Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Psion]

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.

You rock.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

That's a debatable proposition.

Let's refine it a bit, get more specific.

What matters for 4e D&D is making sure that people have as much fun playing D&D as possible. I think we can both pretty much agree on that.

In a magically perfect world, the stuff in the core rules contains exactly everything you want from a basic D&D game, and nothing superfluous. Nothing you will never use, and everything you do use directly explained and implemented in a way that you can understand and make good use of.

But life ain't perfect, so everyone, to a certain extent, has to make do with rules they'll never use and things that confuse them and a need to make rules for things that their games go into that the rules don't cover.

I think we can both also accept that as a universal.

Now, this is a problem for D&D, because everything they put out is inherently flawed to some extent no matter how hard they try, no matter what they do, they cannot, will not, ever, ever, ever, please everyone.

3e's answer to this problem was "We won't tell you how to have fun, that's up to you." In a nutshell, the strategy was to toss a bunch of rules at you that you may or may not need, not expecting everyone to get or use everything, but expecting the DM to weed out what they liked from what they didn't. For the people who REALLY LIKED in-depth character backgrounds, there was the PHB2. For people who thought mindflayers were the shizzle, there was Lords of Madness. For people who didn't, there were other things. They wouldn't please everyone with every product, but there would be enough mass appeals to justify the weird stuff. Sort of how a big record company or movie studio works. You throw out the summer blockbuster that everyone is going to go see, this pays for the little indie drama that is more niche, but gives you street cred as daring and edgy and willing to take risks (even if they're not very big risks, given the amount you raked in with the most recent superhero movie).

4e's answer to this problem has been pretty comparable to this. In a nutshell, the idea so far is to figure out what "most people want," and deliver that, because "that's what works." This is sort of how network TV seasons have been done historically. You have models for what people like, and you give people what they want, and they love you for it, and then you give them more of what they want, so you make a lot of money on everything.

The big flaw in that 4e approach, from where I'm sitting, is the same problem that network TV is having recently: Cable, baby. Things that are edgier and crazier and more different and more risky that, when they pay off, catch you entirely by surprise because you had NO FREAKIN' IDEA THAT WAS POSSIBLE. We don't have our "Cable D&D" yet, but I think it'd be the strongest way to actually compete with WotC (some sort of publisher's co-op that muscles a variety of products into new markets would be golden -- sell them online or through e-publishing to double down).

The big flaw in the 3e approach is a lot of wasted wordcount and some big flops of products.

So "what matters" is how WotC addresses the eternal problem of the books they put out not being useful for everyone in the world all at once. Do they put out their assured hits and then risk some failures with the weird stuff? Or do they design for the base to the exclusion of everything else and give us the D&D version of Everybody Loves Raymond (that's not a dig, really -- ELR is hilarious!).

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.

Well, WotC has dynamite market research. I'm sure they can tell what most of their audience says they want.

The real question about what WotC does here is this: Do they deliver ONLY what the audience tells them they want? Do they give us year after year of new sitcoms?

Personally, I wouldn't be that surprised if we have some sort of 4e craft system down the road that is more detailed than DM fiat that I will love much, much more. We don't right now, but we've got at least 5 years, and until we have a 4e that I can love, I've got Pathfinder or 3e or T20 or FFZ. All of which have a more robust crafting system than DM fiat, even if "most people" never use it.

 

[Rechan]

While thinking about this last night, I did come up with a way in which to handle the Profession business. It's based off the argument of "Profession: Sailor" getting to use his profession skill rather than all those myrid of other skills.

You have your Profession, or Background, or WhatHaveYou. And there is a number beside it. Let's say you have Profession Sailor: +3.

So any time you have to roll a skill that ties into your Sailory goodness, you add the +3 to the modifier, to reflect your experience beyond just the skill.

So if it's "Climbing a net or robe similar to rigging", then you have Climb +8, add +3 to it for being a Sailor, and now you have an +11 to roll.

