Print

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

[Max White]

A chair requires you to make smooth flat pieces and attach them to tall thin pieces. A table requires you to make smooth flat pieces and attach them to tall thin pieces. The skill set is identical, the only difference is that the legs need to be longer for tables and chairs have an extra piece. Unless you want me to believe that no-skill dwarves will not know that tables exist, there's no reason for the skills to be differentiated an any way.

Read through the quotes, we already agreed that the skill set was the same. Old, irrelevant argument is both old and irrelevant.

[Demicus]

Again, I think "make a door" is too simple an example - you can imagine a solid door, and file down anything to a big, flat board.  Now try to imagine how to build the inner components of the knob of that door, including how the lock works. 

Put hole in door. Put rod through hole. Attach flat pieces to both sides. Put a catch on both ides of the frame. There's your latch. A lock? put a hole in the latch and the catch. Put a rod through the hole. The door is now locked.


Like I said earlier. This thread is VASTLY overstating the complexity of making things. And, no, making a table is no different from making a chair, skill wise. the flat spot is just at a different height.

Doors, tables and chairs are not good examples of this system. Nobody has offered any arguments as to why an unskilled dwarf shouldn't have to acquire knowledge to make mechanisms and looms.

Not too sure on looms, but mechanisms, assuming they're just gears at their basis, then making them wouldn't be that difficult. It's a ring with teeth around it that locks into other similar teeth-lined rings. Just take a chunk of material and chisel and file it down to the needed shape. Making them with precision would require a lot of practice, but that's reasonably represented in the current system. Installing mechanisms in an application might be rather bit more difficult, as the current state of some of them seem to utilize mechanics that surpass modern mechanical practices, such as quantum entanglement.

[NW_Kohaku]

Technically speaking, that is how gears were made in the era of Ancient Greece - you made a disc of brass or something, and filed down teeth into the surface.  The difficult part is that you would need tools for the purpose of being able to measure the precise angles you would need to cut those teeth into, however.  The center of every tooth would have to be spaced exactly 36 degrees apart from the last one, for example.

[tsen]

One important thing to note is that a dwarf is unlikely to be happy with an inferior quality product, whether making or using it. The door example described above seems like an ideal candidate for bad thoughts. Not to mention the fact that to a modern craftsman, making a door is easy--take a few pieces of pre-cut lumber, or run some lumber through a precision steel saw to cut them to size, power sand them, wood glue them together and then nail a couple of pieces of metal plating onto it. All of which assumes ready sources of these materials.

A n00b dwarven carpenter would need to:
1. Take raw, uncured logs and cut them into proper sized pieces.
2. Cure the pieces without undue warping.
3. Carve dowels from proper materials (i.e. wood that is strong enough)
4. Precision carve the joints to meld the plants together into a door.
5. Acquire hinges, nails/screws, thin metal plates and the rods and handles from somewhere.
6. Accurately measure the door to the doorframe, which might be somewhat harder than it sounds without the standardized measuring tools we take for granted.
7. Sand everything down by hand with rocks, or craft sandpaper seperately, which entails a source of glue, sand, and fabric/paper.
8. Rig the whole mess up without screwing up too badly, AND have the tool infrastructure as well as the knowledge of how to properly create said tool infrastructure.

It's comparatively easy to improvise things that will serve the same function at a lesser competence level, but I would argue that if we're going to argue that, there should be negative quality levels that give bad thoughts equal to the positive ones given by the "good" qualities. Possibly to the point of making their worth negative when calculating room value. Even a month of training with a professional will make a very visible difference in the quality of most products.

Most things can be improvised--if I have pewter, a hammer and an anvil, I can probably make a mug. It won't be pretty but it will hold liquid. Would I want to try the same if someone gave me bricks, a bar of metal, a bag of sand and a bunch of charcoal then tells me to make a glass goblet?

[Lord Shonus]

A chair requires you to make smooth flat pieces and attach them to tall thin pieces. A table requires you to make smooth flat pieces and attach them to tall thin pieces. The skill set is identical, the only difference is that the legs need to be longer for tables and chairs have an extra piece. Unless you want me to believe that no-skill dwarves will not know that tables exist, there's no reason for the skills to be differentiated an any way.

