. Seems to me that that bit in the Player's Handbook was intended to lay the groundwork for the "class" concept, which as previously mentioned doesn't exist in the real world like "race/species" does. Once you establish the concept you can play with it more.
You don't have to reflavour, but doing so isn't against the intent of the game.
I think the concern with re-flavoring a class (or race, for that matter), is that it can often detract from the campaign setting. For generic one-size-fits-all campaigns, re-flavoring isn't likely to be a problem. But for custom campaigns, it likely will be.
In a custom campaign, each race will get a written entry explaining how that race is viewed/acts/etc in that particular campaign world. The same goes for most classes, especially wizards, clerics, and other caster classes, as how magic works and how the world views magic is often a critical component of a campaign world.
Lastly, in my own experience, those that want to reflavor a class don't actually write out the new flavor they're trying to emulate. They simply want to ignore the description and any perceived baggage that comes along with it.
We're talking about ninja's now?
So, can we talk about how they jump around and kill things...which is why they are cool?
(now to see if anyone gets the quote).
More seriously though, I don't know where gamer-printer is getting their info, but they made a pretty big mistake in regards to the Ninja's in all black.
In fact, Ninja's DID go around in all black at all times, which is where the stereotype actually came from (and perhaps that's where the play's/drama got it from...who knows).
Now, they could disguise themselves as something or someone else, but in stealth missions, they would dress in complete black clothing at night.
This is a practice that is actually still continued (or copied, or taken up, however you want it) but some groups today when they try to do secretive activities at night.
It's actually a pretty simplistic reason, if you are trying to do something bad/illegal/wrong/don't want to get caught...etc. at night, then you don't want to be seen. Dressing all in black, was, and still is, a pretty good way to keep yourself better hidden in the dark.
Dressing in white, bright colors, or other easily distinguishable marks...is not.
The Japanese figured this out pretty early on...and so...when in certain activities, the Ninja indeed dressed all in black.
This wasn't constant, or all the time by any means, but it probably was common enough that someone picked up on it.
It's something that has been utilized (by others these days...though some may call them other names than Ninja, such as secret operatives...illegal activities..etc.) today and is still an effective tool.
So perhaps there was some kabuki stage hand, but the actual essence, is that yes, this was a tool that was utilized by the Japanese. Sneaking around wasn't considered all that honorable...but it was probably that others besides Ninja's ALSO used it.
It may be more accurate to say, it was associated more with Ninja because Ninja are more associated with the invisible type of scheme, rather than a Samurai, or some criminal world element...hence in stage plays it was utilized to portray the Ninja as such.
But to say Ninja didn't use that tool, when that area is one of the places of origin for what is really a lot of common sense and been utilized as a tool to this day...is somewhat misleading...IMO.
PS/Addendum: I would like to add, I think the MOST common clothing for a Ninja (The REAL ones) in the 20th century were business suits. Just an irony to contemplate. Most of those caught in the US I think were actually well dressed when caught...and not in all black.
PPS: Still, going for the fictional ones...Ninjas are cool because they jump around and kill things...right?
Isn't the "black robed ninjas came from stagehands" thing a myth?
I think the concern with re-flavoring a class (or race, for that matter), is that it can often detract from the campaign setting.Which is ironic, since one of the most common reasons for refluffing something is to make it fit a campaign setting when the default fluff doesn't.
i agree with this, it is usually done to make the mechanical package and skillset fit the setting, because the real problem shouldn't be with people reskinning a class to copy a literary character with an identical skillset or to make the ninja skillset fit in a western setting as a magic using stealthy government agent
the problem should be with people who are told "no, i do not want anybody to play a bunny girl ninja at my table" only for the rejected ninja fangirl to whip up a half elf ranger who wears black pajamas, wears a bunny eared hair band, and carries a gladius reskinned as a wakazashi because the DM banned the class and race rather than the concept
the problem isn't reskinning mechanics to sidestep concept and make the class work in the setting, it is with banning a class based on the pre written fluff which merely involves the player using the internet to help build a character that provides the aesthetic you didn't want through a different class
don't ban individual classes based on flavor, ban the flavor instead. banning the published Final Fantasy Viera Race Conversion and Ninja class doesn't stop people from playing bunny girl ninjas, it just encourages the snowflake to get creative with reskinning a half elf ranger to wear black pajamas and a bunny hairband to build the bunny girl ninja you didn't want in the first place
reskinning a class to fit the tone and flavor of the setting is fine though. it is when they use class and equipment to copy the concept of a class you banned because you thought it would stop them
I think the concern with re-flavoring a class (or race, for that matter), is that it can often detract from the campaign setting. For generic one-size-fits-all campaigns, re-flavoring isn't likely to be a problem. But for custom campaigns, it likely will be.
In a custom campaign, each race will get a written entry explaining how that race is viewed/acts/etc in that particular campaign world. The same goes for most classes, especially wizards, clerics, and other caster classes, as how magic works and how the world views magic is often a critical component of a campaign world.
