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

[TwoSix]

... First off: That is a RADICAL interpretation of what I -actually- said.

I'm not talking about writing out the player characters and what they will or will not do in the story. I'm talking about DESIGNING and WRITING a CAMPAIGN SETTING before the game ever starts. Y'know, History of the World, Nation-States, Cultural Trappings, Architectural Stylings, Languages, Cosmology, Religious Beliefs, Deities, Monsters, Etc.

-THAT- is where I'm talking about making sure Character Class Fantasies needs to be included. So that when your players pick up your setting notes for the first time and start writing up their own characters they've got a baseline of what the world is like and what the world would be like for a particular character. (Like Orcs being despised in Elftown or Dwarves being sought after for their Stonework or Wizards being constantly chased down 'cause everyone hates magic)

Before you even have your players write up characters. The -baseline- setting. The "History and Geography of the World So Far"

That part. I'm talking about.

OK, but I'm sure you've read this forum enough to know that doing that much work on developing the setting ahead of time without input from the players is not considered good practice for a lot of playstyles.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think this a popular if somewhat outdated idea (it was a lot more popular in the 1990s and '00s than the last decade or so) but not one well-supported by any kind of analysis. To the contrary D&D, which is quite specific and weird, has been forced on to so many settings, and is partially-diegetic in them, that it's sort of dominated the industry despite being pretty terrible as a "generic" fantasy RPG. But again that's not really the focus here so I'll save lengthy analysis for another thread (in short it would be more about the first-mover advantage combined with specific mechanical peculiarities, particularly level-based advancement that is what has kept it ahead).

Is D&D generic like GURPS? No.

Is it more generic than Earthdawn? By a pretty large margin, IMO.

Earthdawn works for Earthdawn. Which is fine, because that's what it is designed to do. You could probably hack it to do other things, but it would probably entail significant work and you'd likely lose many of the things that make Earthdawn good in the process.

D&D supports a variety of settings. Can it support anything out of the box? No. However, it does support a range of fantasy significantly broader than what Earthdawn is meant to do.

 

[TwoSix]

"Can you make Light? Can you Cure Wounds? Can you invoke the divine Protection from Evil/Sancutary/Resistance to flame/cold/etc...?"

Sure, but that still implies to me that there's some kind of connection between the gods and the ways clerical magic works; that diametrically opposed deities would still have followers that use the same methodology of magic. I can get behind that if the gods are specified as one facet of reality (maybe they're the protectors of the mortal races and their civilization), but not if the gods are running everything, as they're often presented.

 

[Steampunkette]

You know, I’ve seen this sentiment before, and I just don’t buy it. D&D is quite generic, 5e in particular.

Its a generic fantasy adventure game, and runs pretty much any variant of fantasy adventure you want, with very little work to convert. Mostly, I just add character options and monsters to fit a setting, theme, and genre/game style.

Hell, in my Space Fantasy game, we barely add anything. We just...play D&D in Space.

That's kinda the point Ruin Explorer is making. D&D is specific enough that you can play "D&D in Space" and have it make flawless sense as a description of a game.

The characterization and iconography of the races, the structure of the classes, the specific and unique monsters, the precise way the game flows. It's all very specific to D&D.

D&D -seems- generic because we think of Tolkienesque Fantasy as Generic, of "High Fantasy" as Generic. When in reality it's more "Standard" than anything. The actual fantasy genre is way more complex than D&D is ready to really represent.

OK, but I'm sure you've read this forum enough to know that doing that much work on developing the setting ahead of time without input from the players is not considered good practice for a lot of playstyles.

Nope. I haven't actually read this forum much at all. I joined ENWorld back in 2015 and lurked for a while mostly watching the various products from afar. I've only delved into the actual forums recently.

That said, sure. For a few playstyles that would maybe suck.

But. You know your players. You know the worlds they want to explore. You know their boundaries. Their hopes. Their goals. The characters they like to play and the themes they like to explore. Write all that in, too.

Hell, if you can convince them to help you design the world all the better. Makes it less work for one person. If that's what you wanna do, do it.

