Hmm. You keep saying this thing. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
Nice. :)
I love that book (and movie).
Largely because the skill system is a joke (it is, sorry guys), and seems to be a barely-thought-of afterthought. Most of the non-combat-themed skills are even more pared down than 3.5, which was telling in and of itself. (Craft, for instance, is removed COMPLETELY).
Sorry - craft was a junk-ass skill. I never had one of my player's heroes sit down to make a sword... Profession - same. The only skill that has been dropped that was used was Perform. And guess by who? The Bard. Who is also NOT in 4E (yet!).
So... yeah.
I don't see why 4E won't be an excellent tool to run a combat light adventure like Murder at Oakbridge.Largely because the skill system is a joke (it is, sorry guys), and seems to be a barely-thought-of afterthought. Most of the non-combat-themed skills are even more pared down than 3.5, which was telling in and of itself. (Craft, for instance, is removed COMPLETELY).
This is to say NOTHING of the numerous spells and effects that were not directly applicable to combat. There are many things outside of combat that even a relatively weak 'social' game like 3.5 could still handle, that 4E just simply cannot (as is).
I do not know if you have played Saga edition, but do you feel the same about its skill system?
|
Sorry - craft was a junk-ass skill. I never had one of my player's heroes sit down to make a sword... Profession - same. The only skill that has been dropped that was used was Perform. And guess by who? The Bard. Who is also NOT in 4E (yet!).
So... yeah.
I have a player who plays a knight in our 3.5 Ptolus game. He spent ranks in various Craft skills and was absolutely pissed at how the skill worked. He doesn't have time to craft anything, even when presented with downtime.
He had this idea that his character would be an inventor of sorts, building new items and selling them. The player likes to design little gadgets and widgets so it was a perfect fit. In any case, it never seemed to work in-game. We've reached the point where he comes to me with a design and I give him an idea how long it will take to build a prototype to sell to interested parties. The skills are never used. Something that would be the status quo in 4e (or any edition other 3rd for that matter).
On one hand taking skill ranks in Craft or Profession gives you some nice background flavor. But if used that way it is often better to just simply insert a line in your character background about your former profession. On the other, taking ranks should give you the ability to actually craft items during the course of a campaign. But most campaigns don't allow the time necessary to craft magic items much less mundane ones or provide so much treasure that making armor or weapons seems redundant and silly. Either way, it is a waste of skill points.
ENWorld has just awarded their Fan Creation Pick of the Week to a set of Craft rules. I haven't had a chance to look them over but it would be interesting to see what someone did to tackle the issue the 3.x rules presented.
On one hand taking skill ranks in Craft or Profession gives you some nice background flavor. But if used that way it is often better to just simply insert a line in your character background about your former profession.
Exactly.
Here is a report on a Q&A session given by Mearls. Pathfinder is mentioned, if that entices you to read. ;)
I thought it was pretty good, and gave a good glimpse behind the scenes, as it were.
Any thoughts?
Since the DDxp info, I thought the design sounded more like warmachine in rule concept. Since we started playing it felt more and more of that mentality. Nice to hear that was a goal of Mearls.
It might not work for you as a social-orientated campaign, but it works just fine for me. In fact, take out the sledgehammer of the wizard in 3.X and 4E works even better for social-orientated campaigns if you use skill challenges. See something such as Burning Wheel for a good analogy with its Duel of Wits.Personally, I would gladly run 4E on those days that I just want to 'kill some goblins', though I might lean a little more to Descent in that regard. But 4E doesn't work for me in a more.. social-oriented campaign.
And, of course, anything that requires new (or expanded) mechanics at this point are completely right out.
Indeed, I think the changes to many of the out of combat utility spells from 3E enables a whole slew of non-combat encounters that were pretty hard to pull off effectively before. Check out the thread on this board about 4E's enhanced ability to pull of a murder mystery, for example.
The skill system seems pretty solid to me.
Cheers! :)
Edit: And ditto to many other points. Craft/Profession, if used just to give background, really don't need any mechanics behind them. And if you do want to use those mechanics, they take so long it is effectively worthless.