Lastly, in my own experience, those that want to reflavor a class don't actually write out the new flavor they're trying to emulate. They simply want to ignore the description and any perceived baggage that comes along with it.
reskinning to make something fit a setting isn't a problem, it is reskinning a similar class to fit the oddball character you wanted to play because the DM banned the Viera Race and Ninja class without realizing you could theoretically make a half elf ranger in black pajamas who would have a bunny eared headband and still be the same character you banned in the first place, just with different mechanics.
this is why you shouldn't so much ban individual classes or reskins of classes, as much as character types you don't want to see. it would be easier to tell the fangirl that "you don't want her playing a bunny eared assassin in black pajamas, but you would be willing to work with her on making the arcane assassin that is the ninja work to fit the setting if you and her are willing to collaborate on ninja like government organizations more suited to the setting"
Isn't the "black robed ninjas came from stagehands" thing a myth?
it is actually pretty widely known. that the black pajamas were a kabuki trope used in stories about ninja. it isn't that ninja wanted to be literally invisible because that would draw too much suspicion when something nobody else can see slashes a random guy's throat
what ninja did, was they dressed as whatever local people could technically gain access to where they needed to go, and as government agents, their lords could forge the papers needed to get them to enter where they needed to go
plus. there were a wide variety of ninja that literally bore the samurai title when they weren't doing ninja duty or were treated as honorary minor samurai.
the babysnatching thing is generally a myth, as are the specific ninja clans like hollywood portrays them. a ninja was usually a samurai or honorary samurai who was willing to do things the still pragmatic but more positively reputable samurai politicians weren't willing to do because they didn't want to stain their reputation
samurai and knights were both pretty underhanded historically. it was just there were some of them that would maintain the front to make their title look clean and those, who were government agents that generally did the dirty work
and one thing both samurai and knights had in common, is they were both highly adaptable and both of them, did plenty of dirty tricks in war time. in fact, the concept of honor was a front that was kept up to prevent people from using the techniques they specialized in against them, which was why it was labled dishonorable to use a longbow to take down a knight, because some knights complained that an arrow weakened the benefit of their toys and because they wanted to set up laws that allowed their toys to retain an advantage. but those same noble warriors weren't afraid to take down others of their kind with a bow, they just didn't want to be ganked by a lucky peasant because "i am of the grand lineage and i have to look important"
We're talking about ninja's now?
Actually, none of that is true.
Ninjutsu as an art was stopped being practiced around 1600, when Ieyasu Tokugawa sent his armies to eliminate them - Tokugawa used Hanzo Hattori extensively in the years leading up to and shortly after the start of the Tokugawa Era, after which he eliminated their existence. I cannot say that some obscure ninja house did not exist after that time, however, nothing can be proved of that historically. All currently existing "ninja schools" in Japan today, were created out of nothing in the early 20th century and in no way was is based on known skills of ninjutsu, an art that is completely lost.
One point that many westerners don't get is that Tokugawa and his line eliminated war in Japan between 1600 - 1868. Although a couple peasant revolts and a monk revolt occurred early in the 17th century, most other militant actions were suppressed under Tokugawa rule. Ninja are tools for war. With the elimination of war, ninja did not have a job to do, added to the fact that the government took an active role to eliminate them.
In every historical reference that points to activities of ninja occuring, there is never a physical description of what they looked like, nor what tools they use. I could point to multiple historical references that mention ninja, but as stated in all these sources, they are only mentioned, never described in detail.
The problem with trying to tie kabuki backstage outfits to ninja is the fact that ninja as an institution was eliminated by Tokugawa shortly after 1600. The very first kabuki plays were done by women only (rather than men only as in later Kabuki), around 1600. The advanced Kabuki theaters that feature black backgrounds and stagehands wearing black costumes didn't occur until around 1700. So there is a century long gap between the end of the ninja period and the golden age of kabuki. Ninja never chose to wear Kabuki backstage outfits, as neither existed while the other was around.
In any kabuki play, the actors are wearing overly colorful costumes to depict the roles they play (their costumes were more colorful than any real outfits worn by those they were supposed to represent), while the backstage people worked out of direct light wearing their mostly black outfits that even covered most of their hands and face. Although most of the audience could see the stage crew in action, they accepted that these folks are "invisible" and you're not supposed to notice them - look over there were the lights and actors are, that's where your attention is supposed to be.
In that first play where ninja were depicted in a story, someone wearing the backstage outfit, pulled out a stage sword and slew the main actor of the play. The connection didn't mean ninja wore backstage outfits, rather that ninja were invisible until doing their deed - this was represented with the backstage outfit, not defined as this is what they wore.
Also as previously mentioned indigo was the cheapest and most common dye color and was the color of the working class. If you wanted to appear in disguise, as well as subdued for night time activities, just dress as a common farmer or artisan and you qualify for both. Historically ninja are most commonly mentioned as being dressed as a monk.
I will stake my reputation as an amateur historian and the primary developer of the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) that at no time did ninja ever wear those backstage costumes.