There's nothing in this thread or in my posts which says "You must write your entire campaign setting, alone, in the dark, refusing the company or insight of others." I even -explicitly- wrote a thread in this very forum soliciting opinions, ideas, and suggestions from the forums for my Ashen Lands setting which is still heavily under construction.

Just that you should put the classes and races that you intend to make available into the campaign setting's narrative and cultures in order to help support class fantasy for every class, not just the more "Easy" ones that basically attach themselves.

 

[steeldragons]

This subdiscussion in particular makes me want to design three of the spell lists I have planned (Divine, Occult, Primal) into a -very- pared down central pillar, then do class expansions for unique spells (Bard occult spell list being sound/music for example in addition to standard occult spells as opposed to Warlock occult spell list including Necromancy)... and then give the Cleric's separate Domains spells that are essentially unique to them...

Not 100% sure I'll put in that much work, but it would create a ton of granularity!

As I've said elsewhere (other threads) over the years, I've done much of what you suggest.

Homebrewing classes and setting specific things is -in my estimation- one of the great joys of D&D/fantasy RPGing.

My "Arcane Magic" list is applicable, in it's entirety only to [what my game terms] the Mage class [I do not -in fact, all out refuse to- draw distinctions between "Wizard" and "Sorcerer," at a class level].

The "specialist" Mages, Illusionists, Conjurers, etc... have individualized spell lists that are (roughly) half spells that would be available to all Mages and half spells that are available only to the specialist. It's all still considered "Arcane" magic, because of the nature of the force with which they work. But in the class crunch AND the setting fluff, there is such a thing as "Phantasmal [or, simply, "Illusion"] Magic," "Conjuration Magic," and so on.

E.G. The any "generalist" Mage is going to be able to learn, e.g., Wall of Fog, Glamour (i.e. Disguise Self), Invisibility, Mirror Image, Phantasm I (i.e. Phantasmal Force). Illusionist spell lists have all of that stuff too, of course. But they will also have, e.g., Gaze Reflection, Dispel Illusions/Charms, Phantasmal Killer that general mage's don't. They get things like Phantasmal Force and See Invisibility a level earlier than general Mages...AND, the Illusion Magic Specialist would gain spells like "Phantasm II" and "Phantasm III" (ever increasingly powerful and convincing "Phantasmal Forces"), which the general Mage can never master.

So, I like the combination of common magics and specialty magics.

I also make a distinction between Divine and Nature magic, so Clerics and Druids really aren't working from the same "pool" as it were. So the handling/figuring out how best to do Cleric/Divine magic is really it's own individualized thing.

Druids (and other Nature Magic users) are fairly well tied into natural and elemental related spells and all draw from the same list...though individuals could certainly choose to focus all of their preparations in "plant stuff" or "weather stuff" or "animal and fire spells" or whatever the player likes. But I have not yet come to a place where "grouping/separating" magics for Nature magic-users is necessary (or has been requested).

 

[jmartkdr2]

You know, I’ve seen this sentiment before, and I just don’t buy it. D&D is quite generic, 5e in particular.

Its a generic fantasy adventure game, and runs pretty much any variant of fantasy adventure you want, with very little work to convert. Mostly, I just add character options and monsters to fit a setting, theme, and genre/game style.

Hell, in my Space Fantasy game, we barely add anything. We just...play D&D in Space.

It depends on how you feel about adding your own content.

Out of the box, so to speak, DnD is very much it's own thing. The monsters, classes, etc. point to a fairly specific kind of fantasy that's close to the center of the fantasy genre. But that's more because almost all fantasy creators play dnd these days. It's not just trying to capture fantasy in general, it's being DnD.

But if you're willing to make your own content (which isn't hard in 5e) the boundaries open up immensely. Anything in the loosest definition of fantasy, including almost all sci-fi, is possible with enough work.

You're really only restrained by the fact the DnD has 'adventuring' as the macro game loop, so if you want to get away from that the rules stop supporting you much.

 

[Neonchameleon]

... First off: That is a RADICAL interpretation of what I -actually- said.

