It does say that, right in the 3E PHB "Profession" entry (I quoted it earlier).
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Profession/Crafting skills: Why?
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
It does say that, right in the 3E PHB "Profession" entry (I quoted it earlier).
Which illustrates my point: I want a game where you have not seperate combat and non-combat skill point pools, but where you have to make trade offs - be the best fighter you can be, and less of a blacksmith, and vice versa.
The DM can - and for my games should - make either character equally worthwile.
A game where you don't have trade-offs for non-combat skills is not for me.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
This, as far as I can tell, was pretty much 3e's philosophy on it.
That does put kind of a burden on the DM, though. They have to pay close attention to the PC abilities and actively work to include them.
And when the DM didn't do that, it lead to "accidental suck." Because the DM was playing to what the DM wanted to play, not to what the players designed their characters for.
There's also the "sandbox style" reason of some skills are some times going to be more useful than others. If you took ranks in Profession (sailor) but are in a desert, it won't do you any good, and if you're at sea in a boat, it'll help you a lot. The DM doesn't take your ability into account (though you have the ability to go wherever your ability might be more useful, in general).
Personally, I prefer a system that is divorced from that, since it allows me as a DM to have confidence in whatever I think of throwing at my players, and it allows me as a player to not have to second-guess what my DM has planned or accidentally suck.
Not all DMs pay very close attention to exactly where their players spend their skill points -- many assume the system will keep them "powerful enough." But spending combat resources on social skills means that they might not be, given the same total resources.
Aw god. That thing is going to turn into Mudwimping 2.0, so let me try to bite it in the ass again.
This is the canonical example given of the wrought iron fence made of tigers:
Yahtzee, having received in-game a clue consisting of a simple arithmetic problem, solves the problem, revealing the numeric name of a trendy clothes boutique he has seen in-game.
But his character cannot actually enter the boutique - an invisible wall is blocking his path. In order to actually enter the boutique he must walk a few screens away and sit through a cutscene, wherein basic mathematics and elementary deduction are laboriously explained to his thick-as-two-short-planks avatar. Only after the puzzle has been solved FOR him is he able to enter.
It isn't that the story and gameplay work off of separate tracks - it's that the gameplay can't actually affect the story at all, even as far as being able to move your character to where the next part of the story should happen.
It's ludicrous to claim that this necessarily happens in D&D. When it happens we call it "railroading", but it doesn't happen all the time, and neither is the system set up so that it must happen.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
And I believe that a game is better when the gameplay and story affect and reinforce one another. The idea is very relevant to this conversation.
The idea that gameplay and story can affect one another is much bigger than railroading, though that is one place where a division between the two crops up. "It doesn't matter what you roll, you fail, because the story says you need to fail."
Plus, no one's claiming it that it necessarily happens in D&D.
Rechan said that gameplay and story, in his view, should be kept on two different sides (he used a moat and a brick wall, but a wrought iron fence made of tigers has a bit more zing and means the same thing). I vehemently dispute this proposition -- I think that a game is better where the two mix, rather than when the two are kept separate. It is in taking this proposition to heart that 4e has strayed away from being a game I want to play or DM (specifically, that affects my DM side more).
One way that 4e has taken this proposition to heart that is relevant to the profession/craft system is that it provides no gameplay for it, keeping it entirely in the realm of "story" (which, in this case, is DM Fiat). The story might care if you're a blacksmith's son, but the rules don't.
This is the other side of that division. Railroading can be when gameplay doesn't affect stories. This is an example of when stories don't affect gameplay. They are kept separate by the wrought iron fence made of tigers. This is deeply unsatisfying, largely for the same reason: when I'm playing a role-playing game, I expect my game to affect my role-playing, and my role-playing to affect my game. Not to be divided.
It is a better experience, for me, when they are unified.
When the wrought iron fence made of tigers is taken down.
So I prefer a game where story and gameplay aren't on either side of a wrought iron fence made of tigers. 4e has a few examples of this being true, and it is deeply unsatisfying for me. None of those examples are really "railroading" in the sense that you talk about, but the concept behind railroading and the concept behind DM Fiat being enough for Profession/Crafting skills are similar on a pretty fundamental level.
Obviously, I'm not the only one who has the opinion that this isn't a good thing, at least in this case.
As I see it, I like the professions/crafting skills because it can allow me for a greater variety of campaigns than not having one. If I wanted to developed a campaign that would involve a party exploring an unexplored region, I could use 3.0 or 3.5 edition's skill no problem (it's not likely they're going to run into another civilization on such a campaign). I couldn't use 4th edition for the same campaign without some House Rules (but I like the sliding scale concept mentioned earlier).
4th edition seems to be best for military campaigns and your basic run of the mill dungeon campaign where you start out at a city or hamburg, go off to a large dungeon and ransack the place, like say the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Anything else would require more stuff or some House Rules rigging.
4th edition seems to be best for military campaigns and your basic run of the mill dungeon campaign where you start out at a city or hamburg, go off to a large dungeon and ransack the place, like say the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Anything else would require more stuff or some House Rules rigging.
I find Professions, as either a single freebie choice or as a feat choice as something that is useful. I also like Rel's homebrew system.
For those who don't see uses for things like profession, have you ever used those skills to masquerade as a ....(what ever ) to gain access to X place. Have you ever had to decode ancient languages or learning a new language spoken by your captors. What about improvising weapons when you are taken prisoner or put into slavery?
And you haven't lived until you've walled up an old enemy and left him to die as his air runs out.
For those who don't see uses for things like profession, have you ever used those skills to masquerade as a ....(what ever ) to gain access to X place. Have you ever had to decode ancient languages or learning a new language spoken by your captors. What about improvising weapons when you are taken prisoner or put into slavery?
And you haven't lived until you've walled up an old enemy and left him to die as his air runs out.
Jack Colby
First Post
Some people seem to enjoy the simulation factor of crafting their own things. I suppose it could be fun in a way, having the possibility of failure. I do think such things should be optional, however, especially in D&D. It's a waste of time for a lot of players, otherwise.
Just a note - Kamikaze is using the "fence with tigers" phrase correctly. Yahtzee is specifically using it to refer to how jRPGs seperate story from gameplay, and how the game in question didn't just seperate the two, it did it with the proverbial tiger-fence. And that they are COMPLETELY seperated, not that one just doesn't let you walk anywhere, but that the two don't support each other at all - the combat (or story) is almost a minigame set aside from everything else. Kamikaze is saying that this same division between story and gameplay is being called in here, and...well, yes, it is.
Yes, they should be optional. That means that you still have the option there ;p
