Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Pondering this thread, it occurs to me that there are a bunch of separate questions:
Do RPGs need thievery mechanics?
Do we need rules for sneaking around, opening locks, detecting traps, picking pockets, forgery, etc.? Personally I think the answer is yes, because I enjoy those narrative elements. At the same time, I find most implementations problematic, as attested to by very long threads that often appear on those topics.
If yes to the above, do RPGs need archetypes that specialize in those skills?
Again, I think the answer is yes. Many, many people enjoy playing those archetypes, even if it's more challenging to name specific examples from history/fiction/myth than it is to name warriors and wizards (or even warlords!).
If yes to the above, and it's a class-based game, does the archetype need to be a distinct class?
"Need" to? No. But that's tangled up with the question of how many are "needed" at all, which is really just a design question. Sure, go ahead and make thievery a 'build' off the fighter chassis. That can work. But if the result is that the character feels strictly worse, maybe because a bunch of class features are wasted with insufficient compensation, then you've designed it badly.
If yes to the above, should other classes be able to do thievery, even if less effectively?
In my opinion the answer should be yes. Just like a wizard can whack things with a staff, anybody should be able to try to sneak around and forge a document and notice a trap, and maybe even pick a lock, but less effectively. But somebody else might say, "No, picking locks is more like casting a spell. Either you've been trained, or you haven't." Ok, that's fine. I don't think there's an objectively correct answer. From a game design perspective, though, that means you either have constraints on adventure design, or parties are required to have a thief. In that sense it's kind of like whether or not an assumption of magical healing is built in the game. If it is, then every party needs a class that can heal.
Do RPGs need thievery mechanics?
Do we need rules for sneaking around, opening locks, detecting traps, picking pockets, forgery, etc.? Personally I think the answer is yes, because I enjoy those narrative elements. At the same time, I find most implementations problematic, as attested to by very long threads that often appear on those topics.
If yes to the above, do RPGs need archetypes that specialize in those skills?
Again, I think the answer is yes. Many, many people enjoy playing those archetypes, even if it's more challenging to name specific examples from history/fiction/myth than it is to name warriors and wizards (or even warlords!).
If yes to the above, and it's a class-based game, does the archetype need to be a distinct class?
"Need" to? No. But that's tangled up with the question of how many are "needed" at all, which is really just a design question. Sure, go ahead and make thievery a 'build' off the fighter chassis. That can work. But if the result is that the character feels strictly worse, maybe because a bunch of class features are wasted with insufficient compensation, then you've designed it badly.
If yes to the above, should other classes be able to do thievery, even if less effectively?
In my opinion the answer should be yes. Just like a wizard can whack things with a staff, anybody should be able to try to sneak around and forge a document and notice a trap, and maybe even pick a lock, but less effectively. But somebody else might say, "No, picking locks is more like casting a spell. Either you've been trained, or you haven't." Ok, that's fine. I don't think there's an objectively correct answer. From a game design perspective, though, that means you either have constraints on adventure design, or parties are required to have a thief. In that sense it's kind of like whether or not an assumption of magical healing is built in the game. If it is, then every party needs a class that can heal.