Read through the quotes, we already agreed that the skill set was the same. Old, irrelevant argument is both old and irrelevant.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector misfired.

[ribosom]

One important thing to note is that a dwarf is unlikely to be happy with an inferior quality product, whether making or using it. The door example described above seems like an ideal candidate for bad thoughts.
[...]
It's comparatively easy to improvise things that will serve the same function at a lesser competence level, but I would argue that if we're going to argue that, there should be negative quality levels that give bad thoughts equal to the positive ones given by the "good" qualities. Possibly to the point of making their worth negative when calculating room value. Even a month of training with a professional will make a very visible difference in the quality of most products.

I agree. Also, inferiority of items should be reflected when using them, e.g. a crude sword might break easier or an inferior armor is heavier and more restrictive. Shoddy jewelry shouldn´t be worth much more than the raw materials.

Even though you can make things that (more or less) work a intended with a low skill, you will need high skilled workers if you want to export goods (not only raw materials).

[Andeerz]

Technically speaking, that is how gears were made in the era of Ancient Greece - you made a disc of brass or something, and filed down teeth into the surface.  The difficult part is that you would need tools for the purpose of being able to measure the precise angles you would need to cut those teeth into, however.  The center of every tooth would have to be spaced exactly 36 degrees apart from the last one, for example.

I wouldn't be surprised if all that was needed for determining tooth position was a tool for marking, a string, and a good understanding of geometry.    XD

 

Actually it could be possible if one can realize that their product is below par. Then you think what went wrong and alter something in the design. You basically know what it is and what it should do, even if you know little to nothing as to how to exactly make that specific object. They could even go talk to someone in the fortress that has used or seen the object.

You're really grasping at straws here. None of what you suggest is going to work reliably as a substitute for acquiring knowledge of methods developed over generations.
Just because you know that better bows have a recurve shape doesn't mean you're going to be able to figure out how to make a bow that benefits from a recurve shape. There's more going on there than just the shape.

Agreed.

And just because Dwarves don't have access formal education, television, or the Internet, does not mean they aren't aware of the basic principles of various objects and tasks. For one, the average dwarf seems very knowledgeable about history, since it shows up in many engravings. So any item that might appear in history the Dwarves would have a rough idea of.

Histories that are passed down by common people don't typically include detailed descriptions of methods and technologies used in specialized trades.

Again, agreed.  There is a difference between knowledge of existence and knowledge of how.  This is where an abstract knowledge system would kick ass.  As well as a model of technological innovation... but I will get to that some other time.   

Also like I said, they could find out by word of mouth. Not neicarrily from a master craftsman, but maybe someone familiar with the use of the tool. If you want on idea about what a crossbow is like, go talk to a marksdwarf, they should know something about how the damn thing works.

Then by all means, suggest it as an additional source of knowledge.
Also, there's no reason a novice can't train a dabbler. A trainer doesn't have to be a master.

Agreed!

To learn a little about tanning you could talk to the guy how was neighbor to a tanner before migranting to the fortress, they might be able to tell you about the stuff the tanner commonly kept around the place. Not really knowledge about the tasks themselves, but a starting point so you aren't trying to reinvent the proverbial (or maybe one day litteral) wheel. Also on the note of the neighbor, medieval towns where generally very communal. Everyone in most villages knows everyone. And in larger towns they still had highly sociable neighborhoods. Sure they didn't share trade secrets, but everyone in a village/neighborhood would now that a blacksmith needs lots of coal, or tanners need lot's of tree bark, and other things to do their job.

If a tanner's neighbour can tell you enough about it to get you started, then it's safe to say he would have at least a little bit of tanning skill himself. If all you know is a vague description of the materials, you're still not very far along. You don't know what to do with the materials.
And since tanning is a skill that encompasses only two jobs (build tannery and tan hide), the "unlock" system could be applied such that gaining access to higher skill levels (and thus higher quality tanning) requires training or reading. (This would simulate knowledge of more complex and obscure methods of tanning.)

:3  Cool.  This again highlights the difference between knowledge of the existence of something and the knowledge of how to do it.  It also touches upon technological development... I am not terribly in favor of an "unlock" system other than possession of prerequisite knowledge, but it might be a good compromise at the end of the day.  What I propose (and will elaborate more about at a later time) is instead an expansion of your idea about prerequisite knowledge enabling certain tasks that would include innovation/technological development.  I will get to it later, I swear.  I have a somewhat thought out suggestion in another thread I might introduce here...

