quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeptic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay

However, I still like to run deep, Intrigue-ridden campaigns, and the new rules really don't lend themselves to that. Sure, you can do it, but they weren't designed with that in mind. Pathfinder as being touted (by its fans, mind you, not Paizo) as the TRUE successor of D&D, and I would have to agree. Whereas 4e has 'moved backwards' in design and concept, 3PF has extended the rules set, and given us more options.

---

Sorry, but I really don't see how any previous version of D&D or Pathfinder () can be better at running "Intrigue-ridden" campaign than 4E.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeptic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora

May I ask why D&D *should* change from the role-playing game it has been for decades to a tabletop game?

That change of style is a major reason for the irritation which many of us feel, so some good justification would be appreciated and maybe you have a good reason why it should change.

---

Because D&D was built atop a wargame and kept from it many fundamental elements that drive it in the "tactical" camp : classes, levels, XP, HP for example.

4E embrace the basic nature of D&D instead of being ashamed of it.

BTW, I'm not saying that because 4E is a "tactical" RPG there is less "roleplaying" in a 4E game than any previous D&D edition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
Try to answer the following:

---

quote:

---

Why did "D&D" and "D&D minis" have to be merged?

---

quote:

---

Cant there be two games with different focus in their gameplay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
Hmmm ... no "skills for non-combat use" and the non-combat spells are reduced to "not many" encourages the non-combat play?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin

I have to admit, I'm rather fond of minis, especially because I consider myself to be a "visual" person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rustybeard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin

I have to admit, I'm rather fond of minis, especially because I consider myself to be a "visual" person.

---

That and I can't paint to save my life! I love having pre-made minis for use

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeptic
And I'm glad that Craft/Profession skills didn't make the cut, I prefer that the DM says yes for such mundane stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rustybeard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I have to admit, I'm rather fond of minis, especially because I consider myself to be a "visual" person.

---

That and I can't paint to save my life! I love having pre-made minis for use

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
A DM can say "yes" to mundane stuff even if the skills exist, but if you want to create extraordinary stuff the DM has to invent a ruling if the skill isnt there. Have your players put enough effort into blacksmithing to create a complex waterclock? With a skill its easy and braindead to rule, without it it will turn too often into "players want to do it and DM says yes without thinking about it" results, which in turn leads to Monty Haul campaigns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

How about when your character and party are destitute and they need to make some quick coin? Profession and Craft work pretty well in that situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeptic


What I'm saying here is that in D&D, there isn't much place for situations where the tension is based on the ability to craft some mundane stuff or sell some living stock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HawkinstheDM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

How about when your character and party are destitute and they need to make some quick coin? Profession and Craft work pretty well in that situation.

---

That is why in my revisited skill system Craft is still around (someday I will get around to publishing it online). Profession, however, I have found to be a completely useless skill. Most of the things that it covers can be covered by a Craft or Knowledge skill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeptic
What I'm saying here is that in D&D, there isn't much place for situations where the tension is based on the ability to craft some mundane stuff or sell some living stock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What kind of game are you playing where tension comes from trying to do something mundane? I've never -- in real life or in role-playing -- been in a situation where my life depended on someone's ability to weave a basket or sell a cow...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora

So you want to have the DM always say "yes" to anything the players come up with (without doing any hard work to be "worthy" of it)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markustay
I think a ROLEPLAY game should have skills covering stuff outside of combat, like craft. Heck, even MORPGs have 'em.

When I used to play WoW, I was the finest cook in all the land, and people gathered from near and far to partake of my culinary delights.

Well... at least my guildies did... and thats 'cause they were free and gave nice buffs...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
So you want to have the DM always say "yes" to anything the players come up with (without doing any hard work to be "worthy" of it)?

So all your players always have and ever will have masterwork items? All tavern wenches will always be charmed by your guys? Every bit of diplomacy you ever do will always work? Finding an important herb to cure the king will always work on the first day ... even if your group never left the city before? Hunting for food will always work well enough to feed your group and cooking it will always result in a well tasting meal?