Or in other words: Find out what the player actually wants and see if the thing they really want conflicts with what you want in the game. If it does, change the campaign to allow it anyway, find a compromise, or ban the concept. If it doesn't, figure out a way to represent it mechanically - which can be reskinning, new classes, archetypes, kits, prestige classes, whatever.
As a player, don't hack around the GMs restrictions (half elf ranger to wear black pajamas and a bunny hairband). As a GM don't allow something, then screw with the player for it.
Lists of banned classes don't really solve most of the problems - except of course when you're banning the class on mechanical grounds.
list of banned classes don't solve a thing unless you specifically don't want a specific mechanic from that class. and i actually dealt with a player who hacked around the DM's restrictions
the girl found a pathfinderized conversion of the FFTA Viera and flaunted a copy of ninja class from the D20PFSRD, saying she wanted to play a bunny girl ninja
the DM said no to the bunny girl and the ninja because he thought he could stop the concept
so the girl made a half elf ranger with a mithril shirt and magic headband of wisdom, though the sheet appeared innocent enough, when she described her character, she described it as a little half elf girl in a bunny eared hairband with a black pair of pajamas and said that her mithril chain shirt was beneath her pajamas
the DM freaked out because the player, in less than 10 minutes of research on a smart phone, managed to minmax the bunny girl ninja she wanted and shatter the campaign's combat encounters with a build involving the use of obscure feats to build a minmaxed kunai throwing katana wielding switch hitter. this was a physical campaign like years ago at a card shop in West Sacramento that just didn't last.
Isn't the "black robed ninjas came from stagehands" thing a myth?If so, it's a widespread, commonly accepted one.
I'd need to see at least some evidence debunking it before I agreed.
Yeah, I don't know. It's just what I was told - as I understood it that source of the costume is commonly cited, but nobody ever provides any historical reference for this being where it originated.
As I said, I don't know at all - I'd just heard this put forth as a "myth within a myth".
this is why you shouldn't so much ban individual classes or reskins of classes, as much as character types you don't want to see.
I think we're pretty much in agreement, I simply find it easier to request that players stick with the class descriptions that are already included for a custom world. Most class descriptions are written so that they can fit numerous concepts.
I think this whole topic really is a sub-topic of the GM - Player relationship. My experience is mostly as a GM, and it usually works out where I create a custom world, create all of the history of the world, the setting, etc. Then I recruit players.
I give the players a brief introduction of the custom world and then work with them to refine their characters. With some players, they don't really care about the descriptions of the races, classes, etc. Their only concern is the mechanics.
I find this attitude is not conducive to the type of game I'm hoping to achieve. Thus I usually don't allow re-flavoring of classes or races.
Other GMs & players have described totally different methods of campaigns. Such as using a published world, or all of the players sitting around a table and discussing what kind of world they want to play in, what kind of characters, etc. Then one of the players volunteers to GM that world.
In that kind of format, re-flavoring of classes works as there wouldn't be any campaign restrictions beyond what the group decided.
this is why you shouldn't so much ban individual classes or reskins of classes, as much as character types you don't want to see.I think we're pretty much in agreement, I simply find it easier to request that players stick with the class descriptions that are already included for a custom world. Most class descriptions are written so that they can fit numerous concepts.
I think this whole topic really is a sub-topic of the GM - Player relationship. My experience is mostly as a GM, and it usually works out where I create a custom world, create all of the history of the world, the setting, etc. Then I recruit players.
I give the players a brief introduction of the custom world and then work with them to refine their characters. With some players, they don't really care about the descriptions of the races, classes, etc. Their only concern is the mechanics.
I find this attitude is not conducive to the type of game I'm hoping to achieve. Thus I usually don't allow re-flavoring of classes or races.
Other GMs & players have described totally different methods of campaigns. Such as using a published world, or all of the players sitting around a table and discussing what kind of world they want to play in, what kind of characters, etc. Then one of the players volunteers to GM that world.
In that kind of format, re-flavoring of classes works as there wouldn't be any campaign restrictions beyond what the group decided.
the area or few where i would be in disagreement with you, is with the idea that reskinning is always a negative thing. reskinning could be also a positive thing that connects the mechanics to the setting, creates organizations for the dungeon master to use as idea fodder for NPCs and even allows the player to contribute their 2 copper coins to the setting in a collaborative effort, because the game doesn't solely belong to the dungeon master, but to both the dungeon master and to the players as well.
