Quote from: Mistwell;549041God I am tired of the butthurt over 4e.  Yeesh, just get over it already.  Play what you like to play, and quit whining about what some others play.

4e took a giant shit all over the D&D brand.  The game I like is no longer supported.  Fuck off.

Quote from: B.T.;5490594e took a giant shit all over the D&D brand.  The game I like is no longer supported.  Fuck off.

Pretty much this. Although as a non-4e-fan, it is ironically delicious to watch 4e fans suddenly notice that things I've complained about for years are in fact bad things. For example, consider this, it's a deeply offensive essay on many levels and outright states that even trying to maintain a persistent world is a complete waste of time.

Quote from: Robert SchwalbMonsters don't need skills. At all. For starts, skills exist to aid player character exploration. History helps PCs learn about the world, Streetwise helps them learn about their urban surroundings, Athletics helps them learn what's on the ledge or across the pit, and so on. Monsters don't explore.

Wow. What a viewpoint: apparently there's never going to be a time when the PC's exploration, movement, or diplomatic endeavors are going to be put directly in conflict with those of an NPC. And yeah, a lot of 4e players are offended by it. They have reason to be.

But the irony is not lost on me that sentiment basically exactly as insulting, and even substantially similar to the statements by Bill Slavicsek about how Pit Fiends didn't need non-combat abilities because they only existed for a few rounds of combat. That was in the run-up to 4e, and gave me exactly the same sinking feeling because it is essentially the same.

By the way, is it just me, or did WotC purge their archives from before June, 2008? The links to Slavicsek's "we don't need non-combat abilities for the Pit Fiend" essay seem to all be dead and WotC's Ampersand archive starts with the 4e release announcement. I guess we've always been at war with Oceania or something.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;549067Pretty much this. Although as a non-4e-fan, it is ironically delicious to watch 4e fans suddenly notice that things I've complained about for years are in fact bad things. For example, consider this, it's a deeply offensive essay on many levels and outright states that even trying to maintain a persistent world is a complete waste of time.



Wow. What a viewpoint: apparently there's never going to be a time when the PC's exploration, movement, or diplomatic endeavors are going to be put directly in conflict with those of an NPC. And yeah, a lot of 4e players are offended by it. They have reason to be.

But the irony is not lost on me that sentiment basically exactly as insulting, and even substantially similar to the statements by Bill Slavicsek about how Pit Fiends didn't need non-combat abilities because they only existed for a few rounds of combat. That was in the run-up to 4e, and gave me exactly the same sinking feeling because it is essentially the same.

By the way, is it just me, or did WotC purge their archives from before June, 2008? The links to Slavicsek's "we don't need non-combat abilities for the Pit Fiend" essay seem to all be dead and WotC's Ampersand archive starts with the 4e release announcement. I guess we've always been at war with Oceania or something.

-Frank

Actually I think Schwalb is on the right track for D&D, he just doesn't go far enough.

As far as D&D is concerned NO ONE needs skills. I had a great time playing the game for many years before there were even any nonweapon proficiencies much less a skill system.

Skills exist in an abstract game like D&D because some people can't accept the fact that actual gameplay happens when they aren't making fucking die rolls. Thats it in a nutshell.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;549067By the way, is it just me, or did WotC purge their archives from before June, 2008?

Some stuff still exists sporadically.  Your milage may vary via googling with the site:wizards.com tag.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archives

If you really, really need monsters to have skill lists, there are a ton of other systems that do skills better than D&D.

Hell, I think FantasyCraft is the only d20 implementation that, for me, has mildly interesting subsystems surrounding skills.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;549100Actually I think Schwalb is on the right track for D&D, he just doesn't go far enough.

As far as D&D is concerned NO ONE needs skills. I had a great time playing the game for many years before there were even any nonweapon proficiencies much less a skill system.

Skills exist in an abstract game like D&D because some people can't accept the fact that actual gameplay happens when they aren't making fucking die rolls. Thats it in a nutshell.

I disagree.  I played AD&D pre-NWPs and I was happy to see the addition of NWPs to the game with DSG and WSG.  Prior to the NWP subsystem, all actions not explicitly covered by class features were handled by pure DM fiat.  Now, I am not saying that there's anything wrong with DM fiat, but without the framework of NWPs spectrum of adjudication was wide and the addition of NWPs tightened up that spectrum to my mind.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;548915there are so many other games, why must people make D&D be Exalted or Dogs in the Vineyard or some horrible combination of the two?  Those games already exist!  Why not go play them?

That illustrates what I dislike about D&D Next - older editions of D&D already exist, and people who like them can (and do) go play them.  Rather than D&D Next, we're getting D&D Previous.

