Aaron L said:Ugh! So then, in your games, every person from an uncivilized culture has to have levels in the Barbarian class or they aren't really barbarians? Every single knight has to have levels in the Knight class? People go around calling themselves Rogues? People make a distinction between Warriors and Fighters?... People refer to themselves as Fighter/Rogue/Wizards when describing their professions? People refer to their alignments, levels, and hit points, and discus their +1 longswords and the like?! ... I am very curious as to where you get the notion that those of us who would never use game mechanics terminology in-character (which includes everyone I have ever gamed with) want to get rid of the class based system.
Again, my claim to in-game usage is in this discussion solely about class titles, not anything else. To expand the discussion, I'd say that game-term names are used in-game, while numbers would not be. I play core-rules only; I also think that the more classes you add to the game dilutes the core elegance of the system, so I avoid that. So, in my gaming:
- Yes, barbarians are only called barbarians if they have that class.
- There is no Knight class; I still use the D&D tradition for knighthood to be a reward title.
- Yes, people call themselves Rogues (unless lying or equivocating).
- I don't recognize NPC classes like Warrior.
- Yes, people call themselves Fighter/Rogue/Wizard.
- Yes, people definitely refer to alignments by name (see Elric novels, Gygax novels, detect evil spells, etc.)
- People would not refer to a numerical level or hit points.
- People would refer to a +1 longsword as a "faintly magical longsword" (as per detect magic).
It's basically just keeping things simple, and not having to engage in big-W, little-W linguistic contortions.