i had a friend who reskinned a katana wielding human barbarian as what amounted to the Hollywood and Steriotypical Shonen Anime definitions of a Samurai and he even had the social title. he had no levels in the samurai class or no training in mounted combat, he was a fairly good shot with a composite longbow and fairly good with a katana though and nobody cared that his "Zen powered warrior's trance" was a reskin of rage or that his "Jigen Opening Strike" was a reskin of pounce, or that his "Youkai Slice" was a reskin of spell sunder. he was a really good roleplayer compared to most of the group and the fact his "barbarian" was played and described as a "samurai" via reskin despite having no levels in the real samurai class, was a cool thing. the DM misses the fact the player gave him narrative ammunition to work with
another interesting reskin i had done, was for a campaign involving a group of knights, and i didn't want to play a full plate wearing mounted charger, so i did some research on more pragmatic and underhanded knights, and reskinned a sylph slayer as not so much a white knight, as much as a lightly armored grey knight who dressed in green peasants quilted mesh with a cloak and fought using a pair reskinned kukris that were each described as either a kris or a rondell. the wavy curved medieval european knives from i don't know where. her quilted mesh was a reskin of the chain shirt, mostly due to the heavy layers of cloth she wore and how good they were at soaking up piercing weapons, and she later got a spidersilk version that mimicked mithril kikko. same price either way as the non reskinned counterparts her clothes even flowed in the breezes that surrounded her sylph self and she was a pragmatic black-ops knight, what pathfinder would call a low templar or low paladin. a cad with an honorary title of knighthood. she generally use blinding and staggering critical with her 15-20 crit range and generally applied both in a round, her damage was dexterity based with the boost from power attack, focused target and sneak attack, all represent her going for weak points. she also scouted, dealt with traps, picked locks, ambushed enemies and could serve as a translator, translating through sense motive and linguistics while somebody else rolled the real diplomacy check with their real bonus. getting an aid another from her linguistics and sense motive being used to translate.
she also carried a composite longbow as a backup weapon, spending normal feats on dual wielding, and slayer talents on archery style and what combat feats she could get from rogue talents the concept was she was initially a young street urchin who got promoted to knight after she took initiative to assassinate the assassin that took out the king the time before he was resurrected and treated as an honorary knight worthy of trust. she was still a knight, the game said nothing about disallowing dishonest knights who engage in pragmatic underhanded combat manuevers and said nothing about her "collecting taxes to fund the king's forces" and as a sylph, she could almost pass for human. slightly tapered ears notwithstanding, but humans could have those too. that collection of taxes was technically stealing, but all the money went to funding the mundane expenses of that particular group of knights, who were a member of the kings forces, and it was sanctioned indeed.
but then, i am also guilty of reskinning elves as lesser nymphs raised by humans who happened to be very detached from their fae heritage and lack the connection to nature that say a human would have, sometimes taking alternate racials as appropriate. like using darkvision from ARG to represent a Nyxad or Shadow Nymph or taking some more woodsy traits on a more martial focused elven chassis to represent a wood nymph
|
Can we make a kit (or a new class) that changes nothing but the fluff?
Assuming I wanted the abilities of an existing class, but with different fluff.
Or would you require actual mechanics changes for any different profession or career?
The short answer is, yes, I would require actual mechanics changes.
Because most of the classes in 2nd edition are pretty flavorless all by themselves and you add flavor to them simply through role-playing; you want to play a pirate, have your character join a pirate crew, and there you go. And the few classes that do possess any flavor (such as the Ranger and Paladin), I feel that the flavor matches the mechanics, so if you want to play a class that already has premade flavor, but don't want the preexisting flavor, I would require that we make a new class, that may be pretty similar to the existing class, but not exactly the same, san the flavor. This helps keep the integrity of the original class, and allows you to make a class that perhaps fits your character concept even better than a re-flavoring of an existing class would...
I would require a new kit as well, for pretty much the same reason. But kits are simply aids, that help facilitate role-play. They are added when a character is first created, you can only have one kit for the entire life of the character, so once chosen and play starts, the kit cannot be changed later on.
Kits grant one or more "advantages", and "disadvantages", so, if you want to play a pirate (to keep my previous example going), from the start, you choose the pirate kit, which gives you the "Seamanship" and "Rope Use" proficiencies for free, which is a pretty big boon, as a character gets precious few proficiencies to being with.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does fluff being important equate to it being immutable?
You don't have to reflavour, but doing so isn't against the intent of the game.
No, just because the fluff is important does not mean it is immutable, and of course one is always free to ignore the rules and re-skin classes to their heart's content...
I just don't like doing it. I prefer to make use of the character class creation rules, and even then, only IF a player just cannot make his concept fit within one of the pre-existing class. And I'd much rather have the player create a new kit than a new class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH, classes don't actually need to be actual things in the gameworld. They're packages of skills and abilities and don't need a one-to-one correspondence to particular jobs or professions or titles. Especially in a system that allows easy multiclassing, so people can switch classes without any long training or job changes.
To each their own. Its a bit of a tangent, but I also restrict certain multiclassing. I don't like the idea that someone can just pick-up wizardy overnight, as an example.
I like players to stick to one or two classes, and for the multiclassing to make sense according to the character's background rather than to achieve certain mechanical combinations. So far I have been lucky to have players that see eye-to-eye with me on this.
the area or few where i would be in disagreement with you, is with the idea that reskinning is always a negative thing. reskinning could be also a positive thing that connects the mechanics to the setting, creates organizations for the dungeon master to use as idea fodder for NPCs and even allows the player to contribute their 2 copper coins to the setting in a collaborative effort, because the game doesn't solely belong to the dungeon master, but to both the dungeon master and to the players as well.
