Craft/Profession

[Toras]

I will admit the particular example works best under that particular circumstances, which is why I set things out in that manner. I was more trying to articulate a scene, but the net result was thus.

The possibility of failure or complications in the things I do make things more interesting. Perhaps the catapult doesn't quite fire correctly, or takes longer to arm. Perhaps there is a weak point in the defenses I built that I have to react to.

Maybe I'm not going to win this combat. Or that in doing so, I lose something I need or want. Without the possibility that things won't work out, there is no real tension, no heroism.

Any fool can defeat a monster if he has all the right training, a magic sword designed to kill the beast, Fate and the Gods backing him, and everything else in his favor.

A hero defeats a monster with less than adqueate training, poor tools, fate and the gods fighting him every inch of the way, and every other thing against him. He plows through it all with valor, courage, and ingenuity.

 

[hong]

Nobody said that a perfectly crafted sword would mean you automatically win. The scenario was the opposite: that despite having slogged through X sessions to win the mcguffin, it turns out to be worthless.

Now that could in fact be an awesome way to end a story arc. But having it be the result of a failed craft roll is not the best way to do it.

 

[That One Guy]

I'm on page 10. I started reading when it was only 8 or so pages. I'm just gonna' go ahead and post my observations while I try to catch up...

Words of wit and argument.

Paradigm the subversion. Stuff their kills!

Will not agree, sometimes says witty things and/or concedes difference of opinions.

...I think making horseshoes is kind of cool for a knight w/ a blacksmithing BG. Regardless, I think 4e does it well enough.

My thoughts in regards to several pages ago. Rather than argue about things people will disagree on, why not tell me better ways to do things?

For Mustrum, gauntlet is a hack&slash console game for various systems through various incarnations.

Edit: Richard in sword of truth crafts some statues and those scenes are pretty epic. No really, I remember a lot of them because of how rad they are. He also cuts things sometimes. He also philosophizes. Those long speeches stick w/ me the most out of anything. (Long != boring... but I think one chapter of a book is pretty much him giving a speech)

 

[Lizard]

The only caveat I'd have for this house rule is that the "background" skill really shouldn't have any use in combat... no "Profession (sailor)" check instead of Acrobatics on the rolling ship deck, to use Mearls' example. (Alternatively, as another mentioned, if the game is heavily ship oriented, write up Sailor as a full-on mainline skill.)

I'd say if a Profession logically "synergizes" with a skill, give it a +2 bonus. So a Sailor Is better at balancing on a ship than a desert-dweller, but that circumstance is so rare over the course of a typical campaign no one will feel screwed if "all" they have is Trained/Focused Acrobatics. It's a nice way to make background more than a meaningless note on a character sheet. Backgrounds don't/shouldn't come into play for all players in every session ("OK, today you're sailing to the convention of blacksmiths&brewers, but first, you need to weave baskets to hold your supplies."), but they should be more than "Yeah, whatever, you're a sailor, now let's get back to killing orcs.")

 

[BeauNiddle]

I will admit the particular example works best under that particular circumstances, which is why I set things out in that manner. I was more trying to articulate a scene, but the net result was thus.

The possibility of failure or complications in the things I do make things more interesting. Perhaps the catapult doesn't quite fire correctly, or takes longer to arm. Perhaps there is a weak point in the defenses I built that I have to react to.

Maybe I'm not going to win this combat. Or that in doing so, I lose something I need or want. Without the possibility that things won't work out, there is no real tension, no heroism.

Any fool can defeat a monster if he has all the right training, a magic sword designed to kill the beast, Fate and the Gods backing him, and everything else in his favor.

A hero defeats a monster with less than adqueate training, poor tools, fate and the gods fighting him every inch of the way, and every other thing against him. He plows through it all with valor, courage, and ingenuity.

But how do you know what the flaw is? There are 2 options:

1) 300 pages of charts and tables listing every possible flaw at every possible task at every possible skill level.

2) DM fiat.

