I'd probably clarify that "interests" would be a nice one to cover both arts and general areas of enthusiastic trivia-knowing or what not, but yeah, this is a nice breakdown.
I chose the third option but honestly I'd rather it be a Academics/Profession category and a separate interests category
—
“Science fiction is very well suited to asking philosophical questions; questions about the nature of reality, what it means to be human, how do we know the things that we think we know.”
― Ted Chiang
Overall I kinda like having Knowledge Skills being kept in their own bucket and sharing similar rules. Still, maybe there could be some value in adjusting Know (can we please rename it back to Knowledge?) so that individual fields are allowed to be based on attributes other than COG? INT and even SAV are decent contenders here.
perhaps "the four knowledge skills" being
Academics (COG)
Technical (.....ah, I really want this to be something other than COG but not sure what)
Vocational (INT)
Artistry (INT)
With notes that sometimes a field is part of multiple categories, and that a player should not be penalized if their Artistry(Love Songs) finds itself being used against a Vocational-style check.
This does seem very much like the old First Edition way of doing things though.
I'm leaning towards know + art skills. I'm not ready to give a firm answer though. I haven't given it enough thought.
The way I see it, it was easy to get redundant skills. Skills named academics, interest, and profession, made it easy to think a character might need all 3.
Is there much difference between the following?
-Academic: Archeology
-Interest: Archeology
-Profession: Archeologist
The other side is academics, interest, and profession, were ways to give a character flavor. A way to show where their knowledge came from. However, I don't think you need them. You could always write up a page or two on your character's history to make up for bland sounding skills.
You know what, I think I've just given it enough thought. I'll vote know + art skills.
I like the 1e system, even if it was a little unclear how they might overlap. I'm not a big fan of the mixed system where Know is basically a two-tiered field skill, though it's not very different it just feels more confusing.
I wouldn't mind them all going into one skill with a lot of fields, but I don't like the name "Know" and I don't want the two tiers. If it was something like Knowledge: [Field] that would be fine.
In any system I'd like a split between COG and INT skills to help keep Art relevant.
I'd like to have knowledge skills based on Intuition Cognition and Savvy.
Cognition could be very academics like, Intuition could be Art/Interest based (well art should be an interest) and Savvy could be professions, or more specifically the professions where the social component is a key factor.
So a space cop would have as knowledge skills:
Academics: Law
Interest:Space Crime
Profession: Mediator
Each would be linked to COG, INT and SAV respectively.
It would have to be clear that the linked Aptitude is what defines the fields of these skills and that a successful person would regularly use 2 or 3 Knowledge skills in their day to day business.
Kindalas
I like the knowledge skill simplification as, while it did add some nice character fluff, the distinction between Profession, Interests and Academic was pretty much meaningless in game terms.
I would prefer to see Art as its own active INT linked field skill.
Alternatively if we have enough field skills already then maybe renaming 'Exotic Skill' to 'Do' (in order to match 'Know') and use that for any art related skills as well as anything else that we might need a wildcard active skill for. That way things are simpler without sacrificing flexibility and there is still a clear distinction between Knowledge and Active skills.
I'm on the fence about Know:x and the individual skill names. Overall, it doesn't matter that much to me. Given that I've played/run a bunch of EP1, the current layout of knowledge skills is intuitive to me, but I can't speak to the new player experience. I'm also not heavily invested in the naming.
What I do think is really important is getting art back into the Knowledge side of the Active/Knowledge divide. Active skills are, largely, about how effective characters are in-game. Putting Art into that category means that it's competing for points with stuff like Fray, which has very clear in-game uses. Theoretically, a point in Art should be as useful as a point in Pilot or Research. That... just doesn't seem likely. It'll have a chilling effect on Art skills and significantly reduce the number of artists, DJs, and the like among PCs.
DivineWrath wrote:
Is there much difference between the following?
-Academic: Archeology
-Interest: Archeology
-Profession: Archeologist
Academic: Archeology would be the academic study of archeology and how it is presented in formal papers. There is a bunch of history and writing technique that goes into it, but it would be the rigorous study of the subject and cover the scientific approach.
Interest: Archeology would be the high-level outsider viewpoint on archeology. It would be less someone that is trained to perform it and more someone that reads all the journals and knows all of the interesting facts. He might have an easier to understand, broader knowledge of the current events and history of what's going on, but less of the rigorous training.
Profession: Archeologist would cover the practical side of conducting archeology. How to put together proposals for funding, the logistics of organizing an expedition, how to recoup expenses, and the like would all be covered.
So... in brief, they're different things.
The more pointed question is whether it adds anything to have all of these be separate skills or opposed to having one skill that's Know: Archeology that encompasses all three areas. I'm leaning toward "no".
I'm of the opinion that artistic endeavors should be SAV not INT based. As artists are very expressive and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intuition but with the ability to express thoughts and ideas into/onto a medium.
A counter argument could be made that not all artists are very expressive verbally and not all social people are artistically inclined. I would make a counter argument that some of those artists are introverts and possibly have traits that hinder their in person social skills or have mental disorders that make social interaction uncomfortable for them. Also not all socialites have an interest therefore drive to develop their creative side.
