just noticed the Performer has no access to the Tradecraft skill.

Perform is listed as speciality in the Tradecraft skill list.

A mistake or a error?

That seems like a fair assumption. Don't forget, as well, that the GM can always grant a character access to a skill he normally wouldn't have if it makes sense for the character; so in times like this one really needs to rely on the GMs common sense to offset the little mistakes or errors.

I'd say the Career name should have been somehting in the line of Troubadour or Menestrel (the guys that tell stories, dance, sing, play instruments, etc).

I think the objective of Tradecraft as a skill is intended for merchants and craftmen, not performers (acting/playing music/etc.)

While Perform does seem an odd specialty to have listed under Tradecraft, it is nonetheless there, so the career needs access to it. I suspect it was placed in that category because Performance can cover so many things - acting, dancing, musical instrumentation, storytelling, puppeteering, magical acts, comedy, etc. Not to mention it should also cover the preparation end of things - arranging stages, advertising, setting prices, selling tickets, obtaining necessary permissions, making puppets, props and costumes, and so forth.

Depending upon the specialization desired a amiable GM might allow one to use Charm instead of Tradecraft. (for acting or storytelling, for example)

Thankfully, there haven't been a lot of these types of situations. I've only had to house rule:

Navigators and forgers have basic literacy (without education)

Now I'll add the Performer having access to Tradecraft (Perform), or as someone else noted, make it a specialization of charm.

jh

I find the Tradecraft skill to be the most problematic simplification (abstraction) that is used in 3e. I realise that they wanted to keep the system simple with few skills, but the current system just doesn't work when it comes to careers that specialize in a trade (such as performing, blacksmithing and so on). You get very strange results, for example the Burgher, being trained in Tradecraft, being better at Performing than the actual Performer is.

A very simple houserule would be to treat Tradecraft as a skill group instead of one skill, and let the specializations for the skill become advanced skills in their own right. Then let the careers with Tradecraft as a listed skill choose from the list and add Tradecraft (specific skill) to the lists of the careers that need them (e.g. Tradecraft (Performing) to the Perfomer, Tradecraft (Calligraphy) to the Scribe and so on). Remove a skill if that seems appropriate.

Emirikol said:

This is the most sensible action. There are so many wonky specializations listed for the various skills that to take them as gospel is folly. Tradecraft's description makes it clear that performance doesn't really belong in it.

As far as I can tell, Tradecraft(X) is meant to represent a monetary/sales/management related to the (X). NOT the actual performance of that. So, a Performer will use Charm or Coordination, for example, for their actual Performance (which are, incidentally, the actual career skills for the Performer). A Tradecraft(Perform) would be used to attempt to elicit money from the audience, or to set up a stage, selling tickets, etc.

If, during "downtime" between sessions a Performer wants to spend their time between sessions trying to make money from performing, they would make a Tradecraft(Perform) check, for example. As a GM, I'd probably allow a Charm/Coordination/etc check for how well they did their actual performance to provide fortune dice to their Tradecraft (Perform) roll, if the player desired.

So, no, I don't think it was an error/mistake/oversight. They are two different things. It's possible for a Performer to be good at Performing, but bad or inexperienced at making money at it.

I could be a great singer, but have no skill or knowledge in setting up a concert to make money at singing...and vice versa.

As dvang said.

Read closely the Tradecraft skill entry in the book. It is not about dancing, playing an instrument or singing.

Another point would be that the specialisation is "Performance" (i know i'm picky). I would consider a Tradecraft(Performance) dude as a "theater manager", "concert manager", showbuisiness in sort. He knows how to throw a show/party and to sell it.

dvang said:

Well, in the current rules he can be great at making money out of it if he buys the skill as a non-career advanced skill for 4+4 advances and have no way to actually become good at playing/singing.

I'm not saying that it was a mistake, I'm sure it is a deliberate design decision to keep the number of skills down, but personally I think it's a bad one (one of the very few).

So we have a skill which is useful for making money out of things like performing, smithing, leatherworking and so on, but no skills for doing the actual performing, smithing and leatherworking. Why is the Tradecraft skill even in the game if it's only supposed to cover the business side? Is anyone really playing a campaign where this comes into play? I think Performing and Blacksmithing would be about a million times more useful to have as skills than Tradecraft described as above. This is of course just my opinion, if you find the skill to be really useful as it is, then more power to you

I don't really think that the game would have suffered from the added complexity of using an advanced Tradecraft skill group, with some skill examples listed and freedom for players/GMs to invent their own skills. But whatever, it is really easy to houserule it.

Then the GM can impose penalties on the Tradecraft roll if the PC has no ability. Or, suppose Tradecraft(perform) also falls under finding local talent, rather than relying on personal ability. Or, it could be interpreted as a type of charlatanism, where the PC was good at selling tickets, but failed to deliver on a performance (or performed badly). He was good at the hype but not on the actuality, which could lead to issues with the local authorities. Personally, as a GM I'd favor the "local talent" scenario. Of course, I'd reduce funds gained from the Tradecraft roll because the PC would need to pay the local performers, whereas if he had his own performing ability he'd get to keep it all. A PC with Charm or Coordination, but without Tradecraft, could attempt to find work but will be woefully underpaid for their efforts. Or, they could seek out a "manager" who has Tradecraft, and get a cut of the increased profits.

