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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Madheretic wrote:
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.

wrote: 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.

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

Ron wrote: 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

As I said in initial post I like the idea very much. My point was to express my thought that in my experiences of gaming for 22 years, that the players I know would not like to feel too restricted. Madheretic's reply answered my point in a valid way, along lines similar to what I had thought.

Sorry if I was out of order, but I was just pointing out a player response. I thought that was part of the reason for the First thoughts section.

Jonathan

Jonathan,

When you have an issue with my moderating, your only recourse is to send me a private message, which is like appealing a ticket to a judge. When you post defiantly like this, you basically are striking and cursing the cop when he tickets you. That means you are out of order in the judge's eyes no matter what the cop ticketed you for, rightly or wrongly. You ruined your chance for appeal.

"Sorry" isn't relevant. "I was just" isn't relevant. You should have sent me a private message, and I would have considered your case, period.

Everyone: all further posting to this thread must be on topic. Jonathan, you're included and are welcome to do so. This is Forge moderation, which is not about punishing or removing you.

Best, Ron

I'm curious whether you have thought of impacts of the various categories on system, beyond relative cost in "build points" at character creation?

For instance, in a given setting, would a Discipline-level ability require a more granular resolution process (more handling, multiple tests, whatever)? Would an Art-level ability yield a product worth more game world currency than a Craft-level, and thereby require more time or better materials? Would a Hobby convey membership in some game world organization, with commensurate influences and contacts? What about a Trade?

Or perhaps the systemic impact is in character attributes (stats)? Do Science-level abilities have minimum stat requirements for, say, Intelligence? Do Art-level have minimum Charisma or Perception stats? It seems to me that such stat requirements would both aid verisimilitude (if that's any kind of goal) and reinforce the depth of the setting, as the category levels of the abilities "select for" (in the Darwinian sense) higher relevant stats. (Ex: A world in which many abilities are Sciences would select for Intelligence, if Science-level ability required high Intelligence.)

As for the suggestion or notion to allow one (perhaps high cost) out-of-category ability per character: that would work to create a very "schticky" feel to the game. Each character would have some ability which he or she is one of the rare few (or the only one) in the game world to approach differently. For instance, if My Guy is the only person in the game world who approaches, say, pottery as an Art rather than a Trade or Craft, I could command the attention of kings with my works! Hmmm.... In fact, that's bringing even more situational elements, emerging out of one simple rule--such "schticks" would be world-rocking, at times, and the very admission of world-rockingness into the game, in turn, sets up storylines or arenas of conflict.

Jeez... from one "gimmick" you are evolving strong setting cues, systemic impacts, and even situation seeds. Keep it up!
David

OK Ron

Thank you very much for your kind words, Mr. Artman. And for your questions:

I have given some thought to how the category an ability is effects how the ability is used in the game. My individual thoughts on that haven't really gelled together yet, but I think I'm making progress.

Just recently I have worked out a system for Crafts. It is assumed that all characters are competent at most Crafts. Most have a few that they are not proficient enough in to get by on their own for whatever reason. When generating a character, the player choses the Crafts their character is not capable with (there's no score, it's just a yes or no thing). Crafts are never rolled for in the game, but a conflict can be created by bringing up their character failing with a Craft, which then becomes a conflict that must be dealth with using Sciences, Arts or Disciplines.

I really like the idea of having a pool-refresh-type mechanic dealing with Hobbies and Trades. Its pretty obvious Trades would deal with getting back financial resources. As for Hobbies I'm thinking they could refresh some emotional attribute analog that are spent to power Arts. I'm thinking of having Trades and Hobbies have an inverse relationship where increasing one harms the other, forcing players to chose between money and contacts and the me-time they need to keep their character sane.

Arts, Disciplines and Sciences are used for most of the standard resolution tasks. As I've explained previously, Arts have a special connection with the emotional attribute system. For Sciences I'm considering having them not be so much about succeeding at tasks as having narrative authority over what the ability covers, up to dictating the outcome of a conflict. Disciplines I might just leave as a category for abilities that operate in a relatively traditional sense.

At this point I don't see any reason to have stats/attributes. Lifting things and noticing stuff can be abilities like everything else. I'm interested in reflecting the realities you've brought up, but I don't think it'd be worth the trouble of managing that whole attribute-skill tangle.

One big question that's been dogging me through this project is whether or not to go with a set or mostly set ability list, and the closely related issue of whether or not to develop a standard setting. It might seem hard to imagine a setting that could encompass the changes that altering the ability categories represent, but I can imagine using a broadly-defined setting with a lot of details to fill in, such as TSOY's Near.

I'm starting to think I might really have something here. I find I mainly enjoy games with a Narrativist CA. What sort of issues jump out at you guys as things that could be explored using what we've got here?

This is just another gimmick to play with, but I thought I'd throw it out there to see if you are interested.  There has been some questions raised as to when or how you would apply one type of skill as opposed to another type of skill.  For example, if Occult Lore is a science as opposed to a discipline, how and when could you use it.

As a gimmicky way of answering this question, suppose you could narrow the band of activities available.  Let's say, for example that there were 6-8 different types of activities you could do with a particular skill, before we've narrowed it down to type.  Stuff like Learn Knowledge, Apply Proficiency, Impress People, Express Idea; that sort of thing.  You can make a better list, I'm sure.

Now we could assign a numeric range to each type of activity and a die type to each skill.  (Maybe this might need special marked dice as opposed to numbered?) 

