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

[Ovinomancer]

I have no beef with this, or anyone who says that the degree to which class is concrete depends on the setting. My only issue is with those who say that class is an abstract, metagame category to a greater extent than race or background, by definition.

Absolutely, and I'll apologize to all if my question in the OP implied that it should be defined in any way. I haven't ever made class concrete, but I certainly don't think that my way is the only way. I just hadn't actually thought about it or been exposed to not doing it that way (or, perhaps I was, but my assumptions just blinded me into thinking such things were player shorthand and not in-character roleplaying).

 

[Remathilis]

Of course they do. The question isn't 'do game mechanics and game fiction interact' it's 'do game mechanics define game fiction?'

I would allow some of your character's refluffing, because it doesn't alter how the mechanics functions (class and race refluffs). The AC refluff does alter how the mechanics function (you only get defense when you're wielding a weapon, leather is not metal, medium armor has restrictions light armor does not, etc.) so it (and the weapon refluff) are out. That's not a difficult to grasp line, it doesn't reduce to absurdity unless you strawman the actual argument.

The reverse position is that you cannot alter any fluff from what's presented in the books, ever, which I'm pretty sure isn't a position you hold. So, glory be! We both seem to favor positions somewhere in between the extremes. I don't like game mechanics defining game fiction as a default, but I do very much allow that game mechanics influence and interact with game fiction, and should do so in ways that make sense (like a greatsword refluff staying as a heavy weapon and not becoming two lights because the dice look similar). You seem to fall more towards the game mechanics defining the game fiction as a default, with only a few, limited exceptions. There's room for us both, we don't have to turn this into politics where any deviation from the party line is grounds for mocking and ridicule.

But that's the thing with refluffing; what is that line? Where does it begin our end?

I vaguely remember a debate in the early 3e/4e edition wars where someone was complaining about unlimited magic missile cantrips. I don't remember if they were complaining that 4e wizards got unlimited mms, or if 3e wizards didn't, but the solution proposed was "refluff the mm as a crossbow bolt" or "refluff the crossbow as magical zaps" (this was pre-errata, where mm had a to-hit roll).

Now, that might sound like a solution to someone, but all I saw were corner cases: DR, SR, Resistances, interaction with incorporeal, anti-magic, etc, etc. A wizard shooting mm pretending to be a crossbow (or vice versa) absolutely destroys whatever meaning those words have. I similarly face-palmed when 3e's dmg2 suggested using other races but refluffing them human in campaigns without demihumans (a lot of humans can see in the dark, apparently).

Humans are human. Dwarves are dwarves. Crossbows are not spells, a magic missile is not a crossbow bolt. Greatswords are not shortswords, chainmail is not leather, and fighters are not rogues.

I'm already playing pretend. I will not pretend my pretend thing is something else.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But that's the thing with refluffing; what is that line? Where does it begin our end?

Slippery slope arguments aren't particularly valid. As I said before, I'm nearly positive that you've altered, or are playing in a game that has altered, something of the basic conceits presenting in the PHB. It may be something simple, as defining races from a different place, or applying a different appearance to something, but everyone does it. Unless you're 100% pure, your argument above applies equally well to you.

Which is why it's not an argument I'm particularly concerned about. Especially since the answer is 'wherever a group wants to draw the line.' We all draw that line, we just differ about where.

I vaguely remember a debate in the early 3e/4e edition wars where someone was complaining about unlimited magic missile cantrips. I don't remember if they were complaining that 4e wizards got unlimited mms, or if 3e wizards didn't, but the solution proposed was "refluff the mm as a crossbow bolt" or "refluff the crossbow as magical zaps" (this was pre-errata, where mm had a to-hit roll).

Now, that might sound like a solution to someone, but all I saw were corner cases: DR, SR, Resistances, interaction with incorporeal, anti-magic, etc, etc. A wizard shooting mm pretending to be a crossbow (or vice versa) absolutely destroys whatever meaning those words have. I similarly face-palmed when 3e's dmg2 suggested using other races but refluffing them human in campaigns without demihumans (a lot of humans can see in the dark, apparently).

Humans are human. Dwarves are dwarves. Crossbows are not spells, a magic missile is not a crossbow bolt. Greatswords are not shortswords, chainmail is not leather, and fighters are not rogues.

I'm already playing pretend. I will not pretend my pretend thing is something else.