Additionally, Tradecraft(Perform) lets the PC know the process for setting up performances, and how they work and are arranged. Want to know how to get you or your party's singer/band to play at a local noble ball or town festival? Use your Tradecraft(Perform) to contact the right people and get it arranged. It can represent more of a concert promoter or band manager ability, rather than an individual's performance.

They really are two separate skills.

Take Smithing. Someone can be great at making weapons/armor/etc, but horrible at the business end of it. They don't know how to price what they make, or where they can sell it, or how to get the best deal, etc. Conversely, a merchant could specialize in acquiring, buying, and trading arms and armor, yet have not an iota of skill in actually making anything.

Honestly, having a good amount of skill in BOTH should be a rarity. A smith that wants to not just make stuff, but have good skills to sell their own stuff too, should take a second career as a merchant or somesuch that provides easy access to the Tradecraft skill.

I'm not arguing that they are separate skills. I'm just stating that there are no skills for the actual skilled use. Personally I'd find an actual skill to use when Performing or Smithing a lot more useful and fun than a skill that lets me simulate the business side of things. Tradecraft by itself is not a useless skill, it's just that the RAW indicates that it supposed to cover up for the nonexisting crafting/performing/occupational skills (based on the specializations).

dvang said :
Honestly, having a good amount of skill in BOTH should be a rarity. A smith that wants to not just make stuff, but have good skills to sell their own stuff too, should take a second career as a merchant or somesuch that provides easy access to the Tradecraft skill.

See, that is the problem. What skill should the player choose if he wants to play a blackmith that have no idea to run a business? For example a soldier that picked up smithing as a side skill when in a military campaign. There is no Smithing skill.

I'll have to read up on the actual definitions of the skills. Perhaps I was slightly mistaken in referencing the smith. Tradecraft might be intended to involve production of related items as well, which would mean Tradecraft not only involves the business of X but the production of items related to X. That makes a sort of sense, I suppose. It has no effect on how a Performer works, since performing does not produce items. I suppose items that could be produced by Tradecraft(Perform) might be makeup and costumes, for example? Hmm, interesting idea. Anyway, WFRP has never been strong on skills, although it has had a far more robust system than D&D. So, sometimes as a GM you've got to make a new skill for a specialty or co-opt another skill to do what you want.

I don't see anything in the Tradecraft definition that makes me think it's just about business acumen or production of items: it's "...a collection of skills related to professional dedication and learning of an applied trade .... pecialisation introduces focus on one particular type of trade or livelihood ." (emphasis mine)

Performing is certainly a dedicated trade and a livelihood when it's your profession; it seems clear to me that performance should be a Fellowship-based specialisation of Tradecraft, just as blacksmithing should be a Strength-based specialisation.

(I do agree with gruntl's suggestion that Tradecraft would be better handled as a group of unrelated specialty skills; this might also benefit Education, which is similarly broad and has many specialisations with little or no common ground.)

Guys, I think it might be easier for a 'performer' to not use 'Tradecraft' per se.

Allow me to elucidate.

While I think the applied tradecraft as described works for downtime, it seems to me to focus on execution. Making horseshoes. Weaving tapestries.

While such a thing may have art within it, it might be better to use other skills to demonstrate a connection with an audience.

Ex: Performing as an actor you might want to use Charm, (or maybe Intimidate for a scary part?). If you are dancing 'Coordination' might be more appropriate.

Overall its mostly about connecting with an audience and showing off your talent. Mostly its about a 'performer' having fun with their character and working with the GM to allow/enable that. Tradecraft IS so loose because its catchall. If the goal is to sum up a full skillset in one roll, you can easily just pick a skill and work with it (everything boils down to charm or coordination for example, maybe athletics for acrobatics?). Tradecraft is more of an 'offscreen' skill in my opinion otherwise a wide variety of skills required for work can just be wrapped up in one check.

If you're singing, or dancing, reading poetry etc, I agree with a former idea that you just pick a skill (say Charm) and get a specialty in it. I'm not sure Tradecraft is needed to be 'accurate'.

shinma said:

Agreed.

Tradecraft seems way too vague to be used for all kinds of performers. Using Tradecraft for this seems, well, boring. And you have to make a house rule to give the character the skill. It seems much more flavourfull to let the character use skills apropriate to what he's performing. It also makes it so the character isn't good at performing just anything, but some specific type of entertainment fitting to his training and characteristics.

Just about any basic skill can be used. Off the top of my head:

Athletics: Strongman performances.

