Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Rechan]

OT, but I notice you're in Southern MD, Psion. That's a nice place; I was living around Bethesda/Rockville for six months, really liked it there.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Craft and Profession skills were core, dude. There is absolutely no reason, no possible justification, for believing that 3e was designed with the intent that you would throw out core skills. Certainly you don't give one. Those skills were carefully worked into the entire rest of the product line.

Really?

I mean, how many people took the Skill Focus feat? What about the Forgery? How many strict European campaigns ditched the monk? How many parties had both a sorcerer and a wizard?

How many people used the town generation mechanics in the DMG?

How many people played the expert NPC class?

How many people used the Ythrak?

No, there are parts of the 3e core that were absolutely there for those who wanted them to use and for those who didn't want them to ignore. Being core (and being referenced in other products) doesn't mean they weren't part of that philosophy.

I've compared and contrasted the 3e system and the 4e system. I don't have much else to add here since you're not addressing any of those points and not taking a position of your own other than a general hope that someday a better system might come along, coupled with a weird disdain for 4e based on some awkward assumptions about the avoidance of rules bloat somehow representing selling out to the mediocre masses.

Well, I already answered the question this thread was started about. Several times. I really thought that part of the conversation was over, because the answer is so simple and obvious that I can't see it needing further explanation. Why? Because some people want them.

When you say "What matters is what most people want," I say that's debatable. It doesn't matter so much what most people want. It matters what diversity WotC wants to provide -- what support they want to provide for different play styles. The answer in 4e so far has been "not much," but it's early in the game's life yet, so maybe that will change.

I gave you two different models of how WotC might determine what they are providing.

Is it really that shocking that, because it doesn't support my style of play, I'm not a tremendous fan of 4e in many respects?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

What about the Forgery?

I ALWAYS took forgery. Forgery was awesome. Because nobody ever took forgery except me. And the skill check to see past forgery?

Forgery.

 

[Rechan]

That's different, and not what I was arguing.

Yes. We're talking about an NPC.

Actually, you were. You were the one who mentioned the greatest swordsman. Did you mean to say something else?

Even if I did, what does it matter? As you have proven in your last post, no matter how much I explain "I was not clear in saying something else", you will insist on arguing that I said something else because "That's what the thread is about".

I don't see how that's any better than "I don't like it/don't use it, therefore it shouldn'I t be in the main book"?

Because, as I have been saying since the first post, it's not "I don't like it; it shouldn't be there". It's "I don't think a vast majority even use it. SO it shouldn't be there."

Again, back to the thunderstones, guns and psionics. Whether it's in stock fantasy or not doesn't matter. It's use, not presence.

 

[Psion]

Yes. We're talking about an NPC.

Obviously, that was not clear to me. Now, I know that's what you meant; I've stated how my perception bears on this particular situation. If the character is the greatest swords smith in the world, I'm alright with plot-devicing him, knowing I could set his skill to whatever I need it to be.

However, this is a bit of an extraordinary situation. I don't consider encounters with the "world's greatest sword smith" to be any sort of a litmus test. Meeting craftsmen in villages and cities to perform needed tasks is far more the norm. And, as stated, I still maintain that having a system in place for NPCs is a convenience to qualify the scope of their abilities.

Even if I did, what does it matter? As you have proven in your last post, no matter how much I explain "I was not clear in saying something else", you will insist on arguing that I said something else because "That's what the thread is about".

From where I am standing, it appears you were backpedalling from the stated purpose of the thread. Even if you weren't, I've already stated that feats occupy a different role than feats, so I'm not sure why you brought it back up.

Because, as I have been saying since the first post, it's not "I don't like it; it shouldn't be there". It's "I don't think a vast majority even use it. SO it shouldn't be there."

Well, you won't be able to demonstrate that, but I think it's incorrect. If you dropped the word "vast", I might have shrugged my shoulders and said maybe.

Even if so, I really think KM has my proxy on this issue: that good games are best served serving a variety of tastes.