That wouldnt be fun for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
The mundane doesnt really create tension, but we are living in a world which doesnt always do what we expect it to do and where things happen which we dont expect. So small things can go wrong like trying to find a herb in a forest ... you might get lucky on the first day or it could take weeks. "Say yes" to such small things makes this rather boring and you probably fast-forward to the next fight, but these interludes are important to become involved in a world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kuje

Your not the only one. I, years ago, when I started DMin 3e, combinued the craft/profession into one skill. Made no sense to me that they were two skills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asgetrion

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kuje

Your not the only one. I, years ago, when I started DMin 3e, combinued the craft/profession into one skill. Made no sense to me that they were two skills.

---

Well, we've suggested (on the Paizo forums) that a skill called 'Trade' should replace Appraise, Craft and Profession in PF RPG...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeptic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
So you want to have the DM always say "yes" to anything the players come up with (without doing any hard work to be "worthy" of it)?

So all your players always have and ever will have masterwork items? All tavern wenches will always be charmed by your guys? Every bit of diplomacy you ever do will always work? Finding an important herb to cure the king will always work on the first day ... even if your group never left the city before? Hunting for food will always work well enough to feed your group and cooking it will always result in a well tasting meal?

That wouldnt be fun for me.

---

You are confusing things over here. I never said I want to get rid of every non-combat rules. I'm saying each RPG should have rules covering the things the designers want the players (DM included) to focus on.

Burning Wheel (one of my favorite indie RPG) has specialized skills and I easily see how in this game a situation where cooking a very good meal could be part of the game.

That's not what I'm looking for when I play D&D, however that doesn't mean that you can't have a "between encounters" scene in D&D where a player or the DM narrates/act cooking a bad/good meal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
The mundane doesnt really create tension, but we are living in a world which doesnt always do what we expect it to do and where things happen which we dont expect. So small things can go wrong like trying to find a herb in a forest ... you might get lucky on the first day or it could take weeks. "Say yes" to such small things makes this rather boring and you probably fast-forward to the next fight, but these interludes are important to become involved in a world.

---

Again, the gameworld doesn't know how the people around the table decided to add a fictional event to it. Saying "yes" means that the players (DM included) don't throw dices, use a resource or compare some numbers, that doesn't mean that the narration/acting that follows must be "You went to the forest and under 5 minutes, you got the herbs needed".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
1. Rules the designers want us to focus on.
Well in the case of 4e this is totally like I described, eh? And in any case I dont think the designers should set the focus of the game, but rather the DM and the players. Thus a game should have rules for ALL situations and you simply pick those you want.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
2. "Say yes".
Well you want to do things without rolling and for some it might be ok. For me it isnt, simply because the non-combat skillpoints also represent some of the focus you put on your "work". You could have a ranger who doesnt bother with knowledge of herbs, but instead goes to the forge a lot. If you dont have / use the rules for that how is the DM going to judge when he does either thing ... or rather one thing today and the other tomorrow? IMO there should be a limit to the things a character can do well enough and this is simply represented by the skills he has. If you dont have a system of points for this the whole workload is on the DMs shoulders to judge "small things" like this, but even if you dont roll stuff they shouldnt always work. Rolling just takes a lot of work from the DM and not "investing into skills" can be a big penalty later in the game, like having no character with a good diplomacy score in the group when you need that later in the game. Spending your skillpoints should have the same importance sometimes as choosing your known spells wisely / stupidly for a wizard for example, since the skills are part of the character and his ability to survive in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pandora
"Narrating games" do exist, but for me they arent really a good choice, because they tend to ignore the need to learn things if the main goal is "the storyline" ... even if you have a group of "the three stooges" attend a delicate diplomatic party to negotiate an important peace deal. Spending points in non-combat skills tells you what you are good at, but it also tells you where you have weak spots ... and this is as important. Not having skills was one of the main bad parts about 1st and 2nd edition for me and we had to come up with our own houserules for them to make up for the lack. In 3rd edition we have the whole bunch of skills and that is the good way to handle it (and a DM can always ignore a failed / successful roll as usual). The new edition removed a bunch of skills, so you dont have the choice anymore and that is a bad thing.
Again: If none of the players actually tried learning how to cook it is a bad thing to have them get a good (or even a decent) meal. The players may say "oh we will ask the cooks at our inns how to cook" and you could get a good storytelling version of learning to cook, but this has two problems:
1. How good are they really? Will they be able to cook only "decent" or eventually "excellent" meals which are good enough for the King?
2. How do you prevent the players from "learning everything"? Cooks spend years to fully learn their trade and the same is true for every profession. Should the PCs get it easy because they are supposed to be the heroes?

---