D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

[S'mon]

This simply means the validity or non-validity of a scientific proposition doesn't rest on individual studies, but on the state of the paradigm as a whole. As of now, the paradigm of "race is social" remains intact. And a scientific paradigm, because it at least provides opportunities for criticism and change is a better guide for knowledge than old prejudices.

Even if 'race' were 'social' (tell that to forensic pathologists) it remains the case that the relevant people in your Masai/Pygmy example would consider Masai and Pygmies to belong to different races. The relevant people being Masai, Pygmies, and people living beside & among both of them. Your remote perspective is irrelevant.

Edit: I suspect you're doing some weird SJW troll thing by bringing up human races only to deny their existence, so I'm putting you on Ignore for now. If I see other people replying to any good or sensible points you make I'll take you off again.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I stand to be corrected, of course, but what I'm hearing people arguing is that "Classes are strictly metagame concepts and have no meaning in game". Perhaps I heard that in the wording of the initial survey. And I hear people saying that of course there is flavor, but the flavor is a "character concept", not a class flavor. That's not the same thing.

As the OP, I don't follow your description of my question at all. The intent was to ask, "Do the fictional people in your world know what the fighter class is and what that means? Do they know what the monk class is and what that means? Do they know what the XXX class is and what that means?" Essentially, is the class description something that has actual meaning to people in your world. It is not 'classes have a fiction behind them in my world,' or 'I use the default fluff for classes -- monks, for instance, are training in pseudo-Asian monasteries, only." That's fine. But does "Monk Class" means something in your game.

That's what my player was saying, that people in game understood what classes where and used that construct to freely define themselves and others in the game fiction. Not that you're from an ancient monastery where you learn secret arts of mastering Ki, but that you're a Monk class (or maybe both, whatevs).

And what we're arguing is:

1) The flavor given is just one of the options/possibilities, but within a certain range of possibilities (wider in the case of the "basic" classes like fighter, and considerably narrower in cases of, say, monks, paladins, barbarians, etc.)

Mostly I do this. Fighters mechanically can only simulate a certain range of things, for instance. I'm not set on proscribing the only fiction that a fighter can be, but, realistically, if you're interested in specializing in casting spells, fighter's probably not a good mechanical fit for you.

2) We're saying that this range of flavors is inseparable from the class mechanics, that it is the spirit that connects the various elements of the class, and makes them a coherent whole, that can be understood by a character as a calling.

This I strongly disagree with. Just because most of the time I don't color outside the lines doesn't mean that someone (or even me) might not be able to make a fantastic creation by doing so. If my players have a concept that works well with the mechanics of the class, I'm not going to tell them 'no' because i don't think that class should support anything but my pre-approved assumptions of what it's flavor is. I don't assign flavor to classes as a default.

Now, if their concept didn't function well in my campaign world (frex, an alien laser-gunsliger in my medieval fantasy) then I have no problem nixing their concept. I'm just not going to nix a concept because i don't think the class(es) they've chosen shouldn't support that concept.

And we're asking 3) why the crunch has metaphysical priority over the fluff in the minds of those who disagree with us. If the player is within her rights to ask a DM to accept a refluffed version of the class that the DM sees as flying in the face of his idea of the class' identity, how is that different from a player coming and saying "I really love the description of the barbarians in the PHB as raging, foolhardy tribesmen. But in my conception, barbarians should be able to wear armor, cast spells, and have d10 instead of d12. If you're not an overbearing DM, you should let me play this barbarian (and think of recrunching some of your NPC barbarians too, while you're at it)."

You're conflating creative and narrative control with the idea that classes might not have defined fluff and could be used just for their mechanics. I'd easily let a player play a fighter and call it a barbarian, so long as his concept matches what 'barbarian' means in my game (which has nothing to do with the class barbarian), that's fine. I don't feel the need to restrict a class to only having a specific flavor, but I still maintain control over what flavors are in my game.

Hence, for me, classes are metagame mechanical constructs and don't have required meaning inside the game fiction.

