Extensive Character Sheets Are GM Oppression

[aramis erak]

In 5e, isn't this really just the difference between an attribute check and a check with proficiency? If the wizard isn't proficient with the correct tools for the craft, they just make a straight up stat check that the DM picks. Maybe you have them dope out the solution with an intelligence check, but maybe you require a strength check to actually effect the repair. The situation seems covered.

The 5E Rogue has a number of class abilities that make them better than normal proficiency at the classic older thief skills. Or other skills.

And those skills weren't stable over time; 3.x was the first simplification... AD&D and BX added "Find Traps" to the OE list of Pick Pockets, Climb Nearly Sheer Surfaces, Remove Traps, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Backstab, and Hear Noise. Of those, Backstab is a simple addition to the combat mechanics, and hear noise modifies the rules in OE Bk3. The others are carveouts...
EG: Where many might have used Dex checks to move silently, now it was a reserved special... and it was handled multiple ways after... some ignored the new rule, others changed the new rule to a modifier to their house rule, others still considered the numbers and let everyone try at either level 0 or level 1 numbers (noting that level 0 required some math), some made the raw dex check go from 1d20 to 1d100, some just said, "No, unless you're a Thief, you can't."

I've never found the D&D thief/rogue a good fit for anything, not because it plants new rules in Snarf's "Negative Space"¹... but because it's too damned broad, incorporating bits of Conan, Fafhrd, The Grey Mouser, Sinbad, Cugel the Clever...

And I'll note that the other games in the 76-79 area took different approaches...

• T&T (1974) was (through the 5th ed, until 1995) almost purely attribute based, and decried thief as just a descriptor of behavior. It's classes are based solely upon casting abilities. Anything else eventually falls to saving rolls on attributes. Levels increase attributes. 7th ed changes it by adding a skill system.
• En Garde! (1975) due to the setting, playing a thief is right out... No provisions at all. Many don't consider it an RPG, either. Only weapon skills get trained up.
• Traveller (1977)... it has only two clearly criminal skills: Bribery and Forgery... and many cultures object to Bribery being so labeled. Every skill's routine operations are assumed successful; each has a special case or two with unique mechanics per each.
• Starships & Spacemen (1978) no thief archetypes even fit. But, it's attribute driven. (Class determines what earns experience points, not what you can do.)
• RuneQuest (1978) - skills and attributes do different things, and skills are mostly percentile. A few look more like modern feats...

The debate still rages - the OSR crowd vs the D&D 5 Crowd, and both of them vs a variety of others...

I've always preferred game rules to have a broadly applicable method of covering the negative space...
... and while 1d20 ≤ Att should seem obvious for BX, until I got S&S (1984), it just hadn't occurred to me. In the between time of those, I got into Traveller (1983, using '81 version).

-=-=-=-=-=-
¹: good term for it, just to be clear. Scare quotes because it's jargon, not because it's bad jargon.

 

[Crusadius]

PC: Wizard. But my Mental score is 15. I can figure things out.

If this were true then in real life I’d be an excellent carpenter. But I cannot even saw a branch off a tree even though figuring out how a saw works is quite easy.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've never found the D&D thief/rogue a good fit for anything, not because it plants new rules in Snarf's "Negative Space"¹... but because it's too damned broad, incorporating bits of Conan, Fafhrd, The Grey Mouser, Sinbad, Cugel the Clever...

To be clear, I don't think of the Great Thief Debate as interesting because it's about the thief. As we all know, Gygax then used every opportunity to take the Thief and beat it down, like the Thief was an orange and Gygax wanted pulpless OJ.

The "Thief Debate," in essence, was the first and earliest iteration of a debate that continues to recur in TTRPGs in general, but more specifically in D&D. Every time you codify something into a rule, you reduce the space for something to be accomplished by "not rule." There is a legal Latin term for this-

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

The expression of one thing is the exclusion of others. Whenever new rules are introduced into D&D (or other TTRGPs), whether it was the Thief Class, or the codification (for example) of NWPs (non-weapon proficiencies, AKA "skills" as we know them now) or rules for social abilities, we see people manning the same familiar barricade-

I don't need a rule to tell me what to do.

The flip side of that debate, of course, are those that want these rules. They crave rules to enhance their play. If a Magic User gets to cast spells, why can't a Thief get to ... you know, do Thief-y things? If Duroc the Merciless has rules for hitting the snot out of people, why can't Loring the Charming have rules for convincing the NPC to give up the location of the treasure? Over and over again, it's the same debate- rules, or rulings. Do we need to have a Thief class with thieving abilities, or can I just say I'm hiding?

The reason I think the debate is evergreen is because it always keeps happening. It started at the beginning, and it keeps happening today. I don't think that there is some perfect design of "rules" and "not-rules," just preferences toward the approaches.

But the debate? The terms may change. Some people might shout that "You're just button mashing your character sheet," and the other side might retort, "You just playing the GM," but the contours have always been there. We've done this before, and we will do this again.

