Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Delta]

And, note, that the use of K: geography for navigation and P: sailor for captaining a ship is from Stormwrack.

Actually, I'm really glad you threw that in there. I was just trying to figure which Knowledge skill was most appropriate.

 

[Rel]

Hopefully, those who want crafting rules will buy the book and be happy with it. Does that create a "put your money where your mouth is" situation?

Not for me it doesn't. From the little I've heard about the rules therein, I like my own homebrewed system better. I'm intrigued about their Lingering Injury rules though. Plus I just plain like Joe, Suzi and Ari so I might buy it just because they do good product and are cool folks.

 

[GlaziusF]

So the wrought iron fence made of tigers is appropriate.

Actually, this is the exact antithesis of the wrought iron fence made of tigers, which is why I can't stand you using it in this way.

The WIFMT shows up when a character who can jump 20 feet in the air is blocked by a fence 6 feet high, that only goes down after he's advanced the plot. Gameplay doesn't affect story.

Knocking an ooze prone is gameplay affecting story. Perhaps in ways that it seems like it shouldn't, but it doesn't affect players at all because they're not the ones playing oozes.

This isn't to say that the WIFMT can't be a problem - I recall an anecdote from a Shadowrun GM playing in a "prewritten module" campaign who tried to get around a corporate barricade by planting breaching charges in a wall and breaking through to the building next door. The poor guy he tried to drop it on just froze up. That's a WIFMT moment.

I like it when my story is supported by the mechanics (and also when my story supports the mechanics).

So change one or the other to fit! I just came up with four ways in like half an hour! And the mechanics are explicitly stretchy so if you don't want to change your story you can grab them and pull! It's not only okay, it's encouraged!

"But they can house rule it in!" isn't really a defense of 4e on this point. It's admitting that 4e has failed, but that a DM can make up for that failure.

No kidding. A DM can make up for any failure, in any edition, in a variety of ways. That's not really the point. The point is that for some people, it is a failure.

4E makes it easier for a DM to "make up" than 3E did. This isn't exaggeration: I was always worried about balance and corner cases with 3E and had to jump through giant hoops to get a good prepared encounter set up for my players, and I can do the same thing in 4E in minutes.

The reason I like 4E so much is that it's so much easier for me to wing it. Saying that this is actually evidence the system has failed me seems kind of misguided when I'm using the system to wing it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The WIFMT shows up when a character who can jump 20 feet in the air is blocked by a fence 6 feet high, that only goes down after he's advanced the plot. Gameplay doesn't affect story.

Knocking an ooze prone is gameplay affecting story. Perhaps in ways that it seems like it shouldn't, but it doesn't affect players at all because they're not the ones playing oozes.

The tiger-fence exists in any place that the game and story don't affect each other (it is the barrier between the two), wherever the dissonance occurs. It's a barrier. The direction of the flow isn't important.

The power that knocks someone prone is both story (you knock them down!) and gameplay (knocking them down has XYZ effects). When you can use it to knock down something that can't really be knocked down (by still giving them XYZ effects), there is a divide between the story you're telling and the mechanics you're using. This divide is the barrier. It's the wrought iron fence made of tigers. It is what, upthread, was called the brick wall and the moat. It is what stands between a DM Fiat crafting system and a more mechanical crafting system.

So change one or the other to fit! I just came up with four ways in like half an hour! And the mechanics are explicitly stretchy so if you don't want to change your story you can grab them and pull! It's not only okay, it's encouraged!

Again, that's not the point. A DM can fix any problem in any game. The point isn't "can someone fix this?!" The point is "Is this a problem in the first place?"

If we agree that it's a problem in the first place, then there isn't any real debate. We agree.

Whether or not it's easy or fun or useful to fix is not the issue.

4E makes it easier for a DM to "make up" than 3E did.

That's great, but it's not really the point of the conversation. If you want to move the goalposts and talk about that, sure, but it might be better to start a new thread for it, since that's not really what this thread is about as far as I can tell.

