Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Jhaelen]

I can, in full honesty, state that I've used Forgery far more then Climb.

Amazing. Since I've never seen that skill used I even forgot it existed.
I have trouble to even think of things anyone might want to forge in a typical D&D game.

 

[Scribble]

In my last full 3e campaign forgery was used a number of times. Nowhere near the amount of times climb was used, but it was used.

I'm amazed that someone could use it more then climb though... Climb just seems like one of those skills that is used a lot. Even in our most non dungeon campaign intrigue moments, there was always someone climbing something somewhere.

I don't dislike "background" type skills, but I don't think not having them in the new system is really damaging. Since ability checks increase with level at the same rate as non-trained skills really the skill list is infinite. If you can think it, you can try it.

Also forgery falls under bluff now doesn't it?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think there are different degrees of failure.

Absolutely right. But these degrees are relative. All we can really objectively decide is whether or not it is a failure at all to anyone. The OP says that it's not, others say that it is. Unless everyone who says that it is is somehow lying or being deceptive or dishonest, it fails for them, which means it does fail.

The only question after that is "How badly does it fail?"

That's a pretty subjective question, though, and opinions are going to vary a lot. For some, it's not a failure at all, but a success even! That's fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean it's not a failure for others (even if it's not a failure for you).

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.

Actually, it really does. The measure for success for a game system is how many things I need that it provides for me. The theoretical ideal game system for me would have everything I needed or wanted in it, and nothing that I didn't need. If it doesn't provide something I want or need, that's a failure.

Yes, that's an unattainable ideal. No, I would never expect a game system to ever actually provide everyone with everything. It is still fair to say that 4e doesn't provide some things that some people need and that not providing that is a failure for these people. Saying 4e isn't a perfect system shouldn't be blasphemy. Pointing out that 4e might not meet everyone's needs isn't sacrilege. It is the very nature of every game out there, and it must be recognized and dealt with.

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

It doesn't matter how hard you stress it, it doesn't make it true.

The wrought iron fence of tigers is a barrier between mechanics and story. Period. Full stop. Nothing else matters. It is this barrier. That is all it is, and that is everything it is. That is what I am referring to. The barrier. That's all. Nothing else. It is the barrier.

Wrought Iron Fence Made Of Tigers = When Story and Mechanics don't affect each other in a particularly noticeable way.

Everything else is superfluous, because these are all caused by that barrier being in place in the first place. That barrier, the tiger-fence, the divide between story and mechanics is, for me, a bad thing.

The barrier sucks for me, the barrier causes many problems, one of the problems the barrier may cause is that DM Fiat craft or profession systems aren't very satisfying for games where crafting or professions are important.

"the barrier" = wrought iron fence made of tigers. It's a useful term.

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

That's probably a valid dissonance, too, it's just a less blatant. The basic point is that the dissonance does exist. It is out there. Some games experience it. There is a divide. There is a barrier. That barrier is very strong in many places. Strong enough to cause a dissonance. The strength of this barrier makes it a wrought iron fence made of tigers. That dissonance does exist. That's the point. The point is that there is a dissonance, and that this dissonance is a problem.

Agree that there can be a dissonance? Good. We agree that some people will have a valid problem with there being a dissonance. We agree that this is less than ideal for those people. This, then, makes it a failure, however narrow or minor or easily fixed it is (because how narrow and minor and easily fixed it is is a more subjective issue).

This shouldn't really need much of a justification. It's like saying that 4e fails to accommodate those who want a highly political game of intrigue where they play vampires in hiding in the modern day. Really? A game system isn't perfect? It can't do everything out of the box? shocker.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I had Oriental Adventures in mind when I selected this two skills, too.

I wouldn't be too surprised if a 4E campaign setting that leaves the standard PoL assumptions behind will introduce such aspects eventually. But I would not count on it using actual skill checks.

Earthdawn had an interesting "cultural" aspect in it - horrors and horror-related creatures were unable to do artistic stuff. To test if someone could be trusted enough to let him into a settlement, people had to show a piece of artwork they created. This might point out you need a craft like skill dealing with this.

But do you really? Or do you just need a note on your character sheet, listening: Arts (Calligraphy) or Arts (Carving)? Do you really need to roll a check? By the background idea, the only thing you care about is whether people actually have the ability to be "artsy" - they don't have to prove grand mastership in it.

In Oriental Adventures, it might be different. There might actually be a need for a "contest" or you need to achieve a certain degree of quality to be considered "worthy" enough to get in contact with a particular person, or to gain a position.

On the other hand, if "Craft" is just about creating a certain item - do you care about success or failure? A DC based system (like the skill system) might turn out inappropriate, since a trained smith will not fail forging a sword - the question is only if it will be a masterful one, and maybe how much time it takes him.

 

[billd91]

I had Oriental Adventures in mind when I selected this two skills, too.

<snip>

In Oriental Adventures, it might be different. There might actually be a need for a "contest" or you need to achieve a certain degree of quality to be considered "worthy" enough to get in contact with a particular person, or to gain a position.

One additional thing about OA-style games. There may be characters expected via social pressure to "waste" their time with courtly or intellectual pursuits (like samurai). And making them spend skill points on it works very well to model that expectation. Plus, it's a good way to impress your lord, visiting dignitaries, and so on with your impressive flower arrangement... or to create a total faux pas by blowing it.

