"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[jmartkdr2]

I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.

If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.

If I tell you I'm playing a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen, why does it matter which set of mechanics I use to support that? You have what you need to know, lore-wise.

 

[Phazonfish]

I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.

If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.

If you tell me that you're playing a Paladin then I would expect you to play them like a Paladin because you just told me that you are a Paladin like it is central to the character's identity. That's perfectly fine, but I don't think this needs to be the case for all characters. You can even still play into fantasy tropes without necessarily playing into the tropes associated with your class.

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven’t seen this be a problem... well, ever really. Early in my roleplaying career my and my friends characters were a bit flatter and more archetypal, but even then none of us thought the class did or should define the character completely.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If I tell you I'm playing a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen, why does it matter which set of mechanics I use to support that? You have what you need to know, lore-wise.

Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.

If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.

 

[prabe]

I hadn't seen this be a problem for years, then my wife and I joined a 5E campaign at one of our local game stores, and the DM has persisted in behaving as though my wife is playing her character wrong. It seems he only has one motivation in his head for wizards, and my wife's character isn't motivated by that. It's an ongoing source of irritation (we continue in the campaign primarily because we like the other players)

 

[prabe]

If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.

Maybe we don't want fourteen million classes, though, and maybe there are several kinds of Warrior-nuns of the Raven Queen. So long as the player and the GM are on the same page, it's almost certainly fine (though I have to admit I'd look very carefully at a character whose player wanted to bring lore into my setting that allowed him to multiclass paladin and warlock).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

uh, considering your avatar I find that just a little ironic for you to say.

I agree that class does inform abilities and possibly behavior of your character, but I don't see how that means you need to pigeonhole yourself either. especially in this day and age where class based rpg's are no longer the norm, and mutliclassing and archetypes are part of 5e. and really if paladins always acted in line we wouldn't have blackguards.

Given that class-based RPGs are less common, the choice to use a class-based system says something. In particular, one of the things it says is that codified classes make sense in this world. After all, if you didn't want your class to really mean something, then you could have played one of those other games.

On a very serious note, one of the problems with sci-fi RPGs is that they don't have a universal set of tropes to help get everyone on the same page with how the world works. The closest we have is Star Trek, and that doesn't work for a lot of campaign types. It's a big problem, which limits their popularity. Hence why space fantasy is much more common.

 

[prabe]

Given that class-based RPGs are less common, the choice to use a class-based system says something. In particular, one of the things it says is that codified classes make sense in this world. After all, if you didn't want your class to really mean something, then you could have played one of those other games.

Or, you might be playing a class-based game because it's what your friends are playing. I think that's a determining factor more than a lot of people waht to admit.

On a very serious note, one of the problems with sci-fi RPGs is that they don't have a universal set of tropes to help get everyone on the same page with how the world works. The closest we have is Star Trek, and that doesn't work for a lot of campaign types. It's a big problem, which limits their popularity. Hence why space fantasy is much more common.

I'd have to say that Star Wars is at least as much a source of SF archetypes as Star Trek. If nothing else, I can think of more, and more successful TRPGs set in that universe, and the Campbell influence seems more ripe for the taking.

 

[Phazonfish]

Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.

If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.

You bring up an excellent point here, which is why I would like to clarify my position. I only support refluffing where the crunch and fluff make sense together. If you have been a Wizard for most of the campaign, but want to take a 1 level dip in Sorcerer, and want to write your new spells off as more scholarly magic instead of explaining your sorcerous origin, I see no reason why not. If your character has the ability to cast Plane Shift and you try and write this off as a non-magical skill of your warrior who has never learned or otherwise obtained a speck of magic and don't have some kind of interesting justification for me, I would have a problem with this as a GM. I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say that the mechanics need to reflect the reality of the game world.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'd have to say that Star Wars is at least as much a source of SF archetypes as Star Trek. If nothing else, I can think of more, and more successful TRPGs set in that universe, and the Campbell influence seems more ripe for the taking.

Star Wars isn't sci-fi, though. It's Space Fantasy.

Star Trek is sci-fi, albeit pretty far to the soft end of that spectrum.