Defining Abilities. Handy little gimmick?

[Madheretic]

Lately I have been noodling over the distinction between things like theory and craft, art and technique, etc. and how these kinds of categories can apply to a wide variety of endeavors (eg: science, music, roleplaying). It has occurred to me that there might be some useful mechanic ideas to exploit from these different forms of an ability.

Here's how I'm thinking of breaking down the categories. :

Art: Using the ability as a means of creative expression. It may involve the creation of something useful, like craft, but the products have a much greater degree of originality and require some emotional investment.

Craft: Using the ability for results that are practical or useful. Given a scheme that includes Trade using the ability to make money is excluded.

Trade: Using the ability as a means of making a living. This could include both the know-how of making money with the skill and having the appropriate positions, contacts, captial, etc. to do so.

Hobby/Pastime: Using the ability to socialize and have fun.

Science: Using the ability is primarily about applying knowledge of the underlying principles.

Discipline: Using the ability is primarily about competency at the various underlying tasks.

So, what could I use this for?

I have a few different ideas, but this is the one that's clearest to me right now: All abilities available in a game are designated as being one of the six categories. The category a given ability belongs in is not defined in the rules; it is determined by the players for the campaign being played.

This system could give the players the opportunity to consider questions about what having an ability says about a character and when it will be used in the context of the current game. It could also decide which abilities will be involved in decisive conflicts (Crafts, Arts, Sciences and Disciplines) and which ones are more about color (Trades and Hobbies). Giving them different currencies could alleviate the problem of being disadvantaged by taking colorful abilities.

For example, take the ability of fighting people with swords:
Craft: Swordfighting is a way to make yourself useful in a fight or to avoid being killed.
Art: Swordfighting is as much about style and grace as it is about staying alive.
Hobby: Swordfighting is a sport that (perhaps slightly bloodthirsty) gentlemen play.
Trade: Swordfighting is a job someone might have.
Science: Swordfighting is a scholarly discipline where the fighter who sticks the closest to sound theory prevails.
Discipline: Swordfighting is an endeavor whose outcomes are decided primarily by practice and precision.

Could the same ability have more than one category in a game? Possibly. I think running it that way could dilute some of what assigning the category says about the ability in the setting and situation and might make it a little too much work to negotiate if the game has a sizable ability list.

[Adam Dray]

Why not just write 'Swordfighting' and get them all?  When I play games, that's often how I want to think of my character.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  I'd say you are right on track with the word "gimmick." I think if you wanted to use this scheme, I'd use it to name various skill levels. Level one would be Hobby, etc.
If you wanted to keep it as different areas of knowledge, you might want to ditch Craft. I think Art, Hobby, Trade and Science are easily understood, but Craft and Discipline are fairly muddled.

[Kensan_Oni]

Here is just what I am thinking.

We have six aspects to each and every skill in your game. What is the purpose of these aspects? If it is for flavor value, then it just might not be worth it in the long run, as it serves no real purpose outside of fluff. If the aspect of the skill reflects on how it can be played, then it becomes very important. It in fact can become so important, that certant aspects of the skill may never be taken.

For instance, I have Bowmanship. If I am entering what I know will be a combat heavy game, I will never take it as an art, a science, or a hobby. I will always take it as a Trade, Craft, or Disclipline when taking these skills, as they seem to be more powerful in those forms.

Where you are thinking of treading needs to be really thought out and blanced. What happens, for instance, to that person who takes "Occult Lore" as a Disclipline skill? Can one really be competent at trivial knowledge? What does it mean to have such knowledge. Will you, as a GM, be willing to give out answers to mysteries because that player is that skilled at such things?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying that it needs to be carefully thought and planned out.

[Qi Chin]

As it stands right now, I sort of get what the different catogories represent, but I can't see how that affects the game. Say, if character A has Discipline: Cooking, and character B: Art, Cooking, what would be the difference when they try to each cook a meal? Will there be different checks depending on the category? Or different modifiers?