I'm not talking about writing out the player characters and what they will or will not do in the story. I'm talking about DESIGNING and WRITING a CAMPAIGN SETTING before the game ever starts. Y'know, History of the World, Nation-States, Cultural Trappings, Architectural Stylings, Languages, Cosmology, Religious Beliefs, Deities, Monsters, Etc.

-THAT- is where I'm talking about making sure Character Class Fantasies needs to be included. So that when your players pick up your setting notes for the first time and start writing up their own characters they've got a baseline of what the world is like and what the world would be like for a particular character. (Like Orcs being despised in Elftown or Dwarves being sought after for their Stonework or Wizards being constantly chased down 'cause everyone hates magic)

Before you even have your players write up characters. The -baseline- setting. The "History and Geography of the World So Far"

That part. I'm talking about.

And that is a radical interpretation of what I said.

You were talking about the gods. I assume the gods of the setting to be NPCs. Not under the player characters' control. But I also assume them to be characters in their own right - and if they are characters in their own right and I zoom in enough of them they will start doing things I do not expect. There are things that individuals will not do because they are contrary to their nature. But if it's something they could do that wasn't suicidal and there's a reasonably large group of gods then I can assume that at least one of them will have tried it. And if I actually start to write the gods as people then some of them will behave in ways that are in line with their nature but that I don't expect.

Likewise if there's an age old enmity between the elves and the dwarves there will be friendships too. If the baseline setting is not ragged at the edges and fraying at the seams it's because the people that live there don't behave enough like people.

And this is why the presence but rarity of Divine Soul sorcerers is far from a worldbuilding issue if we have an entire pantheon. By denying them you're saying either (a) the Gods can't even manipulate the magic of a single mortal that way, which is a weird limit on their powers or (b) the Gods can but are so stultifyingly conformist that none of them would ever try. (This doesn't mean that divine soul sorcerers have to be remotely as common as clerics of course; there are dozens of reasons why one's rare and one isn't).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's kinda the point Ruin Explorer is making. D&D is specific enough that you can play "D&D in Space" and have it make flawless sense as a description of a game.

That’s generic, not specific, though.

I’m not playing a game that resembles a game in FR or even Eberron, I’m playing a space opera game. It’s more similar to Star Wars than to FR.

 

[Steampunkette]

As I've said elsewhere (other threads) over the years, I've done much of what you suggest.

Homebrewing classes and setting specific things is -in my estimation- one of the great joys of D&D/fantasy RPGing.

My "Arcane Magic" list is applicable, in it's entirety only to [what my game terms] the Mage class [I do not -in fact, all out refuse to- draw distinctions between "Wizard" and "Sorcerer," at a class level].

The "specialist" Mages, Illusionists, Conjurers, etc... have individualized spell lists that are (roughly) half spells that would be available to all Mages and half spells that are available only to the specialist. It's all still considered "Arcane" magic, because of the nature of the force with which they work. But in the class crunch AND the setting fluff, there is such a thing as "Phantasmal [or, simply, "Illusion"] Magic," "Conjuration Magic," and so on.

E.G. The any "generalist" Mage is going to be able to learn, e.g., Wall of Fog, Glamour (i.e. Disguise Self), Invisibility, Mirror Image, Phantasm I (i.e. Phantasmal Force). Illusionist spell lists have all of that stuff too, of course. But they will also have, e.g., Gaze Reflection, Dispel Illusions/Charms, Phantasmal Killer that general mage's don't. They get things like Phantasmal Force and See Invisibility a level earlier than general Mages...AND, the Illusion Magic Specialist would gain spells like "Phantasm II" and "Phantasm III" (ever increasingly powerful and convincing "Phantasmal Forces"), which the general Mage can never master.

So, I like the combination of common magics and specialty magics.

I also make a distinction between Divine and Nature magic, so Clerics and Druids really aren't working from the same "pool" as it were. So the handling/figuring out how best to do Cleric/Divine magic is really it's own individualized thing.

Druids (and other Nature Magic users) are fairly well tied into natural and elemental related spells and all draw from the same list...though individuals could certainly choose to focus all of their preparations in "plant stuff" or "weather stuff" or "animal and fire spells" or whatever the player likes. But I have not yet come to a place where "grouping/separating" magics for Nature magic-users is necessary (or has been requested).