Plus, now that you can always assume a base competency of characters, it's going to be way easier to insert skill challenges/checks into published modules, since you know everyone will be able to swim/climb/balance/diplomatize/intimidate/etc/etc. Good times! :)
This is the part I don't quite get. The other night I sat down with the core 3.5 and 4e books and did a flip through. They both seemed to cover the same kind of material to about the same level of detail with the exception of the massive spell list. Both editions have content about gods, roleplaying, world building, etc.
I understand that there are some races and classes that have been a part of previous editions that are no longer a part of the core but I don't really notice any other big difference in the content department.
I am a declared fence sitter. I have strong reasons for liking both PfRPG and 4e. But at this point there are areas that I do think 4e is up to snuff yet. And I am worried about its future.
To illustrate, I have been long wanting to run a campaign where all players have to be clerics. I want them from different gods but joined together for some mutual gain (maybe something original like stopping the end of the world). I want players of God of War, God of Protection, God of Mischief, God of Death and Magic. A mish-mash, all player must choose different gods. I feel this will promote role playing conflict and political aspects of the game I usually do not capture well.
I feel 4e limits aspects of the campaign. Sure role playing is virtually identical, but I wanted Domain powers and Domain spell lists. When it comes to fighting, I wanted them to be different. The Cleric of War should be reeking havoc. The Cleric of Protection should be healing. The other Clerics doing their thing.
I can not play this in 4e yet. I don't feel like creating a bunch of new classes and powers. When will the fan base give me an option? I don't see 'domain clerics' in the near future. Even if they give us something like a Domain Cleric, I will most likely have to wait years. (Likewise, I want Specialist Wizards. Illusionist and Summoner look like they are coming, but I don't want to wait years. And I want more Wizard choices.)
Anyways, the point of this is that 4e has forced us to make choices. If we want some of the improvements of 4e, we need to give up some aspect of the 3.5 game. If we want better high level play of 4e, I need to give up 'chaotic' multi-classing. (Here is 'lawful' Multiclassing instead). If I want more fluid combat of 4e, we have to give up iterative attacks. If you want more class types (Warlord from your previuos post), we have to give up 'Cleric Domains'. These are not necessarily directly correlated, but they are to illustrate that we are making trade-offs. As long as we keep saying we are not giving anything up with 4e, we will continue to argue. I hear that there are pluses and minuses. But it is wrong to say there are no minuses to 4e. Likewise, it is wrong to claim there are no minuses to 3.5.
Going back to my campaign example, I only see downside to my Cleric campaign in 4e. And that is a content department issue.
My players have characters who are armorers, weaponmakers, merchants, scribes, cartographers, bookmakers, musicians...
Crafting is important. Profession too.
Adventurers are not necessary raiding dungeons 24/7. They can have some time off, a secundary occupation, a "normal" job.
My players have characters who are armorers, weaponmakers, merchants, scribes, cartographers, bookmakers, musicians...
Crafting is important. Profession too.
Adventurers are not necessary raiding dungeons 24/7. They can have some time off, a secundary occupation, a "normal" job.
Do you need a skill mechanic for that though...?
Do you need a skill mechanic for that though...?
Yes, when they want to do something specific, like a masterwork sword, a good deal with another merchant or a customer, an exceptionnal book with miniatures, a detailed map or a performance during a ball.
I don't need a bunch of rules, but i need some.
|
Do you need a skill mechanic for that though...?
I like having rules for it as well. Some people use these rules. If we can accept that you don't use them, why can't you accept there are people that like knowing who the better baker in town is and whether the PCs actually have the ability to win the local cook-off?
I am a declared fence sitter. I have strong reasons for liking both PfRPG and 4e. But at this point there are areas that I do think 4e is up to snuff yet. And I am worried about its future.To illustrate, I have been long wanting to run a campaign where all players have to be clerics. I want them from different gods but joined together for some mutual gain (maybe something original like stopping the end of the world). I want players of God of War, God of Protection, God of Mischief, God of Death and Magic. A mish-mash, all player must choose different gods. I feel this will promote role playing conflict and political aspects of the game I usually do not capture well.
