Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[I'm A Banana]

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.

This statement is incomprehensible to me. They are very much different things. That is why there are different words for them. That is why upthread there was said to be a "wall" between the two. A division between the two is the only way the OP's concept of a DM Fiat Profession or Crafting system can work (you let them do whatever makes sense as long as it doesn't affect the mechanics, and because it doesn't affect the mechanics, it doesn't really matter what they do).

They are both ideas, sure. But so is Democracy, and so is a Triangle, and I would very much say that Democracy and a Triangle are, somehow, different things.

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.

But the original quote didn't talk about overlap. It talked about a division. A separation. Here it is again.

What I'm saying is that I like games where the story and gameplay go hand in hand, while in most JRPGs story and gameplay are kept either side of a wrought iron fence made of tigers.

That's very clearly a division. A very intense division.

Upthread, the same thing was talked about: a division.

You know what's important to me? Story. And I believe there is a moat and stone wall between Story and Mechanics.

Heck, let's even go into 4e rulebooks themselves.

...values narrative elements over mechanical ones...the rules are there to support the game's ongoing story...when the rules get in the way, the narrative should win...the rules are all about determining whether you succeed or fail at the tasks you attempt...encounters are where the game happens...

And I'm sure there are more.

So unless Rechan and Yahtzee and every 4e designer are all very very mistaken on what they are talking about, it is safe to assume that, yes, there IS a difference between mechanics and story. Somehow.

With regards to a Craft/Profession system, the OP suggested that because they don't affect the rules, a system where the DMs just adjudicate the results should be satisfying for everyone. The issue with that is that not everyone is happy with a system that doesn't affect the rules. The reason this is because not everyone is happy with there being a wall between mechanics and story. There is at least something of a wall there, if all the writing about 4e (including the "silo" theory) is to be believed, and I see every reason to believe that body of evidence over your own insistence that there is no difference because they are "ideas."

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

True. If they don't carry over there is a barrier. That barrier, for me, is a bad thing. 4e has that barrier, and this is a bad thing for me.

If we can agree on that, we don't have any real debate, here.

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

Because I addressed them.

No one asked you to. People do ask D&D to, but D&D doesn't, so it is still valid, because D&D hasn't done it. That's what this thread is about, after all: D&D. Not your pet house rules, but the published rules of the game. The OP suggested that DM Fiat is perfectly OK, people disagree, and that disagreement is entirely valid, regardless of how many posts with suggestions you make.

 

[GlaziusF]

This statement is incomprehensible to me. They are very much different things. That is why there are different words for them. That is why upthread there was said to be a "wall" between the two. A division between the two is the only way the OP's concept of a DM Fiat Profession or Crafting system can work (you let them do whatever makes sense as long as it doesn't affect the mechanics, and because it doesn't affect the mechanics, it doesn't really matter what they do).

They are both ideas, sure. But so is Democracy, and so is a Triangle, and I would very much say that Democracy and a Triangle are, somehow, different things.

But let's say you have a square and a triangle. Not the same thing, are they? But you can still talk about area and perimeter as it applies to both of them, because they're closed plane figures, and all closed plane figures have areas and perimeters.

The story and the mechanics both articulate relationships between ideas. Story in the default human set-theory model, with maybe a little bit of comparison - Company X arrived before Company Y and after Company Z - and mechanics expressing more complex numerical relationships. But you can interpret the results of the mechanics at the story level - if you run the starting positions of Companies X, Y, and Z, the terrain they had to cover, and their average traveling speeds, you could work out what order they arrived in.

But the original quote didn't talk about overlap. It talked about a division. A separation. Here it is again.

That's very clearly a division. A very intense division.

Upthread, the same thing was talked about: a division.

Heck, let's even go into 4e rulebooks themselves.

And I'm sure there are more.

So unless Rechan and Yahtzee and every 4e designer are all very very mistaken on what they are talking about, it is safe to assume that, yes, there IS a difference between mechanics and story. Somehow.

Curse you, lack of nested quotes.

But really, you're undermining your own argument. If mechanics and story really were different, then nobody would be fussing about keeping them apart. I mean, does it even make sense to say "whenever Democracy gets in the way of a Triangle, the Triangle should win"? Of course not, since Democracy and Triangle have nothing to do with each other.

But story and mechanics are trying to address the same thing: the behavior of the game world.

With regards to a Craft/Profession system, the OP suggested that because they don't affect the rules, a system where the DMs just adjudicate the results should be satisfying for everyone.