In the Ashen Lands I have this idea of sources.

Arcane: The Within and the Without. Because Sorcerers were the first mortal spellcasters, magic from within is what most people think of as "Arcane Magic" and it comes from you. Magic from Without is Wizardry. Using the rules of reality to bend themselves through carefully manipulating reality with ritualized sounds, gestures, and physical representations.

I think all Arcane spells will be available to Sorcerers and Wizards, even the school "Specialty" spells. Kind of to represent the egalitarian nature of Arcane magic. If you have the birthright or the skill you can do it all... within your personal limits.

Divine: The Gods and the Angels. The Gods cover a variety of concepts and are generally pretty loose in their interpretations of magic. Angels are -much- more strict because they exist to protect Elysium (Heaven, basically). So they're all sorts of focused on Justice and Mercy.

A fairly robust central pillar of spells but then spells unique to the Angels and spells unique to Domains.

Occult: The Gone, The Mind, and The Beyond. The Beyond are Old Gods, but in a more directly Lovecraftian way of reality-warping rather than traditional "Spellcraft", so occult magic is representational. The Gone are people and concepts lost to the Occult or Time which provide a mortal structure to the magic of the Beyond that makes it "Safer" to use. And then the Mind is Psionics, because reality was formed by the Old Gods and their influence on all living beings is still present, there are those who can intuit and study how to use their will and ideas to alter the world the Old Gods dreamed into existence.

I'm thinking very narrow "Central Pillar" of Occult Magic and then a -whole lot- of specialized spellcasting for Psionicists, Warlocks, and Bards.

Primal: The Elements, The Green, The Wild, The Storm, and the Reaping. Green referring to Plants and the Old Court and Wild referring to Animals and the New Court.

Probably make The Green, the Wild, and the Storm central to Primal casting, then have the Elements and the Reaping more specialized, with some Wild/Green/Storm specialization, too, but to a much lower degree...

Interesting thoughts, thank you!

And that is a radical interpretation of what I said.

You were talking about the gods. I assume the gods of the setting to be NPCs. Not under the player characters' control. But I also assume them to be characters in their own right - and if they are characters in their own right and I zoom in enough of them they will start doing things I do not expect. There are things that individuals will not do because they are contrary to their nature. But if it's something they could do that wasn't suicidal and there's a reasonably large group of gods then I can assume that at least one of them will have tried it. And if I actually start to write the gods as people then some of them will behave in ways that are in line with their nature but that I don't expect.

Likewise if there's an age old enmity between the elves and the dwarves there will be friendships too. If the baseline setting is not ragged at the edges and fraying at the seams it's because the people that live there don't behave enough like people.

And this is why the presence but rarity of Divine Soul sorcerers is far from a worldbuilding issue if we have an entire pantheon. By denying them you're saying either (a) the Gods can't even manipulate the magic of a single mortal that way, which is a weird limit on their powers or (b) the Gods can but are so stultifyingly conformist that none of them would ever try. (This doesn't mean that divine soul sorcerers have to be remotely as common as clerics of course; there are dozens of reasons why one's rare and one isn't).

If your characters act in a manner you do not expect when you are writing the BACKGROUND of the world, not current events or the story as it progresses, but the things that have historically happened, then I am in awe of the chaotic nature of your writing style. Full on biblical -Awe-.

I've also stated I won't be arguing the specific loopholes of various concepts or what have you for a given idea or identity to exist in a setting. It's pointless and exists outside of the relevant discussion of writing the campaign setting to include class fantasy. Similarly, I won't be going into the discussion of which character groups will or won't be friends and whether that should be a global rule or a general guideline or something to be ignored entirely 'cause it's all setting and table dependent.

 

[Krachek]

Being a Wizard in a society doesn’t mean that much until he does some concrete work.

What kind of work can do a wizard in a society?

The classic loner researcher.
Army officier, for strategy, intel, battlefield control.
Field researcher, for exotic plant, creatures, old ruin
Private investigation
operate an arcane facility. May produce mundane or magic good.
Active field job, hitman, sellsword, bodyguard, bounty hunter, law enforcement
Criminal activity

We can’t put all these wizard in a annual meeting of the Kingdom wizard guild, They are not linked by their class, they do very different jobs with a common tools, spells.

