Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589444The point is HP are not realistic and D&D adventurers don't behave as real people would because of this. A lot of creatures have only one attack. An orc swinging a sword gets one attack. This ought to be able to kill a person in one blow in real life. But in D&D it can't once you get a certain amount of HP. When you have HP that can get into the double and triple digits, and supposedly lethal attacks that can only do 1-8 or 1-10 damage, no matter how you slice it, that is a nerfed version of reality.

Level 5 is about the highest level you only see one attack. So at that level you have a standard party running HP in the range of 24-42.

Even level one enemies don't do 1-8 or 1-10 damage only unless they're not meant to fight.

Even well designed level 2s can do 26-48. And if you're just looking at normal enemies, two Ogres do 14-42 between them. So yeah.

Anyways, what's your point? That there should be even more random death, particularly on the already weak classes? That the already weak classes especially should be constrained by reality (read: suck horribly in D&D)?

I don't think those or the other things you could mean really help you much.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589445Or is it based around the idea that spells replicate skills?

No, because the skills suck in a vacuum.

If you want to argue that HP are realistic be my guest, but 3E isnt the only edition of D&D. It is quite possible to face a foe with one attack after fifth level (multi attacks for classed characters belong to fighters for exampe in 2E and many monsters only get one attack with a weapon---andeven with more attacks many still cant drop a high hp character). Even if higher HD creatures always did get more attacks, it remains that when a 60 hp fighter squares of with an orc holding a sword, that orc cannot kill the fighter in one blow (orcs don't dissapear just because you are higher level). It is simply impossible given the hp system.

The point isn't that d&d should be more lethal, only that its lethality is greatly nerfed. Otherwise no one would go adventuring like they do in D&D. If you ever run a genuinely gritty system you see a big difference in how players conduct themselves. Generally the difference they avoid fighting whenever possible. Which is related to my previous point about rpg adventures encompassing a lot more than dungeon crawls and frequent combat. So my point is much of what you are saying, only really applies to D&D and not to a lot of other games (and even then i don't think your arguments are all that persuasive.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589389Because your making the rules paramount.
Not everyone wants to spend the amount of time it takes to master all of the little nuances that come with type III D&D?
Because not everyone has to have every possible benefit they can choke out of a system?

1) So following the rules is making the rules paramount and thus following the rules is... bad for some reason?
2) Why would you have to work out every nuance in the rules just to know what the rules are?
3) Who said someone had to have every possible benefit?
You see this entire response has nothing to do with how following the rules is arbitrary. This is you believing I'm saying something about min maxxing and then defending against that. What I actually asked you is how following the rules is arbitrary and it seems you don't have an answer to that question.

QuoteAnd type III D&D rules are flawed.
Easy point to make set DCs in a system with stacking modifiers?  Really what were they thinking.

And Yes I'll take my experiences of reality over most others.  I understand the fundamental differences of 'spotting' in an urban vs natural enviroment.  They do not equate.  You have to have experience in both to have the same chances.  What you look for in either setting is different for either setting.  Not having these differences is a system issue that I am more than happy to correct.

Thus you can see why people say you're sucking the DM's cock in order to get ahead. You just laid out 2 things. You do not care about how other people see things and your experiences trump other people's expectations and the rules. Now making house rules has never been something I've been against but the changes you make should be the fucking rules and not something you pul out of your ass when it is convenient.

QuoteNo study only goes so far.  A first level character with a lucky die roll can identify a ninth level spell,  a spell he most likely has never seen cast, but because the way the skill works knows all about it.  Or how do you differentiate between spells that have similar effects on something after the fact?

There's no reason a learned 1st  level character who studies magic couldn't have read about a spell they don't know/haven't seen. I've read plenty of books about shit I've never experienced before. Again, this is an example of you meeting something that doesn't conform to your world view and you instantly cut off the part of your brain that would allow you to rationalize the situation. Magic is something that doesn't exist so who knows what intricacies someone learning magic may or may not pick up when studying it.It can't be known because it doesn't exist in our reality. The only way we can know how the imagined reality works at all (or be given any hint) is through the rules which represent the world's physics engine.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589390Didn't like that? If you want to actually have a serious conversation, try not to start out by misrepresenting what the other side actually is trying to tell you.

