Define "basket weaver'?

MGuy · October 06, 2012, 07:17:57 PM

Quote from: jibbajibba;589550The basic break here is a playstyle one.
You think that a good game creates characters who are all competant in their chosen niche and can contribute fully to the scenario. You also seem to believe that a game like D&D has a narrow number of scenarios and that most of those will involve in some form killing things and taking their stuff. You see it as a duty of each player to create a character that can pull their weight in the presumed game paradigm. Right so far?

I don't think DnD has a narrow number of "scenarios". I think there are innumerable scenarios but when I refer to "stuff" you can do in DnD I use a list of very broad categories. Exploration can mean any number of things but typically anything that involves finding stuff, travel, or similar things is lumped under that. The categories aren't even mutually exclusive. Both intrigue and Diplomatic situations will involve use of various social skills (diplomacy, bluff, Sense Motive, etc).

As for DnD,in general, I believe it supports, advertises, and pushes people to adventure.

QuoteMr CG thinks

Gonna stop you right there. I stopped reading GC's posts quite a while ago.

QuoteBoth of these are just playstyle choices.
I think that in fact as its a roleplaying game taking suboptimal choices due to roleplay reasons is good roleplay even if it results in a TPK. I also think that a game that allows you to create characters of each class that are well balanced for a particualr game paradignm is a good one, but I don't want the game to actively preclude me from making suboptimal choices if I want to. Not every superhero needs to be superman there is room to have fun playing wonder woman or even Batman.

Eliminating "suboptimal" choices isn't feasibly possible in any game that gives you a choice in what you do. What I want to eliminate is punishing people for adding flavor to their characters (at least as far as this thread goes). Making suboptimal choices is still a thing that's going to happen and I'm not going to go out of my way to prevent it. In fact there was a TGD thread where I said just that. Despite people here thinking the contrary I actually like people adding flavorful choices to their character and I think that doing so should be encouraged. While you and a select few may find "fun" in deliberately playing against the grain and making characters that have sacrificed being effective for flavor there are, I'd wager, a lot more players unwilling to make that sacrifice. For a game to promote a playstyle where you do have the warrior who happens to know how to weave baskets I present an option where the warrior doesn't have to sacrifice his "warriorness" to weave baskets as a past time. This, logically, would get more people to pick up background stuff because there's no reason not to.

QuoteI can see that you want a perfect system and you are trying to proselytize how that system might look and play but you have to understand that there are entirely other ways of playing from the OSR player skill with minimal input from the character to a heavy roleplaying game. D&D can cope with all of these types of games. You must realize that and that the people here whatever their personal foibles and sometimes blinkered view on the reality of their favorite games do have favorite games and have had a fucking lot of years to decide what their favorite playstyle is so its unlikely that you pointing out that their math doesn't add up or the game doesn't actually work like that is just going to annoy them. You would be better off trying to see what it is about their favorite style that they enjoy and trying to incorporate that into your homebrew game.

I completely understand that people are likely to lean on feelings (some of nostalgia, fun, what have you) when deciding what they do and what they like. I like 3rd ed best. In fact I'm teaching my gf along with a select few others how to play pathfinder. That favoritism does not prevent me from pointing out, and talking about, flaws in the system that I just don't like, don't mind, or don't believe are flaws. I don't think liking something or even disliking something is grounds to avoid critical analysis of it.

Mr. GC · October 06, 2012, 07:22:20 PM

Here you go.

StormBringer · October 06, 2012, 08:24:57 PM

Quote from: Mr. GC;589730Nope. Either you accept and build the party or you don't and stop talking.

This is what I referred to a couple of posts ago. No one has to accept your challenge. You don't have the evidence to present, so your statement is false, and your conclusion is invalid.

Speaking of invalid, having taken a look at your 'scenario', I will re-iterate here: the conditions you have laid out for the party to win amount to having to play pretty much a perfect game. Even the slightest degree of loss and you are calling an 'automatic loss'. In other words, you have so little faith in your own argument, you have to stack the odds entirely in your favour to even have a chance of prevailing.

