|
I understand your point, Shem, and respect it. For me, that one quote, "profession--boring game" I would've just let slide, though it would've irritated me for a moment. The fact is, I've seen the same kind of quote before, and I feel like I'll hear it again and again.
The first time I saw it was in Bo9S, with the "this isn't your DAD'S D&D." My dad didn't play D&D. He thought it was a waste of time.
Oh, wait. You're not talking to me, you're talking to my son.
And, while I'm at it, wasn't Eberron supposed to suck in all the WoW kids? Where's that at now? What DIDN'T work exactly with that gambit?
I've heard 3.5 referred to as a simple, elegant system right up and to the hammer fall of 4dventure day, when it instantly became this cloogy 1969 Oldsmobile with 800,000 miles on it, with a possessed transmission that spit split pea soup out of the radiator everytime I shifted into drive. This spin crap gets tedious.
I wish they could talk up 4e. without saying what a piece of crap 3.5 is, that's all.
Sarcasm aside, I'm not offended by the book. I don't get furious about some sentence where they tell me how to play. I actually find it quite hilarious how they are trying to sell their product to me. I haven't played 3.5 edition from the beginning, but I like it. I'm still willing to try a new game. Same thing with campaign settings. I love Greyhawk, and was sad when Dungeon and Dragon got cancelled (in print). Now I'm playing Pathfinder, and was willing to make the change. Paizo sold it to me easily. Their marketing is quite good I think. None of the previews for Pathfinder told me that all the other campaign settings suck and that I can't have fun playing them. There wasn't any talk about how I should buy Pathfinder #2, 'cause there is a prestige class which finally let's me play the character I've always wanted. I'm not offended by anything WotC has said, but they also haven't sold their game to me with that kind of marketing.
Hm, that Yuan-ti actually makes sense. Because you know, they just might.
|
I wish they could talk up 4e. without saying what a piece of crap 3.5 is, that's all.
Good point. I agree that even if 4e has evolved the system (I am not saying it has) that does not mean there is anything wrong with what has come before - it has just been improved upon (in their opinion). That being said - I do think they have learned a lot from the past several years of 3.5.
I just finished reading the book yesterday. First to the OP and all the others that seem upset I am sure that no matter what they wrote in the book someone could find something to be offended about. I see where the offense was taken but when I read that line it did not trigger me - I think a lot of people are looking for reasons to be angry about 4e and that sentence is another excuse to say they are wrong for putting out a new edition.
Well, I can speak only for myself and as I sated in another thread, I'm not necessarily opposed to 4e. I also stated, that I will buy the 4e core book, to see how it all fits together, despite the fact that i'm staying with 3.5. But back to topic:
I guess what upset me was that someone not knowing me or my playstyle says my games are boring. I see the quoted Races&Classes text not as to be understood word by word but in a larger context. The author of said passage could also have written something like this (and triggered the same reaction):
"But when was the last time you used that or that rule/class/feat/whatever that has a usefull impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is proablity not as much fun as D&D should be. Sorry)" or "What, you play 3.5 - that's boring"
And I will go so far as saying, that the author seems to have forgotten that 3.5e was a game made by same company who now makes 4e and he is telling you, that you bought and are playing a boring game (and with 4e all that will change...)
Actually, its not about the profession skill...It's about attitude. And it's about professionalism. If I want to sell something, than I would avoid such sentences which could "potentially" make some customers angry...
The first time I saw it was in Bo9S, with the "this isn't your DAD'S D&D." My dad didn't play D&D. He thought it was a waste of time.
Oh, wait. You're not talking to me, you're talking to my son.
Sad/funny, but true.
I wish they could talk up 4e. without saying what a piece of crap 3.5 is, that's all.
I was never the swiftest guy in the world or the guy that got all of a woman's subtle hints, but even I can figure out a statement like that. And I know that WotC has seen comments equally blunt, many, many times. They have to know that comments like this translates to their own marketting campaign is pushing away their own customers. What I can't figure out is why aren't they doing something about it?
|
|
They have to know that comments like this translates to their own marketting campaign is pushing away their own customers. What I can't figure out is why aren't they doing something about it?
I think it may be a calculated risk on their part. They'll lose some old players, but that will be made up by the number of young players they hope to get. Younger players may not personally have the money to buy lots of products (especially those around 12 years old), but they do have parents who will probably buy stuff for them. You see it was all kinds of other stuff these days, (clothing, video games, etc) so why not for RPGs as well.