Its not whether I liked it or not. Your statement lacked any actual reflection on the conversation. I was just pointing it out. Whether or not you decide to learn from what I said is your choice.

QuoteYes, AD&D is deadly. Yes, despite playing like a genius, you may actually get hit for enough HPs to drop you.  However, does that mean tactics don't matter?  Of course not.  Tactics matter.  Forget the old "sack of flour and a 10' pole" Indiana Jones crap, simple things make a huge difference, like fighters in front, like humans with spears fighting behind dwarves, like thieves and rangers scouting ahead, like a hundred different things players all over the world did every weekend since before you were born.  Not because they keyed in to the GM's way of thinking, but because things work that way in our world, so it makes sense it works in others.

None of this has anything to do with what I've been talking about in this thread. It sounds like you're on a rant. If you're still addressing me as if I'm GC you might as well stop. I haven't been keeping up with what he's been saying as I just gloss over his posts the same way I do other people with apparently nothing of value to say.

QuoteStop parroting talking points like "game the GM or game the system" and think.  "Rulings not Rules" doesn't mean in my campaign water flows uphill and light doesn't cast shadows and you have to come to terms with my ridiculous set of house rules in order to function.  Yeah, there's the terms Dungeon Master and Game Master, there's also the term referee in the original books because that's what the DM was.  Yeah some referee's sucked, I'd like to find the guy that DM'd Ron Edwards and punch him in the sack for all the grief his bullshit games caused us.

You don't want a living breathing world where if you travel the mountains you might run into a giant, dragon or the Tarrasque.  You want an arena where you can tactically play the encounter.  You want a tactical roleplaying boardgame, and you have one.  Good for you.  Stop trying to pretend that's what anyone else wants or that your choice is somehow better.  And for the love of god, stop pretending that a DM in chains to the 3.5 CR system, encounter system, and treasure system is running any less of a "Magical Tea Party".

Indeed you are just ranting. Apparently carrying stuff from over several threads. All this tells me in a nutshell is that you believe me to be someone attacking your style and telling you what to do. Congrats on continuing to not understand my position.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589411Hey McGuy. Like I said, of this is your preference, there is nothing wrong with it. But what I am talking about is whether a group acceptsthe mechanics a the sole determination of "setting physics" or whether the group expects the GM to adjuicate mechanics so their results comform better to his and their understanding of the setting physics. Personally i don't like the GM changing stuff "just because" but if there is a good reason to ignore RAW because it produces better supports hissense of the setting, i have no problem with it. I suppose if you are relying soley on mechanicsto inform your sense of setting physics, this could be jarring, but if you rely on setting, game events and common sense to determine "setting physics" it isn't much of a problem. Rules are good. I like GMs to be somewhat consistent in their application but rigid adherence to RAW, in my opinion, can actually break immersion if rules occassionally make you scratch your head (even f they work great 95% of the time).

Again, this is preference. If you want the rules to be followed to the letter, that isn't wrong. But neither are more relaxed approaches.

Brendan, I understand that you seem to have a response style that hinges on the idea that someone somewhere may or may not like to do X thing but seriously there is absolutely no reason for you to willfully misunderstand my position in order to produce some kind of seemingly moderate disagreement. I am pretty sure you read the part of the post you responded to so I'm going to highlight some parts you seem to be skipping over:

QuoteAs I said before "if" you are going to change the rules it should be done BEFORE the game begins and you should let all your players know that the rules have changed. To not do so and then expect them to read your mind or make in character decisions based on what you may or may not think is appropriate is being a bad GM. If you want your players to truly engage in the setting then they should know how the world's physics work or at least have some idea if they don't know how things should work then they know less then their characters do and that breaks any immersion you could hope to have as you have to zoom out and explain shit to the players that they should already know. If you have to keep telling them "no you get a +4 situation mod all of a sudden because I think your farming background should count here" or "you get a -4 to attack because you've never killed a man(you got the farmhand background) before and are hesitant to do so" that kills the mood. That's shit a player should know going into the game.

Giving me a speech about strict adherence to RAW completely ignores that the part of the post you quoted is about consistency and not an essay against house rules.