See, my line is 'I don't change how things work mechanically on a refluff.' All of your examples (except the last, fighters/rogues) are exactly that -- altering mechanics to match a fiction refluff. That's where my line is for refluffs. If you cross it, then I may still consider the change, but it's going to be at a higher level of scrutiny that refluffing the fiction behind a class.

As for fighters are not rogues, it turns out that a fighter can actually do most of the things that are 'roguish' about rogues -- climbing, stealing, picking locks, sneaking, etc. -- with the right selection of skills and tools. The only difference then is mechanics like sneak attack or second wind. Different, yes, but not very. I'd have no problem with a fighter that had stealth and proficiency in thieves' tools claiming that he's a rogue, just like I'd have no problem with a rogue with weapon mastery and armor feats that fights in the front line claiming he's a fighter. Yes, one will mechanically be better at the different roles than the other, but I don't limit roles based on optimizations.

And, further, this isn't to say that for the vast majority of the cases, classes in my game work the way they do in your game. Most characters identify roles directly associated with the assumed roles of their class. Some don't, and I provide that leeway in description if the players want it. Frex, the character that started this whole discussion (at my table and here) is a knowledge domain cleric who identifies as a field archaeologist and acts much more like Indiana Jones than anything else. His devotion to his god is backgroundish to him, just something he does, and isn't the central feature of his daily life. Granted, the central feature of his daily life is the uncovering of lost knowledge, which is also the central tenant of his god, but that's how he rationalizes his clerical abilities -- so long as he keeps at it, he'll retain the favor of his god. He doesn't dress in clerical dress, his display of his holy symbol is on the order of many sages that are lay followers of his faith, and he doesn't openly praise his god at all times. Some of his faith do this, but he chooses to be a follower of action, which clearly sets him apart from most of his faith. So, when people ask him if he's a cleric (actually, clerics and priests in my world are titles, and mostly held by non-casting devotees of the faiths) he says no, because to him and others, that would imply a position in the church hierarchy. But his class is cleric.

None of that changes any of the mechanics of the class or game, it just changes the fiction behind the character.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Main point being: what's concrete and what's abstract is determined by the setting, not abstract categorization.

To the extent that it determines what you're trying to model, sure. If you're 'trying' to model a setting where the dominant society has a warrior elite who call themselves The Fighters and progress in ranks from Veteran to Lord in a series of 9 initiations based on how much plunder they bring back from their campaigns, sure, the AD&D fighter suddenly seems a lot less abstract. Odd 'coincidences' like that aside, though, a class is bundle of game mechanics used to model heroic fantasy characters, not an exhaustive & concrete description of them.

 

[Dausuul]

Sorta, kinda. Each class is an example of something - a profession or a way of life - within the game world. In each case, there are other approaches to that profession or way of life.

Every fighter is a disciplined, highly trained warrior; but not every disciplined, highly trained warrior is a member of the fighter class.

Every wizard is a scholar-spellcaster who collects spell formulae and prepares a subset of those spells; but not every spellcaster who does those things is a member of the wizard class. (They are all referred to as "wizards" in the game world, though. In general, caster classes are closer than martials to being a distinctly defined "thing.")

 

[empireofchaos]

I'll give you my answer: because having classes be rigidly defined in the setting takes work.

Yes, and it's not always easy, and it is time-consuming. But still, it's the kind of work that a lot of us want to do, which is why people are designing classes left and right in order to express a particular flavor in the game that they think the existing classes don't cover. And that flavor is, at least to an extent, recognizable to other characters within the game.

My feeling is class (and level, which is a product of class) is the core feature that maintains D&D popularity. Yes, it was the RPG pioneer, but there are plenty of examples of pioneers that were displaced by competitors after a short period of dominance. And what attracts people about it is that the game is a set of paradigmatic and flavorful types. In the same way, White Wolf games became popular because they were based around types - Vampire clans, Mage Traditions, etc. I can't imagine having a serious discussion about whether Vampire clans are concrete or metagame, because it's obvious. And in D&D, I think classes are similar. It's already been pointed out that if what you really want is individual tailoring to have the mechanics express your unique character just so, you're better off going with a skill-based system. But more people play D&D, because they find class attractive, and not just because it saves them the toil of design.

I made an argument about race not being concrete simply to show that most people's reasons for thinking it is has nothing to do with the game. I can easily imagine playing D&D and finding it enjoyable if the standard Tolkienesque setup (humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits) was absent. I could easily see myself enjoying a Game of Thrones-type setting, where all the PCs would be human. But I cannot imagine playing D&D without classes, and still have it be D&D, so I don't want to put too much energy in-game into pretending they don't exist.