Weaksauce all around. Take the training wheels off your magical tea partying and we will have something to talk about. Also, brush up on the basics of how to hold even a casual discussion; things like 'burden of proof' and whose responsibility it is, basic evidence gathering and presentation, understanding the claims another person is making, and how to avoid presenting fallacies as though they are valid techniques (ie, the "prove me wrong" appeal to ignorance).

You are on two different forums where a high number of people are saying you are just about dead wrong in almost everything you say, and that you are being a douchebag about it. It might be a good time to step back and consider that it probably isn't everyone else. There is a really, really good chance that you are at the root of the problems you are having.

Bedrockbrendan · October 06, 2012, 08:55:22 PM

Quote from: Mr. GC;589734Here you go.

No blind links please.

crkrueger · October 07, 2012, 04:59:19 AM

What are we supposed to be contending?

A weak party can lose to a weak encounter?
A weak party will always lose to a weak encounter?
What is the definition of weak for either of those?

Mr. GC · October 07, 2012, 08:20:48 AM

It's a link to this site right after saying I'd make a thread. But ok.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589785What are we supposed to be contending?

A weak party can lose to a weak encounter?
A weak party will always lose to a weak encounter?
What is the definition of weak for either of those?

Weak is defined by the terms in the linked thread.

As for why the victory conditions are as they are... surely anyone here is not really arguing that if half or more of the party dies every single day they are a viable party?

StormBringer · October 07, 2012, 01:14:49 PM

Quote from: Mr. GC;589800Weak is defined by the terms in the linked thread.

As for why the victory conditions are as they are... surely anyone here is not really arguing that if half or more of the party dies every single day they are a viable party?

You are not showing that. You are possibly showing that half of the party could die in a highly contrived white-room encounter series.

Again, all you are really showing is that your style of play is just as dependant on 'DM pity' as you claim everyone else's is. I am sure you refuse to admit that, or perhaps you really can't see it. So let's flip the conditions: you make the strongest, most optimized party you can, and we will see if they can survive a 'standard adventuring day' against a series of encounters someone else makes up.

Mr. GC · October 07, 2012, 01:20:40 PM

Quote from: StormBringer;589839You are not showing that. You are possibly showing that half of the party could die in a highly contrived white-room encounter series.

Again, all you are really showing is that your style of play is just as dependant on 'DM pity' as you claim everyone else's is. I am sure you refuse to admit that, or perhaps you really can't see it. So let's flip the conditions: you make the strongest, most optimized party you can, and we will see if they can survive a 'standard adventuring day' against a series of encounters someone else makes up.

And yet, for all your empty claims I see zero attempts for you to prove what you say.

Come at me Ironybringer.

StormBringer · October 07, 2012, 02:42:03 PM

Quote from: Mr. GC;589840And yet, for all your empty claims I see zero attempts for you to prove what you say.

Ok, you simply don't get it, or this is the only way you have ever had a discussion. Let me put it another way:

You like to smear feces all over yourself before you engage in fornication with farm animals. You are a shit-stained goat-fucker.

Prove me wrong, Goat-fucker.

QuoteCome at me Ironybringer.

Bluster doesn't work online, especially when you follow up with a feeble insult that is less effective than 'poopy-head'. Every time you use 'Ironybringer' as though it were the most devastating personal insult imaginable, you more solidly confirm your age at around 13-15yrs.

You didn't take my suggestions before, let's see if any of these stick:

Mr Gimpy Cock
Mr Giant Cocksucker
Mr GigaCockbite
Mr Gaping Cockholster
Mr Gaptoothed Chav
Mr Gigantic Cuntweasel
Mr Greasy Cunt
Mr Galsome Chuffer
Mr Gouty Crotch
Mr Gloppy Cowshit
Mr Gunky Choad
Mr Gangly Clusterfuck
Mr Geic Chud
Mr Galeated Cattywumpus
Mr Grubby Conkey

It's not terribly difficult to find a decent set of words that combine to something that at least looks like you are trying to insult someone. I mean, you may have well used 'Dangling-Participle Bringer', which would have at least made it appear you know English grammar fairly well.

