MJ has me a bit confused about what is a new use, and rather than clutter up my game thread, I thought I would start a new one. Other people might be confused about it also, so maybe this will help.
I'm currently learning blacksmithing. To me, every time I learn how to make something different, it should be a new use. I've made a set of manacles, now I want to learn to make an animal trap. Those are two completely different and unique applications for blacksmithing, so why isn't it a new use of the skill? I would think that every single time you made something different, it would be a new use.
Likewise, with other skills. Boxing for instance. Every time you fought a new opponent, it should be a new use. At least I think so. Especially if that opponent was using a different fighting style than you had encountered before, and even more so if you won the fight. Using boxing against karate is different than using it against another boxer. Using boxing against someone with a knife is different also. Why wouldn't those be new uses of a boxing skill?
To me, it just makes sense that every time you used blacksmithing to make something new, it should be a new use, every time you used boxing against a different fighting style, it should be a new use. Likewise with a lot of other skills. Would someone explain what is a new use? Thanks.
The situation with the blacksmith is different because he is instructing you in the skill and thus you are advancing in the skill due that training. New Uses are purely for when you are using the skill in different ways on your own and learning from that.
Otherwise, I think making different things if they different enough would qualify as new uses. So, if you were hammering out a horseshoe, then later hammered out a cartwheel rim, it would not be a new use just because the metal is a different shape. But, if you needed to make a sword, which requires careful quenching processes and folding the metal on itself, etc., (the same would apply to making a spring) then it would probably be a new use because you would be learning a new way to use the skill.
Boxing is a bad example because it is a martial art and the moves are treated as separate skills. And you would not get New Uses from fighting different opponents unless maybe they were aliens with no distinguishable body parts.
Yeah, what Graeme said.
From a strictly mechanical standpoint, there has to be limits on how fast you can advance by "new use". I'm actually very liberal in that area. If you were to teach yourself metalwork and then look for a lot of very different kinds of things to do with it, I would probably credit you for all of them--but that's because--well, let me take a step back.
I take a class in electricity and electronics. Several days a week someone explains to me how this stuff works, how to do this or that with it, all that stuff. By the end of the class I've gained a predictable skill level and a level of understanding in it. All the individual things I learned are part of that, and I know what I know.
Instead, I decide to figure out this electricity and electronics stuff for myself. I've got a bunch of electrical and electronic appliances, and I pick a few simple ones and start examining them. I figure out how to make a buzzer by wrapping wire into a coil around a metal core and securing it beside a spring-loaded metal bar switch with a loud clacker stop at both the open and the closed end, so that when I turn on the power the magnetic force of the coil pulls the switch open with a loud clack but shuts off the power, causing the switch to close with a loud clack and reconnecting the power, causing it to open, close, open, close, very rapidly, making a continuous racket. O.K., in the class I didn't take I'd probably have learned that in the first week, told what it is, how it works, why it works, and I would count that as part of my knowledge. However, because I figured it out for myself, it means that I had to work out and understand a lot more about what this electricity stuff was doing, and so I actually know more about how that buzzer works than the guy who read how to do it in a book (or on this web page), even if he also built a buzzer following those instructions. The guy who figured it out for himself gets his bonus not because he knows how to build a buzzer (which the other guy also knows) but because he developed a level of understanding of the subject which enabled him to figure out how to build the buzzer on his own.
Let me pause and ask Graeme if he agrees with that idea, from his perspective as a professional engineer: when you figure out how to solve an entirely new problem yourself, you learn something more than when you read how to solve the same problem in a book and use the solution given to you by someone else. That doesn't mean you didn't learn anything the other way, but that that learning is more on the order of the gradual practice that builds up your skill over long periods of time, and less like the intuitive leaps, the "ah-hah!" moments, that come when you have to work through the problem yourself.
As far as the boxing question goes, you are not completely correct, but you have a good argument. I would certainly say that if you just successfully boxed with a lion and told me that you wanted a new use bonus for boxing with a lion, I would give it; but if you then boxed with a tiger and asked for another new use bonus I would not give it, because it's not different enough. Similarly, if you boxed with a Tae Kwon Do kick-style weaponless fighter I might give you a bonus, but not if you already had one for boxing with a Kung Fu kick-style weaponless fighter. In each case you have to persuade me that this really was a very different situation, and not just that you fought a guy with red hair when all of your previous adversaries have been blondes and brunettes. I want to know that your new use really means that your character did something different from which he would have learned somethinga by figuring out for himself how to solve a problem using what he already knows.
--M. J. Young
I was wondering about new uses for martial skills. Thanks. I think "like I just boxed with a lion" will go on my list of possible responses to people who ask me how I feel.
When people ask me how I feel, I often say "Like I just called Mike Tyson a sissy." Bonus points to the person that knows the movie reference.
How many ears do you have left?
I agree with M.J. on learning with the qualifier that I often run into people who know how to design electrical systems (or other systems) but couldn't identify a transformer if they saw one in real life - and people who can work wonders repairing something who couldn't explain to you why it works. That is the difference between a mechanical engineer and a mechanic.
Smile. I think my brother thought Tyson was a sissy, or at least that he could beat Tyson. Being six four, and graceful is nice. Being six one and a klutz is not so nice, but its not bad.
One thing I hope we can all agree on: They should have kicked Tyson out the door of the boxing arena, and padlocked the door behind him.
Graeme, I always got the impression that engineers could generally do the mechanics job, maybe with a little extra thought. Now you're telling me engineers are getting as airy and overly intellectual as scientists. Thats sad because I thought Engineer=Grounded in Reality. I thought Engineers were the ones who had to go to the bank of Reality, and write a check, and if it bounced, well the bridge fell, and everyone knew it.
I have a degree in Electronics. Working on TVs, radios, etc. Right next door to my lab was the Electrical Technology lab. They did house wiring, electrical outlets, etc. My teacher told us that we could do their job, same thing, just larger, but they would not be able to do our job, as it was more complex. On the other hand, we might be able to do the work involved in Electrical Technology, but we would now know the building codes. So while the job might be done correctly and safely, it would not always be done up to the codebook. I see the point Blue Canary was making.
Eric, it depends on the engineer. If the engineer is interested in working with tools and has a crappy car then he or she probably knows a thing or two about fixing a car - but there is a big difference between predicting cavitation on a pump vane and installing a pump/motor set so that they are aligned properly. Two completely different skill sets. The engineer knows they should be aligned and has probably read about using roller calipers, laser sights, and thermal expansion but there is a good chance that he or she has never actually done it.