Print

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

[Demicus]

Yeah. Difficulty of the task should be reflected in the skill check and quality systems, instead of out right preventing the task. Because in theory you could learn anything by experimentation. Someone had to come up with the idea in the first place, so unless the dwarf has a lazy and/or uncreative personality, they should be able to try to perform the task from common knowledge.
Of course some failures, like the aforementioned herbalism, could have catastrophic results. Actually any below skill attempt would be more prone to accidents, so maybe have no successes on Kohaku's skill check idea inflict some kind of injury, severity and target depending on the task performed. For example, most carpentry jobs would damage finger, hands, and the such, but a critical fail herbalism would poison the herbalist. Or Critical failure on architecture make for a bridge that collapses the moment weight is put on it. though in most production jobs, a critical failure shouldn't waste resources. Just because you hit your hand instead of thee sword you're forging, doesn't mean the sword-to-be is ruined.

Also some jobs could use some synergy. Historically smithing was more divided on metal type than on object being made. A blacksmith(iron) could make horseshoes, nail, farming tools, and weapons and armor. Sure, just because their a master nail-maker doesn't mean they're also a master sword-maker, but being a master at making nails should impart more understanding into how to make a sword, due to better understanding of the forging process and the qualities of the metal. Also if a task centric difficult goes into play, we need nails to train our blacksmiths with.

[Sunken]

This thread has some bearing on the current discussion methinks. It's more specific but the discussion was pretty broad as I recall.

[Stove]

Alchohol can be poisonous(someone in the cooking thread mentioned that the first batch of alchol from certain products can even make you blind).

As I responded in that thread, the first dregs of alcohol distillation are not harmful, just unpleasant. A poorly-skilled brewer dwarf would probably tend to make foul-smelling "sewer brew" or vinegar when attempting to make alcohol, and either not know how to use a still or just destroy any booze he attempts to distill. At a slightly higher skill level, he may be able to distill alcohol, but the resulting whiskey/rum/etc would have negative quality ("terrible rum", "poorly-made whiskey")

why would one delibarately put methanol in booze? you don't want to kill your customers.

To make it appear to have more ethanol than it actually does. Consider the recent milk scandal in China - melamine (which is toxic) was added to milk because it skewed tests that measured protein content, which concealed the fact that the milk was diluted.

Against this, we might have some sort of "apprenticeship" or "book" system for the peasants, but have it limited in how much it can train up to a certain skill level before they must graduate to doing, instead.  (Of course, this idea has been brought up a hundred times in books threads all over the place.)

This makes sense. Using a teacher or book to learn to perform a task would bring the skill up to the point where the learner is able to succeed at the task, at which point the learner then performs the task to continue learning. In the case of a teacher, you might even assume they are performing the task together.

This thread has some bearing on the current discussion methinks. It's more specific but the discussion was pretty broad as I recall.

I was going to mention that I recall Toady expressing reservations about job failures, and SirHoneyBadger mentions it right there:

One of the main reasons that Toady apparently doesn't like the idea of critical failures, from my understanding, is that materials get lost that we might not be able to replace or replicate.

This I'd agree with to an extent but that should be reflected in quality or outcome, not in the ability to attempt the job.

Yeah. Difficulty of the task should be reflected in the skill check and quality systems, instead of out right preventing the task.

If a low-skilled dwarf isn't prevented from performing a task they can't succeed at, it will waste resources. See the quote above.

Because in theory you could learn anything by experimentation. Someone had to come up with the idea in the first place, so unless the dwarf has a lazy and/or uncreative personality, they should be able to try to perform the task from common knowledge.

A significant chunk of this thread has been spent discussing just why that theory is unrealistic. It assumes that what you need to know about performing any job is "common knowledge" (no, it isn't) and assumes that individual dwarves are ingenious enough to reinvent methods that took generations to develop in the first place.

Of course some failures, like the aforementioned herbalism, could have catastrophic results.

The one thing about wild plants and mushrooms that usually is common knowledge is that you should never eat something that isn't identified. The only reason to even be able to force dwarves to take this risk is if they have no other access to food, and no access to dwarves or books that could teach this skill. The system should not be designed around such a fringe situation. (Instead, when dwarves are starving and there are no vermin to catch, they might start eating shrubs automatically, regardless of whether a plant gathering job has been assigned.)

