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

[Micah Sweet]

It's not really about worldbuilding. It's that this question is fairly central to how players should approach discussion of PC and NPC capabilities in class-based games, especially D&D. AND that there's a fairly wide spectrum of assumptions on how this topic is handled by the wider player base, and it's pretty easy for individual members at a table to have widely divergent approaches that can cause communication issues at the table.

We discuss these issues because unstated assumptions can cause problems, so it's good for people to be aware that others might think totally differenly on this topic!

Oh sure. Discussion is good, and there's nothing wrong with different opinions. I just think there's no reason for one to worry overmuch if one's politely expressed opinions and preferences nonetheless raise the hackles of others. You don't control how they feel, only how you do.

 

[TwoSix]

Oh sure. Discussion is good, and there's nothing wrong with different opinions. I just think there's no reason for one to worry overmuch if one's politely expressed opinions and preferences nonetheless raise the hackles of others. You don't control how they feel, only how you do.

Believe me, nothing I say here should be construed as me caring if other people aren't happy; rather than simply noting that I've observed that they aren't.

 

[Cadence]

what you described is speed. velocity is the rate at which something changes position, which is very different because if you end up back at the same position that you started at within the measured timeframe then it doesn't matter where you went or how quickly, your velocity is 0.

That be "average velocity" of 0, right? When someone just says velocity do they typically mean the "instantaneous velocity"? Calculus books at least seem to do that. Back in the early (1-dimensional) parts of Edwards and Penney they have "Thus velocity is instantaneous rate of change of position." "The speed of the particle is is defined to be the absolute value |v| of velocity." In the higher dimensional section they define velocity as both the rate and direction (again being instantaneous). I don't remember it differing from that in the physics texts, but its been 35+ years since I looked at one of those.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

That be "average velocity" of 0, right? When someone just says velocity do they typically mean the "instantaneous velocity"? Calculus books at least seem to do that. Back in the early (1-dimensional) parts of Edwards and Penney they have "Thus velocity is instantaneous rate of change of position." "The speed of the particle is is defined to be the absolute value |v| of velocity." In the higher dimensional section they define velocity as both the rate and direction (again being instantaneous). I don't remember it differing from that in the physics texts, but its been 35+ years since I looked at one of those.

i never took calculus so maybe

 

[Lanefan]

Meta and in game have the downside of being an enormously loaded duo. Meta especially. Sometimes different words help, and sometimes they are even more accurate (as diegetic is as compared to in-game).

I often use "in character" and "out of character" for this, going well beyond just defining how a player is speaking.

 

[Lanefan]

A bold take to throw out there among the conversation around it. Do the people in your game world talk about choosing to take sorcerer, or dipping a level of rogue?

Not using those terms, but yes they would (or certainly could):

Jacinda: "I've been doing some research and found there's casters out there who don't need to memorize their spells - they just cast 'em whenever they want until they exhaust themselves and need to rest. I'm'a learn how to do that!"
Falstaff: "You know, after all this time watching Rochelle sneaking around and doing her thing, I'm thinking it might be an idea if I learned at least the basics of what she does - provided she's willing to teach me, that is. Obviously I'll never be as good at it as she is, but if it can help me get into better position before the fighting starts, I'm all for it! That, and if I learn anything about how to climb walls then maybe you lot won't have to keep hauling my ass out of all the pits I fall into."

 

[bsss]

Not using those terms, but yes they would (or certainly could):

Jacinda: "I've been doing some research and found there's casters out there who don't need to memorize their spells - they just cast 'em whenever they want until they exhaust themselves and need to rest. I'm'a learn how to do that!"
Falstaff: "You know, after all this time watching Rochelle sneaking around and doing her thing, I'm thinking it might be an idea if I learned at least the basics of what she does - provided she's willing to teach me, that is. Obviously I'll never be as good at it as she is, but if it can help me get into better position before the fighting starts, I'm all for it! That, and if I learn anything about how to climb walls then maybe you lot won't have to keep hauling my ass out of all the pits I fall into."

Yeah, I guess the crux of the matter is this question: are the game terms themselves a necessary part of the diegetic-ness? Certainly your dialogue makes complete sense, but is that "enough"? Another way, is it clear (and does it have to be clear) that Falstaff is talking about taking (in game terms) a level of Rogue? Falstaff could be talking about taking (in game terms) Skill Focus (Move Silently). And, Falstaff didn't actually say either of those things, so are those things truly diegetic? My opinion is that for the game concepts to be diegetic, their appearance in the world of the narrative would have to be clear and discrete, but maybe I'm reaching too far into what needs to be discussed in in-world language.

 

[aramis erak]

I suppose, but from my perspective, you've got that backwards because you don't go back far enough. Games being tied to setting wasn't a thing until at least the 80s, and was even more pronounced in the 90s. Games in the 70s rarely had a built in setting. "In setting" just wasn't anything that I ever heard anyone talk about, so it was a moot point.

Wrong.
'78 sees two very tied to setting: Starships and Spacemen (FGU - their would-have-been-licensed-but-couldn't-afford-it Trek game), and RuneQuest.
'76 saw Empire of the Petal Throne, which was VERY tied to its setting. We also get Metamorphosis Alpha, again, tied to its setting of the Starship Warden.

Traveller is a special case: it was released as a genre engine in 77, by 1979 fans demanding a setting caused GDW to create one, and that has been part of CT since 1979... was not retrofit into the 1981 second edition, didn't hit the core rules until 1983 (The Traveller Book)... where a bit of library data and a subsector were first included in core rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Traveller is a special case: it was released as a genre engine in 77, by 1979 fans demanding a setting caused GDW to create one, and that has been part of CT since 1979... was not retrofit into the 1981 second edition, didn't hit the core rules until 1983 (The Traveller Book)... where a bit of library data and a subsector were first included in core rules.

I dunno, even before then the technology assumptions were like D&D magic--too overly specific to be just a "general SF game". They might not have technically pointed at the Imperium until later, but they still pointed at something very much like it from day one.

 

[aramis erak]

I dunno, even before then the technology assumptions were like D&D magic--too overly specific to be just a "general SF game". They might not have technically pointed at the Imperium until later, but they still pointed at something very much like it from day one.

D&D, like CT-77, is a genre engine. Specific to a genre (later eds really more a subgenre), but not to a singular setting.