From: Joerg Baumgartner (rq4@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Fri 21 Jan 1994 - 19:32:08 EET
David Dunham wrote:
> Speaking of controversy, here are some points which could possibly be
> discussed even by people who haven't seen the rules:
> I understand that you want to make Craft/Farming a more practical skill
> than Lore/Plant. You're trying to separate Doing from Knowing. But you
> can't Do if you don't Know. And I think Craft/Farming (and Craft/Herding)
> is a bad idea for several reasons:
> a) You can have farmers (or herders) who know nothing about what they're
> doing (they have no Plant Lore or Animal Lore).
And correctly so. There are for instance nuclear plant workers (and decisions
taking politicians) who don't hace any idea about what really happens.
In germany we have a saying which translates "The most stupid farmer will
harvest the biggest potatoes". If he follows the orders of the Grain Goddess/
Plow God clerus unquestioningly, this might be accurate.
> b) You have two largely overlapping skills. Which do you use when you want
> to decide what to plant? Craft/Farming or Plant Lore (read its
> description)?
Craft Farming. Plant Lore is used to identify and apply plants (and parts of
them), the problem you present might as well be answered by Soil Lore or
(on Glorantha best) Divination.
> c) You're creating skill dilution -- too many skills to spread points between.
The real problem, unless a related skill system similar to the languages
is included. I'd advocate to include one for none-combat skills as well.
> d) You're incompatible with RQ3. No RQ3 farmer can farm. (Yes, your
> conversion rules will probably cover this, but they wouldn't be necessary).
Big deal.
> e) Not all money-making skills are Crafts (e.g. Bargain and Evaluate).
> I think you should choose one or the other. Given that farming _is_ a
> practical skill, drop Plant Lore (and Animal Lore).
You forget Hunter-Gatherer types (e.g. Agimori or Hsunchen). All they need
is the knowledge where and when to collect, and for hunting the skill how
to. Since that overlaps with adventuring skills, no Craft: Hunting, please.
> This of course has problems because then can't really have Horse Lore...but
> Horse Lore is really a rather practical matter, I imagine (like knowing how
> to help mares give birth), so it'd probably be a Doing skill, like
> Craft/Horse Herding.
Horse Lore? What for? Animal lore for a familiar animal will do the trick.
If we need to define familiarity, use Ride, Drive, Craft: Redsmith (or what
are Gloranthan hoof-"irons" made of?) or First Aid (for veterinaries) skills.
See above for related skills. If not otherwise, make it optional. One might
use the above as example. Take the highest of the skills in question, in
case of doubt use your judgement, and use it either as modifier (which woud
yield only positive numbers), or, like for RQ3 language similarity, as factor
for the skill.
> I think we need a new term, so you can move practical lores like Animal
> Lore and Plant Lore into Reasoning skills that can get a check, but leave
> Glorantha Lore or World Lore (nobody uses the skill to change the weather)
> as Knowledge skills which can't be improved from experience.
Make crafts manipulation skills. INT goes in, DEX and STR rarely are
detrimental. Only cognitive skills like Navigation, First Aid or Map Making
(I don't whether any of these still exist) would be reasoning skills, i.e.
Knowledge skills with check box.
Lores might profit from experience, too. But to use skill checks as bonus
for research time would be at best an optional rule...
-- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:33 EEST