The reason I like 4E so much is that it's so much easier for me to wing it. Saying that this is actually evidence the system has failed me seems kind of misguided when I'm using the system to wing it.

The failure is in requiring you to wing it. Winging it isn't good enough for some games because these systems are important to some games, yet 4e requires you to pull something out of thin air if it is important to you, while it provides you ample guidance on, say, how many 5' squares you can move on a grid when your turn comes up, and what that movement effects.

4e requires you to wing it? 4e fails (at this). Regardless of if it succeeds at making winging it easy or not.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The failure is in requiring you to wing it. Winging it isn't good enough for some games because these systems are important to some games, yet 4e requires you to pull something out of thin air if it is important to you, while it provides you ample guidance on, say, how many 5' squares you can move on a grid when your turn comes up, and what that movement effects.

4e requires you to wing it? 4e fails (at this). Regardless of if it succeeds at making winging it easy or not.

I think there are different degrees of failure.

Does the game provide a rule you can use right out of the box. That's good.
Does the game provide a rule you don't like? That's a failure. You need to work on the existing one.
Does the game provide no rule. That's a failure. You need to create a new rule
Does the game provide no rule, and you worry because creating or changing a rule might easily break the game? That's a failure. You don't even dare to fix the issue.

Especially for a game to tightly concerned about "game balance" like 3E and 4E, the last failure is easily to get into. It is a psychological problem in many cases, because, for example, 3E wasn't that incredibly well balanced that changing some rules would be terrible, but it was designed in a way that you found it hard to predict the impacts of your changes. But interestingly 4E, is so well designed that it seems far easier to figure out the impact of a new rule...

 

[Thasmodious]

4e requires you to wing it? 4e fails (at this). Regardless of if it succeeds at making winging it easy or not.

This really is a ridiculous, if common, assertion. A game system does not "fail" because it doesn't cover things that you, or your group, personally feel belong higher in a hierarchy of needs. If your mark for system success is to somehow provide all the rules for all areas of gameplay, then there will never be a successful system, and labeling a system as having "failed" is meaningless noise.

Some people feel crafting is important. As this thread shows many do not. WotC did their market research and studied how the game is most often played and built a strong, balanced system of core gameplay. They decided crafting/profession was not an area the game needed. It was a design decision. Since they realized that design and did not accidentally put in crafting rules, it would be a success.

Some people want to see hit locations, crit tables, rules for wounds, and a hundred other subsystems from past editions, third party, common houserules, past Dragon articles, UA, etc. Their "exclusion" from the game does not constitute a failure in design, despite the feeling of some that such elements are essential for their own playstyle and preferences. What 4e did, though, was address those issues by making sure the game was balanced and the balance was not hidden behind the curtain, so the system is easy to tweak to your groups own preferences and playstyle. This was a stated design goal, and they succeeded. Houseruling the game is easy, winging it is easy, DM prep is a breeze, balanced monster creation is a snap...those were design goals and they succeeded quite well.

When a design team lays out its goals, meets those goals and puts out its product, you can't scream "failure" because your pet subsystem wasn't part of the design. Now, if the 4e designers claimed to have developed the best crafting system ever, you could cry foul, but you can't say the system failed to deliver something that was never an intended part of the design. That's a bit like claiming your new bicycle is a failure because you like cold drinks and it doesn't have a refridgerator.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thasmodious, while I generally agree with what you say, I don't think Kamikaze Midget is speaking of a "design failure" in your sense. He speaks of failing or meeting his (and others) needs of a game. If he needs Craft and Profession, 4E is failure to meet his needs.

My point would more be saying - it's easy to add one in. Which means it is not as big as a failure as a system where it would be hard to add one in later. Or take something out without breaking the system.


I think in a certain way, a "completist" game can sometimes be the hardest to do. Because you will often feel compelled to still do it in the "spirit" of the game. A complete game will create a lot of precedents, and adding or chaning a sub-system can feel "dangerous".