I feel 4e limits aspects of the campaign. Sure role playing is virtually identical, but I wanted Domain powers and Domain spell lists. When it comes to fighting, I wanted them to be different. The Cleric of War should be reeking havoc. The Cleric of Protection should be healing. The other Clerics doing their thing.
I can not play this in 4e yet. I don't feel like creating a bunch of new classes and powers. When will the fan base give me an option? I don't see 'domain clerics' in the near future. Even if they give us something like a Domain Cleric, I will most likely have to wait years. (Likewise, I want Specialist Wizards. Illusionist and Summoner look like they are coming, but I don't want to wait years. And I want more Wizard choices.)
Anyways, the point of this is...
I do not see running this type of campaign as a problem in 4e. The Channel Divinity feats are a great start to this. Second, Multiclassing into cleric would allow you to get the taste of the character you want.
I know this is exactly what you said you didnt want to do but, add powers just for that character.
I was thinking of a Wizard/Cleric combo who parents were devout followers of two different gods. The father would have been a wizard of Ioun and the mother the Raven Queen. The result would be a child with the birthmark called the Mark of Fate. Essentially it would be the Eye of Ioun in a web that condesnses into a black line that spirals around his arm into a raven head on his left shoulder. This would be a feat that would latter allow him to access powers special to him, and him only.
Some of the names I have come up with are
Kiss of the Raven Queen (Heroic Tier)(Encounter Power) [Necrotic and Psychic]
Hand of Fate (Paragon Tier) (Daily Power)
Reality Revision (Epic) (Daily Charged Power or Ritual)
Im still editing these constantly but they certainitly allow you the flavor and taste that maybe you were looking for.
Do you need a skill mechanic for that though...?I like having rules for it as well. Some people use these rules. If we can accept that you don't use them, why can't you accept there are people that like knowing who the better baker in town is and whether the PCs actually have the ability to win the local cook-off?
I am playing Dungeons and Dragons. Not, Chefs and Ovens. :)
Going back to my campaign example, I only see downside to my Cleric campaign in 4e. And that is a content department issue.
In 4E, your idea could work, but would have to be tweaked a little. Instead of everyone having the base class as Cleric, have everyone multiclass into it. Your Cleric of War could be a Fighter/Cleric, your Cleric of Knowledge a Wizard/Cleric, etc etc. Maybe let them get Channel Divinity, or qualify for the God-specific feats somehow (since this appears to be 4E's version of Clerical domains).
Your idea reminds me of a post I saw on ENWorld where someone wanted to run a Harry Potter-esque game, where all the characters were students at a Wizard's School. So they all started multiclassed as Wizards. They seemed pleased with how it turned out.
Cheers! :)
I wanted my Druid to be a male prostitute but there were no skills in the 3.5 PHB to support my character concept at all!!
Sure some dopes said "just say 'I turn a trick'" but I wanted to roll some dice then say 'I turn a trick' and if it is not in the books then what the heck am I paying them for? WAY TO DROP THE BALL WOTC!!!
Going back to my campaign example, I only see downside to my Cleric campaign in 4e. And that is a content department issue.
In 4E, your idea could work, but would have to be tweaked a little. Instead of everyone having the base class as Cleric, have everyone multiclass into it. Your Cleric of War could be a Fighter/Cleric, your Cleric of Knowledge a Wizard/Cleric, etc etc. Maybe let them get Channel Divinity, or qualify for the God-specific feats somehow (since this appears to be 4E's version of Clerical domains).
Your idea reminds me of a post I saw on ENWorld where someone wanted to run a Harry Potter-esque game, where all the characters were students at a Wizard's School. So they all started multiclassed as Wizards. They seemed pleased with how it turned out.
Cheers! :)
We keep doing this. Great minds I do believe.
I wanted my Druid to be a male prostitute but there were no skills in the 3.5 PHB to support my character concept at all!!
Sure some dopes said "just say 'I turn a trick'" but I wanted to roll some dice then say 'I turn a trick' and if it is not in the books then what the heck am I paying them for? WAY TO DROP THE BALL WOTC!!!
Ah yes kobold hookers how I miss thee
|
|
I am playing Dungeons and Dragons. Not, Chefs and Ovens. :)Do you need a skill mechanic for that though...?I like having rules for it as well. Some people use these rules. If we can accept that you don't use them, why can't you accept there are people that like knowing who the better baker in town is and whether the PCs actually have the ability to win the local cook-off?