Elfdart · October 07, 2012, 03:46:18 PM

Quote from: MGuy;589149He can do those things but if he's more worried about resisting mind affects, attracting followers, and reading more languages why isn't he just a cleric?

Because he doesn't want to dick around with gods and spells? Because maybe the last fighter the player had got charmed and buttfucked by an ogress-witch with a vorpal strap-on because of low Wisdom? Because the player wants the kind of fighter who, can start gaining loyal followers before reaching high level so he can hit the ground running when it's time to set up his own domain? Or how about "just to be different"?

QuoteThere is nothing that being a fighter does for the concept of knowing more languages, resisting "stuff" etc, that simply being a cleric doesn't give. I'm not really sure how "being a psion" works in earlier editions but if it isn't something you can bank on (which the way you suggest it here it is not) then it isn't worth reinvesting points into things that don't make you better at "being a fighter".

The ability to use any weapon and to better at fighting when push comes to shove.

QuoteThe problem with "What if" situations like this is that for every "it worked out" you can come up with it could also "not work out". There could be any number of factors that can make you choosing to specialize in javelins for no reason into something that was simply a waste. What if there wasn't that much combat? What if someone else was in the party who was better at using javelins than you? What if there were no javelins? I could go on but such a thing is useless.

Let's play odds here:

Fighter 1 has taken the usual skills (sword, bow, dagger) that most other (A)D&D fighters select. This means that when magic treasure is divided, Fighter 1 has to worry about competing with any other fighters in the group who are also skilled with those weapons.

Fighter 2 has taken the calculated risk of selecting javelin, flail and spear because he doesn't want to compete with other PCs for the more popular choices.

Which way is better? I can't say for sure because so much depends on the kind of game the DM is running.

QuoteAnd again, if you didn't know Tamil or could've communicated with him in another fashion (which isn't an unreasonable thing to assume), then the adventure would have still gone on whether or not you would've had the ability to speak Tamil. The adventure might have been different but it would've still gone on. Plus who's to say some other bad npc might not have been able to pick up on Tamil?

You mean there's no way for certain that an RPG will unfold as you had planned? OH NOES!

Quote"If" and that's a pretty big if. To counter I'll give some of my own: What if that 0-level men at arms isn't useful to the group?What if his low saves/hp only makes him a liability? What if by the act of playing as that men at arms you let down the group and cause other members of your team to die? What if the other players aren't up for having a game where one of the players purposefully gimps themselves for no reason?

Aren't you a little old to still be wetting the bed? If it's that bad, there's nothing to prevent the other characters from dumping the dead weight.

QuoteThese questions don't really matter, because these are all hypothetical. I have better questions though. Is there any reason that you don't think the game would be better separating "lesser" skills than more relevant skills? How is the game served better by actively punishing players for choosing to pick up things like basket weaving instead of perception?

First of all, "Basket Weaving" strikes me as a strawman and I find it hard to believe that such a skill is really included in any major games. Some skills might be more useful than others, but that depends on the game, the GM running it, and the resourcefulness of the player and character.

Quote from: jibbajibba;589251The most ironic thing is the people who critised me for playing 1e characters who didn't follow the 10 foot pole professional adventurer paradigm which relies on player skill are now in an argument with people who are saying you need to pick a character that maximises their numbers through player skill.

No, you were ridiculed because of your smugly stupid belief that deliberately choosing to have a PC who refused to bring useful gear along on an expedition when it's available makes for better role-playing.

QuoteBoth paradigms are about player skill trumping role play the Stormwind Falacy I believe it was flagged as
One says you should always take a bag of flour with you becuase you can use it to identify and track invisible creatures
The other says you should always make sure by 4th level you have selected an item or a skill that allows you to identify invisible opponents.