P.S. I know the description of intuition describes one of it's functions as creativity I just don't think it belongs there.
—
~Alpha Fork Initialized.
P.S. I often post from my phone as I travel extensively for work. Please forgive typos and grammar issues.
I enjoy divided skills. However, I'd like to recommend something a little weird.
Transhumans can learn stuff really fast and never forget it. Why not let people upgrade knowledge skills without XP mid game using their characters "Google It" skill?
I voted the last one [i]however[/i] I would like to keep the 'Know' skill as well as a form of general knowledge/trivia skill as opposed to a field skill. Maybe even have it similar to how native language is done (but perhaps with a different number as native tongue is 70+INT... maybe 40+COG?)
Essentially what I'm advocating here is similar to how Savage worlds does it: They have 'General Knowledge' being stuff that most people know in-universe but it's still a skill you can roll on the off chance that you aren't among the 'most' - and then a 'Specific Knowledge' skill for esoteric stuff that requires specialised knowledge or really uncommon training to achieve.
Like: most people should know what a TITAN headhunter is - that would come under a Know roll if you happen to be one of the few people who would never have seen one (i.e. an original space colonist who was offworld when things went to hell).
But very few people would know what the Fractal Forests on Earth actually do - Interests: TITANs for that.
What I'd be more interested in actually is:
- Clarity on the knowledge fields (what they are, what you can do with them, hard and fast rules basically)
- Incentives to use them (many of my players forget they're there)
- Incentives to invest build points in them (What's more important, 10 points in Archeology or 10 points in Fray?)
I don't necessarily mean mechanical incentives, but investing in knowledges can often feel like investing in a dead end on par with investing in the swimming skill in a campaign that happens entirely on Locus.
I like the idea of a single Know skill to streamline things. To ease the need of splitting hairs on the subject, I'd recommend removing the detailed distinction between Academics, Interest and Profession, and have Know skills described as an all-inclusive umbrella for knowledge that comes from such sources.
I also like the idea of Arts being an exotic active, to represent an uncommon 'craft stuff' skill that's as uncommon as is suggested in the fluff.
I definitely prefer the "Know" solution compare to the old division of Knowledge skills.
Since Knowledge is such a big group of skills, having everything under Know is simpler to use and describe.
Last week I played 2 adventures with my friends, all of them were new to EP (but not to role playing).
They just checked under Know and find what they need. Easy and fast.
I know that it's not a difficult or long task to find a skill under EP1 Knowledge group but I think now it's more "natural".
If you have it, it's under Know.
The player can think of that Know as the result of years of studying, pure interest or just a job.
Ciao
Luca
I voted second, because that is closest to what I feel, which is, that there should be no different categories like Interest, Profession and Academics, but the players should be allowed to choose any base aptitude, if he can argue it and the GM allows it.
Basically it would be COG for everything based on IQ, logic, math or science, INT for creative stuff, SAV for people-related things like the former Interest: Brinker groups. Right now, I cannot think of anything for SOM, REF or WIL, but if it makes sense, I'll allow it.
If this was suggested already I apologize but if we're using a single Knowledge skill to represent interest, profession, etc, then it seems like those categories could turn into flavorful descriptors of your rank totals (a la Delta Green distinguishing features). 10-20 in a skill? You have an interest. 30-40? Perhaps you use this skill professionally. And so on. Not that this matters in game play but it would satisfy the part of me that wants to keep those categorizations around. It could also gives you a good idea about where your skill totals should be during character creation. And, yes, this does nothing to address Art.
The thing about doing it by skill level is then you have to decide "is Profession higher or lower than Academic" when that's not really their relationship to each other. They have different directions.
That only mostly works for an Interest, and even then why can't someone be very highly skilled in some niche interest that you can't naturally make profession or academics of of? Old Films perhaps, or someone who critiques art but isn't actually creating it.
IMO, treating Interest, Academics, and Profession as specialties of the single root Know skill seems cleanest, but it's sadly not an option on the straw poll.
Though I do think there are differences in the academics vs profession vs interest, I'd be more apt to allow your actual skill level determine what level of knowledge you have, and just keep things otherwise as a know skill for simplicity. If your total for the skill list is less than 30, you probably just have a passing interest, if its 31 through like 50ish you have probably studied it at an academic level, and if it's 61 though 80ish your probably a professional. Something like that anyways.
I think the difference should be simply a roleplay thing more than anything dictated by the skill level itself. While interest certainly implies a low level of knowledge, profession and academics are two separate branches, and people who have both may be someone who studied something before making a career of it, or a professional who has since gone on to teach it.
When I think of academic, I don't think of it as someone who has some book knowledge of the subject. I think of the people actually qualified to teach the subject, or the researchers who devise new methods and tools. It isn't a matter of one leading in to the other, they are two distinct approaches to the same subject matter.
...that all said, I feel about this the same way I do about Guns or Athletics or Provoke. Yes, the methods used are different, but how someone utilizes it is something best served by something similar to specialties or roleplaying (Especially as it can likely be safe to assume most people with a decent skill in a field have some knowledge of all three branches.)
Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios