Quote from: MGuy;589507Please list the ways where Craft: Woven Basket will help you in an investigation more than Diplomacy, bluff, perception, survival (track), Sense Motive, etc.

I never said it would help you in an investigation more than diplomacy or perception. In fact, I specificially left the 2E equivalents of weave basket out of my list of things that contribute to investigative play. All I said was stuff like basket weaving can come up in a fully fleshed out setting. I suggest you re-read my response, since i tried to break things into clear categories (and just so I am more clear, 2E NWP were my point of reference).

QuotePlease 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.

It is not bad. It is a design choice. In some games you set costs for balance reasons, in others you set them according to what is most realistic, and in others you set them according to play expectations. Personally, I prefer cost to reflect difficulty of learning the skill, or just be one flat rate. But that is just me. Raising the cost of basket weaving because it is less useful in pay just doesn't appeal to me, because it doesn't make sense that basket weaving is harder to master than seeing things and I think creating a well rounded character ought to involve some sacrifice. But that is just me.

Not sure why you think I am concerned about offending people. I am not. All I have been doing is drawing distinctions between preference (I like dungeon crawls) and statements that try to turn preference into objective judgments (dungeon crawls are the best style of play).

QuoteI 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.

Trust me, you would have to work a lot harder than this to make me feel victimized by you. Again, not going to try to change your opinion of me.

Quote from: MGuy;589507Consistency 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..

We have already gone over this several times. Bolding things isn't going to get us anywhere else. We are talking about two discrete things: consistency of setting and consistency of application of the rules. My only point here is relying on the rules or established procedures at the start of play isn't the only way to produce a consistent setting. If the GM and players are on the same page, the Gm can easily deviate from mechanics and won't feel confused or disengaged at all (particularly if his judgements are sound). It isn't that I disagree with you all that strongly here, I think we are 80% on the same page. For me, sticking to rules and procedures established prior to play is generally a good idea, but I leave room for those 5% of cases where the Gm is better off making an on the moment resolution when the rules of the book or houserules wouldn't help achieve a consistent setting and campaign event result. I suspect a lot of people agree with me (and that a lot agree with you as well). So it isn't just me trying to be "deliberately obscure", it is actually very pertinent to game design and points to the fact that there isn't a one-true way on this front. If you go too hard in either direction (with a game as popular as D&D) I think you end up with some issues. I terms of actual play it matters because you need to know your group. If I were running a game for you and Mr GC, I would stick to raw and pre-agreed upon procedures. if I were running a game with you, mr gc, benoist and Bill, I would take a slightly more flexible approach to accomodate the wider range of tastes at the table.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589515We have already gone over this several times. Bolding things isn't going to get us anywhere else. We are talking about two discrete things: consistency of setting and consistency of application of the rules. My only point here is relying on the rules or established procedures at the start of play isn't the only way to produce a consistent setting. If the GM and players are on the same page, the Gm can easily deviate from mechanics and won't feel confused or disengaged at all (particularly if his judgements are sound). It isn't that I disagree with you all that strongly here, I think we are 80% on the same page. For me, sticking to rules and procedures established prior to play is generally a good idea, but I leave room for those 5% of cases where the Gm is better off making an on the moment resolution when the rules of the book or houserules wouldn't help achieve a consistent setting and campaign event result. I suspect a lot of people agree with me (and that a lot agree with you as well). So it isn't just me trying to be "deliberately obscure", it is actually very pertinent to game design and points to the fact that there isn't a one-true way on this front. If you go too hard in either direction (with a game as popular as D&D) I think you end up with some issues. I terms of actual play it matters because you need to know your group. If I were running a game for you and Mr GC, I would stick to raw and pre-agreed upon procedures. if I were running a game with you, mr gc, benoist and Bill, I would take a slightly more flexible approach to accomodate the wider range of tastes at the table.

That game would be a mess. I don't think anyone at that table would like each other so even ignoring the whole basket weaver vs good player thing... yeah.

I did read your post Mguy, and I did respond to it adding the option you did not include.

Quote from: MeWhere in between killing things and taking their stuff, you can use those skills offstage during "downtime".

Which brings us back to what skills are 100% useless.  There really aren't any, are there?  If you're making something, you can sell it.  If you're doing something non-Adventuring, that may affect the non-adventuring part of your character's life, aka social status, recognition, whatever.

The only time a skill is 100% useless is if the campaign you are playing in does not give your character the option to use it.  Deep-Sea Diving skill on Dune for example (but even that could be used for pressurization, oxygen levels whatever, you know what I mean.)

Now considering a non-optimized skill selection disruptive is clearly a table decision as I stated before.  Some will consider it downright rude, others won't care, others will attempt to use their Accountant skill to make a successful Basket-Weaving business with you as you winter in Waterdeep.

Now talking specifically about 3.5, personally I don't think characters have enough skill points to make particularly interesting characters, especially if you're talking about Fighters.  The lack of skill points is where the dichotomy of extremes between basket-weaver and munchkin comes from, IMO.  The addition of a separate pool of "non-Adventuring Skill" points or as you were advocating, a lower cost for such skills certainly would allow for more realistic characters while not impacting optimization.

However, there is another point I raised, namely that of metagame.  Now if we were playing Shadowrun and my character had a "Dark Secret" and was on the run from a Megacorp who wanted him dead, you wouldn't expect your character or you as a player to know that, would you?  Something like that certainly affects your character, since it can easily kill you when the hit team shows up and you happen to be there, but as a player you may not have that information.  Isn't skill choice really the same thing?

Now this is really a per-table attitude, but it definitely has a "competitive sports metagame" thing going on that I think impedes the roleplay.  Now I'm not the kind of person who develops gimped characters usually just for the roleplay challenge.  I think that's just another type of Special Snowflakeism.  I prefer random chargen, but if I randomly determine a gimp I'll play the hell out of him.  As far as character builds go, unless we're going for the prize in a tournament, my exact character build isn't any of your damn business.  Delivering a rundown of character build to the other members is a MMOG raiding requirement, not a roleplaying table requirement.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589516That game would be a mess. I don't think anyone at that table would like each other so even ignoring the whole basket weaver vs good player thing... yeah.

While I wouldn't characterize it as "basket weaver vs. good player" (I have played extensively with Bill and online with Benoist---both are great players), it is certainly possible the mix of personalities and playstyles simply won't work. It was just an example though. I have played with people who prefer more flexibility of rules and people who prefer greater adherance to RAW/fewer in-game rulings, and made it work by finding the right zone. I think so long as the players are willing to adapt by a hair in the interest of fun, there isn't a problem. In real life I have never had anyone instantly hate each other over stuff like this. Life is too short to hold grudges over difference of playstyle.

Quote from: MGuy;589507Considering 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 <...snip...>
one 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.

.

One of my main problems with 4e was that you couldn't build a character that was bad at combat.
All the rogues turn out like Cardinal Chang rather than Locke Lamora.

If you make all skills that are 'not good for adventures' cheap then you do 2 things
i) you restrict player options
ii) you run the risk of creating a loop hole that gives you something like the ludicrous levels of diplomacy

If you simply make all skills cost the same you are giving the player the option of chosing whether they create a tougher character or a weaker one.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589520While I wouldn't characterize it as "basket weaver vs. good player" (I have played extensively with Bill and online with Benoist---both are great players), it is certainly possible the mix of personalities and playstyles simply won't work. It was just an example though. I have played with people who prefer more flexibility of rules and people who prefer greater adherance to RAW/fewer in-game rulings, and made it work by finding the right zone. I think so long as the players are willing to adapt by a hair in the interest of fun, there isn't a problem. In real life I have never had anyone instantly hate each other over stuff like this. Life is too short to hold grudges over difference of playstyle.

A basket weaver is the antithesis of a good player, but ignoring that and only focusing on the subjective bullshit you like so much... Benoist has made it very clear he doesn't like me and probably doesn't like MGuy either, pretty sure Bill isn't a fan, MGuy has said he doesn't like me very much and probably doesn't like them either... Ok, maybe Benoist and Bill would like each other but for the most part it'd be exactly the opposite of what a game should be about - namely friends working for mutual betterment.

So I stand by that game being a mess. There's enough games like that without intentionally seeking them out.

And even if it were something like me and MGuy (who I'm really not sure why you're labeling on the same side, as he's fully drunk on the Den kool aid)... somehow I doubt that would work either. I suspect I would be very, very bored as you just wouldn't be playing on the same level as me, so I'd be facerolling everything and you'd get frustrated about that and well yeah. Still a mess.

Quote from: CRKrueger;589517Which brings us back to what skills are 100% useless.  There really aren't any, are there?

No, there aren't. If the GM reads up on and understands the implications of these skills, the possibilities multiply. Its one of the most fulfilling things about gaming for me to be honest - why did we not have the internet and its vast research resources back in 1980?!

Anyway yeah this thread is a fucking shambles, blood, guts and ass everywhere. I'm stepping over the carnage, mostly I read threads through but a few pages of this congealed thong convinced me that wasn't a good idea.