 

[Jhaelen]

Earthdawn had an interesting "cultural" aspect in it - horrors and horror-related creatures were unable to do artistic stuff. To test if someone could be trusted enough to let him into a settlement, people had to show a piece of artwork they created. This might point out you need a craft like skill dealing with this.

But do you really? Or do you just need a note on your character sheet, listening: Arts (Calligraphy) or Arts (Carving)? Do you really need to roll a check? By the background idea, the only thing you care about is whether people actually have the ability to be "artsy" - they don't have to prove grand mastership in it.

I've been thinking about Earthdawn in this context, too. And I've come to the same conclusion: It's really sufficient to note that you have the skill. In several years of playing Earthdawn I cannot think of anyone actually training the skill.

Then again I do remember a session that took an unexpected turn when one of the pcs first botched his craft roll and then failed to get even a poor result after two retries. But is that sufficient to legitimate it as a (separate) skill?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Amazing. Since I've never seen that skill used I even forgot it existed.
I have trouble to even think of things anyone might want to forge in a typical D&D game.

Depending upon the nature of the campaign, you might wish to forge:

1) Financial documents: promissory notes, letters of credit, bills of sale or lading, gaming chips or even coins or notes of the realm.

2) Political documents: Letters of Diplomatic Status, Passports, Royal or Trade/Craft seals.

3) Legal documents: Writs of Habeas Corpus, Warrants for arrest, Wills, Letters of Introduction, proofs of geneology.

 

[jensun]

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.

You have never scaled the smooth marble walls of the Temple of Set to steal the Emerald Eye of the Serpent God?

And here I thought the old school gaming method prmoted a sword and sorccery approach to conflict resolution.

 

[Scribble]

Seems like 4e is handling skills and abilities in difefrent ways.

Skills seem regulated to things that can be answered with a yes/no answer

Did you notice that thing? Yes/No?
Did the creature call your bluff? Yes/No
Can you walk across the tight rope? Yes/No

They're also things that don't require anything but the person doing it.

I tell a lie (bluff)
I try to persuade (diplomacy)
I try to hide (stealth)

Whereas stuff that takes longer, and requires raw materials like making stuff (alchemy) or more elaborate spells (rituals) use a combination of feats + skill checks.

Seems like crafting, or performing, would work in a similar fashion. 9Since both of them require more time, raw m,aterials, and a formula of sorts)

Just make a feat in order to do things like forgery, or disguises, and then a "ritual" for creating various things... False documents, false coins, etc... make bluff a prereq, but use various other skills as needed (like rituals do)

You could even do the same for other crafting skills or performance skills.

bards could have a list of "performances" that fucntion like rituals in a way but have more "bardy" sort of effects. Use streetwise, to symbolize the bard tuning into his crowd to see what's working and what's not, but again use other skill;s like rituals do...

Maybe knowledge history for the bard to recite a specific epic poem or something.

 

[GlaziusF]

It doesn't matter how hard you stress it, it doesn't make it true.

Ha! "True". That's a good one. Try "useful", it lasts longer.

The wrought iron fence of tigers is a barrier between mechanics and story. Period. Full stop. Nothing else matters. It is this barrier. That is all it is, and that is everything it is. That is what I am referring to. The barrier. That's all. Nothing else. It is the barrier.

Wrought Iron Fence Made Of Tigers = When Story and Mechanics don't affect each other in a particularly noticeable way.

Everything else is superfluous, because these are all caused by that barrier being in place in the first place. That barrier, the tiger-fence, the divide between story and mechanics is, for me, a bad thing.

The barrier sucks for me, the barrier causes many problems, one of the problems the barrier may cause is that DM Fiat craft or profession systems aren't very satisfying for games where crafting or professions are important.

"the barrier" = wrought iron fence made of tigers. It's a useful term.

Not used that way, it's not, because there is no barrier.

Story and mechanics are not, somehow, different things. They're the same thing. In the video game, they're both code. In the real world, they're both ideas.

Yahtzee perceives "the fence" because all he has access to is the gameplay; the story is predetermined by the programmers. It's not that gameplay and story are somehow separate; in fact, he's only coming across "the fence" because gameplay and story are trying to do the same things (in his canonical example, control where the character is going) and story is trumping gameplay. This isn't evidence of separation but of overlap -- gameplay is failing because story said so.

The "wrought iron fence made of tigers" is really only a valid criticism when it comes to a video game, where the story and to some extent the gameplay are both predetermined. Short of masterful editing tools, the story is not changeable.

But in a pencil-and-paper game, the players provide the gameplay, the DM arbitrates the story, and story only trumps gameplay when the DM decides it does. The responsibility ultimately lies with the DM, and it's also within the DM's power to restrict or change gameplay, for example by introducing new systems (both house rules and published products).

That's probably a valid dissonance, too, it's just a less blatant.

What, are you kidding? It's more blatant. Skeletons don't even HAVE blood!

Just because the vocabulary used to describe the mechanics implies something, that doesn't mean those implications have to carry over into the story.

The dissonance is only valid so far as it's unaddressed, which means that neither one is valid anymore.

Because I addressed them.