Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Impaler[WrG]]

Their have been some previous discussions/suggestions on ways to re-organize some of the Metal Crafting skills for more historical accuracy.  Many people recognize the need to have precious metal like gold worked by different skills an harder metals like Iron, even going so far as to move this into the Jewelry family.  I propose replacing the Metal Crafter and Metalsmith professions with four new metal based skills, all items other then weapons and armor that can be made with a metal are made by the appropriate skill.

The 4 smith types are

Blacksmith - Works the hardest metals Iron and Steel probably Adamantium as well which must be heated red hot and hammered repeatedly.  Iron objects tend to be completely utilitarian as hammering allows few fine details and its color is not particularly attractive.

Redsmith - Works comparatively more mailable Copper, Bronze and Brass and any other copper dominated alloy, heat is still necessary but as its lower the fuel usage is much lower then for working Iron.  Copper is considered more attractive so decorative and utilitarian items are both common.

Whitesmith - Works 'white' metals that have low melting points, molding is more common and a normal fireplace melts the metal easily, covers tin, zinc, lead and all pewters.  More fine detail is possible on such objects and most are decrative, though leads density and cheapness mean it finds many practical uses.

Brightsmith - Works the highly mailable jewelery metals silver, gold and platinum and all alloys dominated by these metals, metals are generally not melted during working as they are so mailable that no heat source is needed at all.  Needless to say everything made of Gold and Silver are of purely decorative value.

Weapons and Armor smiting would remain separate skills to reflect the high skill level needed to make these objects, as both weapons and armor are realistically only made from the harder copper alloys, Iron and Steel both Weapon and Blade smiths should be though of as highly refined Blacksmiths.

One of the benefits of this system is that it would fit well with the frequent dominance of one metal in ones area, a player often relies on one metal and having skills that locked in that would further encourage local specialization, a player might even find themselves employing fewer smith profession at one time as the Metalcrafter/MetalSmith division is removed.  It fits well with fantasy cannon as we frequently hear references of a particular Dwarven settlement with particularly good silversmiths or blacksmiths who's works were exported far and wide, these are invariably tied to a local richness in the particular metal.

[Capntastic]

There's already something blacksmithing, weaponsmithing, armorsmithing, metalcrafting, etc.  Do we really need four more skills to manage?  Would these all be multiplied so you have redarmorsmithing different than whitearmorsmithing different than red and white metalcrafting?

[Andeerz]

The answer to your first question Capntastic, in my opinion, is an emphatic "yes" if the game is going to try to simulate these economic activities in a somewhat realistic way (I am a realism whore).  Working with different metals can require vastly different skills and processes that I think merit separate professions.  Impaler's OP sums up the differences pretty simply.  I wish we had a blacksmith and a jeweler on this forum to discuss the specifics. 

[CobaltKobold]

There's already something blacksmithing, weaponsmithing, armorsmithing, metalcrafting, etc.  Do we really need four more skills to manage?  Would these all be multiplied so you have redarmorsmithing different than whitearmorsmithing different than red and white metalcrafting?

WEll, dwarfs are not Don Quixote, so they won't be making armors of tin, lead, etc.

Though, when Shaving Basins appear I think they should be wearable:Head. (Pots'n'pans too)

Probably better is to make "redsmithing" and "armorsmithing" separate skills that would both influence making a "beaten copper gauntlet" or what have you- skill synergies ARE planned, and I think that there's skill making a kind of object, and a skill for working the materials.

Personal thought suggests that this is too intermediate a breakup of skills.

[Where_are_the_gnomes?]

In response to Andeerz, I mostly agree with your view, but there is certain point where skill names become complicated that they are just painful. If subdivisions have interactions between them, so a summary of "Metalcrafting" encompassed ideas of Whitesmithing, which in itself covers zinc, I think it could work, but ideas like these are already around. There would have to be a summary screen, where only if you were interested in the skills, could you bring up, and the parts that contribute to these, otherwise you would get sick of reading the components, and there would be too many of them.