Apples and oranges. For example, let's say you're going on a camping trip:

Camper1 is highly skilled at hunting, building fires by rubbing sticks together, knowing which wild berries are safe to eat and so on.

Camper2 knows little or nothing about any of that stuff, but did have the good sense to bring along a lighter, a flashlight and other handy gear to help make up for his lack of specialized skills.

Camper3 has skills in the outdoors AND brings along handy gear

Camper4 is a useless fucktard who thinks it's cool to be out camping without the tiniest clue of what to do, and without so much as a book of matches.

Now Camper4 might be useful to the group if he or she has skills that might come into play later on. But anybody running a PC who seldom if ever contributes anything valuable to the group has only themselves to blame when the rest of the group decides "enough already!" and gets rid of the useless character.

QuoteTo me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?

If the character is supposed to be stupid, that's something else.

Quote from: RandallS;589264I've been playing D&D since 1975 and I can think of a good number of cowardly or combat-incompetent characters who who survived for many levels by avoiding direct combat as much as possible. And I've never been in a group of players who booted any character for not being useful enough in combat -- or any other part of the game for that matter. Players have occasionally be booted for being jerks, but never for not playing competent-enough characters. If your games run that way, fine -- but not all games do.

It's not really necessary to boot a useless PC -monsters and traps usually take care of that. I've seen a number of cases where a useless PC was left to die, or nor resurrected.

MGuy · October 07, 2012, 04:16:06 PM

Quote from: Elfdart;589872Because he doesn't want to dick around with gods and spells? Because maybe the last fighter the player had got charmed and buttfucked by an ogress-witch with a vorpal strap-on because of low Wisdom? Because the player wants the kind of fighter who, can start gaining loyal followers before reaching high level so he can hit the ground running when it's time to set up his own domain? Or how about "just to be different"?

That's all fine and dandy. Then the fighter finds out that he's not good at fighting and gets gangbanged by the ogress-witch's regular guards. He gets to find out that there is nothing mechanically stopping him from raising an army by talking to people or just being awesome.

Now I'd like to take an aside here to mention how ironic it is that people point out the "gets an army" ability as something special when they cry out how a character is more than their character sheet. Unlike the uncertainty of getting a weapon on a random chart apparently letting them get an army at random is too much s while the magic pants and stick the fighter needs to compete should not be put on their character sheets getting an army should.

QuoteThe ability to use any weapon and to better at fighting when push comes to shove.

I don't know. Some posters more familiar with earlier editions than I have the cleric being only marginally weaker than the fighter at the lower levels and after that he can buff himself to victory(if he doesn't just cast stuff down instead).

QuoteLet's play odds here:

Fighter 1 has taken the usual skills (sword, bow, dagger) that most other (A)D&D fighters select. This means that when magic treasure is divided, Fighter 1 has to worry about competing with any other fighters in the group who are also skilled with those weapons.

Fighter 2 has taken the calculated risk of selecting javelin, flail and spear because he doesn't want to compete with other PCs for the more popular choices.

Which way is better? I can't say for sure because so much depends on the kind of game the DM is running.

Except that you weren't a fighter in the scenario you laid out.

QuoteYou mean there's no way for certain that an RPG will unfold as you had planned? OH NOES!

Nice job at missing the point.

QuoteAren't you a little old to still be wetting the bed? If it's that bad, there's nothing to prevent the other characters from dumping the dead weight.

And there it is again. Look, I know you can drop the dead weight. Remember that we're arguing about people specifically making themselves dead weight purposefully.

QuoteFirst of all, "Basket Weaving" strikes me as a strawman and I find it hard to believe that such a skill is really included in any major games. Some skills might be more useful than others, but that depends on the game, the GM running it, and the resourcefulness of the player and character.

How is "basket weaving" a strawman in a thread with that as the title? I have a feeling at this point that you might've lost touch with what was being talked about.

QuoteNo, you were ridiculed because of your smugly stupid belief that deliberately choosing to have a PC who refused to bring useful gear along on an expedition when it's available makes for better role-playing.

