PDA

View Full Version : Do you think classes should have to conform to ideas from pre-existing fiction?



Agrippa
2013-04-03, 01:27 PM
Is this what you think, or do you have a more open ended approach? Do you require litterary or mythological precedents for class abilities and disallow those that don't have pre-existing examples? Like disallowing the warlock class or back up "arcane bolts" for wizards and sorcerers because you can't find them in fiction. I'm just curious about this. I've already posted this question on Min/Max boards.

RFLS
2013-04-03, 01:58 PM
Is this what you think, or do you have a more open ended approach? Do you require litterary or mythological precedents for class abilities and disallow those that don't have pre-existing examples? Like disallowing the warlock class or back up "arcane bolts" for wizards and sorcerers because you can't find them in fiction. I'm just curious about this. I've already posted this question on Min/Max boards.

Why on earth would you ever require precedent? That's...one of the worst house-rules ever. Requiring consistency, maybe, or conformity to a particular setting, but if the setting isn't explicitly "None of X abilities for Y reason," then what reason is there to disallow them?

Arbane
2013-04-03, 02:53 PM
I prefer games that don't HAVE classes, so the question's kind of irrelevant.

It's not like D&D's classes have all THAT much 'precedent', except in the broadest strokes - most fantasy wizards aren't Vancian omnicasters, most priests don't do Cure Light Wounds, most fighters try to be a LITTLE more creative than 'I sword him in the hitpoints, AGAIN'.

Dewani90
2013-04-03, 03:08 PM
of course not, not all knight templars/paladins should be blindly loyal to the church, because not everything is black or white, there is a gray zone where you can still do good

warlocks would be extremely old guys living in towers and that's no material for dungeon crawling...

magicians would die trying to tank a fire elemental... (something they would do just to roleplay Gandalf)

rogues would steal anything not nailed or on fire just for the trill of it... and then they would give to the poor, a low percentage minus expenses...

so if we based our characters on characters of books, they would not be our characters anymore... just sepia copies of old characters we read or heard of, that takes all the roleplaying from an RPG

icefractal
2013-04-03, 03:27 PM
The specific example you mention is interesting, because it's sort of "looking at the world through D&D colored glasses". Warlocks have, in general, a lot more pre-existing precedent than D&D-style Vancian casting.

Heck, not even Vance's actual novels work the same way as D&D. Meanwhile sources where mages get their power from otherworldly pacts and can pretty much throw dark energy around all day, or the limits are vaguely defined, are not that uncommon.

Water_Bear
2013-04-03, 03:54 PM
Do you think we should do something obviously stupid or should At-Will Magic Attacks be allowed in all games?

I actually like a little at-will magic in my games, but there are a lot of settings where these things just don't work. Conan-esque Sword and Sorcery, Urban Fantasy, anything Mythos-related or generally Lovecraftian, most myths and legends. So, for those kinds of settings, yes classes really ought to have precedence and not wreck the themes.

There are also a lot of gaming styles which don't work with that kind of mechanics. If you want to play an OSR type game where Magic-types need to horde their magic at low levels, obviously at-will magical attacks need to go. If you want to play a Call of Cthulhu / Warhammer type game where magic is dangerous and sanity-rending, it has to go. If you want to play a game where magical and mundane types are "balanced," then you might be antsy about an ability which gives one side an infinite number of attacks without needing to use a weapon.

Again, At-Will Magic is cool. I like it. But it isn't for every setting, or every play-style, and there's nothing wrong with disallowing it because it's a poor fit.

JoshuaZ
2013-04-03, 04:02 PM
Icecrystal's very on point. Vancian casting isn't at all what most pre-existing fiction uses. And even when one is in a D&D world with Vancian casting (e.g. Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Eberron), the authors frequently go out of their way to avoid emphasizing the Vancian aspect.

For many fictional mages, the closest thing to what they can do is something like the psionic system- maximum amount of power per a day but divided up however they like. Partially this is common because it requires less thought with authors.

