Yep, I agree that you need rules to resolve conflicts, the problem arises when people assume combat = conflict... when conflict can encompass so much more. The fate of your party could easily rest in how quickly or how well you can build a makeshift boat... that's direct conflict resolution that has nothing to do with combat. IMO, a robust conflict resolution system (as opposed to a robust combat resolution system) allows you to decide how a conflict is resolved as opposed to pushing you into a certain direction because that is what is mechanically supported...YMMV of course.
There is a huge difference though. All groups are going to be relatively competent at combat. The DM can always place a combat encounter as an obstacle to be overcome. No other type of conflict falls entirely into this category. Because of the generalized skill system most of the problem was overcome though. If the PCs get into a diplomatic situation or a situation where they need to sneak around the chances of total party incompetence in that area is very low. OTOH when you introduce Boat Building as a game mechanic chances are most parties won't have that resource and thus by codifying it you have actually made it difficult or impossible to put into an adventure. Either the party is competent at building a boat or they aren't. Given the HUGE (infinite really) range of possible things like this that may come up making a specific resource needed to be competent in each one fails. The existing core 4e system was the most elegant solution, let the players invoke their skills and backgrounds to solve all these types of problems. At the very worst any given party will be reasonably capable in most of these things, making the situation much more analogous to combat where all parties are always competent.
I think you missed my point, I'm not saying I think the powers a re a bad thing, especially since we also have utility powers, some of which allow one to do things outside of combat, and surprise, surprise... players actually pick them and use them. In other words there is already a precedence for mechanical support of non-combat actions.
Sure, but Utility powers are specific tricks. Virtually all of them ARE useful in combat, at least potentially. They (and even combat powers in some cases) may well be able to be purposed for things outside combat, but Utility powers are not a generalized mechanics for OO combat resolution. If they were then nothing else would be needed. Notice that in 99.9% of cases players choose the most useful IN COMBAT Utilities anyway. Almost nobody picks Jump instead of Shield for instance.
Or we could have a general framework that's a little more robust than a +2 to a skill or new class skill for the background you picked. Why do there have to be exact rules for every permutation of a background or skill? You're assuming a methodology that isn't necessarily how the system has to be implemented. And ultimately, just like with combat there will be a DM fiat space somwhere within the mechanics.
Except again there are a virtually infinite such non-combat situations and there is no 'one size fits all' way to create mechanics for all of them. Given that the system can't possibly anticipate all the situations and uses of any non-combat mechanic what's the point in having anything more elaborate than just "you can get a bit of a bonus to do this". I'm also not just talking about the +2 skill bonus for backgrounds. I'm talking about the way background can be used to justify additional competence at specific things. The son of the blacksmith may get +2 Athletics, but he also knows a good bit about how to make a decent sword. If it comes up he can justify to the DM that he knows how to do that and he can get some kind of situational bonus. Thus adding some kind of 'blacksmithing skill' isn't actually doing anything, except telling the players that if they don't have that 'skill' they can't do it at all. [/quote]
Yet again, most people claim this is not a problem with powers... so why would it be a problem with another area of the game? As far as the swim example... don't you run into the problem of Joe Dwarf without Athletics in the same situation? It's called adversity and problem solving, I'm not seeing the problem... everyone can't do everything.[/quote]
But again you fail to account for the difference between combat, a single specific type of situation that the game's core concept insures will come up very often, with all the other things that come up that are MUCH less common individually and which thus when they do come up the PCs also need to have some competence at (some chance of success). Notice how this works with skills. ALL PCs have some chance to climb, swim, etc. Half level bonuses insure that these capabilities will to some extent keep pace with the difficulty of challenges they face. A DM can confidently add these challenges to the game and the players can attempt to solve them. They may well indeed choose to have items, utility powers, etc to make it easier, and they may run into a few that they need to work out alternative solutions to, but the DM can at least anticipate that a difficult swim is not an insurmountable challenge to any party, until you toss a swim 'skill' in there and then indeed it does become an insurmountable challenge to some parties and thus no longer eligible to be a general obstacle. The DM now pretty much HAS to provide alternatives.[/quote]
Again, a general framework... which is what most rpg's do anyway... with specific rules for the most common uses and the rest is left in DM fiat space.[/QUOTE]
Which is EXACTLY WHAT 4E HAS HAD UP UNTIL NOW, and exactly what is being proposed to be done away with. It's not so much that it goes away in theory as that it goes away in practice as soon as you start saying that specific 'skills' are required to do specific things. When they aren't present either the DM has to go back to the present situation "well, you can do that anyway, you'd just be a bit better if you had Carpentry" or constantly tweak every module to provide workarounds for his specific party, or just never invoke these kinds of things and rewrite adventures so they aren't needed.
So basically these kinds of subsystems have again and again proven to be mostly a waste of ink. You CAN get away with having them and gain considerable value out of some of them IF they are going to be covering very common things that are part of the core theme of the game, much like combat is in D&D. Shadowrun has all sorts of rules for 'deckers' because its a cyberpunk themed game and it's assumed you'll be hacking computers constantly in the course of play. It's a justified subsystem. Carpentry, and Boat Building, and Cake Baking OTOH aren't useful or justified in probably any RPG I've ever played. It's the concept of 'you need a resource to be competent at this' which is just a crappy idea. Once you introduce it then it becomes ubiquitous and pernicious.