Of course, this has the potential to be abused ("My profession is Thief!" "Mine is Adventurere!"). So you have some pre-determined professions or backgrounds, with some guidelines, and otherwise the player and DM negotiate when the skill should apply.

 

[The_Gneech]

Okay, to knock some silliness out of the way right off the bat:

If somebody with Profession (Sailor) wants to climb a rope, that person makes a Climb check. Profession (Sailor) is for things that don't have other skills already, like using an astrolabe. Sheesh.

I have always been a fan of "useless" skills because I want the game-mechanic model of my character to match my mental model. Even if the character doesn't ever make a check against Profession (Scribe), it warms some geeky little place in my heart to have defined the character's abilities in such a way. Besides, if I get creative enough with it, I can probably come up with some way to make it useful during the course of an adventure, even the most plotless dungeon crawl since "Orc and Pie."

As for there never being a good use for it in any RPG, people might think the same thing about a Psychoanalysis skill until they've played Call of Cthulhu. There's a lot more to RPGs, or at least the great ones, than killing monsters and taking their stuff.

-The Gneech

 

[Rechan]

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

Perhaps I wasn't being clear when I made the point. But I was trying to make the point that one does not need to take mechanical things (feats, skills, traits, whatever) to reflect their character's background or personality.

So yes, skills and feats are different, just like apples and oranges, but when the topic is "Fruit is tasty", you can bring them both up. The point I was trying to make was that I don't need to take "Feat: Orphan" to play my character as an orphan, any more than I need Craft: Underwater Basketweaving to play my character as a college slouch (that was a joke, for reference).

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.

The point is, since he's "The greatest swordsman in the world", you don't have to calculate his craft skill. You don't even know it. You just handwave and say "He takes ten".

How is that different than saying "He's the greatest craftsman in the world. So he just does it."

You are making my argument for me here, with this little sentence:

What's essential about rolling?

What is essential about rolling craft at all? Just say "You do it." Tada.

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.

And I have never seen a story where a craft or profession roll was ever integral to overcoming the resolution.

Really, I'm for the less mechanics, the fewer fiddly bits, the better. I don't track ammunition, or rations, or - if I didn't have to, I wouldn't bother with gold accounting.

If there was a game that involved cards with "Succeed" Or "Fail" and you handed them in when you felt appropriate to the story, and the object is to just use them in a strategic fashion, I'd be sold. After all, to me the goal of a DM - as someone else put it here - is the art of letting the players win without allowing them to realize that's what you're doing.

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

You didn't say "You only like Monty Haul Hack'n'slash", but I get the insinuation you are making from these:

I can see if you play an all combat all the time sort of game, why you might not use them.

I find the concept that "the only vector that PCs should be using to solve their problems should be combat" to be somewhat wanting. I can create challenges around a great variety of skills.

If you didn't get it from me, then from whence came the concept that "The only vector that PCs should be using to solve their problems is combat"? The only person that brought that up is you.

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

I can accept that it's your opinion. But I do not accept it being a majoritive one, and thus I do not accept that it should be in core.

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.

As I stated above, that wasn't silliness. Feat: Orphan, or Trait: Orphan, exists. And it exists as a mechanical representation of background, which isn't necessary.

But no, I'm being hyperbolic for two reasons. One, to get the gist of my point, and two, for this little statement here:

It feels like, to me

Get that? That's how to me it feels. Or do you not accept that someone can feel a distaste or utter befuddlement with the necessity, let alone the desire, for certain mechanics? Just like you feel pleasure when putting your skill points to background fluff, the above scenario goes through my head when I see those same skills.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oddly enough, I think of all games, the Warcraft RPG had some rather neat concepts regarding crafting. The tinkering rules from the core book were fantastic, and I loved the flavor of later classes built not only entirely around making potions, but of making special potions that didn't appear in spell form, or being able to throw the potions to give their effect to targets far away. If anything, 4e should've been a step towards THAT, giving more freedom and more fun to help get players involved with building and crafted new things. Instead, they just threw out the whole thing. I mean, if they took those tinkering rules and twisted them around a bit to create the Artificer as a class that was built specifically for making magical items and gadgets both for himself and the party, I think it would've been incredibly cool. Plus, they could've made the Arcane Commando the Artificer has become into a seperate class, because as cool as the Arcane Commando idea, it really doesn't scream "Artificer" to me.