 

[Steampunkette]

That’s generic, not specific, though.

I’m not playing a game that resembles a game in FR or even Eberron, I’m playing a space opera game. It’s more similar to Star Wars than to FR.

No... that's specific.

I get that it's not FR or Eberron in space. It's D&D in space. From that single description I can extrapolate SO MUCH about the setting. I can imagine Beholders as an Alien Species. Space-Dragons of all the colors and metals. Illithid Empires stretching across the stars. Astral Dreadnoughts lurking on the dark side of a planet's moon(s). Cannons on a starship that allow a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Eldritch Knight to fire Fireball spells at targets in ship-to-ship combat in space. Magic Missiles pinging enemy targets with unerring accuracy. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Escape Pod.

Some guy climbing into an Apparatus of Qualish to use it on an "Away Mission" on a hostile planet. Quall's Laser Rifle Token. Dwarves mining Adamantine from Asteroids rather than waiting for the space-rocks to crash into a planet to snag the precious metal.

Orcs as Klingons. Hobgoblins as Romulans. Elves as Vulcans. Goblin Engineering Squads. Deities taking on the role of Q. Catfolk pole dancers in skeezy Mos Eisley type locations. The "Jedi Temple" being a Wizard School with a heavy focus on Bladesinging. Lightsaber? Sunswords for everyone! Undead ships with Death Knight Captains and Liches searching the stars for endless knowledge.

All of the specific details of "D&D" paint a pretty strong picture because of all kinds of assumptions about what is actually -in- D&D.

 

[Steampunkette]

Being a Wizard in a society doesn’t mean that much until he does some concrete work.

What kind of work can do a wizard in a society?

The classic loner researcher.
Army officier, for strategy, intel, battlefield control.
Field researcher, for exotic plant, creatures, old ruin
Private investigation
operate an arcane facility. May produce mundane or magic good.
Active field job, hitman, sellsword, bodyguard, bounty hunter, law enforcement
Criminal activity

We can’t put all these wizard in a annual meeting of the Kingdom wizard guild, They are not linked by their class, they do very different jobs with a common tools, spells.

This isn't about player characters or a Wizard's guild or some kind of limit on concept or even a specific character, Krachek.

It's about the cultural impacts wizard-like characters have had on the world so that someone who might want to play a wizard can go "Oh. Look. The guy was probably a wizard." and then decide whether to play a Wizard -like- that guy, or not like that guy. Or kinda like that guy, maybe, in some ways? Just generally cements the idea that Wizards are a thing, in general, and that society is aware Magic User Nerds who have to Study Magic are a thing.

How a given "Wizard" uses that knowledge and spellcasting and whatever else in play is entirely up to him.

 

[steeldragons]

Sure, but that still implies to me that there's some kind of connection between the gods and the ways clerical magic works; that diametrically opposed deities would still have followers that use the same methodology of magic. I can get behind that if the gods are specified as one facet of reality (maybe they're the protectors of the mortal races and their civilization), but not if the gods are running everything, as they're often presented.

Oh sure. I mean...mine are kind of "both," I guess. Each deity has their portfolio, and is "in charge" of their own particular facet(s) of reality. But they're still "running everything." But they aren't omnipresent or omnipotent (other than within their own spheres of influence)... nor omniscient, for that matter (except for that one deity of knowledge, history, and the mind whose epithet is, literally, "the All-knowing.").

Some, but not all, deities have revealed themselves to various peoples in various forms, with various names, and related (if not exactly matching) portfolios, but they are all simply different faces of the same entities. E.g. the king of the gods is known by a different name and form as the supreme king/lord of the dwarven pantheon, supreme authority of all Dwarven law and talents. He's also an overarching sky deity of the desert empire (whose religion is focused around the cardinal elements), the godly savior of the world to a sea-faring society who only worship him and the ocean/water goddess as a mated pair. To the elves of the northern woods, who watch and revere the skies and celestial bodies, he is the North/White/"Eternal" (immovable) Star. And there are other identities, all embodied by this one "guy." He is, naturally, (receiving the most worship across the continent) the most powerful deity of the setting -or among the very few "most powerful."

