Why are knowledges capped?

[pendragonman]

You may chose to see it as a house rule, clearly logical reasoning and book examples will not sway you.

The facts remain that a single knowledge is capped at 6. Just as it is not clearly delineated anywhere that you CAN stack two knowledges, it just as clearly does not say you can't.

What it does say is what I quoted above, which says skills and knowledges can be added. You chose not to see how two knowledges could also provide a synergy bonus. That's fine.

Remember that next time when you yourself are trying doing something like planting a garden**. After all, if your botany knowledge is already at 6, you could not then add your specialized knowledge of roses to pick the best type of rose to grow in your soil.

**Not implying you actually have botany 6, or a specialty in roses. Pointing out the error in your argument.

 

[Jazzlvraz]

...I don't know that much about how US universities work...

Please tell us something along those lines so we can see how universities operate where you live; I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Murdoc]

You may chose to see it as a house rule, clearly logical reasoning and book examples will not sway you.

If you could show me a rule or example of this being possible, then I'd accept it.

The facts remain that a single knowledge is capped at 6. Just as it is not clearly delineated anywhere that you CAN stack two knowledges, it just as clearly does not say you can't.

You know, I just knew you were going to say that: "Just because it's not in the rules doesn't mean you can't do it." Well that's true of an awful lot of things, isn't it? Does that make them all possible under the rules? No. You are adding something to it, your interpretation, and that makes it a house rule.

What it does say is what I quoted above, which says skills and knowledges can be added. You chose not to see how two knowledges could also provide a synergy bonus. That's fine.

I said no such thing. Of course they can, in theory. What I am saying is that it is not provided for in the rules by using two knowledges.

Remember that next time when you yourself are trying doing something like planting a garden**. After all, if your botany knowledge is already at 6, you could not then add your specialized knowledge of roses to pick the best type of rose to grow in your soil.

**Not implying you actually have botany 6, or a specialty in roses. Pointing out the error in your argument.

This does not show the error in my argument, it shows the validity of my entire point! If Botany was a skill instead of a knowledge, then sure you can take whatever specializations (as knowledges) you want and stack them. Fits with your example perfectly. I already said that Magnus' idea was also a perfectly valid way of dealing with this problem. This has nothing to do with whether or not this is a house rule or not.

Please tell us something along those lines so we can see how universities operate where you live; I'm genuinely curious.

Wow, I was wondering if someone was going to pounce on that one too. I only said "US universities" because that was what pendragonman had used as an example. I was not in any way trying to imply that there is some other university system that I am an expert in that will support anything I am saying. I could have also said "any university system". Look, I already said Magnus' idea was most likely the more realistic way to deal with this. What gives?

 

[fridge]

I don't think it is explicit anywhere in the rules...but is inferred.

See

- p135, to write a musical sample task...two skills (one of which has knowledges) being added together,
- p155, Designer skill has other skills added,
- p154, Craftsman skill adds other skills
And most importantly p175 "Many other Knowledges are possible: one for every career; one for every world; one for every branch of science, and one for each specialized subset of the Knowledges shown. " (my bolding)

I would also let my players combine an appropriate Science knowledge(s) with the equivalent Trade skill for diagnosis or design (Designer) tasks since they have the book learning as well as the hands on experiences. Eg designing/diagnosing a Polymer problem: use Polymers, Chemistry knowledge, polymer chemistry knowledge.

I think this is the design intent...a very flexible task system open to you to creatively add whatever skills/knowledges you have available.

 

[cuTTer]

And most importantly p175 "Many other Knowledges are possible: one for every career; one for every world; one for every branch of science, and one for each specialized subset of the Knowledges shown. " (my bolding).

Good catch.

 

[Murdoc]

Ok fridge, you made the case well. It does indeed appear that that was the intent, as you said. I concede that point. However I will point out that a case had to be made, I still don't think that it was ever that clear, or obvious, and it should be.

And all in all for me it just serves to highlight how clunky the whole knowledges concept is in T5. Why are they there in the first place? I surmise that they are there as an attempt to balance the problems had between having too may skills, which can lead to less powerful characters, and too few, which can do the opposite, and/or lack realism. In an attempt to get the best of both worlds it seems like there ended up being this clunky system that is just patch after patch. It looks like a well-played Jenga tower to me. First of all we have two kinds of abilities, skills and knowledges. And that's fine, many games do. But then there is the rule that knowledges are capped at 6. Why? The only reason I can see is because they can be added to a task, and we don't want to unbalance the probabilities. But one problem with that is that there is no reason to have any knowledge (that is based on a skill) higher than two, because that is when you are allowed to take the more beneficial skills.

