D&D General Character Classes should Mean Something in the Setting

[el-remmen]

It depends of the style of play and the setting, but this sounds like stuff I used to do for my old homebrew and for that kind of "immersion" style game it can be great. However, in my own experience different players have different degrees of engagement when it comes to setting lore and when that lore is deeply connected to the mechanics of playing their character (whether directly or indirectly) they may be confused by or not like how it is 'different' from the core idea - for smooth integration of these kinds of ideas you need player buy-in.

These days I've moved to a conceit of having where the campaign takes place be a different place than where the PCs come from. Imagining some big mish-mosh world of endless fantasy influences allows players to basically make what they want (with some exceptions) but then in arriving in the distant part of the world where the game actually takes place allows them to learn about the micro-setting and engage with it to the degree the individual players feel comfortable - but not being all caught up on the cultural details of the setting is fine because the PCs are learning/experiencing it for the first time as part of the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

After reading the LevelUp Cleric I wanted to share something that I've felt is a real problem with several character classes in D&D: They have Fantasy Associations, but no World-Anchoring.

Yeah, a Sorcerer is descended from a powerful ancestor. But other than "LoL! You had to -study- to learn magic? Pleb!" type jokes and statements, what does that -mean- for the world? What interactions does the existence of magic people from birth really mean? And I'm not talking about "My baby cast prestidigitation and scared the babysitter" I'm talking on a Cultural Level.

In a setting I've been designing, I had honestly considered just flatly cutting Sorcerers out of the game, entirely. They seemed almost pointless, like a vestigial nub of some greater narrative purpose that was never fulfilled. But then it hit me: Arcane Nobility.

In the real world we have the idea of Bloodlines being important. Generally directed towards Politicians and the Rich. Because in both of those instances, Wealth and Power are handed down to the next generation over time. The Queen of England will eventually die and someone else from the royal family will become King or Queen or whatever. It's how we got Keeping up with the Kardashians, too. The wealthy progenitor hands big bundles of cash and affluence to their child.

In a world of magic... isn't Sorcery the same thing? Wouldn't a Draconic Sorcerer be the offspring (legal or illicit) of a family line of Sorcerers? Couldn't that lead to a whole -mess- of questions and presumptions? How about social entanglements and responsibilities? And hey, if your Sorcerer is the bastard son of the local Magocratic Ruler, you're also looking at being kidnapped and sent away, imprisoned, or straight up assassinated to avoid political fallout or someone grooming you to claim the throne as the "Rightful Heir".

Wouldn't such families do what we did in reality and try to keep the power for themselves? We're not just talking political marriages and inbreeding (which definitely could be a thing that leads to children with -strange- sorcery) but also about the Persecution of Warlocks and Wizards who are democratizing magic by being able to wield it while not being a part of a special bloodline. And also teach it to -others-?! Unacceptable! Laws must be passed! Halls of extremely prestigious study must be formed! Only the wealthiest, noblest, most favoured families shall be allowed to Learn Magic from a Wizard! All of which are of course at the purview of your local Magocrat.

Artificers, similarly, have this problem. They exist in most D&D settings for the purpose of existing. Sometimes, like in Eberron, they're the "Driving Force" behind technological (or more often magitechnological) advancement in the setting. But what is an -adventuring- Artificer? I wound up deputizing them as a special kind of Anti-Magic Magic-Cop in the setting. Their natural inquisitiveness allows them to CSI things up really nicely, add in some magical talents and understanding of the Arcane, and you've got a pretty decent Wizard-Hunter who can work for the Sorcerous Nobility to track down Witches and Warlocks and other Spellcasters who break the rules meant to keep power in the hands of the few...

Some classes, like Fighter or Rogue, should be pretty flexible, rather than tied into the setting, it's true. Though of course they should have -options- for ties to the setting, like Knightly Orders, Revolutionary Groups, or Thieves Guilds.

But what are some character classes that you feel need some kind of narrative anchor to not feel "Extra"?

I kind of disagree with the premise. For instance, artificers don't need a setting-wide "purpose", they're a magical inventor. That is...more than enough, IMO. I don't need a special place for magical inventors in order to play one and be tied into the setting as a character.

Beyond that, if someone wants their class to be what ties them in to the setting, this is why my players are involved in world building. I'm not going to limit the Artificer to one "job" in the world, or even limit it to the basic concepts in the class description.

 

[Steampunkette]

Again, I'd like to remind folks that this is about the setting and narrative and not about locking players into a straitjacket.

If one of my players wants to be an Artificer who isn't a Magic-Cop that's cool. That player can play their artificer however they like. I'm just saying most of the NPC Artificers are going to be tied to the Alchemist's Guild of Falconhurst and will be working to seek out evil magic or evil magicians who break the law.

The class in the world, not the Character in the world, essentially.

