Print

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

[Bumber]

You don't see Usain Bolt trying out for gymnastics or weightlifting, nor do you see those Olympic athletes attempting the 100 meters, and that's because there is very little overlap between those skills.

They're not skills, they're physical attributes.

Strength, speed, and agility are attributes, yes, but I was comparing Running vs. Gymnastics, which are definitely skills--skills which are greatly dependent on separate attributes. Yes, speed (velocity), agility (velocity / time), and strength (mass * (velocity / time)) are all very closely related in mathematical terms, but biological bodies still differentiate; being extremely good at one of them does NOT necessarily mean being any good at the others.

I don't see your point. If we're talking about skills, we'd be talking about a Running skill, not a Speed attribute. If we're talking about attributes, Agility by definition means being quick and nimble. Movement Speed is a derived property of being agile, and is already in the game. We don't need two attributes with the exact same meaning, or two things called Speed that mean different things. (The velocity indicator in adventure mode is labled Speed.)

That DF's attributes synergize with a variety of skills indicate that they're not specialized.

Agility is used by damn near every skill there is, because it's an essential aspect of just about any kind of job a person could do. Speed would be similarly useful, except that it would be essential for just about everything that happens between jobs.

And it already is. Some dwarves are faster than others. It's handled as a function of strength, agility, weight (including fat/muscle), armor user (if applicable), etc.

The part you quoted is meant to indicate that DF doesn't differentiate leg (running) versus arm (gymnastics) muscles. Agility gained from Swimming carries over into Clothier (and Comedian!?), for whatever reason.

[SixOfSpades]

I don't see your point. If we're talking about skills, we'd be talking about a Running skill, not a Speed attribute. If we're talking about attributes, Agility by definition means being quick and nimble. Movement Speed is a derived property of being agile, and is already in the game.

My point is that, no matter whether you want to talk about attributes or skills, strength <> speed <> agility. Let's say that you were born a naturally gifted runner, able to outrun anyone your age right from the get-go. Does that mean that you would necessarily also best your classmates at tug-of-war, or penmanship? No it does not. Let's continue, and say that you spent years training your body to run faster, doing nothing but running--sprinting, marathons, whatever--for hours a day, every day. You are the very best all-around runner in the world. Does that mean that you are also strong enough to tow a car by yourself? Or subtle enough to effortlessly thread a sewing needle on the first try, every single time? No it does not.

Agility means being quick. Speed means being fast. Quick <> fast. A marathon runner would very likely be a lousy juggler, and vice versa. Strength also does not translate into speed--I doubt very much that Andre the Giant was able to run even a quarter of a mile.

Some dwarves are faster than others. It's handled as a function of strength, agility, weight (including fat/muscle), armor user (if applicable), etc.

I have no problem with that, I simply want Speed added as the primary attribute determining overall movement rate, and other factors (such as Strength's ability to counteract heavy burdens) acting merely as modifiers to that movement rate.

Agility gained from Swimming carries over into Clothier (and Comedian!?), for whatever reason.

And that, I do have a problem with. The game should have more differentiation between accurate control of large muscle groups (used in things like Woodcutting & Dodging) and fine motor skills & eye-hand coordination (used in cutting gems, carving bones, mincing booze, etc). One can argue that this distinction is already represented by the Spatial vs. Kinesthetic senses, but I really doubt that that's truly enough.

Back on the topic of the thread: Feel free to add Tug-of-War to the list of games.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I don't see your point. If we're talking about skills, we'd be talking about a Running skill, not a Speed attribute. If we're talking about attributes, Agility by definition means being quick and nimble. Movement Speed is a derived property of being agile, and is already in the game.

My point is that, no matter whether you want to talk about attributes or skills, strength <> speed <> agility. Let's say that you were born a naturally gifted runner, able to outrun anyone your age right from the get-go. Does that mean that you would necessarily also best your classmates at tug-of-war, or penmanship? You do not understand agility. Agility is not fine motor skills, it is handling your body well when you are using large muscles. No it does not. You still do not understand. Running is a combination of strength and agility. You can be weak and very agile, or average, or very strong and clumsy, and still be an average runner. Let's continue, and say that you spent years training your body to run faster, doing nothing but running--sprinting, marathons, whatever--for hours a day, every day. You are the very best all-around runner in the world. Does that mean that you are also strong enough to tow a car by yourself? No, because you have BALANCED your attributes, not focused on one. Or subtle enough to effortlessly thread a sewing needle on the first try, every single time? Again, this is not agility. No it does not. As before, you are likely one or the other, but not necessarily, because other attributes ALSO play a part.

Agility means being quick. Speed means being fast. Quick <> fast. Yes, but a combination of Quick and Strong equals Fast. A marathon runner would very likely be a lousy juggler, and vice versa. Wrong muscles. I agree, DF should train muscles in groups rather than all at the same time, but that is very far in the future. Strength also does not translate into speed--I doubt very much that Andre the Giant was able to run even a quarter of a mile.

Some dwarves are faster than others. It's handled as a function of strength, agility, weight (including fat/muscle), armor user (if applicable), etc.

I have no problem with that, I simply want Speed added as the primary attribute determining overall movement rate, and other factors (such as Strength's ability to counteract heavy burdens) acting merely as modifiers to that movement rate. But why? Speed is a combination of many attributes and skills.

Agility gained from Swimming carries over into Clothier (and Comedian!?), for whatever reason.

And that, I do have a problem with. The game should have more differentiation between accurate control of large muscle groups (used in things like Woodcutting & Dodging) and fine motor skills & eye-hand coordination (used in cutting gems, carving bones, mincing booze, etc). One can argue that this distinction is already represented by the Spatial vs. Kinesthetic senses, but I really doubt that that's truly enough.

Back on the topic of the thread: Feel free to add Tug-of-War to the list of games.

[Bumber]

Agility means being quick. Speed means being fast. Quick <> fast.

quick
/kwik/
adjective
    1. moving fast or doing something in a short time.
    synonyms: fast, swift, rapid, speedy, high-speed, breakneck, expeditious, brisk...

fast
/fast/
adjective
    1. moving or capable of moving at high speed.
    synonyms: speedy, quick, swift, rapid...

agile
/ajəl/
adjective
    1. able to move quickly and easily.

speedy
/spēdē/
adjective
    2. moving quickly.

A marathon runner would very likely be a lousy juggler, and vice versa.

Without additional practice, yes. However, either is at an advantage over someone with cerebral palsy or atrophied limbs, wouldn't you agree? That is the extent of agility's influence.

Strength also does not translate into speed--I doubt very much that Andre the Giant was able to run even a quarter of a mile.

I suspect it's to help counteract the added body mass from muscles, as well as any other weight you might have. It's hard to move at all if you can barely lift yourself. Distance running would actually be Endurance.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Running and juggling are determined by skill (or form in the case of running, but it can be adequately modeled with a skill) AND attributes.

[SixOfSpades]

Agility means being quick. Speed means being fast. Quick <> fast.

quick
/kwik/
adjective
    1. moving fast or doing something in a short time.
    synonyms: fast, swift, rapid, speedy, high-speed, breakneck, expeditious, brisk...

Now that we have descended to literally arguing semantics, my desire to continue this derail is approaching zero. But since your Google-fu is clearly up to par, please Google "shades of meaning".

A marathon runner would very likely be a lousy juggler, and vice versa.

Without additional practice, yes. However, either is at an advantage over . . .

But that's precisely wrong. In DF, where movement speed is determined by both Strength and Agility, one would expect that a person who is extremely good running must have at least a pretty good Agility score, and therefore would be an above-average juggler (when compared with a random selection of individuals of roughly equal juggling experience / training). But in real life, we see that a runner who takes up juggling, or a juggler who takes up running, has no measurable advantage over the general public. That is because a person's overall speed and agility are each determined by a more complex set of physical traits, and, in real life, these two sets have almost nothing in common.

[Bumber]

Now that we have descended to literally arguing semantics, my desire to continue this derail is approaching zero. But since your Google-fu is clearly up to par, please Google "shades of meaning".

If you're going to pull that card, you need to tell me what you actually mean when you use those words, because I'm not aware of any differences appropriate to this context. Agility means being able to move fast, or more specifically in the context of DF, having quick limbs. Speed means moving fast. It should be plain to see that agility is a necessary condition for speed, and therefore speed cannot stand by itself as a stat.

A marathon runner would very likely be a lousy juggler, and vice versa.

Without additional practice, yes. However, either is at an advantage over . . .

But that's precisely wrong. In DF, where movement speed is determined by both Strength and Agility, one would expect that a person who is extremely good running must have at least a pretty good Agility score, and therefore would be an above-average juggler (when compared with a random selection of individuals of roughly equal juggling experience / training). But in real life, we see that a runner who takes up juggling, or a juggler who takes up running, has no measurable advantage over the general public. That is because a person's overall speed and agility are each determined by a more complex set of physical traits, and, in real life, these two sets have almost nothing in common.