Quote from: beejazz;589432As usual I think people are talking past each other.

I couldn't agree more.

Quotea)A character can do a whole lot before accounting for exceptional abilities.

b)Plus the exceptional abilities granted by their class.

Critiquing the relative value of classes (esp. in a game where you pick your class) can be valid, but the counterpoint is that characters can interact with the larger game pretty significantly prior to accounting for mechanical features. How significantly you can interact with the world prior to accounting for mechanical features varies game to game, adventure to adventure, and setting to setting. The OSR, besides its focus on old editions, is all about adventures and settings built for play. You can see why it would be a sore spot to say that classes were barred from participation in that sort of content.

Which is something I know and is something I've spoken about at length, what with me announcing how nothing people were describing is something that is specific to a particular class, how anybody could do the things people were going on about, about how the only difference between one character/class and another is what happens to be on the player's character sheet. I know that characters can act within the world and are not "limited" to their character sheet. It is getting people to realize that what is on their character sheet is the half of what meaningfully distinguishes one guy with two hands from another guy with two hands in the game world. The other half is what the player decides to do with those hands. That, however, is heavily influenced by da rulez.

QuoteIn response to 4) I'm sensing a false dichotomy. Firstly, when a niche is defined by scaled values (such as stats) instead of binaries (feats, class features, spells) the activity is something every class can participate in *and* the class abilities are relevant enough to use.

Remember though this is in response to a question about why one is "better" than another. I was pointing out that one was better than another because of stats and their ability to do what they are "supposed" to do (A fighter living up to his namesake).

QuoteIn this thread, there's the (perceived) idea that certain skills are objectively less relevant. Even if you acknowledge that which skills are relevant vary game to game, you're at least going to have to clarify your position a few dozen times before people get the "maybe you should reduce or void the cost of irrelevant skills" bit as what it is.

QuoteI'd suspect that's why I have to keep re-quoting myself.

QuoteAs for the argument about contribution, see my response to the last post (and the post itself). Maybe you can see how people would imagine you're conflating character and class, and unique contribution with general contribution. Again, one of the necessary inconveniences of arguing with people who aren't starting from the same premises is constant clarification.

"Class contribution" isn't something I've brought up or argued about in this thread.

QuoteLastly, I should probably add that when people are questioning why some skills are more/less relevant than others, they're also coming from a model where people choose what they do based on what they're good at rather than having to choose what they're good at based on what they end up doing. Taking the rails off is huge when it comes to making skills more balanced in relevance for this reason.

Note that I prefer using both methods (choosing tasks based on competencies and competencies based on tasks).

I'm not sure about what you mean here. Clarification please?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589452If you want to argue that HP are realistic be my guest, but 3E isnt the only edition of D&D. It is quite possible to face a foe with one attack after fifth level (multi attacks for classed characters belong to fighters for exampe in 2E and many monsters only get one attack with a weapon---andeven with more attacks many still cant drop a high hp character). Even if higher HD creatures always did get more attacks, it remains that when a 60 hp fighter squares of with an orc holding a sword, that orc cannot kill the fighter in one blow (orcs don't dissapear just because you are higher level). It is simply impossible given the hp system.

If you mean 1st level Orc Warrior... Yeah, he couldn't. The level 2 guy I just mentioned? An Orc.

Anyways I'm not calling them realistic, I'm saying there's enough random death without bringing in more out of place realism. There's enough Fighters losing without nerfing them further. And in older editions... monsters have multiple attacks. And there are more monsters.

QuoteThe point isn't that d&d should be more lethal, only that its lethality is greatly nerfed. Otherwise no one would go adventuring like they do in D&D. If you ever run a genuinely gritty system you see a big difference in how players conduct themselves. Generally the difference they avoid fighting whenever possible. Which is related to my previous point about rpg adventures encompassing a lot more than dungeon crawls and frequent combat. So my point is much of what you are saying, only really applies to D&D and not to a lot of other games (and even then i don't think your arguments are all that persuasive.

Something that still would not work in D&D due to the huge volume of things that allow foes to choose the time and place of an encounter.

