Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[billd91]

Basically, you're accepting that bloodied can stand for more then a bloody wound, but prone can stand for something different.

One difference: bloodied is essentially just defined as being at half hit points or below that may have an effect on certain powers. Prone is a defined condition that really doesn't seem applicable for all opponents. It wouldn't really be a severe hardship to recognize that there are some instances where a power really shouldn't work the way it works for most other cases... depending on the characteristics of the target.
But by putting the square peg and putting it in the round hole, we end up feeling disconnected.

 

[Thasmodious]

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.

The statement he is maknig, as I see it, is different from the one you are defending.

"This system fails to meet my needs" is markedly different from "This system is a failure because it doesn't meet my needs"

"I need a bicycle to have refridgeration for my beverage" is different from "this bicycle fails because it doesn't have refridgeration, despite still being a bicycle." From what I am reading, KM is saying the latter, rather than the former, and that is what I am arguing against. I could certainly be wrong, but that's how I'm reading his comments in this thread (and if I am wrong, Midget, feel free to tell me off for it).

My problem with that is in the unrealistic bar that sets. If the judgment of the success of a system, or a design, is the necessity of meeting every conceivable need/desire, then there will never be a successful system. One mans crafting is another mans assassins table. Saying that 4e is not the system for you because it doesn't have crafting, or you don't like the powers structure, is perfectly valid. There are many RPGs, one can search for and find the ruleset that comes closest to presenting a fantasy game in the manner that the person identifies with. But labeling something a 'failure' for not meeting your specific needs/wants, when the design met its own goals, is a bit warped, imo. "Its not the system for me" is a far cry from "4e is a failure because I have to implement my own crafting/profession/assassination/gestalt/spaceship rules." No system can account for everything. Every group I have ever gamed with has houseruled at least something in the system they were using. A game system specifically designing elements to make house rules easy to implement, easy to ensure their balance, is successful design, not a failure to include -whatevertheheck-.

I think including in the design, the ability to modify the design to suit the needs/desires of the end user and allows the individual gamer to play the game that suits their group without accidentally killing the game, is quite progressive in RPG game design, and certainly not a key feature of most systems. This is why I guess it jerks my chain when someone is complaining that 4e doesn't include -whatevertheheck- and then they include this statement at the end - "and don't give me that 'just add it into the game yourself' garbage, I shouldn't HAVE TO!" It's a very egocentric position to expect or demand a game must somehow be designed around your specific playstyle/needs. And on top of it, its a bit out there to argue "I shouldn't have to" when the design specifically relegates subsystems to the realm of houserule and allows for their inclusion.

D&D has an objective, identifiable, core of gameplay. And it is not crafting, it is not manipulation of economic markets for profit, it is not ruling kingdoms or building castles. All those things can be a part of any individual game, and are often great elements, but the core gameplay is encounter resolution. Focusing the rules on that and relegating everything else to houserule, future supplements, third party and community sources, is a fairly bold design, and, I think, much more logical a solution than picking and choosing what of any hundreds of subsystems should be included. These have always changed from edition to edition anyway, based on the egocentrics of the designers own playstyles - "well of course we need a table of clothing and descriptions and price lists for a hundred mundane items that no one ever really needs and rarely directly impacts gameplay". And edition to edition, there are always players crying out "what about -whatevertheheck-, how come it was removed or not included?"

To me, 4e is much closer to a complete system than the D&D brand had previously accomplished. Its more modular design makes it easy to modify, easy to fix (a broken power requires a minor tweak, rather than a complete overhaul; such as with melee-magic disparity in previous editions), and easy to expand, both on a per group basis, and through supplmental material, whether from Wizards or the 3PPs. A "complete system" can't include everything in the rules, thats impossible (or highly improbable). Instead, the approach would be a modular design in which many elements could easily be incorporated (which, I realize, is what you are saying and where we agree, I'm just elaborating on my own thoughts here). I think 4e is, if not all the way there itself, a huge step in that direction.

 

[GlaziusF]

One difference: bloodied is essentially just defined as being at half hit points or below that may have an effect on certain powers. Prone is a defined condition that really doesn't seem applicable for all opponents. It wouldn't really be a severe hardship to recognize that there are some instances where a power really shouldn't work the way it works for most other cases... depending on the characteristics of the target.
But by putting the square peg and putting it in the round hole, we end up feeling disconnected.

Prone is just as much a defined condition as bloodied is. It applies more than a flag - it applies a set of modifiers and action restrictions - but it's just as much a defined condition. It, like bloodied, evokes an image, and if the image doesn't match up with what's going on the solution is, like bloodied, not to deny the condition exists but rectify the image.

If a creature has an innate power stating that it cannot be knocked prone, that's just fine, but in the absence of such a power the prone condition must be applied.

 

[GlaziusF]

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.