Um, the DM always adjudicates the results. What kind of D&D are you playing that the DM doesn't?

The issue with that is that not everyone is happy with a system that doesn't affect the rules. The reason this is because not everyone is happy with there being a wall between mechanics and story. There is at least something of a wall there, if all the writing about 4e (including the "silo" theory) is to be believed, and I see every reason to believe that body of evidence over your own insistence that there is no difference because they are "ideas."

The wall isn't between mechanics and story but should be between explicit and implicit skills. Implicit skills have hooks that need to be specially removed by the DM (for example, an unclimbable wall, or a Beefeater-style undistractable guard) while explicit skills have hooks that need to be specially placed by the DM.

Explicit skills, because they are deliberately placed, are more story-related, since the DM is responsible for creating the story. Having them draw from the same pool as the implicit skills means that characters have to sacrifice their general utility in the world for the ability to participate in the story, which I don't believe is a desirable outcome.

True. If they don't carry over there is a barrier. That barrier, for me, is a bad thing. 4e has that barrier, and this is a bad thing for me.

If we can agree on that, we don't have any real debate, here.

Next you'll be saying there's a barrier because somebody creates a city inspector and makes him a Rogue, to model his stealth, agility, and general ability to foil locks and misdirect criminals. But wait! Isn't a "rogue" an outlaw? How can you make someone who works not only within the law but to uphold the law and call him a "rogue"?!

The names for mechanical features are intended to evoke certain broad ideas to make them easy to remember, but they encompass more than just those ideas, so they don't always map perfectly onto the story. Nor should they, because that would mean sacrificing utility for the sake of preventing a few seconds' confusion.

No one asked you to.

I'm sorry, I thought you were raising those dissonances so you could have them resolved, not because you wanted to complain about how the books didn't resolve them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

you can interpret the results of the mechanics at the story level

And if you don't, there is a divide.

If mechanics and story really were different, then nobody would be fussing about keeping them apart. I mean, does it even make sense to say "whenever Democracy gets in the way of a Triangle, the Triangle should win"? Of course not, since Democracy and Triangle have nothing to do with each other.

But story and mechanics are trying to address the same thing: the behavior of the game world.

I'm with you, here.

I'm saying that, for me, it is the best when they both address the behavior of the game world, when they inform each other and, together, shape the behavior of the game world.

When one or the other has to "win out," it is unsatisfying. They should work together. The story should lead naturally into mechanics which should lead again into story which leads again into mechanics. They should work together, rather than be separate. When mechanics has to win out (when you "trip" an ooze because it would be unfair to rob someone of their ability), it doesn't satisfy me. When story has to win out (when you have to decide an NPC's role in a metagame sense before the PC's even deal with it), it doesn't satisfy me. When the two work together (a mechanic that erodes your Sanity score and thus causes character twitches) it is the most satisfying.

Um, the DM always adjudicates the results. What kind of D&D are you playing that the DM doesn't?

There is all the difference in the world between a system that the DM adjudicates, and the DM simply handwaving it.

If there wasn't, I wouldn't need 900 pages of rules.

Having them draw from the same pool as the implicit skills means that characters have to sacrifice their general utility in the world for the ability to participate in the story, which I don't believe is a desirable outcome.

They don't have to be drawn from the same pool of resources. They just have to have a mechanically measurable effect, somewhere. They can be silo'd away from combat easily enough.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda...4e didn't. And this isn't OK for some people, because other games DO, and the desirability of an impact may, in fact, trump whatever failings the system does have.

Next you'll be saying there's a barrier because somebody creates a city inspector and makes him a Rogue, to model his stealth, agility, and general ability to foil locks and misdirect criminals. But wait! Isn't a "rogue" an outlaw? How can you make someone who works not only within the law but to uphold the law and call him a "rogue"?!

If there was an explicit link between class title and character description, yeah, that might be a problem. In fact, I believe this was one of the reasons that it's not called "thief" anymore? So that the class title can be applicable to a broader range of archetypes? Yeah.

Fortunately for most, that's a relatively minor offender when compared to the complete lack of a crafting system (for instance).

I'm sorry, I thought you were raising those dissonances so you could have them resolved, not because you wanted to complain about how the books didn't resolve them.

Well, the OP offered a system they thought should be good enough for anyone.

I told them why it wasn't (and, by extension, why 4e's isn't). Defending that position has pretty much been my MO. That position doesn't need solutions, it just needs to be accepted ("Yes, 4e is lacking a detailed crafting system, and I can see, if it is very important to you, how 4e might be lacking, in that respect!") or denied ("No, 4e is not lacking a detailed crafting system. Here is what you missed:").