Do attributes in DF significantly influence actual skill success or are they more notable influencing the rate of skill growth? Regardless, at some point you have to realize that the attribute synergy exists mainly as a gameplay mechanic. It at least makes sense under its own system. All trainable attributes in DF are tied skills. What skills belong to speed? Just swimming?

My case is that Agility seems to encompass speed in DF, and adding a similar stat would just add confusion. Even if we tried to tie all movement ("going between jobs") to a Speed attribute, you'd still have the issue that being fast on land makes you fast in water, which doesn't actually solve anything with regards to your recent argument. As I've said before, it seems like a Running skill is instead what is needed. We already have movement skills for Swimming and Climbing, so it works.

Now if you wanted to ditch the gamey mechanics for something more in line with reality, you'd have individually tracked values for each set of muscles. It'd be more complicated, and you still wouldn't have an attribute called "Speed".

[Dirst]

When a game makes a distinction between speed and agility (for example in the Rolemaster or HERO systems), agility is one's ability to change direction and coordinate bodyparts while speed is either the straight-line distance one can cover per period of time or the number of actions you get in a turn.  AD&D also had Dexterity that was distinct from Movement (as of 2nd Edition, which is the last I ever saw rules for).

Generally Agility worked as a modifier for Speed.

If you have trouble separating the two concepts, imagine a big-rig truck and a sedan barreling along a highway more or less at their maximum sustainable cruising speed.  The relatively agile sedan will be better prepared to handle sharp turns, sudden stops, or debris on the road.

Overall, however, I don't think ad-hoc play should train anything other than typical social skills.  Leave training to a proper training/education system.

[Bumber]

When a game makes a distinction between speed and agility (for example in the Rolemaster or HERO systems), agility is one's ability to change direction and coordinate bodyparts while speed is either the straight-line distance one can cover per period of time or the number of actions you get in a turn.  AD&D also had Dexterity that was distinct from Movement (as of 2nd Edition, which is the last I ever saw rules for).

Generally Agility worked as a modifier for Speed.

If you have trouble separating the two concepts, imagine a big-rig truck and a sedan barreling along a highway more or less at their maximum sustainable cruising speed.  The relatively agile sedan will be better prepared to handle sharp turns, sudden stops, or debris on the road.

Overall, however, I don't think ad-hoc play should train anything other than typical social skills.  Leave training to a proper training/education system.

Inertia is a property of matter.

I can see how one might separate the two in such a way, but I don't see how it makes any sense. (And with coordination already being a separate attribute.)

Edit: Well, I guess if you separate them into acceleration and top speed it makes a bit of sense, but peoples' bodies don't work that way. Starting from rest is very quick because of the low mass, and depends on strength and weight when burdened. Stopping is a function of traction and weight.

[SixOfSpades]

If you're going to pull that [shades of meaning] card, you need to tell me what you actually mean when you use those words, because I'm not aware of any differences appropriate to this context.

Really? I'd thought that the quick / fast connotation dichotomy was pretty well-known, though upon reflection I see that could easily have been just an assumption on my part. Regardless, to be clear, it's always been my understanding that words like fast, swift, fleet, expeditious, haste, and speed all describe one movement in one direction. The action that these words describe is one that can be quantified in a single expression of distance over time. In contrast, the words quick, deft, nimble, adroit, dexterous, and agile carry an air of more complex movement, motions in multiple directions, carried out with precision and in rapid succession.

Speed means moving fast. Agility means being able to move fast . . .

Not quite. Agility is not the ability to move fast, it is the ability to move suddenly.

I guess if you separate them into acceleration and top speed it makes a bit of sense, but peoples' bodies don't work that way.

Actually, they do. American Football provides a perfect example: For a running back, top speed is paramount--both to get to the ball's destination in time to catch it, and to outrun the opponents trying to tackle him before he does so. So the ideal build for him is a man with very long legs, to get more distance out of every stride. But for a linebacker, the goal is to ram into the opponents with as much force as possible, to knock them over and dominate the field. Because the force of impact is determined by mass times the square of velocity, the linebacker's speed is more important than his size--and he has less than one second to attain that speed, so for him it's acceleration that is crucial, & so the best build for a linebacker is one with relatively short legs, so that his muscles will have more leverage to help get his mass moving instantly.