Your mileage may vary
or
Yuan-ti might make Violins
But that would be Craft (Musical Instrument), and is certainly not fun.
~RD
|
|
I think it may be a calculated risk on their part. They'll lose some old players, but that will be made up by the number of young players they hope to get. Younger players may not personally have the money to buy lots of products (especially those around 12 years old), but they do have parents who will probably buy stuff for them. You see it was all kinds of other stuff these days, (clothing, video games, etc) so why not for RPGs as well.
I don't know about other people. I don't buy my kids anything that demeans or insults their parents (i.e. me and my wife).
I don't buy them anything that demeans or insults them as individuals either.
Actually I won't buy them anything that demeans or insults other people as well (I'm with stupid T-shirts for instance).
I think it may be a calculated risk on their part. They'll lose some old players, but that will be made up by the number of young players they hope to get. ... You see it was all kinds of other stuff these days, (clothing, video games, etc) so why not for RPGs as well.
But why can't they see that old RPGers (those that currently enjoy D&D) are probably going to introduce D&D to their kids. I mean I have a daughter, and she loves dragons (thanks dragonology) and I HAD full plans of playing D&D with her someday. Now I'll introduce her to either 3.5 or whatever fantasy game I end up playing when she's old enough to play (possibly RuneQuest, hopefully Pathfinder Chronicles RPG). I will not be introducing her to 4E after their insults.
(Note: My daughter has a frost dragon named Coldy. She tried to name him Spiderman, but told her that Spiderman is red and red is hot. So she named him Coldy.)
|
|
I don't know about other people. I don't buy my kids anything that demeans or insults their parents (i.e. me and my wife).
I don't buy them anything that demeans or insults them as individuals either.
Actually I won't buy them anything that demeans or insults other people as well (I'm with stupid T-shirts for instance).
Same here. Of course, I don't have any kids....yet (cue horror music). Unfortunately, there are some people out there who will vuy their kids anything just to keep them happy and (I suspect) quiet.
Your mileage may vary
or
Yuan-ti might make Violins
Well, my Yuan-ti bard had to use Profession (Instrument Maker) to replace his violin in last night's campaign after it was stolen and destroyed by an NPC using Profession (Jack-Booted Thug).
We come here to rant; we come here to complain. EnWorld and the WOTC boards have no respect for those that need to vent.Well, again, YMMV.
I don't really want to rant or complain (much). I want intelligent discussion.
Actually what I really want is for someone to convince me to buy the 4th Edition for a reason other than Paizo is going with it eventually. I like buying RPG books and I don't mind switching editions if the new edition is better.
So far no-one is doing a great job of convincing me I need to spend another $100 for new rulebooks. (Other than, again, Paizo switching would convince me at this point).
Wicht, if Amazon.com is your style, they will probably be on the order of $70 with Free Shipping (Media Mail, but if you are not in a hurry generally great). Of course, if it comes to supporting a FLGS you really should probably spend the $100.
|
While Craft and Profession checks in many campaigns are probably not all that common I can't see any reason to remove them. While they're at it they might as well get rid of Decipher Script (cause that's like about books and writing and that's like totally not fun).
The craft skill applications are obvious, Profession less so (running the Savage Tide though Profession (sailor) was a pretty vital skill). However, I do hear the notion that as a player I can't afford to throw in some skill points in Craft, Profession without losing some capabilities elsewhere.
The people who want to have the mechanics reflect their background can take a hit because of that. In all of my 3.5 campaigns when characters are rolled up they received 4 extra skill points that could only be used in Craft, Profession, Knowledge. This encourages to make use of their background and as a DM I'll remember some of those skills and probably insert some application into a later adventure.
Re Crosswiredmind's post about just roleplay being a sailor. Well fooey to that. If I'm a captain trying to outmaneuver pirates (or even trick them into crashing on the shoals) I can't just roleplay that. It calls for a mechanic to be at work (In this case opposed Profession Sailor checks augmented by crew modifiers). In a military campaign Profession (siege engineer) would be vital in taking a fortified city or on the flipside providing countermeasures to things like mining.
Yes, there's probably no need for Profession (bookkeeping) checks but there are definitely some applications that should have a rule mechanic base.