Once we're aware of what the problem is, we can worry about solutions for it, but I feel like I'm having enough difficulty even establishing the presence of a problem (and I can't understand why it is this difficult to establish).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That position doesn't need solutions, it just needs to be accepted ("Yes, 4e is lacking a detailed crafting system, and I can see, if it is very important to you, how 4e might be lacking, in that respect!") or denied ("No, 4e is not lacking a detailed crafting system. Here is what you missed:").

Hey, I already did that! I said you it doesn't have a craft mechanic, and if for some reason you need that, it's a failure of the game for you!

Why is my acceptance not enough??? Don't you like me?!





Of course, why are we expanding the issue and talk about general aspects like "game mechanics vs story/narrative" then? I suppose that was the only way to get to the insane amount of pages we are already.

 

[GlaziusF]

And if you don't, there is a divide.

Eh, not really. Sometimes Company Y stops for some R&R and Company Z gets helped across the river by a friendly giant.

I'm with you, here.

I'm saying that, for me, it is the best when they both address the behavior of the game world, when they inform each other and, together, shape the behavior of the game world.

When one or the other has to "win out," it is unsatisfying. They should work together. The story should lead naturally into mechanics which should lead again into story which leads again into mechanics. They should work together, rather than be separate.

Uh, to not conflict, they have to be separate. When they conflict, that's evidence they're both pulling on the same game-world behavior, but they're doing it in different ways.

Which is actually kinda an inevitable consequence if you give people a lot of leeway with what mechanics apply to or what kind of stories they tell.

The thing with video games is that the programmers set up the limits of the mechanics and the limits of the story ahead of time, so it's easier to create the sort of "to you! To me!" thing you talk about here. But in a system intended for a broad audience, corner conflict cases are pretty much inevitable.

When mechanics has to win out (when you "trip" an ooze because it would be unfair to rob someone of their ability), it doesn't satisfy me. When story has to win out (when you have to decide an NPC's role in a metagame sense before the PC's even deal with it), it doesn't satisfy me.

You don't "trip" an ooze, you knock it prone. Can an ooze "drop prone" to, say, avoid ranged attacks? Why not? I'm pretty sure you can picture an ochre jelly just kind of flattening itself and slithering along the ground, and then puffing back up to slam into somebody. Do you have a problem with knocking flying things prone? I mean, there's not much of a way to trip those either.

As for NPC role - you're talking about brute, controller, soldier, etc? That's like complaining that PCs have to decide their role before they fight any battles.

There is all the difference in the world between a system that the DM adjudicates, and the DM simply handwaving it.

If there wasn't, I wouldn't need 900 pages of rules.

...did you just add the page count of the core rulebooks together, or is that the actual count of the rules you play with? Man, how long does it take you to answer a question at the table?

But all those rules really are, are prepared handwaving. They've been tested, somewhat, to ensure they don't break any other rules in obvious ways, but they're just as arbitrary. It's not like there's a reinforced steel room at WotC with a giant rugged impact sensor and people analyzing how hard a titan swings a greatclub.

They don't have to be drawn from the same pool of resources. They just have to have a mechanically measurable effect, somewhere. They can be silo'd away from combat easily enough.

That's the core of the problem. Explicit-hook skills have possible effects introduced entirely at the DM's discretion, so having a player weight them really just amounts to the players and DM picking arbitrary numbers and hoping in the end they mean something.

I told them why it wasn't (and, by extension, why 4e's isn't). Defending that position has pretty much been my MO. That position doesn't need solutions, it just needs to be accepted ("Yes, 4e is lacking a detailed crafting system, and I can see, if it is very important to you, how 4e might be lacking, in that respect!") or denied ("No, 4e is not lacking a detailed crafting system. Here is what you missed:").

Once we're aware of what the problem is, we can worry about solutions for it, but I feel like I'm having enough difficulty even establishing the presence of a problem (and I can't understand why it is this difficult to establish).

4E has a standard skill challenge system. I've detailed upthread how it could be adapted to crafting challenges and how crafter backgrounds could feed into it.

What isn't covered?

 

[Ace]

I like craft skills because they add verisimilitude. They make my game feel more realistic and more like a real place. It also allows me to have an easy way to have an occasional oddball adventure and to stat out NPC's.

I just flat out feel better about say a fighter character with Spot, Profession Sailor, Balance and Rope Use on the sheet rather than just saying "he is a a sailor"