In the GM role, I would rather create a new class than reskin an existing class. Just personal preference. In the player role, there are so many character concepts, especially if you consider non-core, that I can easily find a class that I want to play and still adhere to the provided class description.
As far as player contributing to the setting, they do so with their actions in character. I've never actually encountered a player that wanted to spend time assisting with the creation of a campaign setting. If a player was interested, I'd allow them to do so before they created their own character. That way I can make sure everything makes sense before the campaign begins.
We're talking about ninja's now?Says a lot of...stuff
YOU DO KNOW, as you suggested, a LOT of the Ninja stuff was made up to fit some people's fantasies of the 20th century...
Ninja has existed for a long time and still existed in WWII. Most of them in WWII, at least that our side was aware of or caught, dressed in business suits and had guns.
But they weren't part of the mythical all martial arts expert wonders that were created out of fantasy.
Some would say they aren't connected to the Ninja of earlier history...but the term ninja doesn't specify that it has to be a certain type...and in the case of espionage...it was the exact definition as utilized. In all ways they were the same category and definition as the ones from previous history and dynasties.
These were basically spies that were of course being sent by Japan to other nations.
Anyways, this is probably getting off topic as we are getting back on the topic of the thread... we can continue via other means if you want.
We're talking about ninja's now?Says a lot of...junkYOU DO KNOW, as you suggested, a LOT of the Ninja stuff was made up...
Ninja has existed for a long time and still existed in WWII. Most of them in WWII, at least that our side was aware of or caught, dressed in business suits and had guns.
But they weren't part of the mythical all martial arts expert wonders that were created out of fantasy.
Some would say they aren't connected to the Ninja of earlier history...but the term ninja doesn't specify that it has to be a certain type...and in the case of espionage...it was the exact definition as utilized.
These were basically spies that were of course being sent by Japan to other nations.
Anyways, this is probably getting off topic as we are getting back on the topic of the thread... we can continue via other means if you want.
YOu really need to back some of this up, especially if you're going to call other people's apparently well-informed opinions "junk".
But if you're just using "Ninja" to mean "Japanese spies", then I suppose you're correct. It just doesn't have any connection to either historical or legendary Ninja, nor to the best of my knowledge, has the term ever been used that way in Japan.
Well, it has direct connections to the historical Ninja, but no direct connections to the legendary Ninja.
My sources would be biased to a degree (they are from OUR side and written by AMERICANS AND EUROPEANS as opposed to the actual Japanese) in regards to espionage and counter espionage.
However, as some were involved with US intelligence in Japan, during and after WWII, I'd imagine when they refer to the Ninja they have a pretty good idea of the definitions in use, what definitions the Japanese were using at the time, and the connections and other items that were being utilized.
AS far as fantasy history of Japan goes...no idea on what that says...I was only privy to the histories and other items briefed otherwise from what most here probably would consider boring texts and reports.
PS: I do have another source, it's direct actually, but not one they would appreciate me posting here about. Plus...in this instance...short of sending pictorial proof (something they'd approve of even less), there's no way for me to prove it directly (anymore than if someone was somebody famous or popular being able to prove it was them who was posting on some miscellaneous forum). My information doesn't come from the internet (plus no one else is posting linkage anyways), it's more direct (and probably more boring than what is on the internet anyways) in regards to the information. I suppose I could do a look via the internet (not sure where to start on the internet for this to tell the truth), but honestly, I'm not that connected to the topic of Ninjas to really do one (if my first words on the Ninja topic couldn't relay that...with the joke about it). I come here more for PF stuff than Ninja stuff.
However, as mentioned above, probably off topic as the topic has returned to it's original flavor...
Which actually sort of interesting to me in regards to playstyles.
|
|
I guess this is where I'm not getting it. If my character's concept mechanically fits in a pre-existing class, but doesn't match the classes fluff, why make a new class/kit, when I'm already perfectly happy with the mechanics?
Why change the mechanics, when it's not the mechanics that are the problem?
It's like I keep saying, I don't view character classes as just a bag of tools that one can just arrange as they see fit. It’s a personal preference…
A class to me, is a way of life for the character within the game, it is his chosen life-long, get the gold watch when he retires, career... Changing the fluff would make my whole point of view of character classes and their role within the game meaningless and irrelevant.
It's another difference between perspectives of 2E and PF, IMO. Broadly, in earlier incarnations of the game, your class was something chosen at character creation and set for life (barring the odd exception that so defined early D&D). So it's not like in PF where you can opt-in to fighter midway through a PC's career. It was much closer to race in that way - they were even interchangable in some editions.
The baseline assumption (not counting bards, dual classing and other weird mechanical bits and pieces) was that your class represented a substantial amount of pre-game training you'd completed. The level one fighter's title in AD&D was "veteran", for example. As such, ascribing some kind of in game reality to class is not inconceivable. It's obviously limiting of player choice, but early editions weren't averse to that.
I think it's a much harder stance to justify in a game of pathfinder, personally.
Yeah we were too. I don't think digitalelf would have been, though.