Really, I think Artificer is the perfect example on how crafting ideas were just thrown out. It's gone from a class who's identity was "make magic items" into some weird mix of Batman and Rambo. I'm not saying the class concept of Rambat isn't cool, but what the dickings does that have to do with artificing?

 

[Psion]

Perhaps I wasn't being clear when I made the point. But I was trying to make the point that one does not need to take mechanical things (feats, skills, traits, whatever) to have that background in the first place.

If the background grants you a specific capability that is not encapsulated in the existing skills and feats, my stance is: yes it does.

So yes, skills and feats are different, just like apples and oranges, but when the topic is "Fruit is tasty", you can bring them both up. The point I was trying to make was that I don't need to take "Feat: Orphan" to play my character as an orphan, any more than I need Craft: Underwater Basketweaving to play my character as a college slouch (that was a joke, for reference).

Jokes aside, as I don't see salient capabilities in an Orphan profession skill, I would agree one is not needed.

Side note: spycraft has an "orphaned" talent (starting ability, like a d20 occupation.) It translates into bonuses to other abilities, much like a feat would. But again, as it's not a capability, I would have no real issue with a character who is an orphan not taking this ability.

The point is, since he's "The greatest swordsman in the world", you don't have to calculate his craft skill. You don't even know it. You just handwave and say "He takes ten".

How can you know he's good enough to just take ten if I don't know how good he is? I think that "greatest swordsmith in the world" means something in game terms. Something tangible. Something worth more than just jotting down as a background note. Something worthy of an investment.

How is that different than saying "He's the greatest craftsman in the world. So he just does it."

Because combat is a conflict. Crafting need not be. It doesn't mean anyone can do it.

You are making my argument for me here, with this little sentence:
What is essential about rolling craft at all? Just say "You do it." Tada.

You're missing the argument here. Having a capability does not mean that capability needs to be rolled. That's a false criteria.

A druid can change into a bear. A druid does not need to roll to turn into a bear. So, should we conclude that a character not need to expend any character resources for such an ability?

And I have never seen a story where a craft or profession roll was ever integral to overcoming the resolution.

Come play at my place sometime.

[qutoe]Really, I'm for the less mechanics, the fewer fiddly bits, the better.[/quote]

Yep. I got that stance from you once you made the "moat and wall between story and mechanics".

But not all folks share your stance.

If there was a game that involved cards with "Succeed" Or "Fail" and you handed them in when you felt appropriate to the story, and the object is to just use them in a strategic fashion, I'd be sold.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "sell" you. It's obvious, that if you cared enough to start this thread and argue it this vehemently, you are pretty happy with your way of doing things.

But I wouldn't be. So you can either choose to accept that there are people out here with different priorities than you and accept that these few pages benefit us.

Or you can just go about your day, refusing to admit we exist or that our experience is negatively impacted by removing profession and craft skills.

 

[Rechan]

Jokes aside, as I don't see salient capabilities in an Orphan profession skill, I would agree one is not needed.

WHY do you consider it "Orphan" profession? I have said many times I was referencing feats/traits, not profession skills.

How can you know he's good enough to just take ten if I don't know how good he is?

Because he's the greatest swordsmith in the world. I don't need to know his stats to know he's the greatest. He just is. He can make swords in his sleep. He can do it with an unlit forge and a spoon, because he's just that good.

I don't need to know his level, or his skill ranks, or his class, or anything. All that matters is who and what, not HOW.

Something worthy of an investment.

An investment? He's an NPC. He begins existing when the PCs hear about him, and he ends existing when he doesn't become relevent or remembered. There's no investment.

Because combat is a conflict. Crafting need not be. It doesn't mean anyone can do it.

Huh? That made no sense whatsoever. Where did combat come from? I didn't bring it up.

