PC's have a lot of disposable income, that they spend freely; and they have a demonstrable ability to handle themselves, even versus monsters.

Dangerous people that spread wealth around are always going to have a good social standing, if only because of self-interest from those they interact with.

Class shouldn't be conflated with wealth. A lot of societies, e.g. Japan, considered the merchant class right down near the bottom of the social scale even though they often had more money than their lords. They had all manner of rules to stop them showing off that wealth and embarrassing the poor samurai. I see adventurers as one of the lowest classes because they're basically bandits, except they do their robbery in other jurisdictions. The question is, does it matter to the adventurers? Unless they want to marry into the nobility or something. Anyway, that's kind of the point of the dominion endgame - adventurers carving out their own barony and becoming self-made aristocrats.

Quote from: Vile Traveller on January 01, 2023, 07:28:57 AM
Class shouldn't be conflated with wealth. A lot of societies, e.g. Japan, considered the merchant class right down near the bottom of the social scale even though they often had more money than their lords. They had all manner of rules to stop them showing off that wealth and embarrassing the poor samurai. I see adventurers as one of the lowest classes because they're basically bandits, except they do their robbery in other jurisdictions. The question is, does it matter to the adventurers? Unless they want to marry into the nobility or something. Anyway, that's kind of the point of the dominion endgame - adventurers carving out their own barony and becoming self-made aristocrats.

Except most D&D campaigns aren't set in a medieval Japan equivalent, they're set in a medieval European equivalent. And in medieval Europe merchants became very powerful, and started marrying their way in to nobility. A middle class was established, which allowed some degree of social mobility for those that were low born, but skilful or smart.

Also, and I feel some people may be ignoring/brushing this under the carpet: D&D is essentially a Renfair, Disneyfied sandbox; created by young Americans who had read a few books about history.  It was never meant to have social class systems any more complex than "the King commands you to go on a quest!" or "the wicked Baron had you thrown in his dungeon on trumped up charges!"

There are a bunch of more historically accurate fantasy games, let D&D be D&D. Anyway, that's my 2c.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 31, 2022, 04:41:21 AM
...
This is true of the rules, but it's also true of the mindset of Western society. We like to pretend there are no social classes, whereas they're actually quite rigid. So a billionaire will say, "call me Elon," but if you displease him you'll be out that day, and he'll ensure you never work in the field again. We've removed the style of aristocracy while keeping the substance. But in a consumerist society, especially an internet consumerist society, people focus on the style.

Players, then, will find it hard to really wrap their heads around why, for example, it's simply inconceivable that the head of the Templars would sleep with the Queen of France and raise his blade against the Pope's person as in the Netflix show Knightfall. They see that sort  of nonsense and emulate it in game.

So even if we use GURPS or something and put social class solidly into the game's system, most SOME players will simply ignore it. They're wannabe anarchists.

The group has to buy-in to have the game run that way. The expectations of the game have to be different from the jump.

Which is why you cannot just add a class system into D&D, just too many baked in assumptions on how the game world works. You have to play a distinct variant like Lion and Dragon.

I do agree that even then - there are some players/groups who will never be able to wrap their minds around it, and be confused why the nobility has their PC's killed over and over again for stupidity...

Thankfully, my group is not like that.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 01, 2023, 10:57:35 AM
....
Also, and I feel some people may be ignoring/brushing this under the carpet: D&D is essentially a Renfair, Disneyfied sandbox; created by young Americans who had read a few books about history.  It was never meant to have social class systems any more complex than "the King commands you to go on a quest!" or "the wicked Baron had you thrown in his dungeon on trumped up charges!"

There are a bunch of more historically accurate fantasy games, let D&D be D&D. Anyway, that's my 2c.

This.

Too many baked in play assumptions in the D&D rules set. It is one of the the things that has actually not changed from 0-5e.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2022, 12:36:03 PM
This is something that SHARK's thread about Bards got me thinking about.

One of the quirks of the D&D class system is that the classes occupy a middle ground between a general skillset and a defined profession. This is definitely a strength of the game, as it allows for some versatility of character concepts, within a pretty limited set of options. But it isn't applied evenly across the classes. The fighter, for example, is a very generalized class, and can fit anything from a bandit to a king. The cleric and the paladin on the other hand, presume membership in some kind of established religion. The monk and the druid take this a step further,  presuming membership in either a monastery or a very specific religious group. Even the ranger is often written with the assumption that it is a set profession, with a hierarchy and an assumed role in society. You can write your way around this, of course, but I think it's fair to say that the way the classes have been written over the years makes this kind of assumption. A major piece of evidence I would cite would be class languages like thieves cant or druidic. You wouldn't get secret languages without there being some kind of at least loosely organized group.