Generally, they are responsible for making sure their piece of reality is doing what it's supposed to. E.g. the King of the Gods, a god of Good, Order, civilization & beneficent ruling/rulers. To him is attributed justice and honor, compassion and kindness, all the things that fall beneath "the Forces of Good" even though there are other deities that are more specifically "in charge of" the Justice, Law, Mercy, and Honor bits. He empowers his clerics and paladins to ensure that Order, civilization, and justice and all that other stuff is present in the world -and victorious over evil and chaos in any way they can.

The goddess of Green, growing, useful/benevolent/tamed Nature is responsible for seeing to the turning of seasons (and, so, a general command of weather), the blooming of flowers and fruits, the proper times of planting and harvesting, with a toe dipped into medicines/healing by useful plants/herbs, agriculture, and the like. There are other deities for the Wild/passionate/bestial/"untamed" elements of Nature, the command of the seas (and, largely, the weather over the seas), mountains and stone, etc... She empowers her clerics to the betterment of and command over plants, planting and farming, the health and well-being of the natural world, production of bounty, etc. Need someone with command of metal and the magics of weapon-making/improving/damage dealing? You're going to have find someone other than a cleric of her.

So, they have their facets of reality overwhich they hold sway, is what I'm saying. But in doing "their part," as it were, they are responsible for and hold stewardship over (by their very existance) this world/setting as a whole, commonly referred to as "Creation." The deities that currently exist as the pantheons of the setting are not the ones who MADE the setting. They are just the guys who are supposed to watch over/"take care of" it, make sure it "functions" as well as possible.

 

[Krachek]

This isn't about player characters or a Wizard's guild or some kind of limit on concept or even a specific character, Krachek.

It's about the cultural impacts wizard-like characters have had on the world so that someone who might want to play a wizard can go "Oh. Look. The guy was probably a wizard." and then decide whether to play a Wizard -like- that guy, or not like that guy. Or kinda like that guy, maybe, in some ways? Just generally cements the idea that Wizards are a thing, in general, and that society is aware Magic User Nerds who have to Study Magic are a thing.

How a given "Wizard" uses that knowledge and spellcasting and whatever else in play is entirely up to him.

It is exactly what I try to do, show the multiple way a Wizard may be useful in a society.
There is no limit in a fantasy world for associating classes and work or social position.
A kingdom with no wizard but only cleric, a kingdom with only warlock, a kingdom with npc no beyond 7th level, a kingdom with a few very high level character, a setting creator has plenty of variation to put in place. In all those place meeting a npc that is kind of wizard may be a total different experience. Depending on the kingdom you are, it may be more or less difficult to size that npc.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Because fighter and rogue are not the same thing.

So if there is no difference between warlocks and wizards why they are separate classes ?

I’m not seeing the difference. A Dex-based fighter with the criminal background plays the same narrative role as a rogue. The fact that they have different mechanics isn’t an issue.

An academically-inclined Pact of the Tome warlock plays the same narrative role as a wizard. Once again, different mechanics are not an issue.

Furthermore, at the point you reskin classes and then houserule them to better fit their reskinning, using a class-bases game to begin with starts to seem pretty counterproductive. Just use a system which is designed to allow building customisable characters without relying on fixed packages built upon archetypes.

Because classes aren’t straitjackets to begin with? I mean, if your starting point is that classes are inherent and you can’t play around with them, then I guess it follows that having your swashbuckler be a Swords Bard may cross a line somewhere, but coming up with different approaches to classes is as old as D&D.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The idea is that as writers -we- should develop connections for the classes in our own settings. That we should consider all the different classes and races we intend to include as we build our campaign settings and develop ways for them to have impacted the narrative we're constructing about the history of the world and the plots moving forward. About the cultures and ideals, structures and politics, of the kingdoms, nations, and organizations we're building.

And the -writer- knows whether the Gods have done it before because the Writer writes the Gods. The setting's author. Us. Gods in fiction do not do anything that we do not say that they do. Because they have no agency. Only the writer has agency.

