Quote from: jgants;499705Before 4e ever came out...players...insisted the game did not need skills.  They hated even the idea of skills in the game.

Yeah, I'm one of those players.  I don't like skill systems grafted onto the class/level approach of D&D.  

QuoteSo then 4e removes those skills because almost no one ever fucking used them in play (yes, they might come up a total of once or twice in a campaign, but that was about it), and now suddenly their absence makes it not "true D&D".  Please explain that one to me.

From my point of view, removal of certain skills from 4e (that were included in 3e) doesn't have anything to do with the way I perceive 4e and its relationship to traditional D&D.

QuoteOD&D, AD&D, and 3e fans all want very, very different games even if some of the monster stats or whatever look similar at a surface level the way the games play is quite different.

Yep, I agree.  Some of the editions are the same game with a few minor differences.  Some of the editions are different games, despite the shared name and trademark.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;499651Which skill?

Bluff?  Does lying make you good at disguise?  Or is that something you need to learn seperately?  Personally I like the differentiation.  I like that the rogue may be better at disguise, despite the fact that they both have bluff trained and the bard has a higher charisma.

I don't think Martial Practices are perfect design, but they're not bad either.  Their resemblance to rituals doesn't bother me.  If anything they're a better use of the ritual system than rituals are.

Yes, I would rule it as a use of the Bluff skill.  I would give bonuses and penalties to the skill based on how the player says he's going to use it.  If he just walks up to someone and says, "Hi, I'm Elminster," he's going to get a -5 penalty to his skill check.  If he glues on a cottonball beard and dresses in wizard robes, he can make the check normally.  If he reads up on Elminster's exploits and says, "Hi, I'm Elminster, and once I spent some time in hell while being tortured by a demon in a terribly-written book," then he's going to get a +5 check.

Now, I'm fine if you want to distinguish between uses of skills, but the entire Martial Practices system is a mess precisely because it goes against 4e design goals.  The idea behind the 4e skill system was twofold.

1. Simplify the 3e skill system.
2. Let everyone be decent at skills even if they weren't trained in them.

How did the 4e developers accomplish this?  By merging skills into broader, less-defined skills.  This is fine.  As all things with 4e, I feel the system went overboard, but condensing the 3e skill list is generally a good idea.  On top of this, the 4e skills are very rules light, leaving much of the ruling up the DM.  This is also fine, if that's how you want your skill system to be.  The 4e is system was a little too undefined for my tastes, but the 3e system was far too crunchy, with rules like "take a -1 penalty to your Spot checks for every 10 feet of distance between you and the thing you're trying to see."

Then, all of a sudden, it turns out that this isn't a good idea.  It turns out that players want specific, defined mechanics to differentiate their characters.  They want rules that let the ranger talk to animals and the bard disguise himself that aren't covered by the Nature and Bluff skills.  The martial practices attempt to do this by creating concrete rules for the system tacked onto the original rules light skill system, completely undermining the intent.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749Except you define 4E evangelist as anyone who says anything in defense of the game and then go on to insist that it's them who are the true drivers of the flamewars...

This is what the little voices in your head are saying. I do not think that everyone who defends or likes 4E is a 4E evangelist and have made that very clear. You choose to ignore that fact because it would prevent you from demonstrating your zealotry as a 4E evangelist.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749...but you just can't put the idiotic comments away about how 4E is somehow worse at supporting roleplay because it doesn't have craft or profession skills anymore.

Nope, I can't. I think 4E supports combat over role-play by the entire way that 4E has been written.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749Where? By saying, "3E has craft and profession skills," or insisting that I don't know what I'm talking about? You keep on making the same excuse instead of providing anything of substance. It's either, "I've said it before," or ,"4E has craft and profession skills." It's getting old.

If it is getting old, maybe you should give up your 4E evangelising about it.

Upthread, when TCO claimed that you could put skill points into your "to hit" modifier in 3E and you agreed with him, that shows a Gross Conceptual Error. Thinking that in a Role-Playing Game, the most important thing is Combat is also a Gross Conceptual Error.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749I love the smugness implied here. Here's a counter. If combat's not designed to support role-playing, why does grapple, or trip, or disarm exist? HEH. CHECK AND MATE, FOOL.

Um, as moves you can do against an opponent in combat?

You don't really believe that combat moves like grapple, trip, and disarm are examples of role-playing do you?

Quote from: Darwinism;499749You're making the point that because skills exist on a list that there's some mystical support of roleplaying, except that's a really weird argument to make because taking those skills doesn't support roleplaying any more than their absence in 2E or 4E degrades roleplaying.

There are Professions in AD&D2 and there is a shortened Skill selection in 4E. Do you even know what role-playing is? Have you ever role-played? Do you know how to describe a character's personality and how skills that character has will help in the description and thus help the ability to role-play that character?

Quote from: Darwinism;499749What? You realize the 4E bard is basically the 3E bard only good, right? Still tons of skills but actually useful without going for retarded diplomancy/bluffomancy.

There is more to RPGs than the Combat Encounter.

See, I've heard this crap before about the Bard. A Bard in 3.x or AD&D2 is not a front-line combatant, however it is as combat effective as a Predator Drone on the modern battlefield. You have to know how to use one, and the Bard's main use is not the Combat Encounter but everything that happens in between them.