Again, I think "make a door" is too simple an example - you can imagine a solid door, and file down anything to a big, flat board.  Now try to imagine how to build the inner components of the knob of that door, including how the lock works. 

Put hole in door. Put rod through hole. Attach flat pieces to both sides. Put a catch on both ides of the frame. There's your latch. A lock? put a hole in the latch and the catch. Put a rod through the hole. The door is now locked.


Like I said earlier. This thread is VASTLY overstating the complexity of making things. And, no, making a table is no different from making a chair, skill wise. the flat spot is just at a different height.

Doors, tables and chairs are not good examples of this system. Nobody has offered any arguments as to why an unskilled dwarf shouldn't have to acquire knowledge to make mechanisms and looms.

But, your (Stove's) ideas still apply nicely to tables and chairs.  Someone making a chair would still have to know that chairs exist and address a need.  They would also still need to know how to make a chair.  And the skill would be separate from this knowledge, regardless of what other crafts that skill would apply to.  The person would not be able to make a chair without knowing what one is.  How that person arrives at that knowledge is a totally different story... something you covered earlier (though there is something else I want to cover later)!  Perhaps for simpler crap, the knowledge could just be universal for everyone.  But that's besides the point, though I think this is what the person you responded to was probably concerned about. 

Also, to what degree that knowledge of chairs (one thing) would allow the person to make tables (something else) is another thing... for the sake of simplicity one could simply make it so that the knowledge of one always comes with knowledge of the other.  And for some things with obvious construction, perhaps knowledge of existence can come coupled with the knowledge of how to make it.  Unfortunately, I don't think it would be terribly feasible to somehow develop some sort of system of that allows entities to independently think stuff like "oh, if I make this chair taller, broader, and without a back, I have a new kind of thing that I can conveniently put stuff on!  I'll call it a table"...


Also, also... Kohaku, perhaps the knowledge of "doors" and "locking mechanisms" (and different kinds of these!) could be separate.  That would address your concern, methinks!  I'll get to that later.

But dwarves are not humans. Consider the fantasy element of the game. Dwarves are generally a very inventive, crafty people.

Humans have their adaptiveness, elves have nothing, goblins are pretty cool regardless and dwarves are superior craftsmen. That's why even the clumsiest migrant might become a legendary mechanic in a couple of seasons without any previous education. It's in the blood.

Ultimately, this skill system would apply to humans and elves as well. If dwarves are to get any bonus from their inventiveness, it should be represented in their attributes, not the design of the skill system.

HELL YES!  Amen.

So, overall, I agree with Stove with regard to the general discussion regarding knowledge of how to do something vs. skill in doing something... I agree with the idea that knowledge and skill should be two separate beasts.  One should have to know of the existence of something in addition to how to generally make/do something (knowledge) before being able to make/do it and get good at it (skill), regardless of what that something is (fighting, crafting a complex mechanism, making a simple stone striking surface, public speaking, etc.).  If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know where I am wrong.  Each of these examples requires the three things I said (knowledge of existence, knowledge of how, and skill).  I can give examples for each and just about anything else I can think of, but I won't waste space doing so unless someone wants me to! 

This stuff touches upon stuff I'd love to see explored and modeled in the game, namely an abstract knowledge system (including transfer, loss, and development of knowledge!!!), invention/discovery (pretty much development of knowledge), and the handling of knowledge as a commodity.

So, how do we model all of this crap?  I've got some ideas, but they are vague and still far from addressing practical implementation. 

Abstract Knowledge System:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As mentioned before, I think there should be a clear distinction between knowledge of the existence of something, and knowledge of how it was/is done.  There's a lot of stuff knowledge could be about, but for the sake of being relevant to this thread, I will stick to crafts and stuff like that.  For each kind of craft (or group of crafts, or whatever... like chairs and tables could be lumped into one, I dunno...) there would exist knowledge of these two items; existence and how-to.

Each entity would be able to acquire this or that item of knowledge (treat it sort of like an item, I guess...) and could spread this knowledge via whatever medium (books, word of mouth, etc.).  The effectiveness of doing so would be modified by whatever personal attributes and applicable skills of the entity.

If an entity possesses the prerequisite associated knowledge, they can do whatever task they know about, regardless of skill.  Skill would get better with practice.  This skill gain could be modified by personal attributes as well as it is now.

Note: this would be most effective with the implementation of books!!!

Here's the relevant posts where I talk about this stuff further:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=46550.msg1110361#msg1110361
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69218.msg1674487#msg1674487

Handling of Knowledge as a Commodity (expands on Abstract Knowledge System):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Treating knowledge as essentially an item that individuals possess can allow it to be treated as a commodity of sorts.  Think about guilds: their power derived from control over educational capital.  Yeah, they controlled physical objects (like tools, and buildings, and resources), but what defined them and made them as powerful as they were was that they held virtual monopolies on certain kinds of knowledge (trade secrets!) and controlled the ways that knowledge was spread. 

With knowledge treated as such, people (player or AI) can trade for it and with it in the game (like, you tell me something, I tell you something; or you tell me something, I'll give you this nice -microcline mug-).  It can serve as a basis for interesting interactions that need not happen with player input or observation (direct or indirect), such as spread of technology, spread of customs, finding info on army locations, spying, etc.  It could also serve as a basis of handling government, delegating orders, determining economic info like wages, prices, etc. 

Also as important, it could allow for knowledge to be lost!  If someone is the only person who knows something, and that person dies, the knowledge dies with that person.  Or if it's in a book, and the book is destroyed, that knowledge is lost.  I need to make a separate thread about all of this...   

Invention/Discovery (Yes Capntastic, there is a tech tree, but this is different than what you think might be, I swear!!!):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is relevant to what I mentioned earlier in response to Stove's skill based "unlock" thing I didn't really like.

I think we could use a knowledge system and couple it with a reworking of dwarf psychology to yield a nice model of technological development, invention and whatnot.  The reworking of psychology involves developing a system for entities to make more complex value judgements than what we have now.  Essentially, this could model the motivating factors underlying invention, technological refinement, and discovery. 

Ideally, we'd have a way for an entity to desire an improvement to their current situation and take steps towards enacting that improvement.  One of these improvements could be refining a technique/inventing something/improving an existing technology (essentially creating a new item of knowledge!!!).  For something like this, there would need to be prerequisite knowledge (therein lies a tech tree of sorts...) and perhaps other conditions in addition to desire (like availability of certain resources and tools).  This could model invention through actively trying out something.  For stuff that could be invented by accident, the desire would be absent perhaps (or at least independent of the accidental discovery), but prerequisite knowledge (in order to realize that the accident was an improvement!) and other conditions would be there.  This stuff could arise while experimenting due to an unrelated desire.  All this stuff needs to be though out more... Here a related post I wrote with more detail about tech progression:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=62629.msg1492239#msg1492239

Here is a post about that psychological rework: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=70964.msg1938129#msg1938129

More to do with economic stuff, but the motivating factors behind that stuff would be very similar to those that might motivate other things...

So, this all sets a framework for spread of knowledge and with it the ability to employ certain skills, as well as the ability to lose old knowledge and develop new knowledge!

I hope this makes general sense.  Implementation is plausible, in my opinion, but would require immense computing power probably.

I might have to consolidate some of this stuff and others into a thread of my own sometime with more fleshed out ideas about implementation... this ties in to so many things.

[Lord Shonus]

Also, to what degree that knowledge of chairs (one thing) would allow the person to make tables (something else) is another thing... for the sake of simplicity one could simply make it so that the knowledge of one always comes with knowledge of the other.  And for some things with obvious construction, perhaps knowledge of existence can come coupled with the knowledge of how to make it.  Unfortunately, I don't think it would be terribly feasible to somehow develop some sort of system of that allows entities to independently think stuff like "oh, if I make this chair taller, broader, and without a back, I have a new kind of thing that I can conveniently put stuff on!  I'll call it a table"...

The only way someone could be able to make a chair and not a table, chest, or other piece of furniture is if they had no idea the other things existed. The skills are identical. It is a physical impossibility to be able to make one and not the other. The sole exception to this is bending wood, but I see no application for this that is not purely decorative in furniture making.

Likewise, as long as someone knows they exist, anyone who could make a bow could make a crossbow, as the skillsets are again identical. A crossbow is simply a bow on a stick, and a bow is simply a crossbow without a stick.

The only place in DF where there is any room for specific skill breakdowns is metalworking, which is already broken down fairly well.

[ZebioLizard2]

Small idea for this

Make a difference between skills, such as Quality, and how fast one could make it.

Through repetative motion, one could consistantly crank out lots of bows after learning how, but if he knows nothing except HOW to make bows in that manner, it'd really be the same each time, or possibly worse.

Make a distinction between quality, and quantity made. A dwarf that practices his craft, learns from those better skilled, and reads about it can make a better bow. Although if he doesn't practice well enough, he might make them dirt slow compared to Mr Urist I CAN MAKE THIRTY BOWS IN AN HOUR dwarf!

Urist McQuantity: Constant practice can gurantee you'll have lots of X, but at the same time without practice or training makes crap or bows that are very inferior. Might have learned under those skilled in making things quickly, but not those with quality either
Urist McQuality: No constant practice, but learns, trains under skilled makers, and reads about things and is able to make quality items, but dirt slow.

UristMcAwesome: Has learned how to do both, and so thus, is both smart, and awesome!

So one would need to practice making things quickly, but learn to make sure they are of Quality. Skilled dwarves may pass on how to quickly make items, or make them better, but sometimes not both, or the dwarf doesn't pick that up as fast. (Intellect finally having a use!?)

A crossbow is simply a bow on a stick, and a bow is simply a crossbow without a stick.

..As someone who has seen someone make crossbows for a living, and how they work mechanically, you are quite wrong on so many levels. Espically since bows are manually operated weapons that require pullback, while crossbolts are mechanically loaded and fired rather then done with a drawstring. Espically as both have a very different process to beign constructed.

[Lord Shonus]

A crossbow is simply a bow on a stick, and a bow is simply a crossbow without a stick.

..As someone who has seen someone make crossbows for a living, and how they work mechanically, you are quite wrong on so many levels. Espically since bows are manually operated weapons that require pullback, while crossbolts are mechanically loaded and fired rather then done with a drawstring. Espically as both have a very different process to beign constructed.

There's no mechanical difference between drawing back a string with your hand and pulling back a string with a stick. The only difference in the composition of the bow is that crossbows are typically stouter because they can have a heavier draw. Modern crossbows can be mechanically complex. These are not the type of crossbows used for 80 centuries. The most complex crossbow in those times was the repeating crossbow used for hunting, and the winch-operated kind that found favor in the later middle ages.

[Andeerz]

Also, to what degree that knowledge of chairs (one thing) would allow the person to make tables (something else) is another thing... for the sake of simplicity one could simply make it so that the knowledge of one always comes with knowledge of the other.  And for some things with obvious construction, perhaps knowledge of existence can come coupled with the knowledge of how to make it.  Unfortunately, I don't think it would be terribly feasible to somehow develop some sort of system of that allows entities to independently think stuff like "oh, if I make this chair taller, broader, and without a back, I have a new kind of thing that I can conveniently put stuff on!  I'll call it a table"...

The only way someone could be able to make a chair and not a table, chest, or other piece of furniture is if they had no idea the other things existed.

Which, if this is the case (and I agree with you that it is), that's when you simply make it so that the knowledge to make a chair and table/chest/whatever as inextricably linked.  :3

The skills are identical. It is a physical impossibility to be able to make one and not the other. The sole exception to this is bending wood, but I see no application for this that is not purely decorative in furniture making.

The skills, perhaps.  The knowledge, no.  I suggest in cases such as this either the knowledge should be inextricably linked, or knowing one should perhaps inevitably lead to the generation of knowledge (or invention) of the other in short order.

Likewise, as long as someone knows they exist, anyone who could make a bow could make a crossbow, as the skillsets are again identical. A crossbow is simply a bow on a stick, and a bow is simply a crossbow without a stick.