Quote from: MGuy;589455I'm not sure about what you mean here. Clarification please?

Skill sets are more or less relevant depending on the context of the adventure, the encounter, or the setting. You acknowledge that.

But allowing greater choice in adventure, encounter, or setting (letting the party go where they want) allows the party to pick the contexts suited to their skill sets.

So you've got basket weaving? You play the parts of the game where that's useful. You make a bit of extra money while the party rests from major injury or brews potions, you fortify your domain with weaving-as-architecture, or whatever. I'm presuming basket weaving as a skill with applicability but narrow applicability. Since it's made up in the context of any version of D&D.

_________________

Assuming that basket weaving (or whatever) isn't relevant presumes that there's some limitation on the context that prevents its relevance. This could be genre constraints or the party not wanting to focus on such things* (in which case the skill set shouldn't exist) or mild railroading. Which most people here are strongly against.

In any case, your idea of reducing or voiding costs on such "peripheral" skills? Probably still the kind of thing most people would be fine with. I'd chalk up the resistance to recent agitation and a bit of how you arrived at the idea more than the idea itself.

*A difference in focus in terms of what the party wants out of the game is where the player conflict is probably coming from, more than a difference in playstyle along the lines getting discussed here.

McGuy, my response was to exactly what you said. I know you don't like my posting style for some reason (and that you seem to have a hard time understanding my position on many things--ranging from game to design to playstyle). Which is fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But my response was exactly to your point about having to state all rules changes in advance. Whether it is RAW or an agreed upon alteration to the RAW prior to play, the point I am making is the GMing tweaking results so they better conform to his sense of setting consistency and physics does not break immersion or cause players to engage the setting less. The point is consistency can stem from judgments and rulings sometimes, not just rules established before play (which can sometimes produce implausible results if the GM isn't given some flexibility).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589468The point is consistency can stem from judgments and rulings sometimes, not just rules established before play (which can sometimes produce implausible results if the GM isn't given some flexibility).

Which would be the entire point of having a GM.

Quote from: beejazz;589462Skill sets are more or less relevant depending on the context of the adventure, the encounter, or the setting. You acknowledge that.

But allowing greater choice in adventure, encounter, or setting (letting the party go where they want) allows the party to pick the contexts suited to their skill sets.

So you've got basket weaving? You play the parts of the game where that's useful. You make a bit of extra money while the party rests from major injury or brews potions, you fortify your domain with weaving-as-architecture, or whatever. I'm presuming basket weaving as a skill with applicability but narrow applicability. Since it's made up in the context of any version of D&D.

_________________

Assuming that basket weaving (or whatever) isn't relevant presumes that there's some limitation on the context that prevents its relevance. This could be genre constraints or the party not wanting to focus on such things* (in which case the skill set shouldn't exist) or mild railroading. Which most people here are strongly against.

In any case, your idea of reducing or voiding costs on such "peripheral" skills? Probably still the kind of thing most people would be fine with. I'd chalk up the resistance to recent agitation and a bit of how you arrived at the idea more than the idea itself.

*A difference in focus in terms of what the party wants out of the game is where the player conflict is probably coming from, more than a difference in playstyle along the lines getting discussed here.

Thank you for clarifying. I don't have any significant disagreements and in fact I'm going to start referring to them as "peripheral" skills.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589468McGuy, my response was to exactly what you said. I know you don't like my posting style for some reason (and that you seem to have a hard time understanding my position on many things--ranging from game to design to playstyle). Which is fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But my response was exactly to your point about having to state all rules changes in advance. Whether it is RAW or an agreed upon alteration to the RAW prior to play, the point I am making is the GMing tweaking results so they better conform to his sense of setting consistency and physics does not break immersion or cause players to engage the setting less. The point is consistency can stem from judgments and rulings sometimes, not just rules established before play (which can sometimes produce implausible results if the GM isn't given some flexibility).

Ahh, I gave you more credit then I should have then. You cannot be arguing for consistency while saying that it is ok for a GM to be inconsistent. You can choose to be inconsistent by keeping the option of changing the rules at the drop of a hat open, but you might as well admit that you are being inconsistent.