[Capntastic]

I don't want to have to have a historical knowledge of metalworking practices to play the game.

[Impaler[WrG]]

There's already something blacksmithing, weaponsmithing, armorsmithing, metalcrafting, etc.  Do we really need four more skills to manage?  Would these all be multiplied so you have redarmorsmithing different than whitearmorsmithing different than red and white metalcrafting?

Way to blatantly distort and Straw-man what I said, I swear it's as if you didn't even read anything past the first sentence.  First off its a net incresse of 2 skills because 4 our added and 2 are removed, sorry if I exceeded your mathematical education.  Second I explicitly said Weapon and Armor smithing are not appropriately 'crossed' with each of the 4 metal types and should remain separate skills.

Weapons and Armor smiting would remain separate skills to reflect the high skill level needed to make these objects, as both weapons and armor are realistically only made from the harder copper alloys, Iron and Steel both Weapon and Blade smiths should be though of as highly refined Blacksmiths.

If would appreciate people at the very least debating what I actually proposed rather then immediately going into either a tantrum or rapture over something far far larger in scope then what I'm proposing.  I personally don't like skill synergy concepts and think a modest division/reorganization of certain skills will produce a desirable system without the need for synergy (which would be an interface and game play nightmare).

[Shades]

I don't like the names, although if those are historically accurate maybe DF can do the same for me about metal processing as it did geology.

Would you be thinking to make an iron axe a dwarf would using both the blacksmithing and weaponsmithing?

I think synergy is a good idea though so I disagree with you on that, I also don't see how it would make the interface any more complex. (Other than tending to have more skills per dwarf)

[Hyndis]

I do like the idea of skill synergy, and that ought to work for other skills.

For example, perhaps make a synergistic skill add in 50% of that skill level to a related skill?

So if you have a mason with a skill level of 10 who is also a miner of skill level 20, and now you want to have him engrave, he engraves at a skill level of 15 even though he has not done it before. They are all stoneworking jobs, all of the same skillset and color.

So with metalworking, if you have a highly skilled blacksmith he should be decent, not great but decent at metalsmithing right away due to prior practice with blacksmithing. This would mean that as a dwarf specialized more and more into the same area of expertise, the same color of skills (notice how dwarves change color when they are in a certain job type) picking up new skills within that field becomes easier and easier.



I do not like the idea of having a special skill for each type of metal though. We already have 4 types of metal working skills which is quite sufficient to cover everything you would need to make. Also how would custom metals fit into this?

[Shades]

I do not like the idea of having a special skill for each type of metal though. We already have 4 types of metal working skills which is quite sufficient to cover everything you would need to make. Also how would custom metals fit into this?

I imagine there would be an extra RAW tag to say which group it is in. If professions are in the raw tags too you could probably make your own as well...

[praguepride]

Why is there always a drive to bring historical accuracy into DF? Correct me if I'm wrong, but our industrial history is OURS, not the dwarves. We didn't have to deal with zombie carp and rogue unicorns eating us up.

I think trying to shoehorn in human historical achievements is a bad idea. Dwarves are their own people, let them develop their own history

[Loyal]

Oh jesus this is the Coopers thread all over again.

If would appreciate people at the very least debating what I actually proposed rather then immediately going into either a tantrum or rapture over something far far larger in scope then what I'm proposing.  I personally don't like skill synergy concepts and think a modest division/reorganization of certain skills will produce a desirable system without the need for synergy (which would be an interface and game play nightmare).

And the idea of splitting primary skills into more primary skills (hellooooo~, slippery slope!) doesn't strike you as an "interface and gameplay nightmare"?

