Maybe we should break way from treating knowledge as a full fledged skill entirely? Eaton mentioned d&D 5E's proficiencies system, maybe we could have Knowledge Skills turned into COG and INT aptitude tests, with additional bonuses from our proficiency in various knowledges? Sort of like the traits that give bonuses on Aptitude tests already? Hmmm, that could have some.... interesting interactions with morphs that have the Astute trait.

(Responses to the OP, then comment responses) As the local EP1 curmudgeon, I don't see the problem with EP1 Interests/Professions/Academics that required a collapse of the skills in question, and I [i]very[/i] don't see the problem with Art as its own field skill. It is pointed out in several places in EP canon that artistic expression is, in a very real way, the ONLY new thing transhumanity is creating. Everything else is either iterative or skimming dangerously-close to The Singularity's still-tender underbelly. The language changes are less of a big deal IMO, since the sharp dichotomy between "fluent" and "non-fluent" is generally the most significant factor in RP—but, given the choice, I would of course choose the curmudgeonly path.

eaton wrote:

Any thoughts on going halfway — collapsing Academics and Profession into a single skill (perhaps theory/education/experience/etc) while maintaining Interest as a separate one?

Professional fields with significant theory/practice overlap, like Engineering and Linguistics, would complicate attempts to merge Profession and Academics. Although one could argue that Theory and Practice/Application would best be represented by specialties.

eaton wrote:

If the "interest" style skill could be moved to INT instead of COG, it'd be one more bonus…

While I don't share your alarm at the number of COG-linked skills, having Interests (and especially Arts) INT-linked would make more sense IMO.

Urthdigger wrote:

The main reason I feel they're collapsed, and the main reason I don't feel we should uncollapse them, is that mechanically they all did the exact same thing, being a skill you used to show your character's knowledge of the world.

As far as I can tell, the knowledge skill collapse has only brought about two changes: word choice in describing said skills, and number of skill slots. Neither factor is mechanical, but they do both seem like they could have a heavy impact in RP terms.

Urthdigger wrote:

Now, the one thing I will ask for, is to allow Art skills to use the allotment of knowledge points again.

100% agreed.

UnitOmega wrote:

I'll probably just tell all my players (who are familiar with 1E already) for the sake of clarity and sanity to still use the Academic/Interest/Profession distinction on their sheets - the game basically still makes it anyway and I find actually calling them seperate zones of fields more helpful for the players as a roleplaying exercise in understanding what they know and where that knowledge comes from [...] And aesthetically (or for sake of reading comprehension if you think that applies better) does not seem to flow well. If I didn't already know what the game was trying to get at I'd think I might find the current formatting for Know both as a skill and how it appears in many skill packs to be confusing.

As Roger Sessions once said when [url=http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/]paraphrasing Einstein[/url]: Everything should be as simple as it can be but not simpler! Past a certain point, simplicity results in a loss of information; in our example, the loss of a distinction (useful to some for its RP and immersion value) between professions, academic studies and personal interests. I imagine your group will not be the only one to Rule-Zero this distinction back into effect.

o11o1 wrote:

Maybe we should break way from treating knowledge as a full fledged skill entirely? Eaton mentioned d&D 5E's proficiencies system, maybe we could have Knowledge Skills turned into COG and INT aptitude tests, with additional bonuses from our proficiency in various knowledges? Sort of like the traits that give bonuses on Aptitude tests already?

Something like the new Languages mechanic, where you either know it or you don't? An interesting idea, but it might run afoul of the "conscious compentence" nature of the Know skills. My understanding of Attribute tests has always been that they represent innate, "easily defaultable" abilities like remembering something or resisting intimidation.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

I've been arguing for a while that the complementary skill bonus should be the focus of Knowledge skills, so you'd buy them as 'floating' specialisations of either +10, +20 or +30, but it hasn't caught on.

The only difference between that and EP1 would be however you propose that these floating specialisations be purchased. Any mechanics in mind?

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

Either way, one reason I'm so behind mixing them together is that in play the difference between [Interest (Thing)], [Profession (Thing)] and [Academics (Thing)] doesn't have anything to do with (Thing), but rather elements which are only tangentially related

Perhaps, but, as pointed out above, there is immense RP value in the distinction even if the mechanical value is negligible (which is arguable). And in some cases the distinction can make for amazing shorthand by encompassing entire semantic fields and otherwise-disparate skills.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

[Profession (Thing)] could theoretically provide details about the business side of things which the other types would not, but at that point any profession skill could perform the same function... which would arguably be the domain of a separate (Business Management) or (Finance) skill.

This is entirely possible, but IMO would be more complicated. I find "Profession: Carpenter" to be a much simpler expression of "Business Management (Contracting)", "Trade (Carpentry)", "Logistics (Woodworking Tools)", "Pilot: Groundcraft (Pickup Truck)" and "Language: English (Vulgarity)", for example. "Know: Carpentry" kind-of gets at this, but seems off. Might be my EP1-glasses talking.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

I'm also really pushing that the categories be used to represent different levels of expertise because the main difference between them is the extent of knowledge; a professional in a field 'should' know more about the field than someone who's just interested.

That's an arguable point, but "should" is quite the fickle maiden.