I've
|
Re Crosswiredmind's post about just roleplay being a sailor. Well fooey to that. If I'm a captain trying to outmaneuver pirates (or even trick them into crashing on the shoals) I can't just roleplay that. It calls for a mechanic to be at work (In this case opposed Profession Sailor checks augmented by crew modifiers). In a military campaign Profession (siege engineer) would be vital in taking a fortified city or on the flipside providing countermeasures to things like mining.
Yes, there's probably no need for Profession (bookkeeping) checks but there are definitely some applications that should have a rule mechanic base.
I agree, but profession sailor is so broad as to be useless if you need mechanics for that detailed an interaction. If you are playing a detailed nautical game you need a bunch of skills and not just profession: sailor.
|
|
What about my point regarding the need for successful Profession (siege engineer) checks *required* to reload a catapult with any speed?Ok. If siege weapons are are big part of your game then, sure, I guess that's useful but does it really need to be a profession skill?
What does it matter if it is called Profession (Siege Engineer), Knowledge (Siege Engineer), or just plain old Siege Engineering? If it works basically the same way... a rose is a rose, etc.
I am really puzzled trying to figure out what point you are trying to make. If its useful to someone, its useful to them regardless of the actual title.
Wow...I took a nap, came back to the computer to find you guys still having the same discussion. From the looks of things you also took a break and then started back up.
So who's winning the debate?
Well, my players used profession sailor a few months back.
Sure, I admit my games are no fun, I'm an idiot, and nobody likes me.
Doesn't matter because I'm not buying R&C anyways so it's like it doesn't exist (until I check out this thread).
|
|
I am really puzzled trying to figure out what point you are trying to make.
The point is this - the skill system in 3E is a decent enough attempt to bring skills into D&D but it doesn't really work. The skills are either very narrow and very useful in game (spot, hide, move silently, etc.), broad and useful to augment role playing (knowledge, diplomacy, survival, perform), or the overly general and fairly useless (profession).
Since most characters get very few skill points per level they tend to spend them on the first category. Those that gravitate towards role playing or that have classes with more skill points go for the second category. Profession is so broad and has so few in game uses that only a handful of players take them.
D&D's first attempt at a skill system is admirable but in the end it didn't work as well as the skill systems used by other games.
I hope 4E fixes it - I do have my doubts based on new skills like "nature" that just seem way too broad. I prefer the Chaosium skill system that does not limit characters the way it does in 3E.
D&D's first attempt at a skill system is admirable but in the end it didn't work as well as the skill systems used by other games.
I agree.
But, there's no guarantee their replacement will be any better.
And, it doesn't change the fact that they have told us we were having no fun--when we were. It's not a big deal but it is yet another slight in a virtual landslide of disrespect.
|
|
The point is this - the skill system in 3E is a decent enough attempt to bring skills into D&D but it doesn't really work. The skills are either very narrow and very useful in game (spot, hide, move silently, etc.), broad and useful to augment role playing (knowledge, diplomacy, survival, perform), or the overly general and fairly useless (profession).
Since most characters get very few skill points per level they tend to spend them on the first category. Those that gravitate towards role playing or that have classes with more skill points go for the second category. Profession is so broad and has so few in game uses that only a handful of players take them.
D&D's first attempt at a skill system is admirable but in the end it didn't work as well as the skill systems used by other games.
I hope 4E fixes it - I do have my doubts based on new skills like "nature" that just seem way too broad. I prefer the Chaosium skill system that does not limit characters the way it does in 3E.
Yeah have to concur with that. There are definite limitations in the skill system. Chaosium's approach (I only know from Call of Cthulhu) did strike me as a pretty solid one.
I guess the only qualifying remark is I don't mind a broad scope to some skills. Going with the above example of outmaneveuring pirates, sure there's lots of skills working in tandem (and varying given circumstances) but I think I'd prefer a macro approach rather than a host of Use Rope checks and the like to resolve the chase.In a nautical campaign like Savage Tide I made it fairly clear that Knowledge (geography) applied to navigation and Profession (Sailor) handling and manuevering the ship. Like anything else in the game I guess it boils down to GMs discretion.
Well that's my two cents.
It was an ok-book until i came to page 68 where I read in first paraphraph the following line: "But when was the last time you saw a PC make a profession check that has a usefull impact on the game? (Hint: If it was recently, your game is proablity not as much fun as D&D should be. Sorry
Get with the program!
