Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 4499831" data-attributes="member: 99">Lots of interesting replies since I was last able to visit this thread.First of all, Guomindong, your posts are trending more and more toward the jerkish and you need to cut that out.  I GET that you think that craft and profession skills are not something needed in this (or any) RPG.  Since a great many RPG's see fit to include them then I would say that there is room for disagreement on the subject.  You stating categorically that this is essentially badwrongfun is not conducive to further conversation.  So knock it off.  You're plenty smart enough to have a reasonable discussion on the matter.Personally, as evidenced by my earlier replies in this thread, I like the inclusion of such skills and was slightly (not majorly) disappointed that they were not included in 4e.  Enough so that I quickly thought up the house rule that I posted earlier in the thread.But to clarify that position, I fully acknowledge the problems with the manner in which those skills were applied as part of the overall skill system in 3.x.  The problem, as many of you point out, is that those skills had to be bought with the same set of points that you bought the skills that see a lot more use in day to day adventuring.  So when you are faced with either maxing out your Spot skill or putting points in Basketweaving, while you might find the second more flavorful, you know that you're going to be making Spot rolls like every 10 minutes.That is precisely why I suggested a house rule that was an adjunct to rather than replacement of the skills you could already select.  You are not sacrificing any of the skills that you would already be trained at.  These extra skills utilize the same mechanics of the current skill system but don't use up any of the finite resource that you already have to manage during character creation.I like the sense of realism that I get from this because, in my experience, people tend to have skills and talents that fall outside of their work oriented skills.  Some tax accountants are great at basketball and some policemen are great at painting.  I don't expect for policemen to skip time at the shooting range honing a skill that might save their life in favor of painting a picture of flowers.  But it seems reasonable that they might develop such a skill outside the context of their normal (and vital) job skills.  Again, IN ADDITION TO not INSTEAD OF their other skills.I take the point of those who say that the existing skills can be used to make Skill Challenges that model these things.  It's a totally fair position.  However I prefer an extra layer of specificity that brings greater enjoyment of the game for me and my group.If I do not add on that extra layer then the rolls that I'd have somebody make for playing a set of drums is probably the same as I'd have them roll for playing a lute.  And that's totally fine.  But if somebody says, "I want my character to be really great at the Lute," then my house rule gives me a tool to let them.Again, the retort to this is, "If they want to be great at the Lute then just let them succeed and not bother rolling."  If that's the way you would prefer to handle it then fine.  For me and my group the possibility of failure adds a tension to the game that is enjoyable.  It makes success all the sweeter and it makes the rare failures (because if you want to be great at the Lute then you probably don't fail often) memorable and the sorts of things where later the PC might return to that inn and redeem himself against his former opponent.  I think that's cool.  I don't insist that you also think it's cool.I DO insist that everybody remain respectful of one another in this thread.</blockquote>

Verification