The idea, is, for example, a Science die is most likely to get a result of "Learn Knowledge".  If you're not making a test with the intent to learn anything, that die basically came up a failure.  But if you are, then that's one success for "Learn Knowledge".  The advantage of this, is that you could still use the Science die for "Learn Knowledge" and "Gain Resources" tests, but the Discipline and Trade dice will work so much better.  On the other hand, the Trade dice may not even have a "Learn Knowledge" option, but will have other overlaps or perhaps more "Gain Resources" sides. 

Just a thought on how to manage the overlap, and I think players would dig it.  To avoid charts though, you'd need special dice and that can be a bit of a design/distribution annoyance...

I also think this is a great idea.  But in order to work, the players will need to understand it, and this I think resolevs your setting dilemma.  You do not need one mandated setting, but you need one, and probably more, worked examples.

Something to flag up then to players is how the selection/assignment of abilities to categories is distinct from the setting.  Take the renaissance setting Ron proposed and something you mentioned about duelling not resolving anything - in your approach, duelling is a perfunctory activity and in Ron's its very significant.  This surely must change the emphasis of action, the kinds of action that are going to be critical.  One setting (even with the same characters, even in the same situation) can produce many different emphases and interests in play.

So your rules text should display: multiple rules-arrangements in one setting, and, the applicability of one arragement to multiple settings.  Also note, there is no particular reason that the rules arrangement stays consistent through all play - say you wanted to do something like a Pendragon winter/summer cycle, you could reflect the change in activities by changing the assignment of skills.  Frex Courtly Dance is only a hobby in the summer campaigning season, but a discipline in the court season, while in the winter orthodox swordplay is only a hobby.

To this end, the types of actions you can do, depending on the classification of the ability, may form a quite a bit of systematic bulk.  I think this would be a good thing.

Does anyone ever think about how people actually learn and catalog their knowledge and skills? Start with that I'm sure you'll be able to find something useful that makes sense and doesn't rely on a few ambigous labels. The cost in time that players must spend to learn a new jargon takes away from the pleasure of the game. If skill bookkeeping is the focus of your game then make it foolproof and fun. In the posts there are hints about what a character could learn and how it impacts the game. I think that concept is lost. This topic is now a mad rush to label groups of skills and determine their importance. Does this exercise stem from a valid analysis of lifelong experiences in learning, doing and achieving or is just a rehash of what RPGs have been doing for years?

Truth is stranger than fiction and much more gratifying, too. Learning comes from the desire to achieve. What you learn and what you can achieve provide many connections and its difficult to define a one-to-one relationship between the two. Trying to provide an encompassing matrix showing every possible match is futile and reduces role-playing to lists and check-boxes. In the real world people learn from their family, friends, community, culture, schools, employment, experiences and personal desire. All of the skills, knowledge, physical improvement (or deterioration), beliefs and wisdom derived from the learning experiences cannot be taken lightly. I would entertain the idea that anything the character knows can be relevant in the game. How creative they are in applying what they know is the challenge.

Using a locale setting has great benefits in the effectiveness of that character's experience. Where and how that person learned something is almost as important as what they learned. "Computer use" for example is not some universal skill that somehow magically allows a character to sit at any console and use it. Windows and Macintosh knowledge is separate in many ways. Put a Windows user at an IBM mainframe terminal and they are lost. Of course, trying to map out every real-world example is tedious; however, creating the framework for cataloging and managing skills is a worthwhile endeavour.

Instead of just looking at the skills, broaden your scope to experiences. How are experiences defined and listed? Maybe each experience of major impact has elements that are directly related to the kinds of goals in your game. If your game is immersed in inner-city struggles, then people, locale and circumstance may be the ways to classify those skills, thus indicating their effectiveness in different situations. The skill has a base level then is modified when those elements are present. If Jose learned to drive with his buddies, in the upper east-side behind the wheel of a mustang with manual transmission, then he would gain bonuses when performing under those conditions. Every skill could be classified that way, describing how those skills were learned and giving incentive to role-play.

Jose the tough from the upper east-side has a catalog of skills:
Skill              People                        Locale                Circumstance
drive 4            buddies                      upper east-side    mustang manual
etiquette 1      elderly (grandmother)    home                  during dinner
intimidate 3    hombres (rival gang)      upper east-side    encounter
leader 3          muchachos (own gang)  upper east-side    encounter
teach 1          Paco (little brother)        upper east-side    family problems
knife 2            hombres (rival gang)      ghetto                  fight
run 4              hombres (rival gang)      ghetto                when alone
charm 2          Maria (girl-friend)          upper east-side    with gift in hand

Thanks for posting this topic. It has prodded me to use my imagination, too.

Troy

Madheretic wrote: It is assumed that all characters are competent at most Crafts. Most have a few that they are not proficient enough in to get by on their own for whatever reason. When generating a character, the player chooses the Crafts their character is not capable with (there's no score, it's just a yes or no thing). Crafts are never rolled for in the game, but a conflict can be created by bringing up their character failing with a Craft, which then becomes a conflict that must be dealt with using Sciences, Arts or Disciplines.

[Trades and Hobbies as resource pool management elements.]

One big question that's been dogging me through this project is whether or not to go with a set or mostly set ability list, and the closely related issue of whether or not to develop a standard setting. It might seem hard to imagine a setting that could encompass the changes that altering the ability categories represent, but I can imagine using a broadly-defined setting with a lot of details to fill in, such as TSOY's Near.

I'm starting to think I might really have something here. I find I mainly enjoy games with a Narrativist CA. What sort of issues jump out at you guys as things that could be explored using what we've got here?

Madheretic wrote:
...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.