Agility won't help you outrun a pack of vicious dogs in an open field, and Speed won't help you dodge an arrow. A man who can throw a second and even a third aimed dart before the first one hits is quick, while the darts themselves are fast. That's all I'm saying.

Even if we tried to tie all movement ("going between jobs") to a Speed attribute, you'd still have the issue that being fast on land makes you fast in water, which doesn't actually solve anything with regards to your recent argument. As I've said before, it seems like a Running skill is instead what is needed. We already have movement skills for Swimming and Climbing, so it works.

That's true. So I'd like to see a Running (and perhaps Hauling?) skill, to complement the Speed attribute. After all, when a dwarf is doing any OTHER kind of job, the game looks at both the dwarf's skill level for that job AND his relevant traits, so why should movement be different? Water speed is determined by Speed, Endurance, & Swimming, land speed is determined by Speed, Endurance, and Running (or Hauling & Strength if heavily laden), etc. That seems quite logical.

Overall, however, I don't think ad-hoc play should train anything other than typical social skills.  Leave training to a proper training/education system.

It hardly requires an authority figure giving instructional lectures for children to learn how to chase after their friends, or climb trees, or throw a ball. Kids could and should spontaneously play on their own, both actual games and "monkey see, monkey do" imitations of adults that they admire, and they should learn & grow from such practices. Does not every school everywhere teach Physical Education? As long as the skill gain from play/imitation is markedly slower (and capped at a lower level) than a true apprenticeship, which in turn is less effective than doing the job for real, I don't see a problem.

[Vattic]

Overall, however, I don't think ad-hoc play should train anything other than typical social skills.  Leave training to a proper training/education system.

It hardly requires an authority figure giving instructional lectures for children to learn how to chase after their friends, or climb trees, or throw a ball. Kids could and should spontaneously play on their own, both actual games and "monkey see, monkey do" imitations of adults that they admire, and they should learn & grow from such practices. Does not every school everywhere teach Physical Education? As long as the skill gain from play/imitation is markedly slower (and capped at a lower level) than a true apprenticeship, which in turn is less effective than doing the job for real, I don't see a problem.

For skills like socialising, chasing, climbing, and some fighting I can definitely see gain through play, but there are others where it seems less reasonable. Would a toy forge prepare you much for a real one? Does guitar hero prepare you for a real guitar? They can definitely inspire and kindle an interest. I know people who do HEMA that told me they had to unlearn a lot of bad habits from their time messing around with sticks, and similar from people who move from FPS gaming to paintball.

[SixOfSpades]

For skills like socialising, chasing, climbing, and some fighting I can definitely see gain through play, but there are others where it seems less reasonable. Would a toy forge prepare you much for a real one? Does guitar hero prepare you for a real guitar? They can definitely inspire and kindle an interest. I know people who do HEMA that told me they had to unlearn a lot of bad habits from their time messing around with sticks, and similar from people who move from FPS gaming to paintball.

There's a whole lot of gray area here, which is perfectly appropriate considering the subject matter. Clearly, no dwarven toddler would be taking a metal like steel up to working (let alone melting) temperature, but metals with much lower melting points, like tin and lead, could very plausibly be worked by a child with a minimum of danger. (If, of course, toy forges get hot at ALL, which they might not, considering they use no fuel. But if all they are is basically just an anvil, why not call them anvils?) They might be considered the dwarven equivalent of an Easy-Bake Oven.
Guitar Hero doesn't teach you any guitar at all, although it definitely *could* have if they hadn't deliberately designed it not to. Regardless, dwarven children (with the proper inclination) should absolutely try to get their hands on instruments--although those same hands might get smacked if they touch anyone's cherished masterwork. But they need no instrument at all in order to learn songs just by hanging around in the tavern.
I can also see children making, and using, wooden versions of real weapons--I certainly did. But whether their sword"play" is spontaneously supervised by older children, or actual militia recruits, or perhaps even disbanded veterans (a very good use for disbanded veterans, IMO) is really for Toady to ponder.

[Vattic]

I hadn't considered the possibility of soft metals. Dwarven children playing with lead, sounds Fun.

[Dirst]

I hadn't considered the possibility of soft metals. Dwarven children playing with lead, sounds Fun.

Lead/Tin solder has been around since Roman times, and it can be melted by a candle flame.

[expwnent]

I like this idea. It would be adorable.