Qi

[knicknevin]

I'd personally be most inclined to let players select skills as normal but then off these abilities as optional focuses, e.g. anyone with 'Driving' can handle a car but a character with a Trade focus could also deal in cars, while the Discipline focus would be the trademark of a stunt or racing car driver.

I'd pick this method simply because there are large batches of skills which would not fit many, if not all, of these focuses, particularly those which do not require tools to perform. For example, most kinds of academic or research ability, stealth & search skills, inter-personal skills likes charm & interrogation, etc.

[Madheretic]

I don't think I made myself clear on a few points here. Once it is decided what category an ability belongs to the ability belongs to that category for everyone for the whole game. If the players decide that swordfighting is a Hobby, than no one can take it as a Discipline or a Trade for the rest of the game.

Some implications of this might be that none of the major characters of the game will be professional soldiers or duelists, and that nothing major is ever decided in the game by sword duels. The ability to make these distinctions at the start of the game is very much an intentional part of the design.

I didn't bring this up enough in the first post, but I've been considering a number of different ways of distinguishing how an abilitity's category could change how the ability is used in the game. For Arts I figured the two key distinctions would be that how good you are is determined by how much of your heart and soul go into the endeavor (probably tying into some emotional/spiritual atribute-type system) and that the result is unique and personal, with a special capacity to influence the consumer. The Discipline cook's success isn't influenced by how much he might care about the result, just how much training and practice he's had and, while the product might be just as well-made, it's treated the same as any similar product made as well and only serves its mundane purpose. (As I have explained above, a single game wouldn't have both Art cooks and Discipline cooks).

I imagine the set of provided abilities for the game would be a tad broader than usual and distributed a little differently. I really don't see why I would have something like "Occult Lore." Being a supernatural investigator, vampire hunter or whatever that uses arcane knowledge to succeed would be handled by having those abilities be Sciences.

Note that just because something is a Science doesn't mean it's only about with getting GM hints. Having a character with, say, the Archery Science doesn't mean he just knows what all the parts are called and can explain the principles behind the practice. He's just as much of a kick-ass warrior as the guy who takes the Archery Discipline, its just that in this game being kick-ass with a bow is all about having the theory down.

For the record, in retrospect I kinda wish I waited until I had more than a gimmick to post. I guess I got a little ansy to get my feet wet with Forge-posting.

[Ron Edwards]

Whoa! That's meaty, though!

This is serious situation-building material, at the outset of play. I think it's far more interesting than my initial impression led me to think.

I'd like to focus especially on your statement that if X is a hobby, then it will not resolve anything major in the game.

If I'm not mistaken, then Arts, Disciplines and Sciences could play that powerful, major-thing-resolving role in the game, but Hobbies, Trades, and Crafts, not so much. Do I have that right? I mean, the latter three shouldn't be utterly useless, but they just don't have the weight of the others.

Best, Ron

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I don't think I made myself clear on a few points here. Once it is decided what category an ability belongs to the ability belongs to that category for everyone for the whole game. If the players decide that swordfighting is a Hobby, than no one can take it as a Discipline or a Trade for the rest of the game.

Some implications of this might be that none of the major characters of the game will be professional soldiers or duelists, and that nothing major is ever decided in the game by sword duels. The ability to make these distinctions at the start of the game is very much an intentional part of the design.

All of a sudden, with the interesting!

What you're doing here is figuring out what arenas of conflict are relevant in your setting, and in what way they're relevant. This is great!

If I'm not mistaken, then Arts, Disciplines and Sciences could play that powerful, major-thing-resolving role in the game, but Hobbies, Trades, and Crafts, not so much. Do I have that right? I mean, the latter three shouldn't be utterly useless, but they just don't have the weight of the others.

