So, I'm working on a game design document, and I'm playing around with an idea for an advancement system. It would be skill-based, and players would have a choice to advance in two different types of knowledge concerning each skill: for now, I'm referring to them as 'practical' and 'theoretical' knowledge. Theoretical knowledge would be gained primarily from research and training, and practical knowledge would increase through actual use of the skill. A player's theoretical knowledge might determine say, what special techniques they can use when wielding a weapon, and practical knowledge might contribute to the actual amount of damage they can do when using said weapon. I've reached something of a road block, however, when it comes to resource-gathering skills, like mining. I can't think of a way that the two types of knowledge could effect such an activity. What are your thoughts? Any feedback on the advancement idea is also appreciated.

I think you've drawn a false dichotomy between theory and practice, then misapplied it to weapons skills in a way that conceals the false dichotomy. Isn't the ability do do special techniques a practical skill? Isn't damage part of the theory of weapon use?

Some skills simply don't benefit much from theory. Usually we call these skills "unskilled labor".

This is not really to the point of your question, but I'd recommend that practice increase your theoretical knowledge as well. After all, the more time you spend working on something, the more time you have to analyze how it works.

Theoretical knowledge could help the player know where to look to find materials. Increased chances of finding something - the player knows what the signs of plenty of minerals are.

Practical knowledge could help the player mine faster. He's done it a million times already, it's practically instinct.

Theoretical knowledge could help the player know where to find more valuable minerals. Better chance of finder rarer minerals; again, he knows where to look to find them.

Practical knowledge means the player knows how to handle and care for his tools better. They won't get worn down as fast, and they wont break as easily from mishandling.

Theoretical knowledge ensures the player doesn't discard a uncommon mineral thinking it's junk. The player gets slightly more resources per mining trip, since he doesn't mistakenly discard unfamiliar metals.

Practical knowledge means the the player can quickly tell at a glance whether a load of rubble contains anything of value. His well trained eyes wouldn't miss a scrap of metal others overlooked. Same result as above, he'd get slightly more resources be trip.

I think his dichotomy structure is ok.

With mining, practical knowledge could make your production rate faster. For example, a level 1 skill would let you dig 1 foot a day, level 10 lets you dig 10 feet per day.

With theoretical knowledge, you could improve your success rate of finding precious minerals. For example, when you dig with a level 1 skill, you may have a 1% chance to find anything of value. With level 10, you can increase that change to 5%.

With the above, the math works out such that practical knowledge is superior to theoretical.

However, it would play out interesting if the total value of a mine decreased over time. For ever xxx feet mined, the minimum theoretical knowledge required to find anything would be raised. To the players who can figure out how to optimize their dig, they would gain the advantage.

To the player that digs aimlessly, the mine's value would be ruined.

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel I think you've drawn a false dichotomy between theory and practice, then misapplied it to weapons skills in a way that conceals the false dichotomy. Isn't the ability do do special techniques a practical skill? Isn't damage part of the theory of weapon use?

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Up until now, I've only really been dealing with myself as far as brainstorming goes, so I haven't really had to worry about denotation. I guess I've been focusing more on getting my ideas in writing...I'll find better terms for them. Feel free to make suggestions :s

Anyhow, I guess the idea is supposed to be that a character would have perhaps practiced the motions of a technique described in a book, or at least understand the gist of how to perform it, but have not gained any of the functional muscle that might come from using it in combat.

Quote:

Original post by Servant of the Lord Theoretical knowledge could help the player know where to look to find materials. Increased chances of finding something - the player knows what the signs of plenty of minerals are.

I have considered that, but I worry about how it might work in a multiplayer environment. Maybe certain locations would simply yield no results to players of a certain skill level, if only to prevent more skilled players from revealing all the good spots and defeating the point of advancement? I suppose players could still flag these areas and eliminate the need for lower-skilled players to search later on. Then again, maybe there's no harm in that.

Quote:

Original post by Cygnus_X With mining, practical knowledge could make your production rate faster. For example, a level 1 skill would let you dig 1 foot a day, level 10 lets you dig 10 feet per day. With theoretical knowledge, you could improve your success rate of finding precious minerals. For example, when you dig with a level 1 skill, you may have a 1% chance to find anything of value. With level 10, you can increase that change to 5%. With the above, the math works out such that practical knowledge is superior to theoretical. However, it would play out interesting if the total value of a mine decreased over time. For ever xxx feet mined, the minimum theoretical knowledge required to find anything would be raised. To the players who can figure out how to optimize their dig, they would gain the advantage. To the player that digs aimlessly, the mine's value would be ruined.

Ooh, clever. I hadn't thought of limiting the amount you could mine per day, or depth being a factor. I also like the idea of decreasing value of a mine over time. I wonder how difficult it would be to have a system where deposits appeared in random locations after one lost all value...but I think I'm getting off topic. Thanks for all your responses :)

I like the concept behind the advancement system.

One thing that might be useful is to think of the two extremes-- what happens when you have all theory and no practice, or all practice and no theory? It seems to me that if you are strong in theory but light on practice you'll know the formal ways of doing things, which may be technically correct but may not be fast, feasible or even accurate in specific situations. Practice without theory, on the other hand, may allow you to innovate and solve very specific problems quickly but confine you to applying specific solutions to ALL problems.

For mining I think a lot depends on how much detail you can stand. My advice would be to come up with a series of tests and events / results that capture the tradeoff in a way that's interesting. You can probably go wild because your player base will likely be ignorant of mining let alone the various types of minerals. Maybe high theory shows you where you COULD mine and gives you formal times and resource requirements for mining (X amount of water, Y types of tools). High practice, however, shows you how to clear obstacles, extract materials without lots of waste and jury rig broken tools in a jam.

I think to make this work you have to list all the factors you want to add to mining gameplay and offer tradeoffs. If your tools break or jam, for instance, and you're all theory no practice you can't improvise a quick field repair and have to buy new ones. If you're practiced at mining just gold and have no theory, you may miss some mineral locations because you know nothing about formation and transport.

EDIT: Haha, I took too long to post. What Cygnus said. [grin]

Incidentally, any time you're wondering how to apply your concepts to a specific domain, I strongly suggest doing some research on the domain in question. The more you know about a subject, the better able you'll be to apply that knowledge to your projects. Good authors do tons of research for their books to increase verisimilitude, and there's no reason you can't do the same for your games.

I know what you were thinking, as I have thought of a very similar concept in the past (I didn't develop it much though as I had no project at the time to apply it to, and I soon forget about it. Also, I don't remember calling the mental part of it "theoretical", but that is a better term than I used (which was just "mental", I think)).


For my system though, the practice side pretty much always had to do with success chance.

For weapons, I recall thinking similarly - that it would deal with the number of abilities available. E.g: a mental/theoretical melee weapon skill novice would only be able to swing their weapon, while an expert would be able to stab, jab, feign and etc.

Practising increased practical skill though, not mental/theoretical.


The theoretical mining skill suggestions some of the people in this thread have composed are rather solid mechanics in my opinion.