 

[empireofchaos]

To the extent that it determines what you're trying to model, sure. If you're 'trying' to model a setting where the dominant society has a warrior elite who call themselves The Fighters and progress in ranks from Veteran to Lord in a series of 9 initiations based on how much plunder they bring back from their campaigns, sure, the AD&D fighter suddenly seems a lot less abstract. Odd 'coincidences' like that aside, though, a class is bundle of game mechanics used to model heroic fantasy characters, not an exhaustive & concrete description of them.

Oh, I'll easily concede that I don't want every aspect of a class - like HD or XP to be concrete, and that there is generally speaking a continuum of more-to-less concrete classes (and that Fighters fall toward the less concrete end of the spectrum). But that's hardly the same thing as saying there is nothing about classes that's not recognizable to people within the game, nothing that implicates a flavor, emulation of particular heroes, or gods, or in some cases a formal structure. This is not a discussion about whether every mechanical aspect of class needs to be represented in game, it's a discussion about whether classes, broadly speaking, are concrete, and reductio ad absurdum certainly doesn't demonstrate the opposite.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, and it's not always easy, and it is time-consuming. But still, it's the kind of work that a lot of us want to do, which is why people are designing classes left and right in order to express a particular flavor in the game that they think the existing classes don't cover. And that flavor is, at least to an extent, recognizable to other characters within the game.

My feeling is class (and level, which is a product of class) is the core feature that maintains D&D popularity. Yes, it was the RPG pioneer, but there are plenty of examples of pioneers that were displaced by competitors after a short period of dominance. And what attracts people about it is that the game is a set of paradigmatic and flavorful types. In the same way, White Wolf games became popular because they were based around types - Vampire clans, Mage Traditions, etc. I can't imagine having a serious discussion about whether Vampire clans are concrete or metagame, because it's obvious. And in D&D, I think classes are similar. It's already been pointed out that if what you really want is individual tailoring to have the mechanics express your unique character just so, you're better off going with a skill-based system. But more people play D&D, because they find class attractive, and not just because it saves them the toil of design.

I made an argument about race not being concrete simply to show that most people's reasons for thinking it is has nothing to do with the game. I can easily imagine playing D&D and finding it enjoyable if the standard Tolkienesque setup (humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits) was absent. I could easily see myself enjoying a Game of Thrones-type setting, where all the PCs would be human. But I cannot imagine playing D&D without classes, and still have it be D&D, so I don't want to put too much energy in-game into pretending they don't exist.

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. You can have classes and still not have those classes be understood, concrete things in the game fiction. I have classes in my game, wouldn't think of doing away with them, but none of them have a reality in the in-game fiction. The wizard class exists as a player choice, but in game the player is free to describe his wizard however he wants. Others may recognize how the wizard manipulated magic as one of the known and codified ways that magic can be manipulated, but most wouldn't. He's just a guy what does magic. If he told someone he was a Wizard, they're first though would not be 'ah, okay, so you memorize your spells daily and can use ritual magic' they think 'ah, you graduated from the Wizard College, you're probably well educated and use magic.' Similar to a person who introduces themselves as a Ranger -- they'd be asked who they served under, as Rangers are the name of a type of military specialty akin to special forces -- forward scout and unsupported harrassing tactics. No one would wonder if you picked Giant Slayer or Horde Breaker.

So, as I said, a wire seemed to have crossed. I don't have classes pre-defined in my game setting. That, in absolutely no way, doesn't mean I don't use classes.

 

[Marandahir]

Classes have meaning but Subclasses have even more meaning.

The various Factions in my world have class and subclass restrictions. For example, the church of the God of Death allows Monks of the Long Death, Paladins of Vengeance, and Death Domain Clerics, amongst a few other subclasses (that fit with other domains of that same god), as ordained members. Layparishoners can be of various classes and subclasses, though.

But if factions united characters across classes, the classes unite characters across factions. Paladins of Vengeance recognise Paladins of Devotion as Paladins, sharing similar powers and rituals, even if the values they hold as virtues are different.

 

[Manbearcat]

A world that doesn't need "a ranger who can turn arrows into bees" is not a world I want to live in.

/salute

Freedom isn't free. If rangers who can turn arrows into bees don't toss in their buck-O-five, who will?

If you are not with the rangers who can turn arrows into bees, then you are with the Far Realm scourge.

IMO of course.