[DFPongo]

Looking at how little gold is in a vein I am worried that this would basically force the gold-silver-platinum smith to rely on a mood to really advance in skill. But I might have only seen small deposits.
The other thing missing from this if you are pursuing "realism" is that many of the atomic skills that make up the different trades your are defining are shared. So a legendary copper smith that starts working in gold is not starting bare ass, he actually probably has 80% commonality between the two mediums.
 But, lets have it implemented with an INI entry to compress the skills back.
IE CompressWoodSkills(All Wood working and crafting skills roll into Woodworking), CompressMetalSkills(All metal related skills roll into MetalCrafting),CompressFoodSkills(you know what I mean).
Then it would give players a chance to wrap their head around the system before turning on the complexity they are interested in or is relevant to their embark.

[zwei]

If would appreciate people at the very least debating what I actually proposed rather then immediately going into either a tantrum or rapture over something far far larger in scope then what I'm proposing.  I personally don't like skill synergy concepts and think a modest division/reorganization of certain skills will produce a desirable system without the need for synergy (which would be an interface and game play nightmare).

Problem is that without synergies, you proposal of adding more skills is going to decrease realism (so, you only know how to make perfect iron axe but copper axe toy is going to be absolute junk?).

At same time, is is not going to add anything interesting to game:

Typical *smith is going to be trained on iron (goblin ore) and thus you end up with crafter that will be legendary in two skills instead of one. At best, you will have noble who wants items made of other metals and your crafters will become dabbling in other metals.

As far ar other implications go:

* It adds another skill to get stat boosts from. Not really justified or goal
* Cross-training : you could train your legendary weapon smith to armor smithing and have his blacksmithing skill help out with quality of products. Would that help with reducing costs of training him to agreable level of expertize? I would guess it would make more sense to still have specialists.
* Too many skills would contain word smith. This is not matrix.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I don't like the names, although if those are historically accurate maybe DF can do the same for me about metal processing as it did geology.

Yes they are historically accurate and I went to lengths to try to keep the list as concise as possible as historically the specialization in specific metal was EVEN GREATER, for example I combined silver and gold smith into Brightsmith.  Alternative names might be Ironsmith, Coppersmith, Tinsmith and Goldsmith but I felt the 'color' names would be more appropriate because each smith works a whole group of alloys not just one metal.

Would you be thinking to make an iron axe a dwarf would using both the blacksmithing and weaponsmithing?

For the last time NO, mundane objects use just Blacksmithing skill, weapons and armor use just weapon-smithing and armors-mithing respecify.  Also historically an Iron axe was a mundane item made by any normal Blacksmith, it was only swords and real blades that required the more specialized skills of a 'bladesmith' to make.

I imagine there would be an extra RAW tag to say which group it is in. If professions are in the raw tags too you could probably make your own as well...

That's exactly how it should work, I assumed this would be obvious to everyone that each metal or alloy is assigned to one of the 4 classes by a tag in the raws.

I think trying to shoehorn in human historical achievements is a bad idea. Dwarves are their own people, let them develop their own history

This is ridiculous, the 'High Fantasy' genre is based in human history and Toady has explicit cut off date for what Technology is and isn't appropriate.  Dwarves are the most metallurgicaly gifted race so having more nuanced divisions of skill in metal working is one way to express that, non dwarves might lack certain skills making them unable to work the metal which is different from being unable to mine/smelt the metal.

And the idea of splitting primary skills into more primary skills (hellooooo~, slippery slope!) doesn't strike you as an "interface and gameplay nightmare"?

Slippery Slop is the name of a logical fallacy, it's like saying "But that can't be right because Ad Hominem attack!", if my idea is a good thing compared to the present system then it should be evaluated on that merit, if too much of that good thing would be a bad thing then that's a reason not to over do something, not a reason to avoid it entirely as if their is no stopping something once started.

If the incresse in primary skills is kept to around 50% (1 additional skill for ever 2 current ones) it would hardly be noticeable as it would be moving from 50 to 75 (assuming changes only to the industrial profession skills and not combat skills or social skills) and their is no real difference between the cognitive juggling of 50 or 75 objects.  A Skill synergy system on the other hand would probably require around 100 skills or skill modifiers (one for every 'form' and one for every 'material') and require multiple objects to be combined to produce every desired result which is a lot of mental juggling.