How about, there's a list of stuff, at setting generation time, that you have to decide: what practical things can people do to effect the world? Let's say they're:

Pottery
Budo
Poetry
Ironwork
Dance
Court
Shamisen
Sex

Now, you have to decide which of these are Arts, Disciplines and Sciences and which are Hobbies, Trades, and Crafts. This will tell us both the tenor and mechanical relevance of these activities.

Neat.

(Sans list, this is kind of the way Praxis works in Shock: ... though I've been asked for a list of examples, so maybe not so sans after all...)

[Jon Hastings]

Apologies for just riffing off of Ron, but when I read this...

If I'm not mistaken, then Arts, Disciplines and Sciences could play that powerful, major-thing-resolving role in the game, but Hobbies, Trades, and Crafts, not so much. Do I have that right? I mean, the latter three shouldn't be utterly useless, but they just don't have the weight of the others.

...my immediate thought was that Arts, Disciplines, and Sciences are ways to change the world and Hobbies, Trades, and Crafts are ways to refresh your resources (a la Pool refreshment in The Shadow of Yesterday).  So, it isn't so much that Hobbies, Trades, and Crafts have a less of a mechanical impact than Arts, Disciplines, and Sciences, but that they have a different mechanical function altogether.

[Hereward The Wake]

Yes there are several ways to use this idea, very good it is too.They can be representative of skill level, or how the skill can be used to affect understanding or manipulation of events, situations and skills. They can also be used to define the characters expected ability in a specific skills etc. Though I think it a little harsh to completely restrict what they do based upon initial decisions, that won't allow for character growth in unusual ways. But could make certain path ways harder/easier to follow etc.

Interesting idea.

Jonathan

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Though I think it a little harsh to completely restrict what they do based upon initial decisions,

You make that kind of decision all the time. That's what setting is.

[Hereward The Wake]

yes but defining that from the begining of a game for all the players and allowing no change!. I for one would not like to feel this restricted in my personal skills and abilities in a game I was playing, but hey in your own game do what works for you and your group.

[Madheretic]

I'm not so sure about putting Crafts totally out of the important resolution picture. I see Crafts as being abilities that can be fairly important to getting by, but are relatively accesible (whereas Disciplines and Sciences are more uncommon, highly trained and specialized abilities). I'd consider, for instance, swordfighting and using magic to be Crafts in those fantasy settings where every other person you meet is a warrior of some kind or a wizard.

I had a bit of a side-idea that might make you a little happier with my concept, Johnathan. Character can take abilities as things other than their set categories, but doing so is a really big deal thing. This would probably be represented in the system by making it very expensive or limiting it to one per character or something like that. It should only be for reflecting a really different way that character uses the ability. For example, consider the game where swordfighting is a Hobby. A player whose character is a desperate killer might choose to take  swordfighting as a Craft to reflect that she uses it in a very different (and much more practical) context than everyone else in the game.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

No one is telling you how to use the different categories or how they should work. Our posts are showing interest in how you think they should work, for your game.

I would like an example. Let's say, for our game, that it goes like this:

Hobbies: Engineering, inventions
Crafts: Painting, sculpture, dance, music, and stuff like that
Trades: Most weapons use
Arts: Romantic, emotional interactions
Sciences: Duelling
Discipline: Diplomacy, Etiquette, negotiations of all kinds

To me, this conjures up a kind of surreal Renaissance setting, or perhaps the fantasy stories by M. John Harrison. If you could describe to me what my character gets to do with, say, his interest in clockwork-driven flying machines, as opposed to his ability at duelling, I think that would help everyone really understand what you're after.

I think it's a great idea that you should develop, and that does not mean having to deal with every detail of every post that's tossed at you. We don't have the knowledge yet for those details to mean much.

Finally, for everyone, this is a moderator point: as a general rule for First Thoughts posting, saying "I wouldn't like that" is not, by itself, a meaningful objection. All that means is that you shouldn't be posting in that thread. Jonathan, let the guy build his game with the help of people who are interested. If you "wouldn't like it," then you don't have to play it.

Best, Ron