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

[Scribe]

I don't think I've read many of your posts @Steampunkette but really, I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

I find the kind of exploration of the concepts your talking about is just brushed over 90% of the time, and it's a real gap in world building to me.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

`Why not do that with the PCs too? I mean why even have classes if they don't actually mean anything?

 

[TwoSix]

But why then have these mechanics to be arranged into these idiosyncratic specific packages? Why use system that actually lets you build unique characters not tied to an archetype

Because they come with preset narratives that are easier to grasp for newcomers. More freeform character creation is generally a stronger option when the players have a strong grasp of the setting material (like superhero RPGs in general), or are simply more experienced with and can experiment with setting tropes.

`Why not do that with the PCs too? I mean why even have classes if they don't actually mean anything?

I'm moving away from it, but it takes time. My last 2 PCs were unique subclasses I homebrewed myself, and were substantial tweaks from their base class. Presenting it to the DM as a "subclass" is much easier than to justify than "I picked abilities that made sense for my character."

My next game I'm running will almost certainly have just 3 classes (Warrior, Expert, Mage).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because they come with preset narratives that are easier to grasp for newcomers. More freeform character creation is generally a stronger option when the players have a strong grasp of the setting material (like superhero RPGs in general), or are simply more experienced with and can experiment with setting tropes.

Right. So you actually want the class' fiction to mean something in the setting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But why then have these mechanics to be arranged into these idiosyncratic specific packages? Why use system that actually lets you build unique characters not tied to an archetype

I tend to view this in exactly the opposite way. In a game that encourages you to be anything you can imagine, why should my storm sorcerer be forced to be a member of the Mage Aristocracy, rather than “Jenny from the docks” with a sailor background and a desire to become captain?

 

[billd91]

I tend to view this in exactly the opposite way. In a game that encourages you to be anything you can imagine, why should my storm sorcerer be forced to be a member of the Mage Aristocracy, rather than “Jenny from the docks” with a sailor background and a desire to become captain?

That sounds like an excellent reason to talk to your DM about working your idea into the campaign setting. But in relation to Steampunkette's original post - how's your storm sorcerer tied into her sorcerous bloodline? Who are the people in her ancestry who linked the bloodline up with magical power? Maybe you're a black sheep of the bloodline, but who are the rest of it and what's their relationship with you?

 

[Umbran]

But why then have these mechanics to be arranged into these idiosyncratic specific packages? Why use system that actually lets you build unique characters not tied to an archetype

There are several reasons, but the primary one is enforcement of balance. A second would be niche-protection, which isn't always necessary, but is often very convenient.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I tend to view this in exactly the opposite way. In a game that encourages you to be anything you can imagine, why should my storm sorcerer be forced to be a member of the Mage Aristocracy, rather than “Jenny from the docks” with a sailor background and a desire to become captain?

Presumably within that fictional framework Jenny would be a bastard of some sorcerer-aristocrat. But the point being that if the mechanics are not tied to any specific fiction, then why build the mechanics as packages inspired by specific fiction in the first place? Why not just remove the classes, and a let the players to choose a set number of features each level that best suit their unique character concept?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are several reasons, but the primary one is enforcement of balance. A second would be niche-protection, which isn't always necessary, but is often very convenient.

But if we don't care about specific fiction, then the niches can only be mechanical. So classes should be something like: tank, melee damage, ranged damage, healer, etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What does being a Necromancer mean in that world? Are Necromancers just wizards? Is there a Taboo around Necromancy? Is a Necromancer Evil by Default because Necromancy itself is evil? Are Necromancers considered heroic figures, using wasted meat to fight wars or dig ditches on behalf of the community, freeing the living up to pursue other tasks?

The player can be whatever they want to be. And fit into the world however they want to fit into the world. I'm not talking about the Player.

I'm talking about the NPC Necromancer. I'm talking about the cultural and narrative assumptions that pop up when someone in the story is referred to as a Necromancer.

Play your Skald, by all means. What is a Skald to the world? What have Skalds accomplished? Separately, what have -Bards- accomplished that they're separate from Skalds? What defines each of these terms in the game world, not their dice-rolling functionality?

I guess I misunderstood what you were getting at then, because I thought you were referencing the Class names specifically. That whatever your Class was mechanically was also what you should be known as narratively. If that's not what you meant, then my mistake.