I will also state that I do not "dislike" your posting style. I don't have any major positive or negative opinion on it. I just think you purposefully obscure your point or couch everything you say as being subjective so that any disagreement with what you say is pointless. Every so often, as mentioned above, you say something that just doesn't make sense.

One thing I think needs pointing out is how many people actually take, literally, basket-weaving.  Any? What we're really talking about is Adventuring Skills vs. Non-Adventuring Skills.  Letting the argument be framed with the specific example of Basket-weaving is not the point.

Why might a character take Non-Adventuring Skills?
1. The campaign actually includes times when the players aren't "adventuring".
2. The Non-Adventuring Skills still serve important purposes.  For example, a Samurai knowing artistic skills can increase his social status, marriage chances, etc.
3. Quasi-Adventuring benefits. Depending on the system, that Samurai's artistic skills might actually build Ki, Harmony, what have you, in which case, it's kind of an Adventuring Skill, even if not directly.

The "basket-weaver" argument basically assumes the player selects 100% non-useful skills in place of 100% useful skills.  As most arguments of this type it does exist in a vacuum.

Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception with limited skill ranks, so will continue this in another post.

Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception.

So what?  
A person takes a couple of their skill points per level and applies them to non-optimized, non-adventuring skills.  
So what?
Why do you care whether this person does so or not?
Does your character give a crap about this (does he even know) or is this totally a player concern?
Asking seriously now...How is this even your business?

Quote from: CRKrueger;589487One thing I think needs pointing out is how many people actually take, literally, basket-weaving.  Any? What we're really talking about is Adventuring Skills vs. Non-Adventuring Skills.  Letting the argument be framed with the specific example of Basket-weaving is not the point.

Why might a character take Non-Adventuring Skills?
1. The campaign actually includes times when the players aren't "adventuring".
2. The Non-Adventuring Skills still serve important purposes.  For example, a Samurai knowing artistic skills can increase his social status, marriage chances, etc.
3. Quasi-Adventuring benefits. Depending on the system, that Samurai's artistic skills might actually build Ki, Harmony, what have you, in which case, it's kind of an Adventuring Skill, even if not directly.

The "basket-weaver" argument basically assumes the player selects 100% non-useful skills in place of 100% useful skills.  As most arguments of this type it does exist in a vacuum.

Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception with limited skill ranks, so will continue this in another post.

This is worth pointing out. I basket weaving refers to taking a craft or trade that isn't likely to come up in 3E. In 2E it can be taking a NWP like Brewing (which can come in handy in non-combat scenarios IMO). It is true, from a purely combat perspective you might be better off taking Blind-fighting Riding, etc. If you throw exploration into the mix of important things you might be better off including Tracking, Navigation or Direction Sense. But if you engage in any investigative city adventures, political intrigue, or what have you, stuff like Dancing, Heraldry, Ancient History, Singing, Ettiquette, etc can be important as well. Further even stuff like Brewing, Cobbling, Cooking, POttery, Seamstress/Tailor, and Weaving can come up in a more fully fleshed out setting.

I would just add even if taking something like Brewing or Cooking is deemed entirely useless by the party, you are supposed to be making full characters, not robots who were designed for the dungeon from the day they were born. People are going to have traits and qualities that don't contribute to their current goals or functions (though they can always try to find interesting ways to make them contribute). In most groups I play in, people take a mix of obviously useful skills and clearly less useful but character appropriate skills.

Quote from: MGuy;589483Ahh, I gave you more credit then I should have then. You cannot be arguing for consistency while saying that it is ok for a GM to be inconsistent. You can choose to be inconsistent by keeping the option of changing the rules at the drop of a hat open, but you might as well admit that you are being inconsistent.

Sure you can. If you want results that are consistent with plausibility and the setting physics, you can say it is okay for the GM to make adjustments to rules or alter results during play in the name of consistency. You place priority on rules, so maybe you don't see it, but I am sure plenty of people here do. It all boils down to why you are at the table. If rules are what matter to you, I suppose you would label this being inconsistent. If setting is what matters to you, you might consider a rule (applied "consistently") to create an inconsistency in the setting or flow of events. To disrupt internal consistency for example.

