I'm not sure this is how skill trees in games work either (at least not the games I'm familiar with). In games like Dungeons and Dragons, there are tradeoffs between how wide you can go and how deep you can go. This leads to the concept of "min-maxing", i.e. pumping every possible skill-up you can into one area ("maximizing" it), leaving you actively handicapped in other areas ("minimizing" them). From what I understand this was more prevalent in earlier editions of D&D, but it can still apply even in 5e to some extent. Using point-buy, you can end up with a -1 modifier to *two* of your six ability scores, in order to pump two others to +3, and leave the other two with a +2 and a +1. Now tbf this is probably still more well-rounded than many hyper-competent people in real life: that might look more like +5, +0, +0, -1, -3 -3. So games still present a bit of a fantasy of having more "skill points" to distribute than most real people actually have. But the basic idea applies even in games: being well-rounded isn't always the best option: you don't want a +1 in every stat.
We agree, tho, that within any specific skill set, there's a larger set of skills that really do form trees.
You can't draw until you know how to recognized paper and pen.
You need to learn to draw a fairly straight line. And then how to draw a curve. And then the more subtle skill of translating what you see into shapes.
And then there is the really complicated skill of separating what you actually see from the warped way your mind concepttualizes what you see... getting out of that takes forever.
So drawing is a tree, for sure. And every specific set is like that.
Yes?
No disagreement there, correct?
Broadly I agree... this idea of well-roundedness is kind of built into gaming, and the truth is well roundedness is a psyop to keep most people in the sort of useful idiot set of life.
I'm not sure this is how skill trees in games work either (at least not the games I'm familiar with). In games like Dungeons and Dragons, there are tradeoffs between how wide you can go and how deep you can go. This leads to the concept of "min-maxing", i.e. pumping every possible skill-up you can into one area ("maximizing" it), leaving you actively handicapped in other areas ("minimizing" them). From what I understand this was more prevalent in earlier editions of D&D, but it can still apply even in 5e to some extent. Using point-buy, you can end up with a -1 modifier to *two* of your six ability scores, in order to pump two others to +3, and leave the other two with a +2 and a +1. Now tbf this is probably still more well-rounded than many hyper-competent people in real life: that might look more like +5, +0, +0, -1, -3 -3. So games still present a bit of a fantasy of having more "skill points" to distribute than most real people actually have. But the basic idea applies even in games: being well-rounded isn't always the best option: you don't want a +1 in every stat.
Just to be clear....
We agree, tho, that within any specific skill set, there's a larger set of skills that really do form trees.
You can't draw until you know how to recognized paper and pen.
You need to learn to draw a fairly straight line. And then how to draw a curve. And then the more subtle skill of translating what you see into shapes.
And then there is the really complicated skill of separating what you actually see from the warped way your mind concepttualizes what you see... getting out of that takes forever.
So drawing is a tree, for sure. And every specific set is like that.
Yes?
No disagreement there, correct?
Broadly I agree... this idea of well-roundedness is kind of built into gaming, and the truth is well roundedness is a psyop to keep most people in the sort of useful idiot set of life.