I'm a proponent of decompressing the Know skills back into Academics/Interest/Profession because the distinction between each is not only made in character, it's still made in the (current) drafts of the rules. While, yes, there are simple ways of categorizing what's what, they also lead to arguably unecessary clutter (Know [Academics]: Fine Arts, takes up a bit more space than Academics: Fine Arts). Additionally, there are some major distinctions to be made between the three, as suggested in the rules write-up: Academics are your near-professional level studies, or studies backing up a profession, where you most likely have to have some ability to competently recall specific, pertinent facts from the field in question, or demonstrate your knowledge - possibly on a regular basis. The information your character knows is pertinent to them in the same way modern studies are confirmed, debunked, endorsed or otherwise influenced by the community of people who study the subject. Interests on the other hand are your wiki-walkers, avid fans and people who don't take the same, measured, studious approach - and as such might have a greater body of minute knowledge on the topic at hand that may be disregarded or dismissed by academic communities who study the same field. With this lack of a filter, an Interest might reveal things like conspiracy theories, tall tales and other 'gutter knowledge' that's similarly dismissed by academics or professionals. And Professionals are, as the name suggests, the guys who explore and act on a given field - presumably for a living, or at least a paycheck. Pro's might not be accredited in their knowledge, or be invested in every tall tale about their field, but they have the hands-on 'real world' perspective that academics and the interested might not have, or otherwise have a skewed outlook on how the field should be pursued, and how it [i]is[/i] pursued. I've made the point in other threads on Art - I like where it is, and I'll sum up my thoughts on it quickly: It should stay active and exotic because: -you can create tangible objects/works which then have a pertinent value -you can screw up the creation process -you are applying more than just studied recall of facts -artists are uncommon in lore, and this encourages the same in characters

I'd be careful about presenting the Know types as different levels of expertise. The skill rating should really be the indicator for that. Einstein's early paper, published while he was a worker at the patent office, may have been based on an Interest skill (arguments could be made for both Academics and Profession as well). Similarly, I would characterize a professor as someone holding the Academics variant, and those individuals often have more knowledge than the Profession version. I do like the way they add flavor. The Academics version of the Know: Archaeology is more likely to know the history of the artifact, while the Profession version is more likely to know who to bribe to get the artifact out of the region. I certainly don't think a GM should require you to roll one, rather than the other, but perhaps the Academic version has a +10 to know the original owner, while the Profession version has a +10 to know who to bribe (sort of like a free specialization). This should be enough that players only feel the need to focus on one. In this model, it's really more Know: Archaeology (Profession) than Know: Profession: Archaeology. Edit: After thinking about this some more, I think it's probably ok to get rid of the Academic/Interest/Profession distinction. That sort of thing can go in the character notes if it's important, but just as a character with Guns may have a lot more experience with a pistol than with a rifle, the skill doesn't need to reflect this.

Maudova wrote:

~Snip~

Pretty much hits the nail on the head for how I would try to explain the distinction. Because the distinction is made in the current draft of the rules, and this is me being pedantic, then it should be clear what is useful for what situation. I actually have no issue with boiling down the three main 'knowledge' categories into a single skill, but because of the way they're defined and described as covering different - if overlapping - fields on, potentially, the same subject the distinction and separation seems necessary. [b]However:[/b] One way I can see having things work is to remove that distinction from the Know skill descriptions, and use an alternate, inclusive way of framing how characters come into such knowledge. I.e:

Hypothetical Description wrote:

Know skills represent information your character has acquired, things they know. They play a less dramatic role, but are often critical for helping your character solve mysteries, understand situations, and figure out what to do. [b]These skills represent knowledge or training acquired from sources [i]such as[/i] academic study, avid interests or hobbies, or professional training.[/b]

That way the distinction becomes far less important, but players can still say their character knows about things by way of being a professional in the field, or a studied academic, or an interested hobbyist.

The more I read through this, the more it seems like having Interest, Academic, and Professional as sub-fields inside a field is actually coming at the matter backwards. Really, it's probably more useful to keep those distinctions...as [strong]specialities[/strong] for the Know skill. Since the Know skill already will be prone to collecting strange oddball skills like Martian Beers and Video Games, subdividing those even further into specialties somewhat becomes... silly? If, however, all Know skills get an automatic option of (Interest), (Adcademic) (Professional) as specialty options, then we have the ability to represent where your knowledge of things is coming from, and you get some mechanical benefit a decent chunk of the time, for the comparatively cheap cost of a 1 CP Specialization. Arguably still steep, but a non-crazy amount to invest in a flavorful extension of your character. Now, this is of course rather different from how specializing works for normal Active Skills, but since Know is more than a little weird to start with, maybe we can make it work out? In this case, someone with Know: Law (Professional) is still perfectly able to handle Academic style tasks, they simply aren't getting their specialty bonus on it. Probably competent, but not excelling, which feels like it should work out pretty well at a game table. And if you want instead Know: Law (Extropia) that's a totally valid specialty as well.

I like the idea of Academics/Interest/Profession being specialties. If taken with my suggestion for explaining away how things are condensed in general (the different 'fields' being the source of the knowledge, rather than the outcome/focus), it could represent characters still actively involved in the field, versus characters who are less active, or out of the field for various reasons - but still retain pertinent info.

ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:

Characters which start with a skill at 30 get +10, those at 60 get +20.

I get the impression the developers are moving away from some of these skill bonuses. They eliminated the +30 from having a linked know skill when it's normal (e.g. Hardware: Electronics and Know: Engineering). They also got rid of the smartlink bonus (switching it to a penalty for not existing). Those changes imply they want to get the skill numbers a little lower, but I could be reading too much into it.