Quote from: Drohem;549115I disagree.  I played AD&D pre-NWPs and I was happy to see the addition of NWPs to the game with DSG and WSG.  Prior to the NWP subsystem, all actions not explicitly covered by class features were handled by pure DM fiat.  Now, I am not saying that there's anything wrong with DM fiat, but without the framework of NWPs spectrum of adjudication was wide and the addition of NWPs tightened up that spectrum to my mind.

And I'll disagree too. In the 90s I would have read that post of yours and gone "HELL YEAH" but since then I completely changed my mind on this issue: I think NWPs and skills are needless crap tacked on the D&D game to please people who would like it to be RM/RuneQuest and it's basically bullshit. Activities such as finding secret doors, searching for traps and the like were served well and effectively by the roll of a simple six sider. If you need more granularity, then by all means vary the dice types up to the percentile dice used for the Thieves special abilities, but skills are not really needed, nor do they really add much, in fact (with a strong risk to just crap in the water and turn the system to shit that doesn't know what it wants to be), in a game based on archetype-class design.

Quote from: Benoist;549117And I'll disagree too. In the 90s I would have read that post of yours and gone "HELL YEAH" but since then I completely changed my mind on this issue: I think NWPs and skills are needless crap tacked on the D&D game to please people who would like it to be RM/RuneQuest and it's basically bullshit. Activities such as finding secret doors, searching for traps and the like were served well and effectively by the roll of a simple six sider. If you need more granularity, then by all means vary the dice types up to the percentile dice used for the Thieves special abilities, but skills are not really needed, nor do they really add much, in fact (with a strong risk to just crap in the water and turn the system to shit that doesn't know what it wants to be), in a game based on archetype-class design.

Cool, I agree to disagree.  I like MERP, RM, RQ as well as (A)D&D just the way they are and I don't need to cross the streams.  Besides, I've heard it was a bad move to cross the streams.

Now don't get me wrong: I ACTUALLY think that the way 5e goes about it IS appropriate, because (1) skills are not lifted off a predefined list, and are rather a function of the background they describe, which is organic and strengthens the value of an archetype instead of diluting it, potentially, (2) these are actually modifiers added to the base resolution mechanic of the game (ability checks), and (3) These are centered-defined, and not edge-defined, abilities, which means they don't come with bundles of "with this skill you can do this, this and this but NOT that" but instead are defined by what they are, with the edges of their applications being determined by the player and DM as they actually play together.

This makes skills in 5e potentially the first time in the whole of the game's history where they will actually make sense to me in the context of an official D&D game.

Quote from: B.T.;5490594e took a giant shit all over the D&D brand.  The game I like is no longer supported.  Fuck off.

You must admit, that is a fair amount of butthurt.

@Benoist: Do you see the see any potential issue with not having lists? Like the much reference profession(sailor) skill of 3.5, a kind of catch all for naval adventuring skill or will backgrounds suffice?

People like to bitch. For fun, go to an NFL forum and ask if the refs favor certain quarterbacks over others.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;549140@Benoist: Do you see the see any potential issue with not having lists? Like the much reference profession(sailor) skill of 3.5, a kind of catch all for naval adventuring skill or will backgrounds suffice?

Nah I honestly don't, since you'll have a shitload of backgrounds to serve as models to make up your own in the final game, most probably (based on what I've seen in previous playtest docs), with a handful of advice or brief explanations on how to center a skill on an activity and then adjudicate on a case-by-case basis for peripheral activities (example: using Fletching to analyze perforation wounds on victims in the forest). It should be a piece of cake not to overshot the skills' definitions, IMO.

Quote from: DrGentleman;549116That illustrates what I dislike about D&D Next - older editions of D&D already exist, and people who like them can (and do) go play them.  Rather than D&D Next, we're getting D&D Previous.

In the 5e playtests I have GM'd and played, the players have been unhappy because they both agreed and disagreed with you. Both our 3e and 2e fans feel that 5e = 2.5e and that isn't pleasing either group. Our RPGA-only guys just shrug it off because they will be playing 5e regardless of the rules. And the 3e guys are sticking with Pathfinder. As for our Old Schoolers, they are sticking with Old School.

Quote from: Benoist;549120This makes skills in 5e potentially the first time in the whole of the game's history where they will actually make sense to me in the context of an official D&D game.

Drink that Kool-Aid!!!

In actual play, I haven't seen any difference in the 3e/4e/5e use of skills at the game table. Those GMs and players who need strict definitions have not embraced the kumbaya in the slightest.

Quote from: B.T.;5490594e took a giant shit all over the D&D brand.  The game I like is no longer supported.  Fuck off.

You were not playing a brand, you were playing a game.

You can still play your game.  In many ways it's still supported by third parties.  Even lacking support you still have enough material out there to play non-stop for decades.

So yeah, GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY.  How many years are you going to continue to be butthurt over this?  Move on with your gaming life already.