Contests of any sort make for good roleplaying opportunities. I just picked a cook off of the top of my head, but I could easily see incorporating one into an adventure or town fair. Things like that help make a world richer.
Do you need a skill mechanic for that though...?I like having rules for it as well. Some people use these rules. If we can accept that you don't use them, why can't you accept there are people that like knowing who the better baker in town is and whether the PCs actually have the ability to win the local cook-off?
Wicht, yes some people do use these skills. But these skills take up valuable real estate in the books, and I think are widely not used. It sucks when a piece you like is trimmed to make room for something else (and especially if you don't like what it was replaced with) but the books are meant to appeal to the widest audience, and I'd prefer the underused areas get axed for something hopefully more relevant to general gameplay. If demand is great enough, trust me, they'll write a book on it. :P
I think the majority of people never touched those skills. Given that ENWorld already has produced a set of fan made Crafting skills for 4E though, it sounds like fans with similar tastes to yours are already hard at work adding them back in. :)
PS: If you go check those crafting skills at ENWorld out, let me know what you think. I haven't looked at them yet, but the fan made Druid and Bard they did were quite simply AWESOME! :)
We keep doing this. Great minds I do believe.
Indeed! You just seem to type a bit faster. :P
Even if a certain game mechanic only appealed to a minority the inference is that to be the son of a blacksmith you HAVE to put points in craft skills, otherwise you have no blacksmithing skills right? And since having points in some skills gives you concrete in-game benefits and for most classes skill points are a scarce resource you are reducing the combat/social power of the character to have a certain background.
The 4e DMG says pretty explicitly, if someone wants to say they were a pasty chef then let them be good at making pastries and if something related to baking comes up in an adventure give them bonuses on skill rolls on Arcana: Magic Cake Decoration or attack rolls vs. the Pillsbury dough monster but there is no need to detract from a characters playability in other circumstances in order to do that. Just a modicum of understanding between the DM and Player that the game should be fun.
I don't think that particular point is debatable. What is debatable is whether it was a bad idea or whether it was just a cheap attempt to copy MMOs. I think it was an attempt to make a good game and look around for good ideas.
Now that it's been more blatantly stated by the lead designer, is this really a debate point? Shouldn't it be taken as wrote?It's more like Wotc is the Borq/Zerq and you will be assimilated and your ideas taken to improve the whole. That, or incest.
D&D begets MMO's. D&D and MMO's swap "ideas". 4th edition is born. Does that make 4th edition Half-elf or Half-orc ?
Clearly Half orc as its ugly and no one realy wants to play with it but it smashes things good for you? :P
Ignatz
I am playing Dungeons and Dragons. Not, Chefs and Ovens. :)Do you need a skill mechanic for that though...?I like having rules for it as well. Some people use these rules. If we can accept that you don't use them, why can't you accept there are people that like knowing who the better baker in town is and whether the PCs actually have the ability to win the local cook-off?Contests of any sort make for good roleplaying opportunities. I just picked a cook off of the top of my head, but I could easily see incorporating one into an adventure or town fair. Things like that help make a world richer.
Hey Wicht. I'm just giving you a hard time man, I know what you are saying, but like David Marks says, most people don't use them.
If I add something roleplaying-wise to my game like a cookoff or something, I'll judge the player's skill based on roleplaying. Not usually mechanics. Although if you do need some mechanics for this, I'd check out the Enworld fan creation and possibly even come up with some ideas of your own or wait for WotC to put out:
Pre-Adventurer's Vault - Your guide to baking, wine tasting, bookbinding, and armorsmithing and much much more! Included is all the feats, skills, and equipment you need to entirely flesh out your adventurer's background or even run an entire campaign based around common tasks such as preparing a heroe's feast for a local lord, crafting an epic suit of armor for display at the local museum, or writing that auto-biography your retired epic character has always wanted to write.
|
|
Wicht, yes some people do use these skills. But these skills take up valuable real estate in the books, and I think are widely not used. It sucks when a piece you like is trimmed to make room for something else (and especially if you don't like what it was replaced with) but the books are meant to appeal to the widest audience, and I'd prefer the underused areas get axed for something hopefully more relevant to general gameplay.