Ballistic Skill: Knife-throwing feats (lady on spinning wheel and such)

Charm: Acting (can also be combined with just about any other perfomance skill to increase the effect it has on the audience)

Coordination: Juggeling, linewalking, acrobatics, dance

Intimidate: Actor playing a scary part

Folklore: Songs and stories

Guile/skulduggery: Illusions and "magic" tricks (hiding things in your sleeves and similar)

Dicipline/Resilience: Pain- and injury-defying performances like being submerged in a tank of water or walking over hot coals. Combine with Coordination for escape-artis performances.

Ride: Trick riding

Weapon Skill: Believable mock-battles during plays and "fancy" sword-wielding.

Then the character can enter another career later that has the Tradecraft skill, allowing the character to make more money from his performances.

Edit: And to increase the feeling of being able to entertain with skills that are usually intended for more mundane tasks, allow for Specialisation: Perform, with any skill.

Looking back at 2nd edition, there was a tradecraft skill (that was really lots of sub skills under one broad heading and when you took the skill you also selected the sub skill(s) you wanted). Performer was also a skill that was really a list of skills under one broad heading, and I guess when they made 3rd edition, they took the notion of broad skills and sub skills and made (terrible pun) the (3rd ed) trade craft skill except performer moved from a broad skill to a sub skill of trade craft, but in doing so i think the notion of the performer/performance skill changed slightly.

A performer doesn't have tradecraft, so they use their career skills that they do have to perform - charm or co-ordination - this allows them to do some kind of performance well enough to earn money from it.

Tradecraft performance becomes something else; as other people have suggested, it becomes more about being able to manage a large performance or travelling road show, to teach others, to be a circus ringmaster or theatre manager, and the like, Sure, if you have tradecraft performance, you understand the principles of performance and can certainly use that skill to perform yourself , but you would do so using your training and knowledge rather than raw talent (which is charm and co-ordination).

In that way, performers don't need tradecraft performance to perform and earn money, they use charm and/or co-ordination, but they won't be capable of creating a dance troupe or a theatre company or travelling puppet show or anything else like that, they can be a member of one and even the lead actor or whatever, but behind the scenes (pun intentional) somewhere, there will be a manager (with tradecraft(performance)) pulling the strings (pun intentional again!)

Now, the only real problem i have with the tradecraft skill is that of the general skill seems to imply an understanding of all basic trades. The specilization makes clear what trade(s) you can do, but if i have tradecraft, does that mean i could turn my hand to black smithing or running a theatre, or carpentry?

I think the GM could use it that way, but when players take the tradecraft skill, i think they also need to specify the specialisation they are specializing in (but get no white dice for rolls of that nature until they genuinely buy the specialization).

That way, someone can take tradecraft and state that they are a blacksmith; they can then apply their tradecraft to making items in a forge as well as understand the general principles of trade, business, setting up a shop, paying taxes whatever, but they couldn't really go off and build loads of items from wood (not without major misfortune dice being added to the roll). when they take specilization blacksmith for real, they add a white dice to any blacksmith relevant rolls but are still a rubbish carpenter. If they later take the carpentry specilization, they can begin to branch out (last pun I promise..) into that field of expertise too.

That's how I see all the skills working together anyway, without having to house rule anything specific, except the stating of a tradecraft specilization even without officially taking it, which i think should happen even without the performance issue the OP raised in the first place.

Yes, I'd agree with that pumpkin. I was never a big fan of tradecraft in 2e either because the general skill was so broad. I'd agree that you should either ask for a 'focus' when a PC takes the general tradecraft, or else interpret that unfocused ability as "business" knowledge, not as a allowing actual working at a particular trade.

Yep Dvang, that's also a good way of looking at it, that I did consider. For us though, the chances of my players being interested in tradecraft as a skill is low anyway, so the ability to have some kind of limited focus straight off the bat that at least allowed then to make "something" and put the skill itself to some potential good use, was the sort of carrot I felt was needed to at least tempt them to look at the skill!

My group aren't really the kind of people that would be interested in a skill that only gave general business knowledge; unless it was the business of breaking legs and extorting money!?

pumpkin said:

Tradecraft specialisation: Crime

A good and simple interpretation pumpkin, I think that's a good way to handle it.

dvang said:

Not only production, but repair as well

SPOILER SPOILER


SPOILER

In TGS, in the final chapter, it is stated that PCs can fix the hole in the boat by using the Tradecraft skill, if I remember correctly.

This had me thinking, because when TGS was published, tradecraft was available on for Burghers? So why would a burgher by able to repair a boat?

as a tangental question (and that i have not seen it posted elsewhere) The career ability for performer is different on the career ability card and in the player's guide. any insight on this posted anywhere?

You could check the errata. Might say in there.

as a tangental question (and that i have not seen it posted elsewhere) The career ability for performer is different on the career ability card and in the player's guide. any insight on this posted anywhere?

I'd go with the card, not the entry in the book. The Performer's career ability in the book is actually word-for-word the career ability for the Investigator career (as printed both on the Investigator's card and in the Investigator's entry in the book). It being on the Performer page is almost certainly a layout error.