[NW_Kohaku]

This makes sense. Using a teacher or book to learn to perform a task would bring the skill up to the point where the learner is able to succeed at the task, at which point the learner then performs the task to continue learning. In the case of a teacher, you might even assume they are performing the task together.

...

A significant chunk of this thread has been spent discussing just why that theory is unrealistic. It assumes that what you need to know about performing any job is "common knowledge" (no, it isn't) and assumes that individual dwarves are ingenious enough to reinvent methods that took generations to develop in the first place.

You might want to go flag down Andeerz, and get him to start talking about guilds, actually.  It's sort of his pet subject to talk about how knowledge of certain guild-related actions were kept as strict secrets by cartel-like guilds that sought market dominance through strict control of crafting techniques, equipment, and supply of the products guild members produced.

He's also big on "tech trees", but that might be outside the scope of this discussion.

The one thing about wild plants and mushrooms that usually is common knowledge is that you should never eat something that isn't identified. The only reason to even be able to force dwarves to take this risk is if they have no other access to food, and no access to dwarves or books that could teach this skill. The system should not be designed around such a fringe situation. (Instead, when dwarves are starving and there are no vermin to catch, they might start eating shrubs automatically, regardless of whether a plant gathering job has been assigned.)

Maybe, but at some point, I think it just might be that particular brand of Dwarf Fortress Fun to just tell your dwarves to learn about herbalism the hard way.  Come on, you know someone would do it, and probably love the results. 

Dwarves also often embark far from their home civilizations, where they might honestly be going where no dwarf has gone before.  Nobody's around to teach them which mushroom is which, and they're going to have to need to know somehow...

[Sutremaine]

why would one delibarately put methanol in booze? you don't want to kill your customers.

It comes out by itself if you're using heat to distill alcohol. Different compounds have different boiling points, and you want to get the really bad ones out of the way before you start collecting the stuff you're planning to drink (or throw back into the mix).

Sort of in the spirit of the ingrained / academic discussion of this thread, that was entirely off the top of my head. :p

[Demicus]

One of the main reasons that Toady apparently doesn't like the idea of critical failures, from my understanding, is that materials get lost that we might not be able to replace or replicate.

This I'd agree with to an extent but that should be reflected in quality or outcome, not in the ability to attempt the job.

Yeah. Difficulty of the task should be reflected in the skill check and quality systems, instead of out right preventing the task.

If a low-skilled dwarf isn't prevented from performing a task they can't succeed at, it will waste resources. See the quote above.

Not any more than the inferior quality idea would though. Sure, some things that the process to develop them would take longer than game time would allow, but some things could be reasonable figured out. Like the floodgate and quern you mentioned before. A floodgate is an object that moves between a closed and open position. When in the closed position it doesn't let water through.
Also the main reason I'm against preventing unskilled dwarves from even attempting the task is that could cause player frustration if done poorly or lacks other systems to help diminish possible problems.
Forget to bring a skilled architect? Well now you can't build any furnaces for smelting or glass production. Need some swords and axes to fight off the goblin invasion? Well your legendary blacksmith has no idea how to make a sword or an axe. Your only mechanic not skilled enough? Well that prevents the making of traps that could save you from that goblin horde.
Sorry if I was a bit harsh there, but I can see problems arising if this is implemented improperly. I agree with some of the points though. It's rather odd that a dwarf with no clue as to any architecture can make a drawbridge that can support weight, or an unskilled dwarf making steel plate mail. Sure migrants could help alleviate this, but that would require being able to request certain dwarves, which was brought up before, but could do with reiterating. As is, migrant waves are largely random in what arrives. In all my time playing, I've only gotten one, maybe two dwarves with any architecture skill from migrant waves. Not a problem for me, since I embark with a high level architect, but should everyone have to expand starting resources on that? The purpose of the archtect is well, furnaces, and bridges. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but personally I don't set up furnaces until I'm well into the fortress's life. Bridges I might be able to do without for that long as well. In this system wells would probably be one of the first things an Architect would be able to make, since it's essentially a hole with some stone around it, a winch and a bucket.
Books would be cool, but then we get into the question of literacy, considering the time period the game is based off of, only the wealthy could afford to be taught how to read. Maybe a couple exceptions for clergy and town criers, but majority of people couldn't read.