If one wants a specific feel for a setting then it may make sense to not allow some classes. Thus for example, if one doesn't want a setting where guns are much of a thing, then the Gunslinger from Pathfinder maybe should be outlawed. Alternatively, some people think that Tome of Battle feels "too anime" or "too wuxia" and so outlaw it. (Note- please don't derail thread with whether they are correct!). In general, there should be enough classes and PrCs such that players can play any reasonably non-insane concept, and for the most part 3.5 does this ok with official material. There's no reasonable way to play certain specific interesting characters from official material (e.g. a Mistborn), but these are rare exceptions.

If one wants to control power level or other aspects then that may also make sense. So for example, some people have settings where there are no T1 or T2 classes but is other 3.5. This works pretty well and also helps explain why there hasn't been a magical Singularity/Apocalypse already, and makes life much easier for DMs also.

"Should" maybe shouldn't enter into this. Decide what do you want in a setting or set of characters and work around that.

Joe the Rat
2013-04-03, 04:38 PM
Given how lousy a job classes do at modeling some characters (have you seen the "What is X" topics?), no. They're archetypes - they capture a sweeping cluster of traits typical of some media-spanning concept, but will likely not fit literature not specifically written about a game setting - and even then it's dicey.

The only place I'd worry about it is if you are specifically playing in a setting based on particular works of fiction - and then, I'd only fuss about it to the extent that what you have captures the flavor of the setting.

NMBLNG
2013-04-03, 04:39 PM
I saw the original question being more along the lines of classes having some kind of logical precedent. ie, if somethings says it's a wizard it should use magic and a rogue should be a tricky sort of person.

Mostly, the name of a class should describe it well. I'm even ok with verb-er names. Bonus points for good fluff.

Jay R
2013-04-03, 04:47 PM
I think any quick simple answer to this question - in any direction - is too simplistic.

First of all, let's dispense with the red herring. My preferences are mine, and are not intended to tell people their way doesn't work for them.

Now, I prefer to have character types that makes sense to me within the culture presented, and my only exposure to fantasy cultures is through fiction, legend, and myth.

The easiest way to make a character type that sings to me as fitting into a fantasy setting is for that character type to have precedent in the literature.

If I'm the DM, and somebody wants a character type with no clear precedent, then the burden of proof that it doesn't clash with the culture is on that player.

I can't imagine the player convincing me, but I'm open to the attempt.

[By the way, I am deliberately using three different vague terms here: "makes sense to me within the culture", "sings to me as fitting", and "doesn't clash with the culture". That's to make clear that this is a hazy, ill-defined concept.]

puctheplayfull
2013-04-03, 05:12 PM
I think we may have drifted from Agrippa's original topic/question: Do you think classes should have to conform to ideas from pre-existing fiction?

I respond with a question: Can you name a class from an existing class-based game that isn't based on ideas and tropes from preexisting fiction and myth? It would be difficult as most any concept has already been covered in one form or another. An easier way to approach the question would be, can you think of a concept for a class that isn't based on existing fiction/myth that would be viable?

As to the question of class abilities, I don't think a specific precedent should be required. The class abilities are there to enhance the flavor of the class as well as balance it against other classes (generally). In addition, most classes aren't based around a specific character, but an overall character archetype, so their abilities (in theory though not always in practice) generally reflect the archetype and what it should be capable of. I think Pathfinder nailed this one by doing away with PrC's almost completely, and adding class Archetypes that remodel the class abilities to focus on a specific idea or specialization instead of a general concept.

I would say, if you are building a custom class (or editing an existing one for that matter), the class abilities should reflect the concept/flavor of the class and what it should be capable of, not specific existing characters that fall into the archetype you are trying to portray. Capturing the feel you are going for, and ensuring it is balanced against the other classes in the system you are using should be the only thing you worry about when setting class features. If, on the other hand, you are basing the class entirely on a specific character and the various abilities they have shown, then you would probably want an existing precedent for any abilities you give the class.

Arbane
2013-04-03, 05:25 PM
I respond with a question: Can you name a class from an existing class-based game that isn't based on ideas and tropes from preexisting fiction and myth?

D&D's Incarnum classes?

Urpriest
2013-04-03, 05:46 PM
I require fictional precedent for any class. That fiction usually is the PC's backstory. :smallsmile:

puctheplayfull
2013-04-03, 05:55 PM
D&D's Incarnum classes?