I have detected a subtle flaw in your logic.

It is possible to think of a situation that doesn't involve any need to forge documents.

It is markedly less possible to think of a situation that involves no vertical surfaces.

Or, put another way, the obstacle for forgery is "an NPC who recognizes remote authority and bureaucracy" and the obstacle for climb is "gravity". Which is a given situation more likely to lack?

Yes, right, there might be a giant citadel in the Elemental Plane of Air, made of planes of force, with a gate-guard. But I had to work to come up with that. I don't have to sell my players on the mysterious force of "gravity".

 

[billd91]

I have detected a subtle flaw in your logic.

It is possible to think of a situation that doesn't involve any need to forge documents.

It is markedly less possible to think of a situation that involves no vertical surfaces.

Or, put another way, the obstacle for forgery is "an NPC who recognizes remote authority and bureaucracy" and the obstacle for climb is "gravity". Which is a given situation more likely to lack?

Yes, right, there might be a giant citadel in the Elemental Plane of Air, made of planes of force, with a gate-guard. But I had to work to come up with that. I don't have to sell my players on the mysterious force of "gravity".

And yet, for climbing walls to have any story relevance, the DM still has to make it so. Might it be easier than using a craft skill? Maybe. But the process is still the same. Skills are as relevant as the DM makes them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And yet, for climbing walls to have any story relevance, the DM still has to make it so. Might it be easier than using a craft skill? Maybe. But the process is still the same. Skills are as relevant as the DM makes them.

Going from the typical D&D dungeon exploration element (or wilderness travel element at some levels in some editions), doesn't Climb still look more important then Forgery? Heck, even in a city adventure, it seems more likely to need Climb during a chase or "breaking and entering" scenario then using Forgery at any point...

(In all these examples, you can also include Craft, Profession or Perform)

 

[billd91]

Going from the typical D&D dungeon exploration element (or wilderness travel element at some levels in some editions), doesn't Climb still look more important then Forgery? Heck, even in a city adventure, it seems more likely to need Climb during a chase or "breaking and entering" scenario then using Forgery at any point...

(In all these examples, you can also include Craft, Profession or Perform)

Again, it depends a great deal on the type of game you're running. I've played in and run games where the right documentation has been very important in certain circumstances and forgery has been more useful than climbing walls when it comes to getting to the right places. When you're breaking and entering, you have to keep sneaking or get caught. But if you've got the right passes (or what passes for the right passes), you can walk out in the open...

EDIT: And, if using stealth, that means the 1 or 2 stealthy PCs in the party get to be the ones doing the sneaking, thus splitting the party and leaving both groups more vulnerable. But with a single good forger, we can ALL get into the game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, it depends a great deal on the type of game you're running. I've played in and run games where the right documentation has been very important in certain circumstances and forgery has been more useful than climbing walls when it comes to getting to the right places. When you're breaking and entering, you have to keep sneaking or get caught. But if you've got the right passes (or what passes for the right passes), you can walk out in the open...

EDIT: And, if using stealth, that means the 1 or 2 stealthy PCs in the party get to be the ones doing the sneaking, thus splitting the party and leaving both groups more vulnerable. But with a single good forger, we can ALL get into the game.

Of course. If you play a different game from the typical D&D assumptions, forged documentation can be more important than climbing over obstacles. Or Calligraphy. Or Tea Ceremonies. Of course it depends on the type of games you play in! But every games makes assumptions what are the more likely types of games to be played in it. It's hard to go without such assumptions. The question is how much do you want to expand beyond the scope of your core assumptions.
Taking Craft as the example? Are the 3E Craft rules any good? It seems strange to me how long it would actually take to create something like a Full Plate or a Masterwork Longsword? Are the times "realistic"? Do the rules make sense? I have no idea. They exist (and they are simple and in a way I actually like them), sure, but if my game was actually trying to cover Crafting rules, I would bet they would look very different. And I suppose they also wouldn't "break down" once you entered magical items - they would built into the "real" Craft system from the get-go!

There comes a time in every type of creative work where you have to decide "I am finished. Now it's time to get others to "use" my stuff. (Using can be reading, watching, playing, studying, whatever). And sometimes you have to just admit that there are things you can't do in the time frame you had set yourself, unless you do them half-baked.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I can, in full honesty, state that I've used Forgery far more then Climb. Moments in game that happen in cities are far more often then moments in game that happen next to large cliffs with not a single pathway going up and no other method of reaching the top.

 

[billd91]

Of course. If you play a different game from the typical D&D assumptions, forged documentation can be more important than climbing over obstacles. Or Calligraphy. Or Tea Ceremonies.

I did, in fact, run lots of Oriental Adventures. Impromptu poetry contests in front of the daimyo and all. Running a game like that did encourage me to find outlets for using "non-adventuring" skills.