[Max White]

Somebody mentioned alcohol is a poisen, and can make you  blind, so why would you put it in food? Well I lost track of the quote, but it is on the thread somewhere...

Both ethanol, and methanol, the two most common forms of alcohol, have a boiling point less then 100 degrees. Most of it will boil away when you cook it, so alcohol is food is the best way to have it! Also makes your meat tasty!

[Demicus]

Somebody mentioned alcohol is a poisen, and can make you  blind, so why would you put it in food? Well I lost track of the quote, but it is on the thread somewhere...

Both ethanol, and methanol, the two most common forms of alcohol, have a boiling point less then 100 degrees. Most of it will boil away when you cook it, so alcohol is food is the best way to have it! Also makes your meat tasty!

They were asking why you would add methanol to ethanol, since the human body has trouble metabolizing methanol, and it seems counter-productive to business to add a toxin like that to your product.

[Sunken]

Somebody mentioned alcohol is a poisen, and can make you  blind, so why would you put it in food? Well I lost track of the quote, but it is on the thread somewhere...

Both ethanol, and methanol, the two most common forms of alcohol, have a boiling point less then 100 degrees. Most of it will boil away when you cook it, so alcohol is food is the best way to have it! Also makes your meat tasty!

This isn't actually true, apparently.

[Sunken]

I think it would add to the game if there was a need to have masters of certain crafts or professions visit your fortress, perhaps against heavy fees (or favors - like mandates - to their bosses in the Mountainhomes) and train your dwarfs in advanced skills that you have a need for. It wouldn't have to be completely impossible to develop the know-how on your own, but it should be extremely time-consuming or resource-demanding (or the tradeoff wouldn't be meaningful).

This could encompass steel smelting, construction of advanced mechanisms or weapon/armor crafting beyond a certain level of sophistication. Obviously it would have to wait until that sort of visits were in the game, but it would be an interesting aspect.

As for the problem of unskilled people ruining materials with their failures - how about simply vastly increasing time taken whenever an insufficiently skilled dwarf attempts something? If you're utterly unskilled and trying to build a crossbow, have it take something like 100 times as long, representing all the trial and error, and the result still being the lowest level of quality but still functional, so it's not a waste of materials, only time - and a Dabbling dwarf might take 10 times as long as normal, then at higher levels time follows the normal pattern and quality starts increasing.
I'm not suggesting it's perfect but it could be implemented easily and work as a compromise solution until something more realistic and balanced is implemented.

[Stove]

Not any more than the inferior quality idea would though. Sure, some things that the process to develop them would take longer than game time would allow, but some things could be reasonable figured out. Like the floodgate and quern you mentioned before. A floodgate is an object that moves between a closed and open position. When in the closed position it doesn't let water through.

A person with no knowledge of how to make a crossbow is not going to make an inferior quality crossbow. They will simply not make a crossbow.

Also the main reason I'm against preventing unskilled dwarves from even attempting the task is that could cause player frustration if done poorly or lacks other systems to help diminish possible problems.

Nobody's suggesting that this system be designed poorly, so I don't see what the problem is.

Forget to bring a skilled architect? Well now you can't build any furnaces for smelting or glass production.

No problem there. As I suggested, there should be a warning if you try to embark without crucial skills, so the players would know what they are getting themselves into.

Sure migrants could help alleviate this, but that would require being able to request certain dwarves, which was brought up before, but could do with reiterating.

This was part of the original suggestion.

Books would be cool, but then we get into the question of literacy, considering the time period the game is based off of, only the wealthy could afford to be taught how to read. Maybe a couple exceptions for clergy and town criers, but majority of people couldn't read.

As long as you have a dwarf that can read, you have a dwarf that can learn a skill from a book.

As for the problem of unskilled people ruining materials with their failures - how about simply vastly increasing time taken whenever an insufficiently skilled dwarf attempts something? If you're utterly unskilled and trying to build a crossbow, have it take something like 100 times as long, representing all the trial and error, and the result still being the lowest level of quality but still functional, so it's not a waste of materials, only time - and a Dabbling dwarf might take 10 times as long as normal, then at higher levels time follows the normal pattern and quality starts increasing.
I'm not suggesting it's perfect but it could be implemented easily and work as a compromise solution until something more realistic and balanced is implemented.

