Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Allister]

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.

But what would you consider "good professions then"?

We did Sailor and I highlighted the many problems with that profession and someone recently used Profession (Guitarist) and again, he same problems as before come up (if you have Profession here, what's the point of Perform and Knwledge then?)

 

[Umbran]

(if you have Profession here, what's the point of Perform and Knwledge then?)

Who said that there cannot be overlap between such skills? It may be that perform (guitar), Profession (guitarist) and knowledge (music History) have some overlap. That's okay.

The performer knows how to play well. The person with the same ranks in Profession (guitarist) may not play as well, but also has experience with roadies, groupies, and band managers.

 

[Crothian]

But what would you consider "good professions then"?

We did Sailor and I highlighted the many problems with that profession and someone recently used Profession (Guitarist) and again, he same problems as before come up (if you have Profession here, what's the point of Perform and Knwledge then?)

They do different things. Profession is about making money, perform would be about actual skill in doing something, and knowledge would be acedimic study of the subject.

I have a character who currently has Profession Innkeeper.

 

[Goumindong]

I'll answer it: Because the variety of skills and their proficiency at them could vary considerably from character to character and the ability to write an extensive (which is not to say "good") character background shouldn't necessarily translate into a mechanical advantage in the game.

1. I was not aware that "I was a blacksmith" is an "extensive character background"

2. Which is why you justify having a background to be a mechanical disadvantage? There is no way, outside of "background points" to balance this and they do not revolve around skills.

Your examples are hyperbolic and foolish. The game as played revolves around solving problems. There are a set of skills commonly used in resolving these problems. Backgrounds are not going to be freebees to enhance these skills, we already have a mechanic for that. They are small "you can do something else which probably isn't going to matter in the scope of the game but help to define your character"

 

[Cadfan]

I'll answer it: Because the variety of skills and their proficiency at them could vary considerably from character to character and the ability to write an extensive (which is not to say "good") character background shouldn't necessarily translate into a mechanical advantage in the game.

The problem is that putting points into Profession or Craft often translates into a mechanical disadvantage.

If the choice is to be between:

1. If you want mechanical benefit for your backstory, you have to spend the same resource that normally would stop you from drowning or falling off cliffs.

2. A character who's backstory involves "doing more things" than someone else will be able to actually do more "things" than a character with a less diverse backstory, but only to the extent that those "things" are not adventuring-type things (because then they'd be covered by preexisting skills), and only to the extent that the DM gives permission.

I have to go for the latter.

 

[billd91]

The problem is that putting points into Profession or Craft often translates into a mechanical disadvantage.

If the choice is to be between:

1. If you want mechanical benefit for your backstory, you have to spend the same resource that normally would stop you from drowning or falling off cliffs.

2. A character who's backstory involves "doing more things" than someone else will be able to actually do more "things" than a character with a less diverse backstory, but only to the extent that those "things" are not adventuring-type things (because then they'd be covered by preexisting skills), and only to the extent that the DM gives permission.

I have to go for the latter.

There is no more mechanical disadvantage in spending points on a craft or profession where a check never comes up than there is in spending points on any other skill that just doesn't happen to come up.

If all you're doing is climbing and swimming, then any points spent on diplomacy are just as mechanically disadvantageous. Context is the key.

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

It does. And what is important in the core D&D game is killing monsters, RPing with monsters, NPCs, patrons and the like, and taking stuff. It is fine, great even, if that's not the way you run your games, but it IS the core assumption, the way most people play the game and the playstyle the game is designed for. Asking why social and combat skills and powers are in the game is a bit silly and doesn't make any kind of point. The encounter, and its resolution is the cornerstone of the D&D game. The 4e game system includes rules to resolve those conflicts, even those conflicts that involve something outside of the more normal adventuring means - such as crafting or performing. The rules consist of advice on winging it and a few tables on DC by level, skill challenges and the like.

Choosing a game system, then playing that game in a manner well outside of its core assumptions (the game is about adventurerers adventuring), puts you in GM creativity territory. Twisting D&D into Lutes and Lyres is certainly possible, but complaining that the rules for doing so were left out is a bit puzzling. If you use the D&D ruleset to play a game that isn't about adventurers, has no monsters or loot, and no combat, more power to you. But there are better systems.

Crafting is superflous. Some DMs/groups like to use it, most don't get much out of it. I'd much rather have a streamlined, balanced ruleset from which to work, rather a bloated ruleset full of subsystems and gaping holes where these subsystems react with each other or the basic rules. Trimming the game back from rules bloat is much more difficult than creating the rules you need for your style or shopping online for 3rd party supplements that fit your playstyle.

Gamers are a creative lot and its quite easy to modify a game system to fit your needs. And when you modify the game for your own group, you don't have to worry about what kind of brokenness that is going to open up in the land of munchkin. If you design a craft system for your group who loves craft systems and it has holes the size of krakens, it won't matter much because your group will play with the spirit of the rules. If those same rules are part of the core system mechanics, then its a problem for the whole community. If your players look for ways to abuse your own house rules, beat them with sticks until they learn better.

Gamers are also armed with a robust and creative online community that designs, often for free, entire system modifications, subsystems for practically everything imaginable, forms, aids, etc., often just for the joy of sharing their creations with others. If a complex and robust set of crafting mechanics really has a niche in D&D gameplay, the 3rd party publishers will tackle it, put out some great rulesets and there will be no need for complaint that the designers did not cater to your particular niche of needs for your particular gamestyle.

Combat and encounters are assumed to be part of ALL D&D games. And in the default game, it is of little matter whether your sword was bought, found, stolen, crafted by you, an heirloom... those are background details and belong as such.

 

[Cadfan]

There is no more mechanical disadvantage in spending points on a craft or profession where a check never comes up than there is in spending points on any other skill that just doesn't happen to come up.

If all you're doing is climbing and swimming, then any points spent on diplomacy are just as mechanically disadvantageous. Context is the key.

1. Not exactly, because failing swim checks, jump checks, or climb checks sometimes makes you die.

2. This is basically true, in general. I guess it all depends then on which skills are more likely to come up in a game of D&D- Profession: Something Important from my Backstory, or Spot.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And I believe there is a moat and stone wall between Story and Mechanics.

Right there.

The wrought iron fence made of tigers.

It's better for me, by leaps and bounds and galaxies and dimensions, when this does not exist. When the story and the mechanics reinforce each other rather than keeping away from each other.

It's yin and yang, male and female, uranos and gaia. It is much more enjoyable to mix these things together and let them enhance each other than to keep them separate.

I say to you, TEAR DOWN THAT WALL.

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

I think if we spent as many pages on craft skills as we spent on combat, they wouldn't have this problem, either.

I guess it all depends then on which skills are more likely to come up in a game of D&D

This is why it depends on your style of game. What is more likely varies with your style of game. 3e absolutely loved it some combat, but it at least gave a nod to those who also loved playing blacksmiths in the philosophy of "We're not going to tell you how to have fun, that's up to you."

4e believes it knows how you have fun, and it's sure not by playing some lame blacksmith! RARGH!

FWIW, both approaches have their benefits and their costs.

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, what matters is the style of game that most people have.

I stand by my argument that, for the reasons exhaustively listed earlier in this thread in my comparison and contrast of 3e style craft and profession skills with just plain roleplaying crafts and profsesions, that the just plain roleplaying option is superior for most people. Probably even for you, since I don't actually believe your insinuation that you'd prefer if the game spent just as much time on crafts and professions as it did on combat.