Looking at how little gold is in a vein I am worried that this would basically force the gold-silver-platinum smith to rely on a mood to really advance in skill. But I might have only seen small deposits.

This is more a flaw in the current material quantity system, everything takes 1 bar to make and provides equal experience points, so you would indeed need equal tonnage of metal to train equal skill.  If their was a little more variation that allowed a goldsmith to use a smaller amount of metal or gain a larger amount of experience for crafting something like a ring when compared to a blacksmith making say a horse-shoe that would help.  But complete parity shouldn't be the goal, Goldsmiths were rarer then Blacksmiths for a reason and the because they apply their skill to a high multiplier material it's only appropriate that it be a bit harder to get them as the profitability is so high.

The other thing missing from this if you are pursuing "realism" is that many of the atomic skills that make up the different trades your are defining are shared. So a legendary copper smith that starts working in gold is not starting bare ass, he actually probably has 80% commonality between the two mediums.

Historically this is not the case or you would not have had gold, silver, copper, tin and Iron smiths as different professions.  The difference in the physical properties of a soft mailable metal and a harder one are comparable to the difference between wood and metal.  Different processes are needed to shape and handle it and theirs specific knowledge of how to heat and temper a metal properly (Copper and Iron temper in completely different ways for example).  A Copper-smith is probably going to hit gold too hard and ruin the piece he is working on due to the long habit developed on one metal.  Your 80% figure is complete speculation at this point and until I hear differently from an actual smith I'm going to assume the ancients had good reason to divide smithing up by the type of metal.

Problem is that without synergies, you proposal of adding more skills is going to decrease realism (so, you only know how to make perfect iron axe but copper axe toy is going to be absolute junk?).

I don't see a problem with that, at least no more of a problem then the current system which allows a MetalCrafter to make an Excellent Pewter Goblet but then a Terrible Pewter Throne simply because the Throne is furniture and falls under Blacksmithing skill.  I think what I'm proposing is far more realistic then that.

Typical *smith is going to be trained on iron (goblin ore) and thus you end up with crafter that will be legendary in two skills instead of one. At best, you will have noble who wants items made of other metals and your crafters will become dabbling in other metals.

This is exactly as it should be, the local availability of metal (be it goblins or rock ore) should be a determining factor in what kind of skill you can build up to high level.  We don't expect to get Legendary GlassWorkers on no sand maps, even if sand importing is allowed you'd never have the supply to train high levels.

As far ar other implications go:

* It adds another skill to get stat boosts from. Not really justified or goal
* Cross-training : you could train your legendary weapon smith to armor smithing and have his blacksmithing skill help out with quality of products. Would that help with reducing costs of training him to agreable level of expertize? I would guess it would make more sense to still have specialists.
* Too many skills would contain word smith. This is not matrix.

Again I am AGAINST skill synergy and don't believe for a second that my proposal 'entails' anything beyond what I described. You seem to be saying that synergy is "necessary" and then raising all kinds of objections to it or perhaps some specific form of it.  What kind of 'proper' skill synergy are you envisioning?  Most of the synergy systems I've heard of are based on material/form combination ware their is 'skill in material' and 'skill in form' with some kind of combination producing the final quality and both skills gaining experience each time something is crafted.  Would that not entail basically the division of metals I've proposed or would their simply be a single 'metal' skill which obliterates the distinction between working gold and steel?  The other synergy approach seems to be a more conservative kind of 'spill over' in which simply applies some additional experience points to skills in the same family when ever a skill is raised. 

My approach is to look at skill as neither as material knowledge or form knowledge, but as process knowledge.  Processes can work on a set of related materials to create a set of related forms.  Their can be overlap between the material and form sets of different skills but their is no real crossover between different processes and no synergy between skills only different ways to make the same thing.