QuoteI will also state that I do not "dislike" your posting style. I don't have any major positive or negative opinion on it. I just think you purposefully obscure your point or couch everything you say as being subjective so that any disagreement with what you say is pointless. Every so often, as mentioned above, you say something that just doesn't make sense.

Sounds to me like you don't like my posting style. I have noticed you and a couple of like-minded posters have picked up this rallying cry against me for some reason. But doesn't bother me. I am not going to change my personality to suit you. Nor am I going to try to convince you that this is a mischaracterization of things I have said (though I certainly believe it is). I happen to think distinguishing between opinion and objective fact is important. So most of my posts reflect that. I also think my thoughts on game design are pretty consistent and clear.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589489I would just add even if taking something like Brewing or Cooking is deemed entirely useless by the party, you are supposed to be making full characters, not robots who were designed for the dungeon from the day they were born. People are going to have traits and qualities that don't contribute to their current goals or functions (though they can always try to find interesting ways to make them contribute). In most groups I play in, people take a mix of obviously useful skills and clearly less useful but character appropriate skills.

This is the nub of it. We all as people have skills we don't use in our jobs. Shit we all play fucking stupid kids games when we could be doing FX trades, writing novels, or whatever.
People have a range of abilities that they pick up over time and sometimes these hobbies overwhelm their main skill set. I know a good IT project manager that really wants to run a roller rink and who used to skate in demonstrations. I know a business exec that loves steam engines and has gone to the point of buying one rebuilding it and carting it round country fayres at the weekend.

A good game system should allow me to create a rogue type character that is a greasy fence, a craven pickpocket, a skilled assasin, or a charming conman. All of those options should exist and any system that restricts these options down to skilled assasin is a bad system. Any rule that restricts my roleplay options is a bad system.

This doesn't mean by the way that I don't think Balance matters, I do. But I reserve the right to create a character who's focus is diferent to the cookie cutter adventurer.

I have had this argument with both the OSR guys before so it is quite amusing to me that the OSR guys are now attacking the Denners for holding a position very close to the one they seemed to hold themselves.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589487One thing I think needs pointing out is how many people actually take, literally, basket-weaving.  Any? What we're really talking about is Adventuring Skills vs. Non-Adventuring Skills.  Letting the argument be framed with the specific example of Basket-weaving is not the point.

Why might a character take Non-Adventuring Skills?
1. The campaign actually includes times when the players aren't "adventuring".
2. The Non-Adventuring Skills still serve important purposes.  For example, a Samurai knowing artistic skills can increase his social status, marriage chances, etc.
3. Quasi-Adventuring benefits. Depending on the system, that Samurai's artistic skills might actually build Ki, Harmony, what have you, in which case, it's kind of an Adventuring Skill, even if not directly.

The "basket-weaver" argument basically assumes the player selects 100% non-useful skills in place of 100% useful skills.  As most arguments of this type it does exist in a vacuum.

1) And what do you do at times when you're not adventuring? Not that adventuring includes intrigue, exploration, gathering info, etc.
2)I don't think you know a lot about what Samurai do in order to increase their social standing so instead of getting into all the particulars I'll ask you what do you think a Samurai does?
3)If "ki" or "harmony" whatever is relevant to what a character is regularly expected to use, have, need to get then artistic skills are appropriate to the motif of the game and therefore not a waste of space as Craft: Woven Basket is to a regular game of DnD. So yes, if we're talking about another game where artistic skills are significant in some fashion then artistic skills are not gimping thee character but that's practically tautological.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589488Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception.

So what?  
A person takes a couple of their skill points per level and applies them to non-optimized, non-adventuring skills.  
So what?
Why do you care whether this person does so or not?
Does your character give a crap about this (does he even know) or is this totally a player concern?
Asking seriously now...How is this even your business?