In the settings that don't have interventionist deities you generally don't have Clerics, either. Just sayin'.

I'm not going to try to argue through every potential pitfall or narrative loophole you want to construct about any one of a bajillion different angles for different character concepts. The general idea is that we should connect characters to the world through writing class fantasy into the world, as well. Whether that means having a bajillion different ideas about how Sorcerers can exist or just a handful of examples and let players' imagination fly from there.

That does explain your perspective better, though I still disagree.

Every setting is going to exist in a continuum from “Tightly thematic” to “Kitchen Sink”. Each one is going to have its strengths and weaknesses.

One strength of “Tightly thematic” is that the DM can more tightly tie in classes and races into the setting. Part of what makes this easier is the possibility of simply excluding certain races and classes.

“Kitchen Sink” gives players more freedom to realize their characters. This isn’t always about “having a super unique character”. Sometimes, a player is in the mood to play something different, or wants to try a different mechanic.

I do feel that “let’s tie in races and classes tightly to the setting” tends to ignore that it limits player choices about their characters. There may be a trade-off in terms of immersion, but the player who wants to play the mad scientist artificer probably won’t be happy if all artificers in your setting are required to belong to an order of mage hunters.

 

[Steampunkette]

That does explain your perspective better, though I still disagree.

Every setting is going to exist in a continuum from “Tightly thematic” to “Kitchen Sink”. Each one is going to have its strengths and weaknesses.

One strength of “Tightly thematic” is that the DM can more tightly tie in classes and races into the setting. Part of what makes this easier is the possibility of simply excluding certain races and classes.

“Kitchen Sink” gives players more freedom to realize their characters. This isn’t always about “having a super unique character”. Sometimes, a player is in the mood to play something different, or wants to try a different mechanic.

I do feel that “let’s tie in races and classes tightly to the setting” tends to ignore that it limits player choices about their characters. There may be a trade-off in terms of immersion, but the player who wants to play the mad scientist artificer probably won’t be happy if all artificers in your setting are required to belong to an order of mage hunters.

... as previously noted, -many- times, and also added to the Original Post as a big ol' Disclaimer:

This isn't about requiring people to follow a strict set of guidelines for their characters. Artificers in the Ashen Lands can be mad scientists or a jungle dwelling character who mingles potions and puts together biodegradable bamboo-based clockwork technology.

Only ensuring that there are examples of the character's class/race in the narrative and cultural background that is the campaign setting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

If I'm understanding OP correctly, this is looking at the issue they're concerned with backwards: the problem isn't "how do I fit my sorcerer/rogue/warlock into the setting?" The issue is "why aren't there sorcerers already in the setting?" Which is getting lost, I think, because OP just refers to "the setting," which isn't really a thing in DnD.

This response was to Crimson Longinus who seemed to have an issue with an academically-inclined Tomelock being a wizard.

But as to the general point, I guess it depends on how much detail you provide on your settings, and what detail is necessary.

In my current campaign, the party has come across stories of a mythical hero. The mythical hero is described as clever, preferring brains and guile to brute strength, and using magic (though mostly in conjunction with magical items).

Does it matter whether that hero was a fighter, rogue, sorcerer, artificer or wizard? No. In fact, I would argue that this is better design as (1) it doesn’t restrict player choice; and (2) it is easier on the DM who doesn’t have to populate the backstory with examples of every class.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Hell, in my Space Fantasy game, we barely add anything. We just...play D&D in Space.

Don’t you mean “D&D... ...IN SPAAAACE!”?

 

[Necrozius]

Even in Dungeon World the -cultural- impact of "Wizards" is still there.

Those other Magic Users who aren't actually "Wizards" still have a narrative impact and support the class-fantasy -of- the Wizard. Same thing with the Cleric and Priests thing. Or the Fighter and Soldiers. Or the Barbarian and Tribal Warriors. Or whatever other class-fantasy you're creating.

Because it's not about the name, it's about the identity. Whether you're "The Most Powerful" example of that class fantasy in the world or not, it's still -there-. Still part of the story.

Ah yes, very true. Again, unless your campaign is Xmen in a Fantasy setting, I guess.