4/e is coming out to show us how to have fun when we roleplay. We've been doing it wrong for 30 years, but rejoice! WotC will lead us out of the wilderness :P
I wish they could talk up 4e. without saying what a piece of crap 3.5 is, that's all.
It's just a form of negative campaigning.
While it leaves a bad taste in our mouth, in the end that bad taste gets associated with the thing (or person, in this election year) that's being bad-mouthed.
So it'll probably work in the end.
Just like it does for lying, scum-sucking, lying, back-stabbing, lying, gerrymandering, lying, swinish liars -- errr, I mean politicians.
|
|
I am really puzzled trying to figure out what point you are trying to make.The point is this - the skill system in 3E is a decent enough attempt to bring skills into D&D but it doesn't really work. The skills are either very narrow and very useful in game (spot, hide, move silently, etc.), broad and useful to augment role playing (knowledge, diplomacy, survival, perform), or the overly general and fairly useless (profession).
I disagree categorically. I believe that the combination of precise and general skills is one of the great strengths of the system.
Am I right? I don't know. I know I'm right for my campaign.
Are you right? I don't know that either, but yet you state your opinion as fact and dismiss dissenting opinions out of hand.
My biggest complaint is that I think some of the skills are to similar and a little blending would be better. They need to keep skills like profession though. It balances the game, creates roleplaying for those that still know what that is, and they are important for NPCs to have.
I disagree categorically. I believe that the combination of precise and general skills is one of the great strengths of the system.
I'm going to agree and disagree.
RPG rules are always a compromise between realism and playability (ignoring the ones that have neither). I think 3.5 has the best skill system I've seen in any game -- bar none. I also think that it's too complex (because it errs on the side of realism) for many players, so I think WotC is doing a good thing for the game.
This crap about Profession skills (or whatever) being bad is just that, though -- crap. Where's Vomit Guy when we need him?
Are you right? I don't know that either, but yet you [crosswiredmind -ed.] state your opinion as fact and dismiss dissenting opinions out of hand.
...for that is his way.
|
|
No wait, this sounds awesome. Instead of having to 'waste' points on relevant skills for my characters, I can just 'roleplay' them being sailors or whatever. I don't actually need to waste points on knowing anything about seamanship, I can just jot a line down saying, 'I'm a sailor.'
But I won't do that. It's not effective enough. If it doesn't affect combat or give me some sort of tactical advantage in an encounter, then it's not worth having in the game, after all.
Instead I'll jot down a line that says, "I'm the Emperor of Karribus, son of the God of War and have a thousand million loyal subjects." I'll even roleplay it! It's not like I need to actually waste points on having any sorts of skills that make me good at politics or administration, or any sort of Feat that lets me have those thousand million loyal subjects, or whatever. I say it, and it happens! Roleplay! So awesome!
And the Cleric will be a Faerie Princess, with a pet dragon named Cuddles and the ability to Craft anything of any value she wants out of Dreamstuff by reaching into her backpack and saying, 'I think I can, I think I can...' No skills, no feats, none of that pesky rules stuff. I'll just 'roleplay' it! We need the Dingus of Doozle to stop the evil overlord? Good thing Fayina can 'Craft' those, and doesn't have to use any sorts of rules to slow down the game! Dinguses of Doozle for everyone! And an Invulnerable Coat of Arnd for the Cleric, and the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords for Chompy the Half-Orc, who isn't technically a Dwarf, but he wrote down under 'Profession' "Scholar: Dwarves, counts as a Dwarf for using Dwarven items' so he can use it anyway, and he really roleplays being an honorary Dwarf so well...
The Rogue's 'Profession' line will read simply, "I'm Batman."
|
|
I disagree categorically. I believe that the combination of precise and general skills is one of the great strengths of the system.
Am I right? I don't know. I know I'm right for my campaign.
Are you right? I don't know that either, but yet you state your opinion as fact and dismiss dissenting opinions out of hand.
I do not hold squishy opinions. I can, will, and do change my mind when presented with a solid counter argument. The only thing I will dismiss out of hand are arguments made from a purely emotional reaction or that have to do with imaginary fluff.
Anyhow, I would agree that the mixture of specific and broad skill is a good thing. The problem with the implementation in 3E is the limited skill points handed to each class.