The initial premise was proven conclusively wrong on page 2. And here we are on page whathefuck arguing with Mr GC and his civil servant avatar.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589513I never said it would help you in an investigation more than diplomacy or perception. In fact, I specificially left the 2E equivalents of weave basket out of my list of things that contribute to investigative play. All I said was stuff like basket weaving can come up in a fully fleshed out setting. I suggest you re-read my response, since i tried to break things into clear categories (and just so I am more clear, 2E NWP were my point of reference).

I know what you said. That piece about NWPs doesn't hang my point. In fact it only clarifies how 2e skill stuff works but doesn't change my point. Here's the deal: there are different things you're going to do for different games. DnD is primarily about adventuring. Most of the rules are aimed towards doing that. What are the chances that you are going to "attempt" to weave baskets in any game system that you know of versus the chances you'll need to attempt to notice something.

Yes, there is some chance that you'll have something that comes up that involves weaving baskets but those chances are vanishingly small. Now copy paste that for any and all similarly narrow skills.

QuoteIt is not bad. It is a design choice. In some games you set costs for balance reasons, in others you set them according to  what is most realistic, and in others you set them according to play expectations. Personally, I prefer cost to reflect difficulty of learning the skill, or just be one flat rate. But that is just me. Raising the cost of basket weaving because it is less useful in pay just doesn't appeal to me, because it doesn't make sense that basket weaving is harder to master than seeing things and I think creating a well rounded character ought to involve some sacrifice. But that is just me.

Raising the cost of basket weaving (an already practically useless skill) only makes people even less likely to get it. I don't know why anyone would do that and I suspect that weaving baskets is not hard to do. Point is it is best to just have it not cost you the same thing as getting points in perception. There's no "balance" in keeping it at a flat rate. You just encourage people to not invest in it which is what most people do. If you want more players to actually get skills like that you have to make getting those skills appealing or force them to. I think the former is better than the latter.

QuoteNot sure why you think I am concerned about offending people. I am not. All I have been doing is drawing distinctions between preference (I like dungeon crawls) and statements that try to turn preference into objective judgments (dungeon crawls are the best style of play).

Because if you're debating something then saying "I like it" means next to nothing. That can't be argued with. There is no response. I could suggest that you might like something else better but there's no rubric for taste.

QuoteTrust me, you would have to work a lot harder than this to make me feel victimized by you. Again, not going to try to change your opinion of me.

It doesn't take work for someone to feel victimized.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589515It isn't that I disagree with you all that strongly here, I think we are 80% on the same page. For me, sticking to rules and procedures established prior to play is generally a good idea, but I leave room for those 5% of cases where the Gm is better off making an on the moment resolution when the rules of the book or houserules wouldn't help achieve a consistent setting and campaign event result.

If you don't disagree then why are you trying to say Consistency = inconsistency? Rules are made with the purpose of making imagination land sync up better and provides consistency. You are literally suggesting that a GM changing the rules mid game, with no prior warning, is consistency. That is not. You can say that "I believe that a GM should change the rules when they feel it is necessary" but the very act of changing the rules is not consistent. It is especially not consistent in the method that was described earlier where two different people with the same mods roll the same thing for the same skill check and got two different results because the GM willed it so.. That kind of GM wankery is most definitely not consistent and I'm not sure what kind of mental hoops you're putting yourself through to claim that it is.

2067084497

Quote from: CRKrueger;589517I did read your post Mguy, and I did respond to it adding the option you did not include.

Which fantastically enough doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. There's no reason you can't use ANY skill during downtime. Hell I can swing a sword during downtime. But that is only a reflection of how you are not comprehending my argument. It only gets worse with the following:

QuoteWhich brings us back to what skills are 100% useless.  There really aren't any, are there?  If you're making something, you can sell it.  If you're doing something non-Adventuring, that may affect the non-adventuring part of your character's life, aka social status, recognition, whatever.

Selling woven baskets pales in comparison to adventuring money making wise, social status wise, and in every other application you can place the skill of weaving baskets. You're going to have to try much harder to make weaving baskets seem comparable to saving the village from being burned down.

QuoteThe only time a skill is 100% useless is if the campaign you are playing in does not give your character the option to use it.  Deep-Sea Diving skill on Dune for example (but even that could be used for pressurization, oxygen levels whatever, you know what I mean.)

That's not necessarily true. I can have Diplomacy and never get a chance to use it in a game. Diplomacy is still a useful skill to have even if you don't have the best diplomacy check in the party.