This is precisely why I'm all about context. "Classes" are largely descriptors of sets of skills that a PC has been trained in, in my campaigns. It's not necessarily (but not always) indicative of a specific role ones plays in a society. But it largely tracks with a LOT of obvious roles. For example, Clerics are not necessarily Priests. There are clergy that have no spellcasting ability whatsoever. Clerics are specifically those that can commune and are chosen by their God to perform miracles in promoting their cause - it *makes* sense to be a Priest as well... but it's not necessarily so.

Likewise being a Fighter is a collection of combat abilities that needs context in my games - where were you trained? How is that expressed in your background? What form does it take when we start? Setting cultures matter.

Whatever presumptions you want to make as a GM are what you work out with your players. GM's set that standard, and the Players can negotiate the details until everyone is happy.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2022, 12:36:03 PMThe point of this post, though, is the idea that if the classes bring assumed social roles with them, those roles imply differing levels of status, and that's potentially one of the major benefits of playing certain classes. A cleric might be anything from a mendicant friar to a bishop, but you'd think if they're a priest of a respected religion, they'd get a certain level of courtesy regardless of their rank. If a paladin is a member of a prestigious knightly order, you would expect certain social doors to be open to them just on the basis of their class. If bards are going to be respected lorekeepers and lawgivers, they might even outrank paladins under the right circumstances. Contrariwise, thieves should be invested in hiding their class whenever they have to engage with respectable society. Wizards are a bit of a weird case, in that some settings place them right at the top of the pile, as respected academic elites, and some settings make them mistrusted outsiders.

You're looking at Classes as if they're Mutant Species strains of race. They're not. They're contextual to what YOU as the GM determine the function of those classes are in the setting. Just because there are rules for Ninjas doesn't mean your setting has Ninjas. And if they do - then negotiating what the social purpose of those class functions should be apparent. This is why in my D&D games Arcane Casters are rare and powerful. It doesn't mean I don't allow players to play them - but if you do, then you're going to have a pedigree of sorts. You *DID NOT* learn magic spontaneously. Someone taught you the Great Arts. You're going to know that person. Or maybe you went to one of the rare Academies of Magic from some far off exotic land, where we're not even playing, then your background will explain why you're at wherever the game is starting? Perhaps your Mentor sent you here to learn something from a fellow practitioner? Or maybe you're after some rare material component/Macguffin?

The point is the GM should always contextualize what their PC's are in the setting, the Class is only as relevant as you make it with the players in Chargen and Session Zero.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 30, 2022, 12:36:03 PMI know some games like Lion & Dragon make this explicit, and some games have separate social class mechanics. But for those of you running just regular D&D (whatever edition), how much is this a feature of your campaigns? Do you run it so that each class has an assumed role in society, or do you not want to hand out social status to a player right at character creation?

For sure. Some classes are and *should* be narrowly explicit in their assumptive social roles. Jedi are not Bartenders. Most of these Classes are axiomatic ones. Classes that are almost always tied to some greater cause or belief system that *generally*  can attract people from many walks, but forces them down a narrow channel of social rules.

Clerics, Paladins, Monks, Knights that follow codes (Fighters/Cavaliers), etc. all fall into this category. This is why GM's should understand the social fabric of their settings beyond just "Classes". People don't walk around going "I'm a Fighter." So in your settings, it should be reflective of what a "Fighter Class" can actually do with those skills as a societal function. Its your job as a GM to express that.

FWIW, Gygax addressed this issue in issue 25 of "The Dragon" (as it was called at the time), and basically said "It's up to the DM, since the game doesn't assume any specific social structure."

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 01, 2023, 10:57:35 AM
Also, and I feel some people may be ignoring/brushing this under the carpet: D&D is essentially a Renfair, Disneyfied sandbox; created by young Americans who had read a few books about history.  It was never meant to have social class systems any more complex than "the King commands you to go on a quest!" or "the wicked Baron had you thrown in his dungeon on trumped up charges!"

There are a bunch of more historically accurate fantasy games, let D&D be D&D.

D&D settings vary pretty widely, even from the earliest days. 1E had Oriental Adventures along with modules set in distinct non-European settings like Rahasia, Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, and others.

I agree that a Renfair/Disney setting is the original and still the default, but I also think there are plenty of sourcebooks and DMs that have extended D&D beyond it's defaults. (Also, social class isn't restricted to historically accurate settings. There are wild, non-historical settings that also have important social class.)