Hang ups: No1 Character Classes

[Ginnel]

This is really a pet peeve of mine, when your in a game everyone knows the characters names and out of character they know the classes, someone says oh the ranger is doing that now in my opinion this is bad out of character and even worse in character.

It really annoys me and breaks the suspension of disbelief, I think is the correct term.

So what if I'm playing a drunken master/monk I'm just an old smelly, strong Norseman who likes rough housing it with his fists and is something of a Brewmaster called Gren.

That guy isn't a fighter we're all fighters if we are fighting call him a knight or a soldier or a man at arms or even ya know his name.

Well thanks for listening enjoy.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

I got a little tired of this sort of thing at one point, so I started introducing NPCs that were very different than they seemed on the surface. It didn't quite break them of the habit amongst themselves, but it was fun to watch their reactions when someone did something nobody thought they could do. I later played a ranger who didn't seem the part in dress or habits... he was an educated aristocrat whose background, which none of the other players knew anything about, included ranger-type training by his father's master hunter and best friend. The character really would never have thought of himself as a ranger, anyway... Then I used my influence with the DM (typically one of my players) to persuade him not to let anyone else know what I was playing. When the players realized what was going on, one player became convinced I was a sorcerer or bard in disguise!

So I multi-classed!

In any case, no one ever called me "ranger".

 

[GnomeWorks]

Unfortunately, 4e makes this kind of activity easier. Not sure how much easier, but what with every class having a relatively unique set of abilities, it makes class identification a lot easier.

Though I'm not really sure it's a bad thing. In a class-based system, the classes are clearly part of how things work. You're okay with people calling a paladin a paladin in-character, right? So what's wrong with calling someone a "fighter"? And really, is that so different from "man-at-arms"?

Classes are stereotypes. If your character breaks the mold somehow, then it might be appropriate to be irked when someone calls you by your class name. If your character fits the general description of the class, though, it seems a bit odd to get upset when someone refers to you by class.

To use the example of Gren, sure, I probably wouldn't call him a monk, in-character. But when he starts dimension door'ing around, or doing other things that are probably known to be the purvue of high-level monks (especially when he hasn't displayed any spellcasting ability), it's probably a safe bet that he is - in fact - a monk, and making that conclusion in-character doesn't seem to be that far of a stretch.

 

[Mercule]

Heh. I played a thief-acrobat with such a strong moral code that everyone started calling him "the paladin".

In my home-brew setting, I got tired of that, too. So, I introduced organizations called "Rangers" and "Paladins". The former were an order of elite soldiers who took the fight to evil, which fits nicely with the 1e ranger. But, in D&D, it also means there are going to be a lot of wizards recruited for it, which really weirds out players.

The Paladins were the militant followers of a specific, Heironeous-like deity. Most Paladins were paladins, but some were fighters, clerics, or even wizards. Inversely, only a plurality of paladins were Paladins.

That completely solved the problem and didn't actually seem to tick anyone off.

 

[Crothian]

I just use different words to describe people. I never use race or class names. And abilities that would give it away I describe in different ways so people can't always tell. It helps the game I think so the extra work is worth it.

 

[Ginnel]

Unfortunately, 4e makes this kind of activity easier. Not sure how much easier, but what with every class having a relatively unique set of abilities, it makes class identification a lot easier

Well wizards can now don plate or wield any weapon they wish and fighters can cast rituals and both can disarm locks and stealth along with the best of them all for a few feats.

Though I'm not really sure it's a bad thing. In a class-based system, the classes are clearly part of how things work. You're okay with people calling a paladin a paladin in-character, right? So what's wrong with calling someone a "fighter"? And really, is that so different from "man-at-arms"?

Classes are stereotypes. If your character breaks the mold somehow, then it might be appropriate to be irked when someone calls you by your class name. If your character fits the general description of the class, though, it seems a bit odd to get upset when someone refers to you by class.

To use the example of Gren, sure, I probably wouldn't call him a monk, in-character. But when he starts dimension door'ing around, or doing other things that are probably known to be the purvue of high-level monks (especially when he hasn't displayed any spellcasting ability), it's probably a safe bet that he is - in fact - a monk, and making that conclusion in-character doesn't seem to be that far of a stretch.

True, classes do tend to define a class based system, but this is all system stuff used to describe and reference to system mechanics, nothing that should in my opinion be brought to the game table when referencing a characters in game actions.

Maybe I just want more roleplay than other players are capable of, but I'd rather character names were used at all times, someone saying "(player name here) you can have 8 points of healing" I'd rather a quick 1st or 3rd person description of the actions then a "(character name) gain 8 hit points"

In most worlds there is no Fighter Profession, Monks may well be well what monks are in Europe, Wizards I'm kinda ok with if one wanted to call himself an illusionist/witch/conjuror that'd be fine, whatever the local word for them is.
But I refuse to believe its ok to have a general, survey a battlefield and say
"hmm their regiment of fighters are approaching, they have bows so they might infact be rangers unless its a sham and they're all just Wizards or warlocks pretending"
This to me is not ok and is one step away from going hmm he looks like a strong fighter I hope he's not level 8 so he hasn't got improved crit with that falchion he's wielding.

Of course if I was playing in a humourous game which joked about D&Dism's or a smash the dungeon with no focus on roleplay I'd find descriptions such as this fine

 

[Particle_Man]

Ideas:

a) If it fits the character, self-reference: "Holgar will open the door! Holgar will charge the orcs, they will never stand before Holgar's sword!"

b) When the play session starts, have everyone say their character's name in a dramatic voice.