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

[John Dallman]

For instance, if we think about a fighter vs a rogue in the fiction, how do they differ? First, the difference is most noticeable - and, perhaps, only noticeable - in the context of how they fight. Because the way that skills are resolved in 5e D&D isn't mechanically "tight" enough to extrapolate anything concrete into the fiction. In a fight, a fighter likely wears heavier armour than a rogue, and perhaps also wields a heavier weapon. The rogue is more dangerous when fighting alongside a friend, or when attacking from some sort of cover/surprise.

I find those classes at least semi-diegetic because in the games I play, there are larger mechanical differences. I simply don't believe in the kind of rogue that claims to be able to get surprise and make a high-damage attack on the same target repeatedly. I regard that style of rogue as a simple-minded answer to complaints of "I wanna do more in fights!" and it offends my mental model of low-tech combat happens.

I GM rogues much more in the OD&D/AD&D1e style where hiding and backstabbing is reasonably hard, and doing it repeatedly is normally impractical.

There's some vocabulary that gets used when putting parties together in the circles I play in, about like this:

• "Front-line fighters" normally have classes like fighter, ranger or paladin. Occasionally they are multi-classed fighters, but if so, they are ones with spectacularly good armour classes or have other reasons for wanting to be front-line combatants.
• "Archers" covers ranged combat specialists who aren't good melee fighters.
• "Magicians" covers a wide range from vanilla magic-users, through ones that are specialists in terms of experience and spell selection, if not necessarily character class, to illusionists, or various other kinds of specialised classes. They may get asked what they are good at, and if there are notable things they can't do.
• "Priests" or "Clerics" will get asked what god they worship, and how this affects their capabilities. We have customised spell lists for a lot of religions. There are occasional priests who effectively function as front-line fighters, magicians, archers, or other things.
• Druids, bards and specialist non-clerical healers usually identify themselves as such.
• "Skilled locksmiths," "dungeon specialists" and such euphemisms are thieves, or assassins pretending to be thieves, because openly calling yourself an assassin goes down poorly with many adventurers. There are fighter-thieves who call themselves "commandos" or other things.
• Multi-classed characters usually have to explain what they can do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, the player facing aspects of class, which can't be avoided, make the idea of class as diegetic completely nonsensical.

Not sure what you mean. Please provide an example supporting your subjective opinion.

 

[Fenris-77]

H

Not sure what you mean. Please provide an example supporting your subjective opinion.

Huh. Well, so you don't think there are any aspects of class that are player facing and non-diegetic? I don't believe you. Why don't you prove that no aspects of standard class don't do that. You are very fond of asking other people to prove things, so this can be your turn. Prove it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

H

Huh. Well, so you don't think there are any aspects of class that are player facing and non-diegetic? I don't believe you. Why don't you prove that no aspects of standard class don't do that. You are very fond of asking other people to prove things, so this can be your turn. Prove it.

I never said nothing about class is non-diagetic. You claimed that because something is, the whole idea is laughable. It is IMO on you to support such a claim.

 

[Fenris-77]

I never said nothing about class is non-diagetic. You claimed that because something is, the whole idea is laughable. It is IMO on you to support such a claim.

Whoah, no, nice try. If you want to prove that class isn't diegetic, go ahead, otherwise step aside. Up to you. Personally, I'd split the difference - some aspects of class are diegetic and others aren't. There's no point trying to assert one or the other.

 

[TwoSix]

Because that's silly?

But that’s ultimately an aesthetic judgment. It’s trivial to have class or level function as diegetic elements if the table desires.

Also, class can function as a diegetic element even if the entirety of the mechanical layer is not exposed. “Wizard” or “rogue” can still be referenced setting concepts even if Hit Die or skill lists or specific class features aren’t. It’s definitely a spectrum of what the table finds most palatable.

 

[Fenris-77]

But that’s ultimately an aesthetic judgment. It’s trivial to have class or level function as diegetic elements if the table desires.

Also, class can function as a diegetic element even if the entirety of the mechanical layer is not exposed. “Wizard” or “rogue” can still be referenced setting concepts even if Hit Die or skill lists or specific class features aren’t. It’s definitely a spectrum of what the table finds most palatable.

Yes, it certainly is. I say that because while some elements of class might be 100% diegetic, no class is entirely so. It's not aesthetics, its design. If someone wants to show a class that's 100% diegetic they should jump in, but the burden is very much on them to demonstarte that it's even possibly the case.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, it certainly is. I say that because while some elements of class might be 100% diegetic, no class is entirely so. It's not aesthetics, its design. If someone wants to show a class that's 100% diegetic they should jump in, but the burden is very much on them to demonstarte that it's even possibly the case.

That’s interesting. While I see design for some systems (and settings) pushing one way or the other, I think D&D in particular is amenable to a spectrum of interactions.

I know I’ve run 5e with both classes as purely metagame, and with classes that were exposed and discussable within the fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, it certainly is. I say that because while some elements of class might be 100% diegetic, no class is entirely so. It's not aesthetics, its design. If someone wants to show a class that's 100% diegetic they should jump in, but the burden is very much on them to demonstarte that it's even possibly the case.

Still seems like your position is rather binary on the subject.

 

[Lanefan]

If class is “diegetic” why not levels too?

For all casters, level - measured as degree of competence - can very easily be an in-character thing, as delineated by the best spell(s) you can cast.

For some martials - i.e anything that might use a belt-colour or similar competence measure - level is baked in from the start, measured in-character as belt colour rather than by number.

For some other martial classes it can get a bit fuzzy. Simple sparring can determine who is better than who between a few individuals but anything more universal is tough.

And in any setting or system where training is required in order to advance it becomes much more obvious for all classes: how many training courses have you had?