What is a 'Fighter'?

[Starfox]

Not to start an edition war, but these words mean very little without a context. In 4E, a fighter is one thing, in 3E another, in OAD&D to 2ed another thing.

It seems the tread here assumes the discussion is about 4E, but I would have preferred if that was said openly and not just inferred.

 

[Chainsaw]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss your views on the in-game meaning of the various D&D character classes (which are primarily a game mechanics element).

For example, would NPCs in the game world really distinguish a fighter from a warlord from a skilled guardsman? Would they all just be considered different types of swordsmen or warriors?

In a setting I plan on running in late 2010/early 2011, villager-type NPCs would likely only go as far as differentiating warrior vs non-warrior, while higher level, classed NPCs might be able to use their adventuring experience to go as far as warrior vs thief vs sorcerer vs priest depending on how someone's dressed (and they might be wrong), but no one's ever going to differentiate according to particular class names - unless I decide to make some "Order of the Warlord" organization that has a specific style of dress. In THAT case, then if you match that style of dress, people might say, "Oh, are you a Warlord?"

In the current 4E game I play, none of my DM's NPCs ever make any overt or implied reference or recognition of class much beyond warrior vs magic-user. It works fine for us and seems to make sense. In my mind, most NPCs aren't participating in battles, where they could learn the mechanical differences between the classes - even if they were, I would say battle is so fast, hectic and terrifiying, I think it would be a bit meta-gamey to have them say, "Oh, I was watching you in battle - you fight like a Paladin. No, wait, I think it was Warlord with a Paladin multi-class feat."

I suppose it's all about setting flavor and expectations that you and your group have.

 

[Umbran]

Not to start an edition war, but these words mean very little without a context. In 4E, a fighter is one thing, in 3E another, in OAD&D to 2ed another thing.

Yes, the exact meaning of the word changes from edition to edition. But the general issue is analogous across editions. In every edition, there's a "fighter" (or "fighting man" - close enough). Exactly what a fighter is changes from one edition to another, but that doesn't change whether or not that character was referred to as a fighter in-game, or whether having a class is an in-game concept or a meta-game concept.

perhaps a better way to ask the question - Do NPCs and PCs in the game (whatever edition) use class names as plain language, or are the words tied to the metagame definitions?

 

[Snoweel]

perhaps a better way to ask the question - Do NPCs and PCs in the game (whatever edition) use class names as plain language, or are the words tied to the metagame definitions?

Maybe so, but I also wanted to hear peoples' views on what kind of characters had classes and how they came to gain those classes (see my example of the-only-ranger-in-the-world).

For instance, in the previous edition of the game I might consider using cleric, sorcerer or adept levels to represent a character who had made a pact with a supernatural entity; in 4e that fluff is more explicitly tied to the warlock class.

Of course if that character was an NPC then I don't need to use a PC class any more and can just assign a level and suitable powers, removing the metagamey attitude of "Oh, Tenpei must be a cleric of at least 5th level. That means he can do this, this and this." Obviously this could be considered as much a feature as a bug, hence peoples' preference for different rulesets.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If hit points represent nothing in the game world, and stats represent nothing in the game world, but exist only to allow one to have numbers to use, then why would "fighter" exist in the game world, apart from direct rules implications? And even those implications can mean something other than what the label says, AFAICT.

 

[nightwyrm]

Classes are a purely metagaming construct designed for player use. In my game world, there is no concept of a "class". People have jobs and they can be referred to as such. The captain of the guard or the army sergeant is never referred to as a "fighter" or a "warlord". Similarly, the king's wizard may mechanically be a warlock, a sorcerer, or even an invoker or shaman.

In an Iron Kingdoms game, another PC kept referring to my character as the "gunmage" like I was wearing a sign. Drove me crazy.

 

[Snoweel]

If hit points represent nothing in the game world, and stats represent nothing in the game world

I think they definitely represent something in the game world.

One take is that, in a magical world where humans are capable of having more hit points than an elephant, hit points (and what they represent) become some kind of tangible aura that people can sense.

Of course that's only one take. It might be that only the character with all the hp knows how tough he is.

 

[Pig Champion]

Classes are a purely metagaming construct designed for player use. In my game world, there is no concept of a "class". People have jobs and they can be referred to as such. The captain of the guard or the army sergeant is never referred to as a "fighter" or a "warlord". Similarly, the king's wizard may mechanically be a warlock, a sorcerer, or even an invoker or shaman.

I agree but to some people, the class and character occupation are one and the same. Some people say, everyone is an adventurer, while others will commit to anybody playing a lute being a bard or anybody wielding a weapon beyond normal skill being a fighter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think they definitely represent something in the game world.

Pre-4e, I agree with you.

Not thinking that way about 4e removes many of the problems I have with the ruleset.

I tend to think that 4e is a better system if you seperate what is happening in the rules space with what is happening in the narrative space. That way, even if you end up with a TPK, you can narrate that the party, having won the day, retired.


RC

 

[Umbran]

If hit points represent nothing in the game world, and stats represent nothing in the game world, but exist only to allow one to have numbers to use....

I think that's... rather overstating it. For hit points as an example, folks will argue that they represent a whole bunch of things in combination - that's rather the definition of "abstraction" - that you lose some of the details does not mean the number represents nothing at all.

I suppose if really, they represent nothing, then you have a point. But I don't expect most folks take it that far. I'm going to hazard that to most folks the Strength stat does, in fact, represent how strong the character is in the game world (for as much as we, in the real world, have a clear definition of the word).