When playing a class-based fantasy RPG, are classes diegetic for you?

[AlexofBarbaria]

Diegetic meaning existing within the fictional world, not just metagame. So classes would be things that NPCs in the setting know and recognize.

Secondary but related question: do NPCs have classes? Or just the PCs?

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm. The answer is maybe. Some games have more diegetic elements in their classes as others. Generally though I don't see them as diegetic although they do broadly describe diegetic skill sets.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

my answer to both is...sort of. different types of magic and practicing that magic are definitely distinguishable, so caster classes are diagetic things, as are warriors who mix magic with their combat, so paladins too. past that it's...iffy? like, diagetically, what's the difference between a rogue in a forest, a magicless ranger (a5e), and a nature-oriented fighter? what's the difference between a barbarian and a really angry fighter in medium armor? what's the difference between a rogue and a big brained non-magical trickster? kinda hard to distinguish there.

and i definitely have made npcs that are INSPIRED by pc classes, but i rarely (if ever) copy things 1 to 1. too much effort for too little payoff. better to take ideas from classes and incorporate them in the statblock in a way that makes them smooth to run as just one npc among many and fun to fight for the players.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Interesting question, and for me it depends on the class (and the game system). For sake of argument, let's think of D&D classes (for me).:

A term that would be applied by an knowledgeable observer: Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Monk, Druid. You see them, you know.

A term that could be applied by a knowledgeable observer: Bard, Barbarian, Paladin. The term could be used for many of the members of the class, but not all, and there will be some who are in the class but who don't get called that.

A term that wouldn't typically be used: Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Cleric. Of course the term could be, but for these four, it's not the label that would be applied. There are priests that aren't Clerics, and there are some that are. There are mountain guides that aren't Rangers, but some that are. And even if all individuals with a non-supernatural-looking pet are Rangers, that's not a characteristic NPCs would identify as class-dependent. Fighters and Rogues look alike and are interchangeable; you can't tell by observing them.

NPCs might partake of any of these, but they need not do so.

 

[SableWyvern]

As others have said, it really depends on the game and the class.

If you're playing a magician in a Rolemaster game, then you're one of a small group of people that have learned to master a specific array of elementally themed spell lists -- it's definitely a very specific thing in the setting, whether the locals refer to such people as magicians or something else.

On the other hand, knowing that someone is a rogue (profession) in RM would tell you very little about them. It points towards a range of likely areas of expertise, but that range is quite wide and individual examples can look nothing like each other.

Edit: generally speaking, I think the examples above show where I draw the line. Classes that provide access to very specific powers (typically, magic, but potentially others) that aren't widely available are going to necessarily be diegetic. Classes that are less unique and contain broader ranges of more widely available abilities are less likely to be.

If rangers, fighters, pioneers and rogues all have access to outdoor abilities, they're less likely to be diegetic. If only rangers get those skills, then people in a given setting with those skills are likely to be rangers and ergo it's diegetic by it's nature.

 

[GreyLord]

yes, though this is more TSR era where classes were sometimes more defined with what they did and could do. A fighter may be known as a Warrior or Knight, or similar name, but they were distinct from Rangers who could also be a huntsman or forester or things under that moniker. One being a Wizard should be obvious from the magic and spells they cast and a thief...well...most would recognize what a thief is...even in our world...though you better hope they are a thief and not an assassin if you are the target.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

DND being the only class-based fantasy RPG I've played (yes, what a sad life), my answer is "kind of it depends but oh man what happens when you multiclass? Does that mean levels are diegetic too?"

 

[guachi]

For things like some spellcasters, yes. It's much easier when there's only one type that you can be called. That is, in Basic D&D if you could cast arcane spells you were an Elf or a Magic-user.

 

[John Dallman]

DND being the only class-based fantasy RPG I've played (yes, what a sad life), my answer is "kind of it depends but oh man what happens when you multiclass? Does that mean levels are diegetic too?"

In D&D-like games, where spells come in different groups learnable at different character levels, then yes, character levels are diegetic.

 

[aco175]

A lot of what the others have said. The commonfolk might just call everyone in robes and a pointy hat a wizard or mage even though they might be a sorcerer or warlock. The individual wizard might tell most folk he is a wizard but introduce himself to the important people or other wizards as something else based on his learning or upbringing, like Harry Potter telling people that he is a Hogwardian of the Gryffindor.

Edit: My 10,000th post with a 5 point trophy.