Many a house rules post was criticized for missing the "spirit" of the game - like using non-standard BAB or Save Progressions, saving throw DCs, even ability scores as feat prerequisites, and similar stuff. Quite a few modules were criticized for minor errors in stat-blocks (wrong skill modifiers, damage off, stuff like that).
I can't really say I disagree with these statements. And certainly 4E is not free of this (even with this "exception based design idea" - the exceptions are still applied in a very controlled manner, using certain building blocks.)

But a completist game means you have to bother with this every time you want to add/remove/change something.

 

[GlaziusF]

The tiger-fence exists in any place that the game and story don't affect each other (it is the barrier between the two), wherever the dissonance occurs. It's a barrier. The direction of the flow isn't important.

Yes it is.

I can't stress this enough, yes it is.

When you're playing a game you have a set of expectations set up by the gameplay. If you push the jump button twice and your character goes 20 feet high, you expect to be able to jump 20-foot heights.

So when the story puts a 6-foot fence in front of you and prevents you from jumping over it, that confuses your expectations. You're now not sure anymore whether you can jump over fences or not. You feel like the game is broken.

But if the story puts a 6-foot fence in front of you, acts like you're not supposed to get to the other side of it yet, but you can jump over it anyway, your expectations are validated. You feel like you broke the game.

The important difference in the latter case is one of agency. In the former case you're being restricted by forces you can't control. In the latter case you're flaunting the restrictions of someone trying to control you.

Calling both cases equally bad is like saying that it's just as bad for an innocent man to be convicted as it is for him to be freed on appeal, because in both cases he's walking through a prison gate.

The power that knocks someone prone is both story (you knock them down!) and gameplay (knocking them down has XYZ effects). When you can use it to knock down something that can't really be knocked down (by still giving them XYZ effects), there is a divide between the story you're telling and the mechanics you're using.

"Your mighty overhead swing squashes the ooze flat."

No there isn't.

Also, I notice you've targeted this one narrow case and not complained about, say, skeletons being bloodied. Why is that?

That's great, but it's not really the point of the conversation. If you want to move the goalposts and talk about that, sure, but it might be better to start a new thread for it, since that's not really what this thread is about as far as I can tell.

What I've been saying this whole time is that Craft and Profession have always required DM intervention anyway. The DM has always had to place Craft and Profession and their contexts in the world explicitly.

I don't see how that's not relevant to this conversation.

 

[billd91]

Also, I notice you've targeted this one narrow case and not complained about, say, skeletons being bloodied. Why is that?

While the term bloodied makes no sense in that context, we know it's just a term that means at or below half its hit points. It's not unreasonable to believe that there may be effects that make note of that for various story and game reasons.
Nevertheless, that's fundamentally different than imposing a condition on a creature that should be irrelevant (like the aforementioned prone ooze).

What I've been saying this whole time is that Craft and Profession have always required DM intervention anyway. The DM has always had to place Craft and Profession and their contexts in the world explicitly.

I don't see how that's not relevant to this conversation.

I think that's a fairly lame claim since every chance a PC has to exert any skill is ultimately there via DM intervention. PCs aren't climbing walls, forging documents, picking locks, or appraising antiques without the DM putting in opportunities to do so.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

While the term bloodied makes no sense in that context, we know it's just a term that means at or below half its hit points. It's not unreasonable to believe that there may be effects that make note of that for various story and game reasons.
Nevertheless, that's fundamentally different than imposing a condition on a creature that should be irrelevant (like the aforementioned prone ooze).

Basically, you're accepting that bloodied can stand for more then a bloody wound, but prone can stand for something different. WHy not use the same assumption for Oozes? Maybe if you knock down a Ooze (in game terms), you're cutting off one of his pseudopods - he has a harder time attacking or defending himself without it, and he will probably spend a move action to get his pseudopod back.

That is my preferred way handling this - if the typical understanding of a game term doesn't make sense, try to use a different one.