I'm firmly in the reflavoring camp (barring in game "secret training requirements" or similar). I can nonetheless understand someone playing 2E viewing class as something "real" in the game world. I think it would be too stifling using later editions' multiclassing rules, though - even if that's how you preferred it in 2E. I just don't see any real advantage.
|
|
So, do people in your game worlds know about classes? Are they actually things people talk about in game? Bob & John both know they're Fighters, even though one is an archer and the other a front line melee sword and board type.
Yes. So if you were a person living within the game world, and you asked Joe what he does, he'd reply something to the effect of being a fighter (e.g. fighter, warrior, etc.).
As I've mentioned before, there are various academes, schools, and colleges within my games for each of the various major classes that teach and train the class they represent...
"Ninja" is the Chinese pronounciation of the same kanji character that in Japanese is pronounced "shinobi", which means "stealer in".
While Japanese seems a complex language (and it is) it has much less number of total words, as opposed to English and many other languages. The Japanese word for spy, espionage, sabotage, assassin is simply shinobi or ninja (in the Chinese). So a WW2 Japanese spy would indeed be called shinobi, but of course this doesn't imply any connection to feudal ninja tradition. Both are spies, yet both are apples and oranges.
In post WW2 era Japanese borrows many more western words and Japanicizes them, so the likelihood of seeing "supai" for spy would be predominant in modern fiction/nonfiction on the subject. They wouldn't use ninja/shinobi to mean the same thing.
|
|
Yeah we were too. I don't think digitalelf would have been, though.
You are correct, I wasn't (nor am I currently - obviously).
I think it would be too stifling using later editions' multi-classing rules, though - even if that's how you preferred it in 2E. I just don't see any real advantage.
I made it work in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, but it did require house-ruled requirements and limitations on multi-classing. And it is also a part of the reason why I went back to playing 2nd edition; there are simply less house-rules required to restrict the re-flavoring of classes.
Back on topic, I think it got lost in a larger post of mine, but restating, I disagree that 2e treated classes as professions. The 2e Ninja Handbook offered kits for the 2e ninja class. However, it also offered Shinobi as a ninja kit for fighters and rogues in the same book. If 2e had regimented fluff to class, why would that publication offer an alternative ninja flavor to classes other than ninja?
While I could see some classes like paladin as being too definely niched to make reflavoring possible, there's nothing about fighter, rogue or ranger that can't also represent "pirate". You don't need to create a pirate class to represent the concept - you are certainly free to create a new class, but you can keep the mechanics as is, just change the fluff class name and text to say "this is a pirate" and it works just fine.
This is true in 1e, 2e, 3x and PF, and probably other editions that I am not familiar.
3rd edition was optionally more restrictive than PF in regards to multiclassing totell the truth...but many people ignored these options to be more akin to the PF rules in regards to leveling and multi-classing.
For example, of the multiclassing DM options it states
For instance, the character may need to find a tutor to teach him the ways of the new class. Additionally, the DM may require the player to declare what class his or her character is "working on" before he or she makes the jump to the next level, so the character has time to practice new skills. In this way, gaining the new class is the result of previous effort rather than a sudden development.
In addition, Races had favored classes which if they did not have they actually got a pretty significant XP hit. (which could mean a 15th level character XP would mean a M/C character only had 13 levels, the characters would take level hits).
Additionally it states DMs could place further restrictions on multiclassing depending on how they handled them in their campaign (and this is further built on in the DMG for 3e).
However, many of course did not use these options or enforce the XP penalties (if you did not choose a favored class and multiclassed, the highest level you could get...well in a 1-20 campaign...would be level 18 with that amount of XP, so you never maxed out).
Of course, these ramifications would be more severe in PF with their capstone abilities...but PF I think goes more with how people houseruled those ideas.
Still, a DM or GM could apply a more restrictive multiclassing objective in their campaign...or even focus more on classes being strong in regards to fluff rather than as skillsets.
I don't know why someone would have a problem with another running their campaign this way...if you don't want to play in that campaign you don't have too...and the others get to have fun without trying to intrude into a GURPS...I mean PF classes seen as skill sets only campaign.
However, I find that the popular view on these boards to ignore fluff and only see classes as skill sets is an extreme view not shared by most of those I've met who play pathfinder.
On the otherhand, not allowing multiclassing is also another extreme view.
Most I've seen IRL utilize fluff and use it for a representation of classes (which is why I've seen a LOT of rogues in use and the way people talk about them on these boards really doesn't seem to translate into real life experiences from what I've seen in my limited experience). They also do allow someone to freely multiclass, but a DM will restrict classes according to the campaigns (and so many won't allow ninja's, Samurai, Gunslingers, etc. in their games) as the fluff doesn't meet what they want, despite allowing mostly free multiclassing.
refluffing is a lot easier than making a new class or even a new archetype. because not every class feature is truly equal and a feature that traded your trap sense for a bonus your rogue level to attack and damage rolls with daggers and dagger like weapons that scaled at the same rate as trap sense would be ten times better than the poor useless ability that is trap sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I believe that I am correct in that the fluff IS hardwired into the RAW of 2nd edition:
A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. If you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D gameThis is further backed up by the sheer number of kits that were published during 2nd edition's life-time (and kits, while similar, are not the same as prestige classes).