4E changed all that. The Bard is now a Leader, but with the focus turned to the Combat Encounter, the Bard's previous usefulness in AD&D2 and 3.x has been thrown away. This is why you heard Players bemoan the Bard as combat ineffective, useless Jack-Of-All-Trades before 4E and hear them cheer that "The Bard is Good in combat now!!" with 4E.

It drives home the point that D&D 4E's focus is the Combat Encounter. While that is neither good nor bad, it is not my preferred style of role-playing game.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749No, it reflects 4E's focus on streamlining the game and trimming down the stupidly massive skill list that existed for no good reason. 3E had 36 skills many of which were completely unused outside of very, very specific campaigns. I can count the times I saw Forgery trained and used on one hand, same with Escape Artist, Decipher Script, Use Rope, or Handle Animal. Though for some of those the reason was the knowledge that a low-level spell could accomplish the same things as those skills without requiring character investment.

All I can say is that it sounds like you never got into the role-playing aspect of the role-playing game.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749The thing about 4E's skill list is that it's not truncated because every skill from 3E is still there, simply compacted into a shorter skill list because goddamn there's no reason for 36 skills, many of which would never even be used by the majority of players.

In a Combat Encounter focused game, you are correct. However, there are more ways to play D&D than just as a series of loosely connected combat encounters. Would you deny those who prefer to play it solely as combat oriented their use of the game?

Quote from: Darwinism;499749They don't help support roleplaying any more than the combat rules do, roleplaying is something the players bring to the game. You are doing the equivalent of insisting that because the combat system allows Roknar to swing his axe really well it's supporting roleplaying.

No, you are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying. I would even suggest that you are in denial that a role-playing game can include some actual role-playing that does not involve combat.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749For fuck's sake, shut up about it already. I started with 2E AD&D back in '91, went through Skills and Powers, 3E, 3.5E, Pathfinder, and then 4E. I apparently understand roleplaying far better than you do, since I'm aware that worthless skills that never needed mechanical support before to be roleplayed and now you're insisting that because 4E doesn't mechanically support them it's somehow not as supportive of roleplay.

Well, you have been dodging the question about your RPG experience for awhile now, so it is naturally suspect.

As to your understanding of role-playing? My opinion is that it is weak. You do not comprehend how skills can support role-playing and have suggested that combat maneuvers are examples of role-playing. You also have found the Bard character class useless before 4E (due to its perceived combat ineffectiveness) and of all the classes in existance, the Bard was designed for role-playing.

Quote from: Darwinism;499749You're so broken in the head that when you see a phrase you don't recognize you think the person saying it is wrong because they're not copying someone else?

I thought you were copying someone else and I corrected you.

Quote from: B.T.;499761Then, all of a sudden, it turns out that this isn't a good idea.  It turns out that players want specific, defined mechanics to differentiate their characters.  They want rules that let the ranger talk to animals and the bard disguise himself that aren't covered by the Nature and Bluff skills.  The martial practices attempt to do this by creating concrete rules for the system tacked onto the original rules light skill system, completely undermining the intent.

Yes.  Did you miss the post where I pointed out that 4E has four different sets of rules for tracking?

You're telling your grandmother to suck eggs here.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;499765You're telling your grandmother to suck eggs here.

Heinlein fan?

QuoteYes. Did you miss the post where I pointed out that 4E has four different sets of rules for tracking?

You're telling your grandmother to suck eggs here.

My posts enrich the general public.

QuoteRichard Baker, one of the few people left at WotC who contributed substantially to the original design of 4E (everyone but him, Mearls, Wyatt, and Cordell were let go) has just issued a new column on the WotC website for "Rule of 3". Usually that's reserved for rules questions, as in the old "Ask the Sage" with Skip Williams in older times. But not this time.

Was let go from WOTC on 14 Dec 2012...

Quote from: jeff37923;499766Heinlein fan?

No.  Is that where it comes from?

It's an expression I seem to have picked up somewhere along the line.

Heinlein, or Ren & Stimpy.

I'd dare to say that Heinlein came before Ren & Stimpy.

Yeah, it was a common saying that showed up in his writings.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763Um, as moves you can do against an opponent in combat?

You don't really believe that combat moves like grapple, trip, and disarm are examples of role-playing do you?

And people said that 4E couldn't support a Book of Erotic Fantasy.

JG

keeeeeerist, can't someone go party on New Year's Eve and then wallow in a hangover New Year's Day without having to sift through a backlog of pages? All y'all makin' me go read more 'n shit...

Quote from: Opaopajr;499966keeeeeerist, can't someone go party on New Year's Eve and then wallow in a hangover New Year's Day without having to sift through a backlog of pages? All y'all makin' me go read more 'n shit...

+1 here

Quote from: Opaopajr;499966keeeeeerist, can't someone go party on New Year's Eve and then wallow in a hangover New Year's Day without having to sift through a backlog of pages? All y'all makin' me go read more 'n shit...

Think of it as a cleansing rinse for the hungover brain.  

Quote from: jeff37923;499974Think of it as a cleansing rinse for the hungover brain.  

More like "If booze didn't kill all your grey cells, this will"