QuoteNow considering a non-optimized skill selection disruptive is clearly a table decision as I stated before.  Some will consider it downright rude, others won't care, others will attempt to use their Accountant skill to make a successful Basket-Weaving business with you as you winter in Waterdeep.

That is not what I'msaying, at all.

QuoteNow talking specifically about 3.5, personally I don't think characters have enough skill points to make particularly interesting characters, especially if you're talking about Fighters.  The lack of skill points is where the dichotomy of extremes between basket-weaver and munchkin comes from, IMO.  The addition of a separate pool of "non-Adventuring Skill" points or as you were advocating, a lower cost for such skills certainly would allow for more realistic characters while not impacting optimization.

Wizards also lack skill points to toss around. Really the only one with them to spare would be rogues and possibly bards with high intel.

QuoteHowever, there is another point I raised, namely that of metagame.  Now if we were playing Shadowrun and my character had a "Dark Secret" and was on the run from a Megacorp who wanted him dead, you wouldn't expect your character or you as a player to know that, would you?  Something like that certainly affects your character, since it can easily kill you when the hit team shows up and you happen to be there, but as a player you may not have that information.  Isn't skill choice really the same thing?

No it isn't the same thing. One is a plot coupon good for fucking up your day. The other is knowing what your character knows they can do.

QuoteNow this is really a per-table attitude, but it definitely has a "competitive sports metagame" thing going on that I think impedes the roleplay.  Now I'm not the kind of person who develops gimped characters usually just for the roleplay challenge.  I think that's just another type of Special Snowflakeism.  I prefer random chargen, but if I randomly determine a gimp I'll play the hell out of him.

What does separating relevant skills from irrelevant skills have to do with competitiveness? What do you think Special Snowflake means?

Quote from: jibbajibba;589523One of my main problems with 4e was that you couldn't build a character that was bad at combat.
All the rogues turn out like Cardinal Chang rather than Locke Lamora.

If you make all skills that are 'not good for adventures' cheap then you do 2 things
i) you restrict player options
ii) you run the risk of creating a loop hole that gives you something like the ludicrous levels of diplomacy

If you simply make all skills cost the same you are giving the player the option of chosing whether they create a tougher character or a weaker one.

Isn't "lack of choice" something people were saying was good about older editions?

Well skipping that, I don't know that you can't make a character that is bad at combat in 4E. I made a paladin when I tried it out and I was pretty damn useless. Honestly if it weren't for the GM choosing to have enemies attack me for what was in my opinion no good reason (when there were better, more effective targets) I'm fairly sure that my character would have been COMPLETELY ineffective.

Edition stuff aside neither of those things are likely to happen. In fact making Craft: Woven Basket free makes it a more attractive option because you can get it without taking a hit to your character's overall effectiveness and add fluff to your character that may/may not come up. The second thing is almost an impossibility because "Diplomacy"is one of dem good skills and still would go by the same normal costs.

Quote from: MGuy;589535I know what you said. That piece about NWPs doesn't hang my point. In fact it only clarifies how 2e skill stuff works but doesn't change my point. Here's the deal: there are different things you're going to do for different games. DnD is primarily about adventuring. Most of the rules are aimed towards doing that. What are the chances that you are going to "attempt" to weave baskets in any game system that you know of versus the chances you'll need to attempt to notice something.

Yes, there is some chance that you'll have something that comes up that involves weaving baskets but those chances are vanishingly small. Now copy paste that for any and all similarly narrow skills.

I am not disputing that it might come up less than say survival in a standard campaign. That doesn't mean it ought to cost less or that peope shouldn't take it. Basket weaving is probably as difficult to learn as most other skills. If you are going to impose a cost difference my preference would be for it to be based on how hard it is to learn, not how useful it is.

That said thiskind of stuff comes up pretty often in a fleshed out setting where roleplaying is important. I have seen something like Brewing become an important part of a campaign for example.  

QuoteRaising the cost of basket weaving (an already practically useless skill) only makes people even less likely to get it. I don't know why anyone would do that and I suspect that weaving baskets is not hard to do. Point is it is best to just have it not cost you the same thing as getting points in perception. There's no "balance" in keeping it at a flat rate. You just encourage people to not invest in it which is what most people do. If you want more players to actually get skills like that you have to make getting those skills appealing or force them to. I think the former is better than the latter.

I don't want to rig the system so people feel encouraged to take basket weaving. You take it because it fits the character, not because you done a cost benefit analysid. If you begin with the premise that this is a well thought out character with a history and personal interests, sarificing blind fighting for Cobbling isn't such a big deal.