I think this is the disconnect. For me and I suspect others, D&D has always seemed like a broad set of options only whittled down to a specific campaign setting when a group actually starts playing. I.e., D&D isn't the game system for Dark Sun. It's not the game system for Spelljammer. It's not the game system for the Forgotten Realms.
D&D is the game system for Eberron AND the Forgotten Realms AND Ravenloft AND Dragonlance AND every other campaign setting ever published. Simultaneously. AND also every homebrewed setting a group could come up with.
Given that this was the case as far back as 2E (not that I know which settings were out and supported at that time, nor if this paradigm went back even before 2E), it seems contradictory for the game to be meant for any number of settings and uses and then turn around and lock classes to specific concepts (and encourage locking classes to concepts).
For example, let's say I'm making a game system for any number of settings, but I know I'm starting with Star Wars and will soon follow with the Marvel Universe. So in laying the groundwork for my game system, so far only slated for Star Wars but meant to eventually encompass much more, I look at elements in the Star Wars universe that might need to be codified.
Does it make sense to specify that the use of Lightning is evil? Palpatine certainly exemplifies this, but if I put this into the core rules, then I'm suggesting that, when I release my game's Marvel supplement, Storm and Thor must also be evil. Or I have to write into the Marvel setting that Lightning, contrary to the general rules, isn't necessarily evil.
Neither really make sense to me. In fact, making any assumptions as of the general rules about Lightning and a character's use of it seems to fly in the face of having a system meant for multiple settings and uses. Just like how the rule that there are only to be a maximum of three rangers to a party (not sure which edition this is from) seems to contradict the fact that this is not a given established fact of the setting the gaming group is playing in. Why make a rule, even in the form of fluff, that is practically guaranteed to need to be torn down for most settings?
And it's the same with character classes. Sure, the 2E PHB may suggest that a character's class isn't just a set of abilities and in fact has a specific in-world manifestation, but I have to wonder if the guy that wrote that was even working on the same game system as the people that meant to eventually put FR, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and whatever other settings into the game.
Are other 2E players in this thread reading a permissiveness into 2E's treatment of how character classes are treated in-world that isn't there? I have no idea, but I imagine that if they are, it's to keep from having to play Schroedinger's role-playing game.
I read the quote differently from digitalelf (and did "back in the day" when the system was new, too).
I put much more emphasis on the word "like" than he seems to - I think that quote is illustrative, rather than proscriptive. I think your argument about many worlds, each with their own restrictions and assumptions, is a strong one.
|
|
The 2e Ninja Handbook offered kits for the 2e ninja class.
There is nothing wrong with making a fighter for example, have him join the crew of a pirate ship and calling him a pirate. But if you choose the pirate kit (from the Complete Fighter's Handbook) then you are given two free "nautically related" proficiencies for free.
And that's what kits are for... To help facilitate role-playing a concept without changing the base class itself.
But I agree with you that there is no need to create a Pirate class, when the kit will do just fine for someone that wants more than just the title of "Pirate".
The Shinobi you keep mentioning are simply members of other classes that belong to a ninja clan that are not themselves, ninja, and thus do not posses any skills outside of their class (so no fighters that can "Move Silently", "Hide in Shadows", or the like), so it is not a re-flavoring of anything anymore than having a character of a class other than Barbarian be from a barbarian culture is...
|
|
refluffing is a lot easier than making a new class
I agree, it is easier, but I think it is better overall for the setting than just re-flavoring whenever and however a player wants. Especially in a setting (such as mine - where the players only get to change the setting they are playing in through their characters direct in game actions)... It's all about verisimilitude for me. Internal consistency is paramount in my games... And changing the way character classes interact with the setting (either by changing their mechanics or their flavor) disrupts that consistency for me.
I read the quote differently from digitalelf (and did "back in the day" when the system was new, too).
I put much more emphasis on the word "like" than he seems to - I think that quote is illustrative, rather than proscriptive. I think your argument about many worlds, each with their own restrictions and assumptions, is a strong one.
nothing about the thief requires it to have a criminal background. that thief could just as easily be a street performer, a locksmith, an archaoelogist, an explorer, or a treasure hunter.
at the same time, even though the default ranger is based very loosely off a woodsmen or hunter with minor fantastic powers. it could have just as easily been an urban ranger which is a kit for a ranger that essentially gives up spells for thief/bard/assassin/monk skills, backstab and assassination chart but also restricts its animal based choices and abilities to animals you would logically find in a city. plus, the urban ranger is one of the splatbook exceptions to the general rule that non-straight fighters can't specialize in the fact it can only specialize in weapons a thief can gain proficiency in. meaning, an urban ranger can't specialize in longswords, but they can specialize in daggers, which was done to bridge the damage gap between an urban ranger and a standard ranger.
|
|
it seems contradictory for the game to be meant for any number of settings and uses and then turn around and lock classes to specific concepts (and encourage locking classes to concepts).