Take a cleric with her 2 points per level (barring a higher INT or her being human). Is she going to take any skills beyond Knowledge Religion, Heal, Concentration, or Spell Craft? If she could then there is always diplomacy and sense motive. Not much room for profession or craft.
There needs to be a better way to have skill mechanics that are not so limiting. I am hoping that 4E fixes this but I have my doubts.
|
|
...for that is his way.
Are you right? I don't know that either, but yet you [crosswiredmind -ed.] state your opinion as fact and dismiss dissenting opinions out of hand.
Yep. I came up through a tough academic discipline where weakly held opinions get squished. I am not incapable of changing my opinion but it takes more than adhominem attacks or emotional outbursts.
I need to see counter points that are coherent, objective, and rational.
Ah, yes, that would be the tough academic discipline that allows you to posit your value judgments as fact, create models that are faulty, and ignore appeals to logic.
|
|
Ah, yes, that would be the tough academic discipline that allows you to posit your value judgments as fact, create models that are faulty, and ignore appeals to logic.
If you disagree with me then challenge what I say and not how I say it. If you present a solid counter I will consider it and you will find that I am more than willing to change my mind.
|
|
Take a cleric with her 2 points per level (barring a higher INT or her being human). Is she going to take any skills beyond Knowledge Religion, Heal, Concentration, or Spell Craft? If she could then there is always diplomacy and sense motive. Not much room for profession or craft.
Since you value firm arguments so much let me just bluntly say then that you are wrong.
Almost every cleric in my home campaigns has opted for craft and knowledge skills over diplomacy and sense motive. Most of them, in point of fact, have been humans and our characters tend to have decent intelligences (you know - so we get skills, which we like). This is not an emotional argument nor is it fluff. It is the way we make our clerics (and other characters). In fact, even before I house-ruled a free craft, knowledge or profession skill for each character most of our characters had at least one of them already. In point of fact, a craft skill is generally the first or second skill chosen for most of our characters.
I am humble enough to recognize that the way we have played our games may not be the way you play your games or make your characters. But you in turn should recognize that not everyone is going to make the same character building decisions as you would.
Gentlemen, at the risk of being rude, might I suggest a time-out? 'Twould seem that this discussion is headed to stormier waters, if you both will pardon the poor joke.
Ah, yes, that would be the tough academic discipline that allows you to posit your value judgments as fact, create models that are faulty, and ignore appeals to logic.If you disagree with me then challenge what I say and not how I say it. If you present a solid counter I will consider it and you will find that I am more than willing to change my mind.
I have tried suggesting to you than things you have posted are inaccurate. I have pointed out that you place your opinions as conceded fact.
Yet you have continued to do so, so why should I continue to disagree with you. The truth is that I agree with some of your opinions; what bothers me is (1) the way you dismiss the opinions of others and (2) the way you refuse to concede that you have erred when it is obvious and on the record that you have done so.
|
|
Crosswiredmind:
If a problem with skills in 3.5 is that they are too limiting (in the context of not enough being available to classes/low intelligence characters wth too few points to go around), then would you agree that an option as suggested by some of the previous posters, allowing every character some 'background' skill points exclusively for spending on profession/knowlege/craft skills (possibly even at each level beyond first) is at least as valid a solution as that proposed for 4th edition of simply getting rid of professions? (Setting aside for now arguements such as that having more skills on a character sheet clutters it up and makes it confusing, or that it makes rolling up a character too complicated/take too long.)
I think that is a fantastic idea.
The one thing we do not know is how 4E will address thing like professions (beyond their removal from the skill list) so they may have an alternative that we have not yet seen.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Crosswired we have.
I've seen several posts listing the use of profession skills. This doens't count my own use of Profession (Gambler) Profession (Herbalist) Profession (Sailor)
Your only replies are "Too broad" "Too narrow" "Call them something else" and "If they come up in your game"
That's not refuting an arguement. That's trying to dodge the subject.
When my characters are holed up in Sandpoint this winter, they'll find those profession and craft skills useful.
The one thing we do not know is how 4E will address thing like professions (beyond their removal from the skill list) so they may have an alternative that we have not yet seen.
And I can imagine a few alternatives that would be way better, although I don't have the time to write them and test them. Here I agree with you, and here is a toast to hope. Not rational, not logical, but really a good thing to have.