Considering I mentioned Craft: Woven Basket several times and you're only just now getting the context shows me someone has not been paying attention. The fact that you still don't know "how" I feel about it and why only further shows this. Go back to page 4 cause you need to catch up to what I've been saying this entire time and it starts there.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589489This is worth pointing out. I basket weaving refers to taking a craft or trade that isn't likely to come up in 3E. In 2E it can be taking a NWP like Brewing (which can come in handy in non-combat scenarios IMO). It is true, from a purely combat perspective you might be better off taking Blind-fighting Riding, etc. If you throw exploration into the mix of important things you might be better off including Tracking, Navigation or Direction Sense. But if you engage in any investigative city adventures, political intrigue, or what have you, stuff like Dancing, Heraldry, Ancient History, Singing, Ettiquette, etc can be important as well. Further even stuff like Brewing, Cobbling, Cooking, POttery, Seamstress/Tailor, and Weaving can come up in a more fully fleshed out setting.

Please list the ways where Craft: Woven Basket will help you in an investigation more than Diplomacy, bluff, perception, survival (track), Sense Motive, etc.

QuoteI would just add even if taking something like Brewing or Cooking is deemed entirely useless by the party, you are supposed to be making full characters, not robots who were designed for the dungeon from the day they were born. People are going to have traits and qualities that don't contribute to their current goals or functions (though they can always try to find interesting ways to make them contribute). In most groups I play in, people take a mix of obviously useful skills and clearly less useful but character appropriate skills.

Please explain why it is bad to make those peripheral skills cost something different than more relevant skills. If you can't do that (and I doubt you can in any reasonable sense that doesn't involve you saying "somebody somewhere may be offended") then explain why it is better to have it cost the same as skills you actually find more useful. As it stands it sounds like you're saying those skills should exist which isn't something I've denied this entire time. If you've forgotten you may also go back to page 4 where I first laid that down.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589492Sure you can. If you want results that are consistent with plausibility and the setting physics, you can say it is okay for the GM to make adjustments to rules or alter results during play in the name of consistency. You place priority on rules, so maybe you don't see it, but I am sure plenty of people here do. It all boils down to why you are at the table. If rules are what matter to you, I suppose you would label this being inconsistent. If setting is what matters to you, you might consider a rule (applied "consistently") to create an inconsistency in the setting or flow of events. To disrupt internal consistency for example.

Consistency matters to me. I don't mind someone house ruling shit to make more sense to them but I as a player and as a character should have some sense of how the world works just as I as a living and breathing person have some sense of how the world around me works. I place the highest priority on consistency because the GM randomly changing rules as s/he wants at random does not give consistency. Altering rules during play IS NOT CONSISTENCY and it never will be no matter how many times you claim that it is. What is and isn't plausible in imagination land is completely unknown unless there are some hard rules that everyone can understand in place. Even something as seemingly benign as saying "this is a medieval setting" is a fucking rule and thus I should expect the GM to never, under any circumstances, randomly decide that modern telecommunications exist just because they feel it would be consistent with their world view. Or to put it more rationally, I should never run into a situation where my character "suddenly" remembers  he has a problem stabbifying people because he's never done it before. That should be an issue I already know about just as my character would already know about how nervous he is about serving people McMurder sandwiches. Being told at the point where it is pertinent (IE right when I get myself into a fight) is NOT being consistent.

QuoteSounds to me like you don't like my posting style. I have noticed you and a couple of like-minded posters have picked up this rallying cry against me for some reason. But doesn't bother me. I am not going to change my personality to suit you. Nor am I going to try to convince you that this is a mischaracterization of things I have said (though I certainly believe it is). I happen to think distinguishing between opinion and objective fact is important. So most of my posts reflect that. I also think my thoughts on game design are pretty consistent and clear.

I don't need you to change your personality. Understanding that you are being intentionally obscure, and ensuring that each and every one of your posts features subjective qualifiers only enables me to understand how to approach your posts. No need to feel victimized because I feel that 80% of your posts lack any real substance or that I think that you are guided more by "feelings" than any real insight as to how you actually want games to go.

Altering rules during play is not a problem in my experience. It's part of the rules in most rpgs that the gm should change rules for the betterment of the game.

What can be a problem, is a gm making rules changes that are not sound.

Personally, I would much prefer a gm make sound rules changes over a gm blindly adhereing to rules that do not work to the betterment of the game.

I realize there are gamers that can't function when a gm changes a rule, hoewever sound the change may be. I know one such player personally.

I genuinely believe that some of the 'gm must obey the rules without thought' stems from bad gm experiences.