 

[Rikka66]

You'd be horrified by my brother's Final Fantasy X based campaign. The classes are completely divorced from the world. We've come to the point where we had to decide the classes (mostly) don't exist in the world.

 

[TwoSix]

Again, I'd like to remind folks that this is about the setting and narrative and not about locking players into a straitjacket.

If one of my players wants to be an Artificer who isn't a Magic-Cop that's cool. That player can play their artificer however they like. I'm just saying most of the NPC Artificers are going to be tied to the Alchemist's Guild of Falconhurst and will be working to seek out evil magic or evil magicians who break the law.

The class in the world, not the Character in the world, essentially.

I know I'm a lonely voice of dissent, and I'm not presenting my opinion as being some hidden mainstream view, but I really don't like NPCs having classes either. Any NPC in my games important enough to be codified is going to have a fairly personalized suite of abilities that don't correspond to any sort of class template.

 

[Steampunkette]

I know I'm a lonely voice of dissent, and I'm not presenting my opinion as being some hidden mainstream view, but I really don't like NPCs having classes either. Any NPC in my games important enough to be codified is going to have a fairly personalized suite of abilities that don't correspond to any sort of class template.

I can certainly accept and understand that.

But Rikka is right:

You'd be horrified by my brother's Final Fantasy X based campaign. The classes are completely divorced from the world. We've come to the point where we had to decide the classes (mostly) don't exist in the world.

That makes my whole body itch...

I love to write. The verbosity of my posts on this forum are surely a testament to that! I like to have things feel... connected. Tied into the world. But, then, I do a ton of High Fantasy/SteamFantasy, where such things are kinda... y'know. A big part of things.

If I were to do a more grounded game I'd probably have less urge to do the big connectivity of character classes to the world since they'd represent quasi-unique "Hero" characters. I'd probably just sprinkle a few of those throughout the historybooks of the setting and then get to work on overcomplicating the various cultures of the world...

 

[jmartkdr2]

Rather than existing only to exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence. Maybe that would clear it up?

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence. Maybe that would clear it up?

It's Chekhov's Gun, essentially. You've written a play where there is a prominent gun positioned over the fireplace. By the end of the play someone should fire that gun, or else why have you taken the time to write, prominently, about a gun above the fireplace?

Imagine writing a complex world in which Wizards and Paladins and Druids have all been major players. Where Fighters have been the Generals of powerful armies and Rogues have stolen from the very Gods themselves. And also there are Sorcerers. They've never done anything important or been relevant to any major events throughout history, but they exist. The Entities that they're technically the much-removed offspring of may or may not have done big things... But never Sorcerers in the entire narrative history of the world. They've had no cultural impact. Opened no schools, trained no soldiers, run no thieves guild. They're just -there-.

They exist for no purpose in the written narrative -except- to Exist. Because "Here's a neat concept, let's just add it in". Like adding bay windows to a toolshed. You've got a perfect place for tools and you can do stuff in it and oh, by the way, here's an architectural feature that doesn't do anything to help fulfill the purpose of it being a toolshed.

It's like putting gold leaf on chocolate to eat. Sure it's pretty. But why are you eating gold except to show that you can afford to poop a shiny turd the next morning? It doesn't make the chocolate any sweeter or stronger, it's just there.

And yeah, yeah, "So players can be a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard"... but outside of game mechanics what does that -mean-? Why not just let them use the Sorcerer Class and have everyone in the world call them a Wizard or a Mage or a Grofpbit because Sorcerers aren't part of the narrative? Why even design Sorcerers in the first place as a possible player option (Back in 3e) if they were never going to be a part of the story of the world you're building?

This is what I mean by "Existing only to Exist".

 

[Umbran]

I'm happy with classes being metagame building blocks, collections of mechanics and abilities that I can choose to use to fill some fictional role. I do not need the class to give me that role.

I'd prefer that ties to the world rest in the character background, and occasionally in subclass. I don't think a subclass needs to have such, but it can be okay for them to have it. But the top level class can go ahead and be setting-entanglement free, as far as I am concerned.

 

[TwoSix]

And yeah, yeah, "So players can be a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard"... but outside of game mechanics what does that -mean-? Why not just let them use the Sorcerer Class and have everyone in the world call them a Wizard or a Mage or a Grofpbit because Sorcerers aren't part of the narrative? Why even design Sorcerers in the first place as a possible player option (Back in 3e) if they were never going to be a part of the story of the world you're building?

I think that can work in some games. The various White Wolf/Onyx Path WoD games come to mind here, with their Clans and Tribes and such. The PCs were expected to play one of the roles that the world designers had sketched out for the PCs to fill, whether that be a 1th generation Ventrue or a Fianna Ahroun.

I think the concept works better there because the game itself is limited; you're not playing any character, you're playing a vampire or a werewolf, which are fairly insular communities. I think it makes less sense for a toolkit style game (like D&D) that has to cover multiple worlds.