Many times when a new setting was released, and it was different from the standard fare, it had entirely new character classes that were suited to the new setting better than the standard classes were. There are many examples of this: Dark Sun had Preservers and Defilers instead of the standard Mage and Specialist Wizard, Dark Sun also had the Gladiator as another Warrior type (but did not have Paladins), Dragonlance had the Knights of Solamnia instead of Paladins, and also had the Wizard's of High Sorcery with alignment dictating what spells you could cast without consequence.
So, no, I don't think it really was contradictory to lock classes to specific concepts, when it was so easy to just follow TSR's model, and make a new class with your own concept if you just cannot make one of the pre-existing classes fit that concept...
refluffing is a lot easier than making a new classI agree, it is easier, but I think it is better overall for the setting than just re-flavoring whenever and however a player wants. Especially in a setting (such as mine - where the players only get to change the setting they are playing in through their characters direct in game actions)... It's all about verisimilitude for me. Internal consistency is paramount in my games... And changing the way character classes interact with the setting (either by changing their mechanics or their flavor) disrupts that consistency for me.
i don't mind minor reskins, as long as they are reasonable and work with the setting, reskinning an elf as a lesser nymph is something i would allow if say the player wanted the fae flavor, but didn't want to have internal associations with legolas
at the same time, i don't mind reskinning or reflavoring a barbarian as a form of samurai in a japan themed setting where the viking flavor would be ill suited, but the player wanted a zen combat trance that emulated a barbarians rage and came up with explanations to japanify their rage powers for the setting
and what do you think about blank slate classes like the slayer? which is while mechanically similar to a non spellcasting no pet version of an urban ranger, actually really has no focus besides the mechanical niche of being a loosely defined mix of ranger and rogue, which is almost blatantly the urban ranger in a nutshell if you remove the animal oriented abilities.
|
|
nothing about the thief requires it to have a criminal background. that thief could just as easily be a street performer, a locksmith, an archaoelogist, an explorer, or a treasure hunter.
But that is the same as role-playing a fighter as a pirate by having your character just join a pirate's crew (bam, instant pirate) or having a character come from a barbarian culture without belonging to the "Barbarian" class, and so does not need the re-flavoring or re-skinning of the thief class to accomplish...
at the same time, even though the default ranger is based very loosely off a woodsmen or hunter with minor fantastic powers. it could have just as easily been an urban ranger
There is no "Urban Ranger" kit in the "Complete Ranger's Handbook", the closet that source comes to one, is the "Stalker" kit, but he loses nothing (except he faces harsher penalties for getting caught while "snooping" as per the kit's "Special Hindrances")
So, I don't know where you are getting these "kits" from, but they are from no publication for 2nd edition by TSR or Wizards of the Coast.
Urban Ranger might not have been published by TSR and maybe not the complete book of faeries either, but i do have the hand me down hardcopies and the books state they are designed for compatibility with 2nd edition dungeons and dragons. they could be third party 2nd edition books for all i know. all i know, is i have a book on playable faeries that includes a lot of extremely experimental kits that might as well be new classes under the kit guise with 30 new playable gimmicky faerie races and 150 experimental kits that each come with unique experience charts, of which, spellcloak and urban ranger are on the list, and all 150 of these kits are all experimental and all 150 of them might as well be new classes with all the changes they make
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what do you mean by re-flavoring or re-skinning? ...what would you consider unacceptable reskinning?
The Fighter as written in 2nd edition, has no flavor other than being a warrior, so making him a pirate for example, is purely a matter of role-playing him that way; though, unless you were to take the pirate kit at character creation, you would need to find a crew to join (in game) in order to be a pirate.
The thief has a bit more flavor:
Thieves come in all sizes and shapes, ready to live off the fat of the land by the easiest means possible. In some ways they are the epitome of roguishness.
The profession of thief is not honorable, yet it is not entirely dishonorable, either. Many famous folk heroes have been more than a little larcenous -- Reynard the Fox, Robin Goodfellow, and Ali Baba are but a few. At his best, the thief is a romantic hero fired by noble purpose but a little wanting in strength of character. Such a person may truly strive for good but continually run afoul of temptation.
However, "Locksmith" is not a class, but it could be a kit, so having him become one (without a kit), is also purely a role-playing choice, simply being "the epitome of roguishness" does not preclude you from earning money as a "locksmith"...
Neither the “Pirate” nor "Locksmith" requires actually re-skinning either class.
As for the second part of your question...
Unacceptable might be too strong of a word, because it is more of a choice of play-style than anything else. But when I talk about not allowing the re-skinning of a class in my games, I mean completely dropping the flavor (or fluff if you will) of a class and using nothing but the mechanics to make it something entirely different than what it was before you started; such as Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider's example a few posts up of taking the Barbarian class, and stripping away all of the flavor, and using just the mechanics of the Barbarian class to make an entirely new class (and in the example used, it was a "samurai class" that was created).
I personally just do not like viewing classes as tool-sets like that; character classes mean so much more to me...