I guess that is true if the locking mechanism holding the string back doesn't have to be too complicated or made out of metal.  I need to look into this more before I can support or deny your claim.  If we're talking about crossbows that have winding mechanisms and/or necessitate special treatment of whatever material (perhaps steely iron) of the bow itself, then they might require specific knowledge other than that of bow making from wood stuff as well as specific skills other than making bows from wood.  Also, don't forget resource requirements and knowledge in use of said resources.  Perhaps something like a crossbow or at least something more complicated might require knowledge of multiple things, and shouldn't be simply lumped into one item of knowledge.

I'm not denying your logic.  I'm simply questioning the simplicity of the premises of your argument.   

I think in any case perhaps one could argue that knowledge of a bow would possibly very quickly lead to knowledge of possible existence of crossbows (perhaps sparking motivation to attempt inventing one!).

Also... and this is off topic... but to my knowledge (according to the wikipedia article) bows probably predated crossbows by at least 7 millennia or so, which begs the question (if I'm right) why weren't crossbows around before?

The only place in DF where there is any room for specific skill breakdowns is metalworking, which is already broken down fairly well.

Nah.  I disagree.  I think there's plenty of room for lots of things, including skill breakdowns.  I think there are too many aspects of different economic activities in the game that are ignored that IRL have a significant role in how history played out, namely resource, skill, and time requirements of things like masonry (think about quarrying), record keeping, warfare, farming, making clothes and shoes... you name it.  If this game is going to be a fantasy world simulator with verisimilitude, then I think we should break down certain skills better, as well as explore the difference between knowledge and skill. 

[Lord Shonus]

Also... and this is off topic... but to my knowledge (according to the wikipedia article) bows probably predated crossbows by at least 7 millennia or so, which begs the question (if I'm right) why weren't crossbows around before?

The primary use of missiles for much of that period was hunting, as ancient warfare for many reasons devalued the contribution of missile weapons, and when they were used, javelins were the preferred weapon. For hunting, the bow is quite adequate. Search for a more potent/easier to use weapon did not begin in earnest until a deadlier weapon for military use was desired.

[NW_Kohaku]

The primary use of missiles for much of that period was hunting, as ancient warfare for many reasons devalued the contribution of missile weapons, and when they were used, javelins were the preferred weapon. For hunting, the bow is quite adequate. Search for a more potent/easier to use weapon did not begin in earnest until a deadlier weapon for military use was desired.

When in all of history did people not desire deadlier weapons in warfare?

[Lord Shonus]

Funny thing. For a huge part of history, war was either focused on individual heroics as in greece, or huge numbers of civilians given a spear and tol "pointy end go in other guy". Missile weapons and often cavalry were neglected for centuries.

[NW_Kohaku]

I'm pretty sure that even in Ancient Greece, they were concerned with developing better types of armor and spears.  The major reason they didn't move out of developing the phalanx to its utmost was because their battlefields were typically so narrow that the terrain was ideally suited for heavy infantry that would never be flanked, and archers would be unable to pierce the armor of said heavy infantry.

In the Near East, where pretty much the vast majority of Western Civilization was at that time in a constant battle for supremacy, they did use bows, and the chariot, basically just a platform for mobile archers, was the king of the battlefield.  The Persians and most other major powers rose to that power through the use of cavalry and archers in support of light infantry, taking advantage of mobility in their typically more open battlefields.  I can assure you, they were trying to gain every military advantage they could get, and building a better chariot was typically a way they did so.

Thing is, even the Greeks (and Chinese at around the same time, amusingly enough) had crossbows for when it was time to actually besiege a city, and those much vaunted spears were pretty useless against a stone wall.  Heavier and heavier crossbows (and ballistas) were more reasonable the more time you could expect to be in a seige, and in order to make serious siege weapons, you needed a very heavy draw, which is why those winch crossbows started being made.

The Romans certainly had crossbows that were very advanced pieces of engineering, and the Middle Ages only improved upon their designs.

If dwarven crossbows are repeating crossbows, then they certainly represent an evolution in the mechanics of crossbows beyond "bow with a stick and a peg".  A primitive crossbow wouldn't have the armor-piercing capabilities that crossbows in-game display, as they would be much weaker than a standard bow.  A much better answer would be a stirrup crossbow or a repeating crossbow (since these reload times are farcically fast for a winch crossbow), which are both more advanced than just "put a stick on a bow".