I question whether or not the craft skills are as underused as you think. Every newbie I've ever brought into the game liked the idea of putting some points into crafts and knowledge skills.
Still, I can see your point about cutting things you like for things you don't. See my comments on Tieflings above.
The points moot for me I guess. I have no use for 4e at this point. It just annoys me when people make blanket statements about this or that skill or rule being useless because they never had occassion for it.
Reference Azigen and David Marks comments.
These are good ideas. And lets face it, we all enjoy tweaking systems. This is part of the fun of a new system like 4e. Sometime in the future 4e may be even better for my campaign idea. Maybe part of the problem is that 3.5 Clerics are a little overpowered because of Domain Powers and 4e fixes this. Who knows? But today, my campaign would suffer.
EDIT: Actually, Domain powers could probably just become daily 4e powers and class abilities. But we would have to create Domain spells as At-Will and Encounter power. Not worth my efforts.
I question whether or not the craft skills are as underused as you think. Every newbie I've ever brought into the game liked the idea of putting some points into crafts and knowledge skills.Still, I can see your point about cutting things you like for things you don't. See my comments on Tieflings above.
The points moot for me I guess. I have no use for 4e at this point. It just annoys me when people make blanket statements about this or that skill or rule being useless because they never had occassion for it.
Well, Knowledge skills are still in. Its just Craft/Proffession/Perform that got tossed. And of those three, Perform, at least, is almost surely going to show up in some form or another with the Bard. (Might not be a skill anymore, but it'll be somethin, I think)
I wish I could offer an example of something I liked getting cut so we could do some empathic bonding here, but so far I haven't found any instances. Maybe I just lucked out this edition. :P
Cheers! :)
Reference Azigen and David Marks comments.
These are good ideas. And lets face it, we all enjoy tweaking systems. This is part of the fun of a new system like 4e. Sometime in the future 4e may be even better for my campaign idea. Maybe part of the problem is that 3.5 Clerics are a little overpowered because of Domain Powers and 4e fixes this. Who knows? But today, my campaign would suffer.
EDIT: Actually, Domain powers could probably just become daily 4e powers and class abilities. But we would have to create Domain spells as At-Will and Encounter power. Not worth my efforts.
Certainly fair enough. My other suggestion for running this kind of campaign is wait for Divine Power to come out. I'm sure it'll expand the Cleric quite a bit, just as I expect Martial Power to build some nifty new structures for the Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Warlord to hang out in.
Cheers! :)
My other suggestion for running this kind of campaign is wait for Divine Power to come out. I'm sure it'll expand the Cleric quite a bit, just as I expect Martial Power to build some nifty new structures for the Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Warlord to hang out in.
You are right again. When I have Divine Power and Martial Power things will be better. In the future 4e will be more tempting.
My other suggestion for running this kind of campaign is wait for Divine Power to come out. I'm sure it'll expand the Cleric quite a bit, just as I expect Martial Power to build some nifty new structures for the Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Warlord to hang out in.You are right again. When I have Divine Power and Martial Power things wil be better. Sometime in the future 4e will be more tempting.
An edition is always best once all its toys are available to play with. Of course, generally that means the edition isn't long for being new, but still ...
Cheers! ;)
|
|
[
PS: If you go check those crafting skills at ENWorld out, let me know what you think. I haven't looked at them yet, but the fan made Druid and Bard they did were quite simply AWESOME! :)
Off topic somewhat. I have one of the druids in my sandbox campaign. The player loves the class. Even though she acts as a defender she is distinctly different than the fighter or the paladin. It is a lot of fun. It is one of the best fan made pieces I have ever seen, for any edition. After the author did some tweaking it turned out to be balanced and exciting.
Going back to what Mike Mearls was reported as having said, I'm a little unclear on where the line (for motivation of changes) was between:
(1) Changes which were introduced to the edition because the designers sincerely thought 'this is an amazing innovation', looking at another game and 'we have to get that into D&D if at all possible'.
(2) Changes which were introduced in a desperate(?) attempt to make the edition as 'trendy', 'up-to-date', and 'fashionable' as possible.I have a lot more respect for designers who act out of motivation (1) than for those who act out of motivation (2), although to try to reach as large an audience as possible I appreciate that some (2) may be necessary in many products these days.
And whilst mistakes on the parts of designers working out of motivation (1) may still create problems with a rules system, resulting in a need for revisions, I suspect that there comes much more pressure for a faster turnover of editions where there has been a motivation 'to keep up' with current fashions in game-play.
Is this relevant to this thread? I don't know. Maybe only in the context of when the next edition of 'D&D' will come out. :D
Without taking the time to re-read the entire piece, I don't remember him saying anything suggesting any changes were introduced in order to make 4E trendy, up-to-date, or fashionable. (And certainly not in a desperate manner.)
The impression I came away with was that mechanics and themes were seen in other popular games and were brought over in an attempt to make 4E better.
So I guess I'd have to say, I saw lots of 1 but little (if any) of 2.
Cheers! :)
I'd have found it interesting to have been able to read a verbatim transcription of the interview; you wouldn't know if there's one around anywhere?
Nope, sorry! It is my understanding this was from Origins, which just wrapped up last week. Maybe someone is writing one up now?
If you find one, post it, I'd be interested in seeing what he actually said as well! :)
I have a player who plays a knight in our 3.5 Ptolus game. He spent ranks in various Craft skills and was absolutely pissed at how the skill worked. He doesn't have time to craft anything, even when presented with downtime.He had this idea that his character would be an inventor of sorts, building new items and selling them. The player likes to design little gadgets and widgets so it was a perfect fit. In any case, it never seemed to work in-game. We've reached the point where he comes to me with a design and I give him an idea how long it will take to build a prototype to sell to interested parties. The skills are never used. Something that would be the status quo in 4e (or any edition other 3rd for that matter).
I had something very similar happen in my game early on. I had a player make a crafting specialist. You can use one of the psionic classes to min max this and you even get some kind of a sweet bonus with one of the psyicrystals.
Fool player did not really work out how crafting worked before making the character though. It takes eons to craft anything, he eventually suicided the character as crafting does not actually work by the rules.
My players have characters who are armorers, weaponmakers, merchants, scribes, cartographers, bookmakers, musicians...
Crafting is important. Profession too.
Adventurers are not necessary raiding dungeons 24/7. They can have some time off, a secundary occupation, a "normal" job.
Are you actually following RAW on how those rules work? 'Cause RAW is pretty messed. If your just fudging things and presuming reasonable times - well you can do that in 4E as well if you want.
Reference Azigen and David Marks comments.
These are good ideas. And lets face it, we all enjoy tweaking systems. This is part of the fun of a new system like 4e. Sometime in the future 4e may be even better for my campaign idea. Maybe part of the problem is that 3.5 Clerics are a little overpowered because of Domain Powers and 4e fixes this. Who knows? But today, my campaign would suffer.
EDIT: Actually, Domain powers could probably just become daily 4e powers and class abilities. But we would have to create Domain spells as At-Will and Encounter power. Not worth my efforts.
You do get a tad bit of this flavour in the cleric. I know my cleric worshipped some Raven Queen Goddess because she had the coolest power of the ones I glanced over.
That said I don't think that there was enough to really give a strong feel for the different clerics. The goal seems to save the real in depth stuff for the campaign books. Its hard to make Clerics that drip with flavour when the Gods in the PHB are basically just generic place holders. The idea seems to be to wait for each individual campaign source books and then make the clerics really adhere to the conventions each campaign world.
I think, at the end of the day, they knew they were working on D&D, which isn't really ever going to be trendy or fashionable. I think it's pretty clear that they were shooting for the most playable game they could create. I don't see much that tries to be trendy.
I was surprised by the complete lack of 'fo shizzle' in any of the power descriptions.
(edited)
Going back to what Mike Mearls was reported as having said, I'm a little unclear on where the line (for motivation of some of the changes made) was between:
(1) Changes which were introduced to the edition because the designers sincerely thought 'this is an amazing innovation' (looking at another game) and 'we have to get that into D&D if at all possible'.