This is still assuming that an unskilled dwarf, who doesn't know anything about making crossbows, is ingenious enough to reinvent the crossbow. Making it take longer doesn't make that any less unrealistic.

It seems the main issue that people have with this suggestion is that it brings about the possibility for a fortress to be screwed over in some way by the lack of a certain skill. It is this possibility which would give depth and meaning to the skills.
It means that if your fortress lacks skills in a certain industry, you might rely on trade caravans to obtain those goods. To a certain degree, this legitimizes the trade system.
If means that skilled dwarves are no longer expendable, and the loss of one may actually have an impact.
It means the skills you choose when embarking are actually important.
And when a skill is needed for a fortress, there would be ways to get that skill without making your dwarves figure it out on their own.

[Sunken]

I was only suggesting a compromise that will in practice tend to produce the effects you (and I, too) desire, while avoiding the extreme effects others balk at, plus being easy to implement. We can discuss both short- and long term solutions here; this was just one of the former.

[NW_Kohaku]

About literacy: We have bookkeepers already.  That implies literacy.  Plus, every dwarf can do that, to the point where in 40d, it was a suggested way of training up certain dwarves by giving them a stint at bookkeeping, since all skills trained stats equally, and bookkeeping gained experience more rapidly than most.

[Demicus]

About literacy: We have bookkeepers already.  That implies literacy.  Plus, every dwarf can do that, to the point where in 40d, it was a suggested way of training up certain dwarves by giving them a stint at bookkeeping, since all skills trained stats equally, and bookkeeping gained experience more rapidly than most.

Tis true, though I can see if books are fully implemented, than so to would literacy, since DF is a realistic simulation, and even in modern day not everyone is litterate. Being able to assign any dwarf to bookkeeping is a convienance, as all the job entails is raising the percision of the stocks screen, and that's it. Currently the bookeeper isn't even needed to update the records. Actually I can see a way to perform the job without literacy, though it would be woefully inefficent. Each object is represented as a rough picture of the object, and have tally marks to represent the number of objects. Like I said, woefully inefficent, but possible.

[irmo]

I think it would add to the game if there was a need to have masters of certain crafts or professions visit your fortress, perhaps against heavy fees (or favors - like mandates - to their bosses in the Mountainhomes) and train your dwarfs in advanced skills that you have a need for. It wouldn't have to be completely impossible to develop the know-how on your own, but it should be extremely time-consuming or resource-demanding (or the tradeoff wouldn't be meaningful).

I think it should be impossible. "Time-consuming" and "resource-demanding" aren't meaningful tradeoffs--you go away for a while and come back and it's done, and most resources are effectively unlimited at this point.

Crazy idea: There should be a way to turn adamantine into magical skill training. You build a shrine, order a dwarf to burn an adamantine wafer as a sacrifice to the dwarven gods of craft, and he gets high on the fumes and learns an advanced skill* that nobody else in the fortress has. This is a fallback option so that mature fortresses can fill in any advanced skills they're still missing. It's a meaningful cost because adamantine is non-renewable and hazardous to mine.

As for the problem of unskilled people ruining materials with their failures - how about simply vastly increasing time taken whenever an insufficiently skilled dwarf attempts something? If you're utterly unskilled and trying to build a crossbow, have it take something like 100 times as long, representing all the trial and error, and the result still being the lowest level of quality but still functional, so it's not a waste of materials, only time - and a Dabbling dwarf might take 10 times as long as normal, then at higher levels time follows the normal pattern and quality starts increasing.
I'm not suggesting it's perfect but it could be implemented easily and work as a compromise solution until something more realistic and balanced is implemented.

I don't think I like that. Again, taking more time is not meaningful.

What I'd rather do is this: a crossbow is a difficulty 4 item, meaning the quality is 4 levels below what the smith would "normally" make based on skill. So an unskilled smith will make a crossbow with negative quality, which is non-functional. (You can melt it down to recover the material if you want.) If you want to train a novice smith without making junk, you have to start with easier tasks, like making bolts.


* This is under the theory that there are specific "advanced skills" (like making steel) that have to be taught by masters, as opposed to stuff you can just figure out on your own. Modify as appropriate for other models of skill limitation.