Again, the issue I am raising is there are several design approaches here. You see to be arguing way A is the best nd only approach. Well that approach doesn't really appeal to me. For a large group of people who play D&D my approach is going to be referable to yours. When they make 5E the best approach is the ne they calculate will work well for most groups.

QuoteBecause if you're debating something then saying "I like it" means next to nothing. That can't be argued with. There is no response. I could suggest that you might like something else better but there's no rubric for taste.

Well, we are talking about something that is a matter of taste. Not sure why this would present such a problem.

QuoteIt doesn't take work for someone to feel victimized.

OK.

Quote

QuoteIf you don't disagree then why are you trying to say Consistency = inconsistency? Rules are made with the purpose of making imagination land sync up better and provides consistency. You are literally suggesting that a GM changing the rules mid game, with no prior warning, is consistency. That is not. You can say that "I believe that a GM should change the rules when they feel it is necessary" but the very act of changing the rules is not consistent. It is especially not consistent in the method that was described earlier where two different people with the same mods roll the same thing for the same skill check and got two different results because the GM willed it so.. That kind of GM wankery is most definitely not consistent and I'm not sure what kind of mental hoops you're putting yourself through to claim that it is.

I said I share your much of your preference for consistent rules application. But importantly, i think you need some room to adjust midstream in the interest of keeping internal consistency and plausibility in the setting. So I am making think, and characterize it however you like, that consistency doesn't have to be about about the rules, it can be more about the setting. One could say it is consistent to employ mechanic A for all combat situations, but if you encounter an edge case where using it produces an inconsistency in the setting, then some people will label it inconsistent (even if you re consistently applying the rules). So i am making an important discussion here (consistency of setting versus rules) and the reason i am making it is because you appeared to be using consistency earlier to refer both to the setting expectations/internal logic and whether one is applying the rules in a regular fashion.

Swimming, Climbing, Tracking, and Perception being more useful skills for Conan the Barbarian then "Craft: anything but sword or armor" is not a difficult concept and of course I or anyone else reading this thread understands it.

However, we're back to
So what?  
and
How do you, Mguy even know my character Conan took Basketweaving last level and why do you care?
Two questions you still haven't really answered.

Yes I understand Elfdart and Jibba's character's aren't optimized.  Any fool can calculate strength.
Can you understand the fact that I don't give a shit, and really am wondering why you think you're entitled to give a shit?  
You think my character is a weight around your neck, put a sword in his kidney and dump him in a ditch.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589528Benoist has made it very clear he doesn't like me

You're the one jumping to conclusions, putting people into the "basket weaving" category to then adamantly pretend like you know them and you don't like them.

I don't know you.

To me, so far, you are a bunch of initials on the web with posts attached to them that basically look like you're parodying some internet tough guy with the avatar to boot.

What I know is that (1) you know fuck all about D&D and RPGs, (2) you have been lying specifically about your actual knowledge of First Edition AD&D, since EVERYTHING you said about it was wrong, (3) you are not here to have a discussion but rather to flame away for the lulz, and (4) you will not man up and own your own mistakes, acknowledge them and move on from there like normal, responsible, adult human beings.

Honestly, beyond that I don't know you. If you want me to care, you'll have to have to prove you are here to have an actual conversation and basically behave like a normal human being, not some random anonymous handle out there trolling because he can.

I think you're reading too much into it. I think it's fair to say we wouldn't get along with each other well and so couldn't play in the same game together. Do you think it isn't a fair assessment? If you're getting more out of it than that you're getting the wrong impression. I wasn't looking to pick a fight with that remark.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589546I think you're reading too much into it. I think it's fair to say we wouldn't get along with each other well and so couldn't play in the same game together. Do you think it isn't a fair assessment? If you're getting more out of it than that you're getting the wrong impression. I wasn't looking to pick a fight with that remark.

I have no idea. I can't answer this question. Sometimes people in RL are completely different from what you'd see of them online. Especially when they are anonymous and cultivate some sort of internet tough guy persona the way you are right now. For all I know, you are a 20-something soft kitty who lives at his mom and prepares hot chocolate for her right now, and you wouldn't even dare talk to her the way you are to us right now, so you use your anonymity online to unload your bullshit and feel like you could have been somebody if only you had had the balls to be yourself in the real world.

Who knows, right?

I don't know.

Ergo, I can't answer your question, one way or the other, and you honestly don't give me much in the way of opportunities to really give a shit either.