(2) Changes which were introduced in a desperate(?) attempt to make the edition as 'trendy', 'up-to-date', and 'fashionable' as possible.I have a lot more respect for designers who act out of motivation (1) than for those who act out of motivation (2), although to try to reach as large an audience as possible I appreciate that some (2) may be necessary in the design of many products these days.
And whilst mistakes on the parts of designers working out of motivation (1) may still create problems with a rules system, resulting in a need for revisions, I suspect that there comes much more pressure for a faster turnover of editions where there has been a motivation 'to keep up' with current fashions in game-play.
Is this relevant to this thread? I don't know. Maybe only in the context of when the next edition of 'D&D' will come out. :D
I think your undervaluing trend 2. The fanbase in the RPG world is pretty fad based but their are some valid reasons why this is so and these Fads have improved RPGs over the years.
If you purchased Dungeon right around the end of 1E and right through the first half of 2E you'd have noticed that the adventures where much more likely to take place outside of the Dungeon and be more story orientated. The 'Fad' of the time was to move away from hack and slash and add more actual role playing to our RPGs. They probably took it all to far and we saw a 'back to the Dungeon' movement at the end of 2E and into 3.0. Nonetheless the game progressed during this era - a 'Fad' of taking the game beyond pure hack and slash was probably good for the game as a whole.
There are other aspects of the trends that are probably all for the good. The whole RPG industry has moved to a much more simpler model in terms of resolving game mechanics and I suspect the underlying root of this Fad is the fact that the average age of the audience keeps going up. A lot of us have entered a state where gaming is highly constrained by time. We might only be able to play in four hour blocks.
This has resulted in a movement away from simulationism since simulation provides more realism generally at the price of pace. Interestingly wargames did the exact same thing, but did so maybe 15 years ago. There was a sudden reverse from making really detailed simulations to making games that constantly progressed and would do so in significantly in a 4 hour time block. Maybe not really surprising as wargaming as a significant hobby is about 15 years older then RPGs.
The bottom line is we cause these fads and the games are generally reflecting our tastes, or at least our realistic desires considering that the audience is now getting into its 30's en masse and we have to deal with the real world. If you have a baby you can escape for a night off four maybe five or so hours once a week. Our games need to reflect these kinds of realities.
When we are all 65 and retired we might see a return to more hardcore simulationism - after all we'll need to find ways to while away the hours - I'll get back to you in 8th edition and we can see if I'm right or not.
4E's 'solution' seemed to be to not clean up the mechanics.. but remove the subject outright as much as possible. Craft was too 'iffy' a skill and couldn't directly apply to combat, so it was completely cut - etc.
The designers had a important design philosophy this time around that did not exist in 3rd edition. That was, "If it doesn't work yet, or it doesn't have a major effect on the game, then don't put it in game until it does."
I feel that is a very good thing.
You can see the effects of this with the cohort and animal companion rules, lots of spells, and whole classes like the Bard, not just the Craft skill. All of these things got pushed out to another Player's Handbook until they were finished. If the designers didn't have the rules for something working right or contributing something significant, they left them out of the first players handbook so that they would not codify shoddy rules into the base rule set.
Yes, it is minorly annoying not to have the various Profession and Craft skills, but it's a cost benifit question. I, like Keith Baker, don't feel they really gave much in the way of roleplaying benifit as just another skill to have. They didn't have much crunch to them even in 3rd edition, and those skills take up a lot of space in the rule book for very little mechanical effect.
A person can be a bartender, blacksmith, or librarian in 4th edition D&D without having a skill which says they are. That's all in the roleplaying aspects of the game. Yes, if you have a cooking contest in 4th edition you will have to rely upon ability checks instead of skill checks, but is that really a bad thing? Is the Cooking skill something absolutly nessisary for the first Player's Handbook?
Don't get me wrong, these skills are something I would like to see return in subsequent Player's Handbooks, but I do not think they were nessisary for the base rules of the game which is what the Player's Handbook 1 is supposed to be.
If the definition of 'fully playable' in a RPG is that I can do anything that I want then every RPG ever sold has been a rip off.
But back in the real world if this set of books does not hold what you are looking for then why the f' would you buy it?