Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 8250444" data-attributes="member: 6796468">No... you don't have to ditch the general class names because it's not about Nomenclature. It's not about naming classes. It's about Class Fantasy and the Setting.The &quot;Class Fantasy&quot; of Fighter isn't &quot;People know you're a fighter and thus do 4 attacks per round&quot;. It's about being a warrior, knight, general, etc. It being generic or fitting multiple concepts doesn't mean the class needs to be broken into each possibly interpretation so there is only one -true- &quot;Fighter&quot; and two dozen separately titled clones of the class.Similarly &quot;Wizards&quot; can fit many roles. From Necromancers and Aged Mentors to Court Advisors and Mad Mages. The core identity of the class is in every one of the potential representatives and supported by the narrative and setting through example.Sorcerer isn't in most settings.My point isn't &quot;Every class needs one and only one interpretation per setting for everyone to understand what it is!&quot; my point is &quot;Every class needs one, at -least- one, solidifying narrative identity so that it can have meaning for the setting&quot;Fighter getting two dozen just reflects the fact that the class's flexibility is largely dependent on the cultural conceptions we have about the wide variety of possible &quot;People who hit other people with weapons&quot; we have. It isn't a bad thing, and it's not a bad thing that if you claim to be a Fighter in-character the NPCs try and figure out what -kind- of fighter you are based on culturally relevant touchstones.But without a supporting narrative for individuals with special Magical Lineages if you tell someone you're a Sorcerer the word is just interchangeable for Wizard, which is another class and not yours. The class fantasy of &quot;Descended from a Bloodline of POWER&quot; isn't there.That's my problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steampunkette, post: 8250444, member: 6796468"] No... you don't have to ditch the general class names because it's not about Nomenclature. It's not about naming classes. It's about Class Fantasy and the Setting. The "Class Fantasy" of Fighter isn't "People know you're a fighter and thus do 4 attacks per round". It's about being a warrior, knight, general, etc. It being generic or fitting multiple concepts doesn't mean the class needs to be broken into each possibly interpretation so there is only one -true- "Fighter" and two dozen separately titled clones of the class. Similarly "Wizards" can fit many roles. From Necromancers and Aged Mentors to Court Advisors and Mad Mages. The core identity of the class is in every one of the potential representatives and supported by the narrative and setting through example. Sorcerer isn't in most settings. My point isn't "Every class needs one and only one interpretation per setting for everyone to understand what it is!" my point is "Every class needs one, at -least- one, solidifying narrative identity so that it can have meaning for the setting" Fighter getting two dozen just reflects the fact that the class's flexibility is largely dependent on the cultural conceptions we have about the wide variety of possible "People who hit other people with weapons" we have. It isn't a bad thing, and it's not a bad thing that if you claim to be a Fighter in-character the NPCs try and figure out what -kind- of fighter you are based on culturally relevant touchstones. But without a supporting narrative for individuals with special Magical Lineages if you tell someone you're a Sorcerer the word is just interchangeable for Wizard, which is another class and not yours. The class fantasy of "Descended from a Bloodline of POWER" isn't there. That's my problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification