Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Hella_Tellah]

Maybe this is too much of a corner case, but if my campaign is set far from civilization, then I'd like skills players can roll to craft basic weapons and tools from the materials they gather. Without mechanics for doing that, I can't run Lost d20!

 

[Cadfan]

Maybe this is too much of a corner case, but if my campaign is set far from civilization, then I'd like skills players can roll to craft basic weapons and tools from the materials they gather. Without mechanics for doing that, I can't run Lost d20!

I think this thread is more about this question:

Which is better?

A 3e style skill system that would allow you to do that, but which would also be present as part of the default rules in every non Lost D20 game?

Or a simple reference to DM judgment about player backstory and capability, with maybe an intelligence check if you really feel it to be necessary?

I prefer the latter. In my opinion, the former is basically the latter anyways, except more restrictive.

 

[Psion]

Please explain how Profession is GOOD for the game?

Are you selectively replying to my posts? I do so two posts up from the post you were quoting.

 

[Set]

Which is better?

A 3e style skill system that would allow you to do that, but which would also be present as part of the default rules in every non Lost D20 game?

Or a simple reference to DM judgment about player backstory and capability, with maybe an intelligence check if you really feel it to be necessary?

And yet, doesn't this also fit the social aspect of the game? Instead of having some social-conflict-resolution mechanic or skills like bluff, diplomacy or intimidate, why not just have it part of player backstory (Ariadne grew up a noble's daughter, and has a good command of etiquette and intrigue), and just dispense with skills or mechanics?

Wouldn't this also apply to combat? 'Ariadne also trained in fencing, at her uncle's salon, and got to be better than most of the spoiled young men who fancied themselves 'better than any girl.'' When combat shows up, the player just describes what she does, and, if the DM feels it is utterly necessary, he can make some dexterity check or something to see if she manages the graceful disarm she mentioned, or a strength check to see if she really snapped that dude's sword in half.

It all comes down to what is important in your games. If combat is not the end-all-be-all of the roleplaying experience, then there is no real need for many pages of combat resolution systems, just as there can be argued to be no need for a half-page devoted to the Craft and Profession skill in a game not based around making stuff or working between missions.

Craft and Profession skills *aren't* necessary. Certainly not for all games. But neither are social skills, nor are combat abilities, nor are lists of spells and powers, when a player could just state 'My father's bloodline gives me the power to throw bolts of fire, and I can shape and control fire, making it dance, or swerve around me and not harm me' with the DM adjudicating on the fly any corner cases like 'can he shape and control the balor's infernal hellfire, or will some sort of opposed check be required?'

This isn't meant as a reductio ad absurdium argument btw. I'm not mocking here. If the systems aren't really important, then they aren't really important, and can be phased out for combat as readily as for craft / profession, since combat only makes up a small percentage of a particular game session (barring games like Star Fleet Battles, where combat resolution can take hours! but no edition of D&D has been that crazy complex!).

 

[GlaziusF]

Your game is not lutes and lyres. The game is more than your game. In my game, perform is one of the most important skills, and performing competitions are a staple.

And how many people don't max perform? How many people don't create +perform and +cha enchanted gear?

In short, are you actually having a competition or does everyone simply max out their skills to the point that it's just a coin flip?

I actually really like the idea of having a performing competition being a skill challenge of a whole bunch of skills that aren't Perform. And maybe the occasional stat check.

The idea, of course, is that you're already as competent a performer as you're going to get, and the skills involve various abstract aspects of your performance in the same way they involve various abstract aspects of your world interaction.

But what's to stop someone who's never held an instrument in their lives from getting up on stage and shining, you ask? And does this mean that a rank amateur has the chance to show up a genius virtuoso?

Of course not! The rules aren't there to model every challenge -- not even every combat challenge, otherwise the DMG wouldn't advise setting limits on monster levels! If you already know that something isn't going to happen why bother taking the 400-to-1 shot that it will anyway?

Craft and Profession don't add much to D&D. They can hurt the party through their absence ("But but but the discrepancy in the dragon's ledgers was going to be a whole new adventure hook! What do you MEAN none of you took Profession: Accountant?!") and they take points away from skills that can directly impact the party's survival ("Okay, so the cannonball has struck your stores of gunpowder. The ship comes apart and you're all in the drink. I'll need to you start making Swim checks to tread water - what do you MEAN you put all your points in Profession: Sailor?!") so if the DM wants to take special advantage of them he writes them explicitly into the story.

It's better in that case just to let everybody pick a couple of background traits and work from them for special advantage. Heck, you could even do a campaign about a literal adventuring band that boots out the cult that took over the amphitheater in the morning and comes back that evening to give a concert (skill challenge) as ambassadors of peace and love.

 

[Psion]

Except that I don't just play in all combat all the time sort of games.

I've ran detective games, super hero games, and played in survival horror games, nation building games, and "you're small fish in a big pond"/Slice of Life Werewolf games.

But I've never come across a situation where the result of a craft or profession type check was important or pivotal. I've never come across a situation where the skill was appropriate.

Well then, I think it's fair to say that there are a large variety of games that we run entirely different, to the point that I'm not sure I could understand or play in one of your games.

It's serious, because I have seen many background-reflecting feats or traits that give bonuses because you're an orphan, or an outcast, or a rich boy, or you pick yournose or whatever.

Feats or Traits are not skills; they are used for different purposes.

Either way, you don't bother rolling, you just say "It's a success".

So? What's essential about rolling? It gave you a tactical option to your benefit. Whether or not risk should be involved is another issue.

I hope you got the impression that "the only vector that PCs should be using to solve their problems should be combat" somewhere else, because I certainly didn't say that.

I love the insinuation that because I see no point in craft/profession, all I care about is Monty Haul hack'n'slash.

I hope you got Monty Haul hack'n'slash from somewhere else, and I didn't say that.

You know what's important to me? Story. And I believe there is a moat and stone wall between Story and Mechanics.

That's nice. I don't. But you can't accept that it's useful to me to model these things mechanically even if it's not desirable to you?

To me, "story" is a synthesis of events, their resolution, and the scenario at hand. And AFAIAC, the best way to resolve events fairly and with the best internal consistency is with *drumroll* mechanics.

It feels like, to me, the equivalent of "Okay we're going to do some surveillance on this guy's house. But first, we have to roll our Profession: Cop skill to make sure that we 1) can actually see the window from our location, and 2) turned on the phone tap correctly." "Sorry guys, Joe rolled a 2 on his check; he falls asleep on watch, and you have a six hour gap in your stake out information."

This sounds to me like the "profession(orphan)" silliness again. When defending your example relies on making up extreme example that nobody I (and I suspect, you) game with ever do, it's time to step back and reconsider your position.

 

[Psion]

I think this thread is more about this question:

Which is better?

A 3e style skill system that would allow you to do that, but which would also be present as part of the default rules in every non Lost D20 game?

Or a simple reference to DM judgment about player backstory and capability, with maybe an intelligence check if you really feel it to be necessary?

I prefer the latter. In my opinion, the former is basically the latter anyways, except more restrictive.

And I prefer the former. The former is basically the latter, but with a mechanism to provide for character definition with more consistency and permit rules extrapolation more seamlessly.

 

[Cadfan]

And yet, doesn't this also fit the social aspect of the game? Instead of having some social-conflict-resolution mechanic or skills like bluff, diplomacy or intimidate, why not just have it part of player backstory (Ariadne grew up a noble's daughter, and has a good command of etiquette and intrigue), and just dispense with skills or mechanics?

1. Many people agree with you that the social skills shouldn't exist, since they overlap with the player's ability to roleplay their character as an effective liar, smooth talking diplomat, or intimidating thug.

2. Earlier in the thread, I wrote out a post where I discussed the reasons that I feel that a 3e style craft and profession skill doesn't make sense. Here's the list.

To my mind, the failure of the 3e version of craft and profession rules was that:

1. Poor siloing. Having been raised as a blacksmith's apprentice shouldn't trade off as heavily as it did with things like learning to jump, swim, or climb trees.
2. Unclear outcomes. Not always true, but often true.
3a. Too precise. 5% increments aren't really necessary for most profession or craft skills. Is it really important that one character have a +12 at weaving, while another has +13 at fletchery? Probably not.
3b. Too precise. This is also related to number 2. Too much precision in statistics without much precision in outcome.
4. Take 10 and Take 20 made a lot of that precision pointless. This is related to 3a. Why differentiate between a +12 and a +13 if you're just going to Take 10 or 20 anyways and beat the DC by a mile?
5. Unclear overlap with a lot of other skills. The stereotypical example was Profession: Sailor, and how it affected all your other sailing related skills.

Combat, by contrast, doesn't have these problems. In order,

1. Its siloed pretty effectively away from other aspects of your character. The only major overlap are feats that could boost combat or could boost skills, depending on what you choose.
2. The outcome of an attack is usually the most well defined thing in the game, unlike a craft where its really not clear exactly what one can produce with a Craft: Weaving check outcome of 27 (a really nice rug? How nice? What does that even mean?)
3a and b. 5% increments in combat skill level are actually important, and increases in your skill combat skill level have discernible effects on your character's career.
4. There's no "override switch" like taking 10 or 20 that makes whole aspects of your character's combat skills stop counting.
5. Combat talent (almost) never overlaps with other aspects of your character's build in an unclear manner that makes it difficult to know which rules to use to handle a particular situation.

Social skills are a mixed bag.

1. They're not siloed away, but it seems more reasonable for your ability to be a smooth talker to trade away with your athletics skill since they're both adventuring type skills. Unlike profession skills which often punish characters for investing in their backstory, social skills get used more frequently.
2. Outcomes are usually clear. Less so than combat, but more so than Craft. This has a lot to do with the fact that the checks are opposed by someone's defense. A higher bluff skill allows you to fool more insightful persons much like a higher stealth skill allows you to conceal yourself from more perceptive persons. A higher craft skill, by contrast, allows you to make more difficult to build items... but what are those? Only DM judgment can really say.
3. 5% increments in skill level matter more because the check is opposed, and have noticeable effects on who you can lie to/ intimidate/ sweet talk.
4. You can't take 10. Take 10 is kind of the death of skills, because it bypasses them so completely. With a skill like Craft or Profession, where you can almost always take 10 (in the case or certain profession uses, you can't, but those uses also don't matter much because all they do is produce a little gold) what you've really done by taking 10 is turn the whole architecture of the skill into a basic "can I build this? yes/no?"
5. These also don't overlap with other areas of your character in confusing ways.

In partial summary, a skill check is useful if you need to know the answers to the following questions:

How often can I do this successfully? (ex: jump over a pit)
Can I do this better than someone else can perform a task? (ex: can I hide better than you can find me)

Its less useful for questions like

Can I do this at all? (ex: fix a broken wagon axle)

In that case, you can usually get by with a general understanding of what the character can and cannot do, which doesn't require 5% increments, etc, etc, etc. It just requires an understanding between the people in the game.

I think Craft and Profession skills mostly fall into the "Can I do this at all?" category. They're not things where you sometimes succeed and sometimes fail (because you take 10, which mimics the fact that in real life someone who knows how to make a cabinet doesn't accidentally fail every so often and have to start from scratch, he just makes the dang cabinet). They're not things where you are opposed by someone else (hypothetically you could have a cooking contest but generally you are unopposed when you build a bookcase or operate an apothecary stand). They are, in my opinion, better supported by simply roleplaying (winging it) than by utilizing the architecture of the skill system.

 

[Cadfan]

To me, "story" is a synthesis of events, their resolution, and the scenario at hand. And AFAIAC, the best way to resolve events fairly and with the best internal consistency is with *drumroll* mechanics.

The key there is the word "resolve." Craft and Profession skills rarely "resolve" anything. "Resolve" implies a chance of success or failure, or possibly a situation that the DM doesn't know how to judge, but which can be answered by reference to the rules. Craft and Profession rarely have either of those traits.

 

[Psion]

The key there is the word "resolve." Craft and Profession skills rarely "resolve" anything.

As has been emphasized earlier, our experiences obviously differ here.

Hmmm. And it's not hard to guess why. I wonder if a poll is in order here...