Why do we need thieves??

[Bill Zebub]

Pondering this thread, it occurs to me that there are a bunch of separate questions:

Do RPGs need thievery mechanics?
Do we need rules for sneaking around, opening locks, detecting traps, picking pockets, forgery, etc.? Personally I think the answer is yes, because I enjoy those narrative elements. At the same time, I find most implementations problematic, as attested to by very long threads that often appear on those topics.

If yes to the above, do RPGs need archetypes that specialize in those skills?
Again, I think the answer is yes. Many, many people enjoy playing those archetypes, even if it's more challenging to name specific examples from history/fiction/myth than it is to name warriors and wizards (or even warlords!).

If yes to the above, and it's a class-based game, does the archetype need to be a distinct class?
"Need" to? No. But that's tangled up with the question of how many are "needed" at all, which is really just a design question. Sure, go ahead and make thievery a 'build' off the fighter chassis. That can work. But if the result is that the character feels strictly worse, maybe because a bunch of class features are wasted with insufficient compensation, then you've designed it badly.

If yes to the above, should other classes be able to do thievery, even if less effectively?
In my opinion the answer should be yes. Just like a wizard can whack things with a staff, anybody should be able to try to sneak around and forge a document and notice a trap, and maybe even pick a lock, but less effectively. But somebody else might say, "No, picking locks is more like casting a spell. Either you've been trained, or you haven't." Ok, that's fine. I don't think there's an objectively correct answer. From a game design perspective, though, that means you either have constraints on adventure design, or parties are required to have a thief. In that sense it's kind of like whether or not an assumption of magical healing is built in the game. If it is, then every party needs a class that can heal.

 

[Staffan]

I love skill-based systems. Class-based systems have their charms too, I'm not hating on them or anything...I just think skill-based systems are a little more elegant and streamlined. Especially for players who try to multiclass.

I prefer a mix, where you both have skills for broad areas of gradual competency and something like feats/edges/perks/advantages for binary things. Some skill-based systems try a little too hard to make everything a skill. The example that comes to mind is Martial Arts in Call of Cthulhu, where you both have distinct skills for Fist and Kick, as well as a separate skill for Martial Arts, and if your attack roll is below both your Fist/Kick skill and your Martial Arts skill, you deal double damage. In a system with a more robust advantage system, martial arts would instead be a binary thing that you either have or you don't.

(And yes, I'm aware that Call isn't a system built around combat so wonky handling of Martial Arts isn't that big of an issue, but it was the first example that came to mind).

 

[Reynard]

I think the thread gets to threads real question, which is: what elements of play should we model mechanically, versus those we handle narrative? And how?

That is different for every game, based on design goals as well as things like genre (both fiction genre and playstyle genre).

"Don't we need thieves" is really the question "when do we need thieves as a mechanical implementation?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the thread gets to threads real question, which is: what elements of play should we model mechanically, versus those we handle narrative? And how?

That is different for every game, based on design goals as well as things like genre (both fiction genre and playstyle genre).

"Don't we need thieves" is really the question "when do we need thieves as a mechanical implementation?"

As I've said above, I believe everything a creature can do in the setting should have a mechanical implementation (to a minimum degree of tolerable abstraction) in the game. Simulating the world as logically as possible (within the bounds of playability) is my goal.

 

[Reynard]

As I've said above, I believe everything a creature can do in the setting should have a mechanical implementation (to a minimum degree of tolerable abstraction) in the game. Simulating the world as logically as possible (within the bounds of playability) is my goal.

Which I like from a certain persepctive: simulating a world offers a sense of consistency in play that makes it easier for players to make choices "in character" because the rules the players engage with are closely aligned with the world that the characters experience.

I don't think that is the right choice for all games, but I see the value.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which I like from a certain persepctive: simulating a world offers a sense of consistency in play that makes it easier for players to make choices "in character" because the rules the players engage with are closely aligned with the world that the characters experience.

I don't think that is the right choice for all games, but I see the value.

There are definitely games designed for and/or suited for a different focus, but I rarely have any interest in those games, and sim is still a priority for me even there. Games that don't play properly unless everyone is aware of and following genre conventions, like supers or something like Star Trek Adventures are examples. Sim still matters a lot to me regardless though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, I mean any skills not directly associated with physical combat, magic or technology (in a utilitarian role similar to magic). So infiltration skills, but also social skills, trade skills, and exploration skills outside of infiltration (like navigation, vehicles, and survival).

Though I have to say "or technology" in that sentence comes across as a bit odd, as in a modern game the distinction between that and trade skills can be pretty hard to tease out (vehicles too, far as that goes).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, you’re right. The more I looked into the games I was thinking about, things like, Tales from the Loop even has a ‘Troublemaker’

I still wouldn’t say all games need them, but ‘scoundrel’ is a common archetype for hero/anti-heroes, for sure.

Well, you can have games that don't need anything thief-like, but barring the aforementioned games where its moot (if you've got a build system with skills, "thief" is a description, not a mechanical hook) you have to have fairly narrow focus in the game for that to make sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Doesn't your logic hold true for all martial classes? So why don't we just have two classes magic user and martial and do the rest with skills?

Well, honestly, you can do all of it with skills if you want to. Or at least skills and separately acquired talents and the like. Sometimes I think people coming from the D&D sphere are overly focused on handling everything with classes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll take WoD as example of skill system. Combat is skill. Magic is skill. So is stealth, subterfuge, larceny etc. And while you get specific points at character creation for skills and magic/disciplines etc, you get freebee points that are used for everything. Once you start playing you get xp, which is again, used for raising everything, from skills to stats, to magic. Then, you need to choose. Do you wanna be all around mediocre and spread it evenly, or do you wanna specialize. Thief equivalent ( skilled character) is cheapest option, since skills cost less than stats or magic to raise, and while combat is skill, you do need to beef up stats also. So pick and choose.

Well, not counting the perverse incentives the progressive cost on things bought in play and the linear cost of them bought at character gen produces.