 

[empireofchaos]

Even if 'race' were 'social' (tell that to forensic pathologists) it remains the case that the relevant people in your Masai/Pygmy example would consider Masai and Pygmies to belong to different races. The relevant people being Masai, Pygmies, and people living beside & among both of them. Your remote perspective is irrelevant.

Edit: I suspect you're doing some weird SJW troll thing by bringing up human races only to deny their existence, so I'm putting you on Ignore for now. If I see other people replying to any good or sensible points you make I'll take you off again.

Oh, that's the ticket! Utter the magic formula "SJW", hit ignore. I guess that clinches it. See ya, S'mon!

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

1st level 5e Fighter or Barbarian is way better than the MM Guard or Bandit. A 5th level D&D PC is a greater warrior than any but a very few of the real world's best - far more resilient, but probably has a lower initiative bonus.

Yes, 1st level in 5e easily equates to a 3-4 year military veteran, unless you've generally inflated the stats in your game world. A 1st level Barbarian could probably take down a 25 hp MM Thug one to one, and can easily beat a Bandit or Guard (or Scout, or Tribesman, etc).

I'll take your word for it. To me personally the real "bachelor" degree doesn't start till the archetype level, but maybe it's my previous editions speaking here, as i am still quite new in 5E.

 

[empireofchaos]

As the OP, I don't follow your description of my question at all. The intent was to ask, "Do the fictional people in your world know what the fighter class is and what that means? Do they know what the monk class is and what that means? Do they know what the XXX class is and what that means?" Essentially, is the class description something that has actual meaning to people in your world. It is not 'classes have a fiction behind them in my world,' or 'I use the default fluff for classes -- monks, for instance, are training in pseudo-Asian monasteries, only." That's fine. But does "Monk Class" means something in your game.

That's what my player was saying, that people in game understood what classes where and used that construct to freely define themselves and others in the game fiction. Not that you're from an ancient monastery where you learn secret arts of mastering Ki, but that you're a Monk class (or maybe both, whatevs).

Everything in my quotes, which was my 'description of the question', was the verbatim quote from the initial question. The rest of what constituted my "description" of the question followed what someone who agreed with the notion of no class in-game (can't remember who) said - that what you have in-game is not class, but character concept. What you say in your post below: "If my players have a concept that works well with the mechanics of the class" - seems to be stating the same thing. How, then, am I departing from your question?

And I understand what your player was saying. He wants to know if a character can recognize whether someone belongs to a certain class or not. You seem to be saying two different things. On the one hand, you're saying that classes have fictions, but they're not necessarily the fictions described in the class writeups. But on the other hand, you're saying that the fiction (any fiction, any set of fictions) cannot be recognized as encompassing classes which use particular mechanics. I'm not sure why "people training to harness ki in monasteries" is necessarily distinct from "monk class". Maybe monk class is broader than that. Maybe not. Maybe some of the people (most of the people, even) in the monasteries are 0-level lay brothers that aspire to monkhood for brief periods, but lack the talent or perseverance to make it. Maybe members of other classes stop by from time to time (and mechanically, they receive something like a feat if their experience was successful). But whatever the fine distinctions, they don't necessarily mean that the class can't be recognized by anyone. In 1870, very few people could tell the difference between a physicist and a chemist (probably, if you conduct on-the-street interviews today, after a century and a half of mass education, the numbers wouldn't be that much better. Possibly some chemists and physicists lie about what field they're in, or are themselves confused about the disciplinary distinctions on the margins. But that doesn't mean that physicists and chemists don't exist.

Mostly I do this. Fighters mechanically can only simulate a certain range of things, for instance. I'm not set on proscribing the only fiction that a fighter can be, but, realistically, if you're interested in specializing in casting spells, fighter's probably not a good mechanical fit for you.

Well, we mostly agree then, we just come at it from different sides. Your "negative theology approach" (fighters are not this, druids are not this and this and this) is, for me, a more positive approach "(fighters are vaguely this, druids are approximately this, paladins are almost certainly this", etc.)