Well played...

scurv
2013-04-03, 05:59 PM
As someone who habitually builds chars around historical or pop culture templates I can say that in the broadest sense of the word You can make most archetypes in dnd with a dual class at most. But as for class's having to conform to historical standards...Well Many classes are inspired by historical archetypes but that is no basis to force them to conform to the archetype

NichG
2013-04-03, 07:20 PM
Its easier to build mechanics around someone else's already fleshed out and well-formed ideas and setting than it is to make things completely out of thin air. But thats just a matter of difficulty. I don't think classes should necessarily conform to such ideas, but I do think that classes in a setting should be logically consistent with eachother.

That is to say, if someone says 'I want a class that is based on implanting cyberware into animal brains and thereby allowing the character to puppet those animals' I'd say 'sure!'. If they say they want that in the same system with a medieval knight, a psion, and someone who binds demons then that starts to get incoherent for me unless there's a good explanation for how they all tie together.

Grinner
2013-04-03, 07:38 PM
Classes represent character archetypes. By giving a character a class, we give him a predefined identity. The only applicable precedent is the setting. If the setting doesn't support the class's concept, then it cannot exist.

Settings may draw from our literature, history, and mythologies, but where gameplay is concerned, they are wholly separate from those things. Therefore, character classes, being a part of the setting, are also separate from our literature, history, and mythologies.

JoshuaZ
2013-04-03, 07:48 PM
That is to say, if someone says 'I want a class that is based on implanting cyberware into animal brains and thereby allowing the character to puppet those animals' I'd say 'sure!'. If they say they want that in the same system with a medieval knight, a psion, and someone who binds demons then that starts to get incoherent for me unless there's a good explanation for how they all tie together.

Fluff wise that would be tough. But crunch wise that would be surprisingly easy in 3.5. Use the Mother Cyst line of spells from Libris Mortis and refluff the undead flesh as pseudo-living cybernetic implants. Also if you drop "cyberware" and replace it with some some sort of clockpunk, you could reasonably do this in a standardish sort of fantasy setting.

And then you have settings like Rifts and Shadowrun where the whole major point is that modern technology and what we call magic exist in the same setting.

Context matters a lot.

NichG
2013-04-03, 08:56 PM
Fluff wise that would be tough. But crunch wise that would be surprisingly easy in 3.5. Use the Mother Cyst line of spells from Libris Mortis and refluff the undead flesh as pseudo-living cybernetic implants. Also if you drop "cyberware" and replace it with some some sort of clockpunk, you could reasonably do this in a standardish sort of fantasy setting.

And then you have settings like Rifts and Shadowrun where the whole major point is that modern technology and what we call magic exist in the same setting.

Context matters a lot.

My complaint about mismatch would be the fluff, not the crunch. Crunch mismatch is a different beast entirely (such as skill checks that set saving throw DCs...) Shadowrun would be an example of a case where the various disparate elements have actually been explained and integrated together. My point is that it needs to be tied in - if it just stands on its own way out there without explanation of integration, it clashes.

Eldan
2013-04-03, 08:58 PM
Not even remotely. I'm not playing someone else's fiction. I'm trying to make my (group's) own.

Rhynn
2013-04-03, 09:51 PM
It's not like D&D's classes have all THAT much 'precedent', except in the broadest strokes - most fantasy wizards aren't Vancian omnicasters, most priests don't do Cure Light Wounds, most fighters try to be a LITTLE more creative than 'I sword him in the hitpoints, AGAIN'.

Well, D&D did develop organically - all the original classes (up to 1E AD&D or so) had some kind of precedent, because they were mostly created by Gygax, Arneson, etc. in response to a player wanting to play Hammer Horror Van Helsing (cleric), Poul Anderson paladins, etc. The classes weren't created from thin air, but to meet a need at the table, usually based on a player's interest in a "precedent."

Shadowknight12
2013-04-03, 11:10 PM
I am exceptionally flexible in this and many other regards (perks of a Chaotic alignment). I pretty much just go with the flow. I don't have an opinion of my own and I won't argue with the people who insist classes need to be stereotypes or at least conform to their mental idea of what the class should be.

I do lean towards "classes are just tools, the fluff is entirely up to you and it's perfectly OK to have two characters with the same class being completely different" but that's because I loathe restrictions and prefer to have the freedom to play whatever I want to play/run whatever I want to run.