Which leads to this problem. The fact that you are forced to take knowledges before skills. Why? Because T5 is not a point-based system, knowledges, which are of less benefit than skills, cost the same, so there is no advantage to taking them. So we introduce this patch-rule that they must be taken for at least two levels. But since there is no benefit for a player to take more than two levels in a knowledge, the cap of 6 is basically moot.

And then there are the Sciences, World and Career knowledges. These are different from other knowledges in that they have no base skill, and thus are really a third type of ability, but are grouped together and treated like knowledges. So in an attempt to make it look like only one thing, they placed an unnecessary restriction on this third type of ability. But wait! We can get past that by with this other patch-rule which isn't clearly explained and exists only to get around a different patch-rule which is entirely unnecessary. I'm sorry, it seems to work ok in the end but it lacks a certain elegance I've seen in too many other games. I don't really think that all these rules give enough benefit to outweigh the complexity. Actually I'm starting to think that instead of making Sciences into skills, that it would be best to just remove the 6-cap altogether. Anyway yes I'm ranting, this is just my opinion. No big deal.

 

[aspqrz]

Please tell us something along those lines so we can see how universities operate where you live; I'm genuinely curious.

Well, Australian Universities, around the time I got my Bachelor's Degree (1976) worked something like this ...

Bachelor's Degree: usually 3-4 years (3 years for Arts, which is what I did). Basic professional knowledge of the area(s) studied. For example, for Arts, you did 9 subjects over the three years (normally 3:3:3, but it was possible to do 4:3:2 or some combination of 4+ 3 + 2), and some of those subjects would actually be continuation(s) of the previous year's topic (so, for example, Ancient History I and Ancient History II).

Master's Degree: Normally a one year course, by coursework, in a narrower area of the main degree. In a MA degree, for example, you could probably have gotten a MA Historiography.

Doctoral Degree: Usually a two year course, normally independent research, in a very narrow area, chosen in conjunction with one's academic advisor. For Arts the only real use for most areas (except things like Psychology, for example) would be for teaching at University level.

Bachelors Degrees generally didn't have some of the strange (to us!) requirements that US universities insist on as with survey courses, so Engineers (theoretically) don't end up knowing nothing by maths and engineering. In Oz it was normal for Engineers to end up exactly that way ;-) (and other non-Arts types, of course!)

However, you could do all sorts of strange additions to a Degree taken from other Degree areas, so you could do Arts-Law, combining Arts and Law subjects, or Economics-Law, or you could do Arts with some Economics subjects, or Science subjects, or Maths subjects. Which is, possibly, similar to the US intent of survey courses - but it wasn't ever a requirement.

I have been told that this somewhat reflected UK University practise, but I would not hazard a guess as to how much.

Whether it is still the way things work today, I have no idea.

Phil McGregor

 

[fridge]

Ok fridge, you made the case well. It does indeed appear that that was the intent, as you said.

I have put it in the errata thread anyway as it should be clearer, if indeed it is the intent. That post points back here so the other issues should be caught as well.

 

[PhilB]

Well, Australian Universities, around the time I got my Bachelor's Degree (1976) worked something like this ...
...
I have been told that this somewhat reflected UK University practise, but I would not hazard a guess as to how much.

Okay, the UK system... some variation depending on the age of the institution but in most cases this will be close enough.

Bachelor's degree, BSc/BA. 3 years, 4 years if a placement is taken between the second and final year (called a "sandwich degree"). Usually study a mixture of 6-12 modules/courses per year for each year, with the last year including a large dissertation/project. Major/minor type structures seem to be much rarer now.

Master's degree, MSc/MA. 1 year, narrower specialism, but sometimes more general "conversion" courses. 6-12 modules/courses over the year, plus a dissertation/project.

Doctoral degree, PhD. At least 3 years, up to the state of the art then making an "original contribution to knowledge".

How does this fit with chargen? Close enough for me, although I do find the rules rather inflexible at times.

 

[Murdoc]

I have put it in the errata thread anyway as it should be clearer, if indeed it is the intent. That post points back here so the other issues should be caught as well.

Cool, thanks.

 

[Jonas]

Oops, forgot about this thread for a while, come back and find it's exploded with discussion. Well, that's good.

I'd just like to point out that Murdoc summarizes my feelings on the subject very well. My main problem is in fact with the Sciences. I don't see why there would be a cap to them.
I could accept fridge's solution of stacking specialties, but that really turns them into their own thing, not neatly fitting into either of the Skill or Knowledge categories.

Of course the other issue, that skills with underlying knowledges essentially have a 2 pt tax before you can learn the real skill, is also a bit kludgy, I would agree...