This I strongly disagree with. Just because most of the time I don't color outside the lines doesn't mean that someone (or even me) might not be able to make a fantastic creation by doing so. If my players have a concept that works well with the mechanics of the class, I'm not going to tell them 'no' because i don't think that class should support anything but my pre-approved assumptions of what it's flavor is. I don't assign flavor to classes as a default.

Now, if their concept didn't function well in my campaign world (frex, an alien laser-gunsliger in my medieval fantasy) then I have no problem nixing their concept. I'm just not going to nix a concept because i don't think the class(es) they've chosen shouldn't support that concept.


You're conflating creative and narrative control with the idea that classes might not have defined fluff and could be used just for their mechanics. I'd easily let a player play a fighter and call it a barbarian, so long as his concept matches what 'barbarian' means in my game (which has nothing to do with the class barbarian), that's fine. I don't feel the need to restrict a class to only having a specific flavor, but I still maintain control over what flavors are in my game.

Hence, for me, classes are metagame mechanical constructs and don't have required meaning inside the game fiction

I'm not sure it's lines inside which you draw as much as it's a scatter-plot that comes closer to being a distinct shape in some cases. But again, if a player has an amazing concept of how to restat a barbarian (not play a fighter who calls himself a barbarian, but come up with a new set of mechanics to describe the barbarian fluff in the PHB), how is that different. And I'm completely agnostic as to whether I would let the player go ahead with their idea in either case - it depends on what the specific proposal is, whether it jibes with my reading of the class fluff for this particular world, and whether our negotiation with the player about whether her fluff "fits" or whether her new crunch is workable, is successful. But that doesn't mean there aren't conceptual boundaries in principle. And in either case, both player and DM will have to do work to fit the character into the world (through writing up a new class, figuring out how the fluff variant is related to the established variant, who trained the PC, are they alone in the world, or still a type, etc.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

That just doesn't seam to make much sense to me. I always consider the 1st level character as a "noob" (except on 4E, where they were already heroes), a half baked "something" (commoner, noble...) that no matter what he/she/it did in life prior to adventuring, has little to no clue about this new way of life. IF i'd like to play a veteran soldier, then i'd probably start at lvl5 or something.

Ironically, the AD&D level title for a 1st level fighter was 'Veteran.'

It's true that some backgrounds (like the soldier i.e.) seam to go against my line of thinking

5e's 'Apprentice Tier' isn't quite consistent that way, true. A guild craftsman might have a lot of mundane experience, a solider have seen some fighting, while a monk or wizard may have many years of formal training, while a Sorcerer might have woken up with magical powers yesterday. Newly-minted adventurer may or may not be young & inexperienced, just new to adventuring.

A wire swapped somewhere in there, and you started talking about not having classes instead of classes being automatically defined in the in-game universe. I'm not talking about not having classes, and I don't recall anyone making that kind of argument.

It is true that there are a lot of very good games that don't use classes, though. That argues to classes being something more than just a meta-game construct, since you can do everything a class does in a mechanical sense without resorting to such a limiting construct....

As the OP, I don't follow your description of my question at all. The intent was to ask, "Do the fictional people in your world know what the fighter class is and what that means? Do they know what the monk class is and what that means? Do they know what the XXX class is and what that means?" Essentially, is the class description something that has actual meaning to people in your world. It is not 'classes have a fiction behind them in my world,' or 'I use the default fluff for classes -- monks, for instance, are training in pseudo-Asian monasteries, only." That's fine. But does "Monk Class" means something in your game.

That's what my player was saying, that people in game understood what classes where and used that construct to freely define themselves and others in the game fiction.

That's a legitimate question. IMHO, by the time 3e evenly-advancing classes and multi-classing rules came around, the idea that a class was just a bundle of mechanical abilities and thus no more IC than your number of hps or the length of a round. Making the assumption that there is IC-awareness of game mechanics is actually kinda hilarious - OotS for instance. Terry Pratchett did much the same kind of thing for the genre D&D is based on.

What's interesting is that you actually can take the OotS/Pratchett IC attitude and play it seriously instead of for laughs. I guess it's one of the perks of D&D as the grandaddy of all RPGs. In any other game character classes would just be a klunky mechanic that doesn't model characters from genre very well, but since they've been in D&D so long, they've become de-facto archetypes and professions, defined parts of an eccentric sub-genre of fantasy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do the fictional people in your world know what the fighter class is and what that means? Do they know what the monk class is and what that means? Do they know what the XXX class is and what that means?"

For me, usually, they don't know them as "classes," but they know them as things with meaning, to varying degrees. They know that someone with supernatural martial arts skills (ie, "I can punch a dragon for 1d8 damage!") has been trained by people who know how to use those skills, and such people gather in certain organizations that occupy certain locales in the world. They know that someone who is keenly accurate with a blade (ie, "I crit on 19-20") is associated with cadres of warriors known to hone skill to that degree, who occupy certain roles and locales in the world. They know that a nature-priest who transforms into beasts (ie, "I have Wild Shape and the Druid spell list!") are linked to groups of people in the world that can do that.

And since the mechanics are expressed in the fiction (meaning, someone who crits on a 19-20 IS exceptionally accurate with their attacks, someone who punches dragons for 1d8 damage IS using supernatural martial arts skills), someone with those mechanics should also be linked to that fiction, IMO.

That's why, for me, in general, classes are primarily about fiction, not about mechanics. The mechanics are there to support the fiction. If you'd like to use the mechanics to support some other fiction, it's generally a pretty awkward fit unless you hand-wave or ignore where it doesn't fit. It's fine to do that, but I don't find it very satisfying - I prefer when my mechanics and fiction work together to build on each other, not when they're fighting because they don't really work. Think of your fiction first - the character you want to play. We'll then come up with how to represent them doing those things mechanically.

I'm not set on proscribing the only fiction that a fighter can be, but, realistically, if you're interested in specializing in casting spells, fighter's probably not a good mechanical fit for you.

I think one thing that might help to illustrate my point: that's a distinction in the fluff, but it's not a distinction in the mechanics.

Nothing, mechanically, says I can't use a longsword and a shield and re-fluff it as "a magical wand that projects a field of force that I slash with and my other hand can be used to make powerful, nearly instantaneous magical defenses made of the bones of my enemies with a simple gesture." There's nothing in a bow that says that it can't be "a powerful bolt of eldritch energy sent screaming through the air into the flesh of my foes."

I can also do it the other way around - magic missile is my superbly accurate archer taking time, aiming, and letting an unerring arrow hit. Burning Hands can be my character spitting some hard alcohol through a torch. Mage Armor can be, well, regular armor. Faerie Fire can be my character pointing out the flaws in enemies' defenses.

4e's a pretty good example of this thought process in practice - a level X ability is largely on par with other level X abilities, mechanically. You have your "martial fireballs" and your "magical multi-attacks" and the like. I find 5e generally shies away from this, though.

Anyway, the same thought that goes into you dividing magic from martial is the same thought that goes into "Monks are a specific thing," just more deeply applied.

And it's more deeply applied, for me, because it leads to a much more developed play experience, ESPECIALLY for newbies. Having monks be a specific thing is a frequent reminder that you are playing a fantasy character in a game of make-believe, not a set of stats.

Which isn't to say that a more abstract view is bad, just that I find it makes you think about a character more in terms of mechanics than in terms of fiction, which is not the most fun place for me to play D&D at.

 

[Arial Black]

I suspect you're doing some weird SJW troll thing

What is an 'SJW troll' thing?

 

[Remathilis]

What is an 'SJW troll' thing?

A new creature in the next AP. I hear it takes double damage from "triggers".

 

[empireofchaos]

What is an 'SJW troll' thing?

Social Justice Warrior. Generally, a right-wing-speak for anyone who causes them butthurt (cf. "hater"). Troll, because he thinks I was talking about race as socially constructed to get his hackles up, rather than just illustrating a point (namely, if we can deconstruct class in the game, we can do the same for race).