D&D General Class vs Identity

[Redwizard007]

Another thread got me thinking about this, but its something that has bothered me about the majority of RPGs I've played since the 80s.

When you introduce your character how do you describe them? Is it "human fighter" or "grizzled war vet?" Does that "grizzled war vet" need to be a fighter? Couldn't you also build them as a ranger, paladin, rogue, or even a cleric or wizard? Would you still describe them the same way? At what point does your background or character concept supersede your class identity? Should classes even have an identity?

 

[Steampunkette]

Generally speaking?

I tend to do character intros as pure sensory descriptions. What the character's features are, their clothing, the way they smell, the sound of any weapons or armor or equipment rattling or shifting against one another. The timbre of their voice and the way they move. You can do a lot with that, leading people to different conclusions.

Sometimes a character will have a uniform, or an insignia, that might give away their connection to a specific organization, but their class or even their past, really aren't handed over directly. You might recognize them as a sailor from the scent of saltwater clinging to their clothes, but not whether they're a mage or a fighter or something else 'til later.

That kind of identification usually happens by paying attention to their actions or interactions with the environment, rumors, and other characters in a given encounter (Social or otherwise!).

I once played "Princess Venyra Salitzar of Hull" in a campaign where I'd taken the Noble background. She was always dressed to the nines, even though the campaign was an expedition to a new continent. She spoke very brightly and issued commands. She had a retinue of servants who tended her damaged clothing, cooked her meals, and so forth... Also she was a Sorceress.

Only the DM and I knew it, so all the characters referred to her as "Princess" in a derogatory manner that she didn't pick up on 'cause sheltered noble and none of them thought this hapless useless princess would be useful at all 'til she whipped out a spell to cook a Gorilla-Ogre hybrid.

Before that moment she was perceived as a burden on the group... and then she became an asset. It was a great undermining of expectations.

 

[Umbran]

Another thread got me thinking about this, but its something that has bothered me about the majority of RPGs I've played since the 80s.

When you introduce your character how do you describe them? Is it "human fighter" or "grizzled war vet?"

For PCs, usually, both. In the vast majority of games, it is reasonable for the other players to have the metagame information of what class everyone is playing. The flavorful description is better at conveying who you are playing. So, include both.

When introducing an NPC, no, the players don't get metagame info.

Most of the time, for me the class names don't mean anything in the game world. Your typical person on the street cannot tell the difference between a wizard, a sorcerer and a warlock, for example, though folks with the Arcana skill may have some understanding of the sources of power available.

A few class names have meaning in some, but not all, of the worlds I have run over time - druid, bard, and paladin sometimes have expectations associated with them, if those have specific place in the game world. Other class names - specifically cleric - are misleading, as a religious organization will have members referred to as "clerics" that do not have spellcasting power.

 

[Maxperson]

Another thread got me thinking about this, but its something that has bothered me about the majority of RPGs I've played since the 80s.

When you introduce your character how do you describe them? Is it "human fighter" or "grizzled war vet?" Does that "grizzled war vet" need to be a fighter? Couldn't you also build them as a ranger, paladin, rogue, or even a cleric or wizard? Would you still describe them the same way? At what point does your background or character concept supersede your class identity? Should classes even have an identity?

A fighter is just someone who fights(usually with weapons), so it really doesn't have much of an identity in the same way that cleric and wizard do. The war vet, barroom brawler, and palace guard can all be fighters. The wizard, though, is often called a wizard in the fiction. He can still be an arcanist or whatever, or he can be wizard as part of his identity. So my answer to your question is, it depends.

 

[Burnside]

Generally speaking, in my games the class names “fighter” and “rogue” wouldn’t mean anything in-game. “Barbarian” might be used pejoratively against people from a particular region or culture, but not as a self-descriptor by anyone.

Most of the other class names would be recognized in-game, although not everyone would necessarily have heard of all of them or would define them accurately.

I played a lore bard in Tomb of Annihilation who self-identified as an anthropologist because that was his background and field of study. However, he did study and teach at the “bard college” of New Olam in Waterdeep, so he knew he was “a bard” in that sense. I’m running a paladin currently who would describe himself as a paladin. I think this would go for a monk, ranger, or wizard as well.

But I don’t think a fighter or rogue character I’ve played would ever use the terms “fighter” or “rogue” to describe their profession.

A cleric might use any number of terms. A warlock or sorcerer might or might not even know what their “class name” is.

 

[jasper]

Another thread got me thinking about this, but its something that has bothered me about the majority of RPGs I've played since the 80s.

When you introduce your character how do you describe them? Is it "human fighter" or "grizzled war vet?" Does that "grizzled war vet" need to be a fighter? Couldn't you also build them as a ranger, paladin, rogue, or even a cleric or wizard? Would you still describe them the same way? At what point does your background or character concept supersede your class identity? Should classes even have an identity?

It varies with the players I gaming with. Some just want Old Female barbarian. Club, daggers and shield.
Others want to know Chef Betty, the convoy cook who is on her way to to ten towns to see the grand kids. She has grey hair with 3 long hair pins in her hair bun. And she laid out Ooft'a red wizard with a frying pan when he reach for the flap jacks with out washing his hands. Chef Betty is from that Granny Meme which looks granny been to war.
In various games it had varied. We occasionally used the names for the level list in 1E PHB, or we just megagames and say fifth level wizard and not Thaumaturgist.
Which is better? The method which brings the most joy to the table.

 

[GMMichael]

Another thread got me thinking about this, but its something that has bothered me about the majority of RPGs I've played since the 80s. . . At what point does your background or character concept supersede your class identity? Should classes even have an identity?

This has bothered you since the 80s? You've been playing the wrong RPGs then.

My D&D character isn't a "wizard," although that does tend to be a helpful description for other wizards. He's the "tyrant of the 18th era," and I call him a dragon, even though he uses the dragonborn rules. If another player looks at me funny when I'm describing my character, she can look over my shoulder and read the sheet, or just guess my class based on my in-game actions.

At all times should your concept supersede your class, unless you're in a group that plays PGs instead of RPGs.

 

[billd91]

Another thread got me thinking about this, but its something that has bothered me about the majority of RPGs I've played since the 80s.

When you introduce your character how do you describe them? Is it "human fighter" or "grizzled war vet?" Does that "grizzled war vet" need to be a fighter? Couldn't you also build them as a ranger, paladin, rogue, or even a cleric or wizard? Would you still describe them the same way? At what point does your background or character concept supersede your class identity? Should classes even have an identity?

I usually use two ways to describe them - the in-character description and the among players description.
For the in-character description, that's where I would limit my descriptions to stuff observable from the character perspective - the grizzled war vet with the battered armor and gear, the well-groomed dandy with the rapier, etc.
But unless we're playing a campaign that is particularly secretive, I also let my fellow players know what class my character is so they have some idea what to expect from what he has mechanics to do. For most campaigns, I don't see a point in hiding it.

 

[payn]

I like both generic identity classes such as Fighter, and identity specific classes like Bard or Monk. I also love setting themed prestige classes. I can go any way really. I think its wise to have at least both types in the CRB for those who like the flavor and those who prefer classes to be merely the mechanics package.

 

[Ogre Mage]

My clerical characters are generally the most obvious. I describe them as wearing a holy symbol of their deity which is a dead giveaway. And I often flat-out say she is a cleric.

But not all classes wear their heart on their sleeve or around their neck. Many warlocks, for instance, might rather not draw attention to themselves. So I have described my warlock PCs in more class-neutral terms. Especially the fiend warlock.