How is this significantly different from someone choosing a PC who refuses to get useful abilities then expecting that PC t go on expeditions?

QuoteApples and oranges. For example, let's say you're going on a camping trip:

Camper1 is highly skilled at hunting, building fires by rubbing sticks together, knowing which wild berries are safe to eat and so on.

Camper2 knows little or nothing about any of that stuff, but did have the good sense to bring along a lighter, a flashlight and other handy gear to help make up for his lack of specialized skills.

Camper3 has skills in the outdoors AND brings along handy gear

Camper4 is a useless fucktard who thinks it's cool to be out camping without the tiniest clue of what to do, and without so much as a book of matches.

Now Camper4 might be useful to the group if he or she has skills that might come into play later on. But anybody running a PC who seldom if ever contributes anything valuable to the group has only themselves to blame when the rest of the group decides "enough already!" and gets rid of the useless character.

The irony of this point demands that I do this:

Player1 is highly skilled at hunting, building fires by rubbing sticks together, knowing which wild berries are safe to eat and so on.

Player2 knows little or nothing about any of that stuff, but did have the good sense to bring along a fire magic, a torch and other handy gear to help make up for his lack of specialized skills.

Player3 has skills in the outdoors AND brings along handy gear.

Player4 is a useless basketweaver who thinks it's cool to be out adventuring without the tiniest clue of what to do, and without so much as a dagger.

Now Player4 might be useful to the group if he or she has skills that might come into play later on. But anybody running a PC who seldom if ever contributes anything valuable to the group has only themselves to blame when the rest of the group decides "enough already!" and gets rid of the useless character.

That took very minor editing and that is what you have been arguing for. You've been arguing that player4 should be allowed to participate.

QuoteIt's not really necessary to boot a useless PC -monsters and traps usually take care of that. I've seen a number of cases where a useless PC was left to die, or nor resurrected.

Why do you think it is worth ensuring that a person can make a completely useless character? Why do you think it is bad to make the distinction between skills that are purely background things and skills that have a wide range of uses/applications?

TL: DR: If you get nothing else out of this post but disagreement at least explain this to me: What exactly is bad about giving away Craft: Woven Basket for free?

jibbajibba · October 07, 2012, 04:50:00 PM

Like I said both are player skill trumping RP.

If the result is that both groups would dump someone because they didn't optimise or they din't pick skills and equipment that fitted the mission (not optimising ?) then both positions are the same.

One Horse Town · October 07, 2012, 04:55:12 PM

Let's refrain from useless name-tossing please, lest Pundit get wrathful.

jibbajibba · October 07, 2012, 05:45:54 PM

Quote from: MGuy;589878That's all fine and dandy. Then the fighter finds out that he's not good at fighting and gets gangbanged by the ogress-witch's regular guards. He gets to find out that there is nothing mechanically stopping him from raising an army by talking to people or just being awesome.

TL: DR: If you get nothing else out of this post but disagreement at least explain this to me: What exactly is bad about giving away Craft: Woven Basket for free?

I can see the logic of your position.
If you were saying crafting basket weaving is a free skills you can justify through background choice then that kind of works but it depends on how much stuff falls into that category.

Like I said up thread there are 2 risks. I will try to explain it again in a clearer way.

In 4e everyone emerges good at combat, maybe not optimised but good at combat. Some Characters in the source material are not good at combat.
So in your skills system its fine if you can trade combat skills for things you deem worthy but if the worthless is free who determines that. You can allow the DM to do it on a as needs basis but I can see a certain type of GM saying diplomacy, ettiquette, singing etc are all worthless.
What is to stop a certain type of player from taking expertise in all your free skills Crafter: Basket Weaver , Crafter: Carpenter, Baladeer, etc etc
This happens in Amber Diceless to a degree there is no Skill System and your PC can do whatever you can justify with the GM based on your background. Now I disliked this in play so i build a skill system (its very open and diceless and PCs can pick huge numbers of skills so its pretty unique in skill system terms) because i wanted backgrounds better defined.

Now I can see that a Background system as is suggested for 5e might cover it. So you get to pick from a free list of skills if you have the right background but are you going to limit these free skills ? Now I think 5e does something that might suit you. If I understand it right all skills that might be covered in a background are abstracted to an attribute check. So if you pick a sailor background you get some useful skills like rope use and weather sense but you also get sail-making, etc etc

MGuy · October 07, 2012, 06:06:39 PM

Quote from: jibbajibba;589884Like I said both are player skill trumping RP.

If the result is that both groups would dump someone because they didn't optimise or they din't pick skills and equipment that fitted the mission (not optimising ?) then both positions are the same.

There's a big difference between "Does not have skills relevant to the task" and "is not the best they could be at various tasks((AKA is not optimized)". I'd never really say that an unoptimized character should just stay home but I would tell someone who couldn't keep up at all on the adventure to stay home. I'd say the same to someone who could only barely do anything on the adventure. My character isn't going to put his life in the hands of someone who so clearly is not capable of handling the responsibility. Not being able to participate in combat isn't what is going to get you kicked off of team adventurer not being able to adventure is.

An aside spoilered for length and tangential nature.

Spoiler

Now for clarity reasons I'd like to mention 2 Characters I've had are relevant to this conversation:

The most relevant is a character type since I've tried to play the same character a few times but was not allowed to. I (in various games) wanted to play a character who specifically wanted to take over the world. His reasoning would depend on whether or not "evil" type characters would be allowed. Regardless one of the things I would tell the GM, Storyteller, or whatever the referee was calling him (and one time her)self is that if this character is played right I will never have to make an attack roll. The best tries I had was a Summoner in Pathfinder,a bard in 3.5, and a would be crime boss in Star Wars. I would always specifically create the character with no personal "fighting" skills and always spent time making the character charismatic and intelligent.

None of the iterations of this character had any interest in fighting stuff. They all wanted to use minions or get people on their side. They were all (except the good aligned ones) focused on lying, cheating, and diplomancing any potential allies they could get onto their side. They would use any combination of manipulation and intimidation to do so. They were useful on adventures and in combat not because they could fight good but because they usually brought an entourage, could mind control people, or flood combat with minions(summons).

Of the three versions of this character type I've mentioned only the Summoner had an ability set that actually "geared" them for combat. The Star Wars character had a personal rifle and otherwise bought, stole, or manipulated others into guarding him. The Bard just buffed or used spells and abilities (along with any sucker he could get)to fight. There's is seriously a lot of utility in being able to manipulate and summon.

The next Character is Bastion Mountain Hopper. He was a Gnome Barbarian mechanics wise. In character was a Mountain Climbing enthusiast. To the other players he was the damage dealer. Mood wise he was comic relief. He was very clearly suboptimal and I build him specifically to be an extra pair of hands. Mechanically he was pretty damn strong at starting levels and gradually fell be hind into near uselessness as our levels rose. He became a sunder king and maintained only marginal usefulness because of his ability to smash important stuff (that and my GM for that game did not know the game as well as I did and couldn't drum up a challenge that I couldn't participate in). However, no matter how high level he got I never let his enthusiasm for climbing mountains disappear and I willingly paid into having a high climb and jump check. Now I know that climb gets useless fast and that jump is pointless considering his height (and because flight/teleport dominates the game at higher level play) but I paid into them because that's what he did.

Why would I do it? Several reasons. The most important was that I knew the GM did not know the game well so I made the safe assumption that I could make this character as I did and fall into the relative power level of the party (which is to say that the party was pretty damn weak). For two I really didn't want to shine too hard when we had 2 noobies in the game. For 3 I thought the idea was funny and it turns out that it worked. It is important to note though that while I had fun I also acknowledge that the game was on "easy mode". I acknowledge that the character choices I made were terrible for optimization. Knowing that did not stop me from enjoying myself.