I think everybody here agrees 1 is completely unreasonable to ask outside a book dedicated solely to crafting.

Which leaves 2. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT 4ED GIVES YOU. The players define a background about what they are interested in and the DM decides what effect that will have during the game and how well it worked (with or without a dice roll)

A 'master' brewer makes a special brew for the king - roll a d20. On a low result the king likes it and orders 10 barrels for the next feast. On a high result the king reveals something important. An untrained fighter tries the same and a low result has the king spit it out and a high result has the king finish a swallow but leave the rest of the tankard.




On a sidenote I will recount the story of how I came to dislike profession checks. We were playing 50 Fathoms, a setting for Savage Worlds set on a flooded planet. I was the boat captain. The first storm we came to I could see my character standing at the wheel, waves crashing around him, spray filling the air. The creak of the mast, the snap of the sail - I could hear all those things. It was great.

The game continued and we acquired a second boat. And then a third. We had our flotilla and we sailed through all the seas. The problem is we had 4 players. One session I remember we had to deliver notes to towns about an upcoming invasion. It involved us sailing as far and as hard as we could. We faced reefs, storms and pirates. And at the end of the session I noted the fourth player hadn't picked up their dice once. NOT ONCE. He travelled 1 hour each way to the game which lasted 6 hours. Eight hours of his life were wasted by that game. From that point on I've hated the minigame. The rotating spotlight is just a phrase for 'it's your turn to suck until we care about you again'.

Yes I understand that the DM screwed up but the very design of the system enforced the act of sailing and thus enforced the guy wasting his time. Since then I've had only one rule. If somebody gives up their free time to travel to a game then the LEAST you can do is let them play.

4th ed with it's group skill challenges and removal of save or suck seems like a godsend to me. And if they've removed the rules suggesting people start playing mini-games then I'm even happier.

 

[Lizard]

Nobody has the perfect tools with which to solve anything.

This is only true until the waiting period expires.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mini-Games are good if everyone can participate. Or if they are are _very_ short.

If everyone can participate, it's not really that much of a mini-game anymore.

In a previous example I mentioned the "Craft"-minigame and the "Combat"-minigame.

Combat is a situation where it's common for multiple characters to participate. Sword-Forging is not.

You can, off course, enhance the Sword-Forging part to become a full-fledged "manage your own smithery" game, which is basically a specialized economy simulation. (After SimCity we now have SimSmith).
You could have roles like "smith" and "accountant" and "water-bearer" and "miner" or "apprentice". But this doesn't sound like a game with mass-market appeal. And certainly not like one appealing to me. So, it' would be an entire mini-game wasted in my PHB.

 

[Plane Sailing]

There's been a little too much aggro in this thread recently.

If it continues, I'll close the thread, so please keep it under control.

Thanks

 

[Lizard]

Not in a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, no. It's like how people never seem particularly bothered about how Indiana Jones always seems to be fighting Nazis, evil cultists, commies, and whatnot, despite being a tenured professor.

I'd be bothered by it if he couldn't do Professor stuff, because the game designers left that out.

"OK, you're at the Ancient Mayan Ruins. There's some writing on the wall in Ancient Mayan."
"I read it."
"Cool, what's your Decipher Ancient Mayan skill?"
"I don't have that. I have 'Hit Nazi', 'Use Whip', 'Find Stunt Double'..."
"Well, what's your Mayan History? Anthropology? Archeaology?"
"They're not on here. I guess the game designers thought they were boring or something."
"Hey, I rolled a 20, and I have an int bonus of +5! I read it!"
"You're the scrappy sidekick with no training!"
"So? I have the same Int bonus than he does, so, using the principle of 'just roll for it, already', I did better. I guess I know Ancient Mayan!"
"Fine...it says 'Look out, you're about to be attacked.'"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For Mustrum, gauntlet is a hack&slash console game for various systems through various incarnations.

Thanks.

Now I don't have to die ignorant.

Well, at least not as ignorant as I was before your post.