Your thesis question was "should games have such skills?". I think they should. When you asked the question were you genuinely interested in hearing the positions of other posters to learn why they thing so? Or were you only interested in shouting them down? Because from the last quoted paragraph, that's how it's looking.

But maybe it's late and you are getting grumpy and you ought to try again in the morning?

Again, back to the thunderstones, guns and psionics. Whether it's in stock fantasy or not doesn't matter. It's use, not presence.

To repeat myself from the last post, IMO something as ubiquitous in fantasy as capabilities represented by the craft and profession skills and adding as much flexibility to the game as those do certainly deserves a place in the core books more than thunderstones, guns, and even (yes) psionics.

 

[Hussar]

Rechan, you are going to be batting against the closed window for a long time with this one.

This is precisely the same argument that was floated for ejecting the gnome. Despite the fact that it was shown pretty clearly that very few people used the gnome, it should still be included because both gnome players obviously want it.

I admit, I don't agree with the argument either, but, that's how this goes.

 

[Hussar]

To repeat myself from the last post, IMO something as ubiquitous in fantasy as capabilities represented by the craft and profession skills and adding as much flexibility to the game as those do certainly deserves a place in the core books more than thunderstones, guns, and even (yes) psionics.

Ubiquitous? Really? How many protagonists from fantasy stories have craft or profession skills? NPC's, sure. But, then, with NPC's we don't need the rules in the first place. But protagonists? What crafting/profession skills did Aragorn or Gandalf have? Conan? Harry Potter? Merlin? Arthur? Odysseus? Captain Kirk?

Crafting is something the sidekick, at best, does. Usually it's some unimportant side character who does it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Despite the fact that it was shown pretty clearly that very few people used the gnome, it should still be included because both gnome players obviously want it.

I admit, I don't agree with the argument either, but, that's how this goes.

Well, it should only be included if you feel that those two gnome players are important elements to your hobby and deserve some nod of support.

The movie industry considers little indie films to be very much an important element deserving of support, even if they only hit niche markets.

One reason for that is that if you don't cater to the niche yourself, someone else will gather together all the little niches and find a good way of catering to them like how cable TV did.

To recap, as I see it.
Rechan: Professin/Crafting skills...why does anyone need 'em?
Some Posters: Some play styles worry more about them than others.
Rechan: So what? MOST play styles don't worry about them
At least me: The idea that D&D should only support the broadest play style and completely ignore others has some very deep flaws.

Crafting is something the sidekick, at best, does. Usually it's some unimportant side character who does it.

You vastly underestimate the importance of crafting to some players, and overestimate the amount of literature-emulation going on in D&D.

I'll boil down to the following response:

Different strokes for different folks.

4e has chosen to, in this regard, not support one of those different strokes. Like tossing Gary Coleman out of that penthouse.

Is it really that hard to grok that some people enjoy playing crafty characters and that they would like a craft system that is more robust than DM fiat? Or that some DMs enjoy the granularity of some sort of craft system more than they enjoy makin' stuff up?

 

[Hussar]

The problem becomes, where do you stop KM? How small of a niche do you have to cater to before it becomes too small?

And, remember, if you cater to that niche, with rules that affect other rules, then you are forcing everyone to deal with this, not just the niche. Crafting is perhaps not a huge deal since it's pretty easy to ignore. Same with profession. But, it does stand out.

Why does my master weapon smith need to be 12th level after all? The profession/crafting rules do have a pretty large effect on setting design. It's adding more work for every DM out there, whether or not they choose to ignore that work is up to them, but, it's still adding more work.

All to cater to a small number? I'm not sure if that's a good way to go. Why not eject it from core and add it as a supplement? If enough people want it, then fine and dandy. But, why subject everyone to something only a small number of people want?

 

[Imp]

The thing is, there are a lot of little niche playstyles, and when you get done carving off a bunch of 2-percenters, you wind up really shrinking the appeal of the game (or whatever).

Basically this is the platonic-D&D vs. toolbox-D&D argument.

I would imagine 4e is going to head more towards toolbox as more supplements come out, unless they've really got a game rigged up.