 

[schneeland]

Conceptually I agree: too many rules definitely can get in the way. I'm not sure I would call it GM oppression, but it is definitely a philosophy that looks at constraining GM power through a multitude of rules. Personally, I'm not a big fan, less because I view constraints of GM power as problematic per se, but rather because the mental load this imposes on GMs and how much it slows down play if people are not very proficient in the rules (which, as experience teaches, happens quite a bit).

The other thing is: for the problem at hand, I tend to say that a high intelligence score alone does not provide you with the necessary proficiency for a craftsman's task (as @Crusadius mentions: sadly, my academic education/degrees did nothing to improve my skills at manual labour).
Yes, given enough time, the right environment and material to practice, it would probably let you figure out how to repair the cart, and this would probably happen quicker than for other characters with lower Intelligence. But in this concrete situation, I would probably require either an established background that relates to the task or an adjacent skill.

 

[MGibster]

I am going to push back on the idea that a high Int lets you just figure out how to do stuff. I know plenty of engineers and doctors that couldn't build a decent bird house. I know plenty of construction workers that don't know calculous but can make sure a building goes up plumb.

I largely in agreement with you here that being smart doesn't mean you're skilled in every trade. However, I don't think it's necessary for a character to be a wainwright in order to perform basic maintenance and repairs on their wagon. At some point in their life, a driver is going to experience a breakdown of some sort, and since they can't call AAA for help they're going to need to take care of it out in the field.

Of course how you handle this depends on the game. Savage Worlds has the Repair skill so you'd just roll that. If your character didn't have the Repair skill, they would roll 1d4 and subtract 2 from the result (with a total of 4 being a success). D&D is pretty simply and they'd just make the appropriate Tool Use or Craft skill. GURPS would likely default to Intelligence minus some number.

I'd allow an unskilled character to repair something as relatively simple as a wagon. It'd take them longer to make repairs than a professional and it'd probably be temporary rather than permanent. Something that would allow them to limp to a professional at least.

 

[MGibster]

If this were true then in real life I’d be an excellent carpenter. But I cannot even saw a branch off a tree even though figuring out how a saw works is quite easy.

Many, many years ago I was rather poor, and when the water heater in our house went out we couldn't afford to hire someone to fix it. We scraped enough money to get a new unit and then I intalled it myself. It took me more than six hours to do a job a professional would have finished in two hours tops. One of the reasons it took me so long, aside from taking frequent breaks when I grew frustrated, is because I kept making basic mistakes I had to go back and fix. When I finished installing the water heater, I turned everything on and it started leaking at every connection because I failed to use plumber's tape. But I was finally able to fix it. It was an electric water heater, had it been a gas water heater I wouldn't hot have even attempted to install it.

What I'm getting at is one of the differences between you and a professional is they can do the job in a much more efficient manner. I'm no carpenter, but I'm confident I could build a shelf or a dining room table if I had to. Would it look good? No. Would it be done quickly? Again, no. But I could make something that would function. (Partly because I have most of the tools necessary to make a shelf or table.)

 

[Crusadius]

Many, many years ago I was rather poor, and when the water heater in our house went out we couldn't afford to hire someone to fix it. We scraped enough money to get a new unit and then I intalled it myself. It took me more than six hours to do a job a professional would have finished in two hours tops. One of the reasons it took me so long, aside from taking frequent breaks when I grew frustrated, is because I kept making basic mistakes I had to go back and fix. When I finished installing the water heater, I turned everything on and it started leaking at every connection because I failed to use plumber's tape. But I was finally able to fix it. It was an electric water heater, had it been a gas water heater I wouldn't hot have even attempted to install it.

What I'm getting at is one of the differences between you and a professional is they can do the job in a much more efficient manner. I'm no carpenter, but I'm confident I could build a shelf or a dining room table if I had to. Would it look good? No. Would it be done quickly? Again, no. But I could make something that would function. (Partly because I have most of the tools necessary to make a shelf or table.)

And I think you've highlighted one issue the Wizard with Mental 15 would have repairing the wains - lack of proper tools, lack of professional knowledge. It might even be repaired, for a few moments until the horses started pulling.

 

[Tonguez]

Let them put a note on their character sheet that says they had a background experience with Wains

then let them make a DC 15 Int check with disadvantage due to lack of tool proficiency. If the succeed then great

 

[Umbran]

So, what about these sheets that are covered, top to bottom, with references to the rule book? Where's the PC freedom? "I know how to fix wains." Okay, let me see your character sheet. Hmm. Your Crafting is zero, it says here. Sorry, not sorry. "But my Int is 15!" Okay, but your Background, Page, doesn't mention anything about wains. Being a wainwright takes Strength, and yours is 10 (wow, that's low!).

I'm sorry, but this isn't about what's on the PCs sheet. It is about whether the GM considers the use of some form of untrained task resolution.

In the largest example: D&D - if you aren't trained in appropriate tools, you can still make a check to fix your wagon. It is just less likely to succeed.

 

[payn]

Creativity or detailed rules system?