I think it is important to clarify that, no I'm not saying all characters need to be able to pick up sharp pointy things or be able to blow up enemies all the time. I'm also not saying that every character need be perfectly optimized or optimized as much as possible for everything. I'm saying that there is no reason to punish people for flavor.

My "I don't wanna fight" Diplomancer guys were never punished because they were a crime lord or because I needed to max out Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, etc because those skills are so damn useful that as long as you are interacting with anything intelligent they can be used and odds are pretty damn low that you'll get stuck in a campaign where those skills aren't used. They were flavorful without sacrificing a lot of utility. They weren't good for every situation and a lot of the times the GMs took my minions away arbitrarily, forced me into situations where talking wasn't an option, or put me in places with things that could not be talked to (often times a combination of the three) but in general they were good to have around.Compare to being a professional basket weaver that isn't nearly as versatile in utility at all.

Likewise my gnome barbarian didn't hamper things despite me making him blatantly weaker than he could be because I still had plenty of skills I could provide to the party both because he was passable at combat (low level shit IMO) and because he had a number of exploration skills. Compare to a professional basket weaver who could potentially only weave a basket for the party and have hands as special abilities.

Quote from: jibbajibba;589890Like I said up thread there are 2 risks. I will try to explain it again in a clearer way.

In 4e everyone emerges good at combat, maybe not optimised but good at combat. Some Characters in the source material are not good at combat.
So in your skills system its fine if you can trade combat skills for things you deem worthy but if the worthless is free who determines that. You can allow the DM to do it on a as needs basis but I can see a certain type of GM saying diplomacy, ettiquette, singing etc are all worthless.

I'm gonna tackle this part here to avoid the risk of skipping over it later. Diplomacy (in that you use it to convince others to do stuff/like you/etc is so far away from worthless I would not be able to comprehend why anybody would think little of the ability to be able to manipulate others. If you MTP diplomatic scenarios all the time or the world is mostly filled with stuff you can't talk to/reason with would be the only situations I can think of that would warrant making those "useless". If your GM is doing the former then it is justified to lower the cost of getting them since they mean dick anyway. If its the latter then I'd seriously consider playing another game first but second the reduction in cost is similarly justified. If it isn't one of these two things (or some form of it) I would cally explain to that GM why he is mistaken about the worth of Diplomacy. Etiquette and singing I can easily see being tossed into the giveaway bin though.

QuoteWhat is to stop a certain type of player from taking expertise in all your free skills Crafter: Basket Weaver , Crafter: Carpenter, Baladeer, etc etc

Well if I were to be concerned about it as a designer then I'd institute limits. Personally though, I'm not overly concerned because I seriously wouldn't care if a PC had 2, 3 or all of the skills you listed. It doesn't unbalanced the system or have any significant effect on game play. For the sake of keeping people from making all characters experienced in everything all the time I'd probably say up to 2 occupations or make it some kind of weird 1 + Int mod (minimum 1) occupation limit.

QuoteThis happens in Amber Diceless to a degree there is no Skill System and your PC can do whatever you can justify with the GM based on your background. Now I disliked this in play so i build a skill system (its very open and diceless and PCs can pick huge numbers of skills so its pretty unique in skill system terms) because i wanted backgrounds better defined.

If the system specifically relies on the GM to arbitrate it then the GM will have to use their own judgment. I suppose my distaste for heaping that on the GMs shoulders is reason enough for me to go along and put a limit on it in the rules.

QuoteNow I can see that a Background system as is suggested for 5e might cover it. So you get to pick from a free list of skills if you have the right background but are you going to limit these free skills ? Now I think 5e does something that might suit you. If I understand it right all skills that might be covered in a background are abstracted to an attribute check. So if you pick a sailor background you get some useful skills like rope use and weather sense but you also get sail-making, etc etc

I honestly haven't been keeping up on 5e stuff to be honest so whether it works out or not is unknown and I'm going to just wait for the final product to come out before I attempt to mine it for ideas.