And no, not anyone can do it. But he's the greatest swordsmith in the world. He's not anyone.

You're missing the argument here. Having a capability does not mean that capability needs to be rolled. That's a false criteria.

And you're missing the point that one has to write down a number beside "Greatest Swordsmith in the world" to be capable. The fact that he is thus means his capability.

Come play at my place sometime.

I think our styles and tastes are too separate for real agreement there. Thanks for the offer, however.

Or you can just go about your day, refusing to admit we exist or that our experience is negatively impacted by removing profession and craft skills.

I do not see how I can possibly say you don't exist. However, I don't see the point of that existence beyond "Well, we just like it, therefore it should be in the main book."

It's like saying "4e core doesn't have thunderstones in it. That negatively impacts those that just adored thunderstones. So it should be in core." I can acknowledge intellectually that yes, some people must like them, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree that because Someone likes it, it Must be there.

I reference guns and psionics and so on. Hey, I like psionics. But I don't think they should be in core. Because I know that 1) less than a majority use the rules, and thus 2) it would upset a lot more people than it would make happy. Even though I would be happy to be able to go to any table and play a psionicist, I know that that fact would get under the skin of more people; there are all ready those that feel put upon for having Tieflings and Dragonborn in 4e, let alone this "Sci fi stuff in my fantasy".

I started the thread because I couldn't see why anyone would like it. I post this intellectually aware that some like it for x y and z. I can't dismiss that. But just like people being so attached to the Blood War or the Great Wheel, I am so utterly disconnected from that enthusiasm and attachment to anything, let alone those specific things.

 

[Cadfan]

3e's answer to this problem was "We won't tell you how to have fun, that's up to you." In a nutshell, the strategy was to toss a bunch of rules at you that you may or may not need, not expecting everyone to get or use everything, but expecting the DM to weed out what they liked from what they didn't.

Craft and Profession skills were core, dude. There is absolutely no reason, no possible justification, for believing that 3e was designed with the intent that you would throw out core skills. Certainly you don't give one. Those skills were carefully worked into the entire rest of the product line.

You're just making stuff up.

I've compared and contrasted the 3e system and the 4e system. I don't have much else to add here since you're not addressing any of those points and not taking a position of your own other than a general hope that someday a better system might come along, coupled with a weird disdain for 4e based on some awkward assumptions about the avoidance of rules bloat somehow representing selling out to the mediocre masses.

 

[Psion]

WHY do you consider it "Orphan" profession? I have said many times I was referencing feats/traits, not profession skills.

What's the name of this thread again?

You're the one who made the original skill suggestion. If you are admitting that it's not a very credible suggestion for a skill, and agree that feats cover different ground than skills, I really don't have any other points to make here.

Because he's the greatest swordsmith in the world. I don't need to know his stats to know he's the greatest. He just is.

Yeah. That's not good enough. I need to know what justifies a player to say his character is the greatest swordsman in the world. And I'm certainly not going to give it to him for the price of some throwaway words in his background.

An investment? He's an NPC.

That's different, and not what I was arguing.

Then, I have no problem with handwaving it. As I set the DC, I set the skill rank just as easily.

However, the question does come when the players need the services of a swordsmith who is "pretty good". How good? What can he do? Having a system in place answers these questions.

Huh? That made no sense whatsoever. Where did combat come from? I didn't bring it up.

Actually, you were. You were the one who mentioned the greatest swordsman. Did you mean to say something else?

Thank you, but no thank you.

Truly, you wound me.

I do not see how I can possibly say you don't exist. However, I don't see the point of that existence beyond "Well, we just like it, therefore it should be in the main book."

I don't see how that's any better than "I don't like it/don't use it, therefore it shouldn'I t be in the main book"? Further, having such a skill in the book is not an imposition to you. Lacking those things in the book is an imposition to me.

There's classes I don't play in every edition; I don't fret their presence, because I know the book isn't just for me. I think crafting a sword or sailing a ship is quite a bit more bog standard fantasy ability than psionics, and thus, much more deserving of inclusion in the core rules.