Yet another Skill System thread.

[arkansan]

So I've been working on an Arthurian overhaul for OD&D, and as always one thing leads to another distraction. I've spent the past couple of days treading over old ground pondering just how best to integrate a simple skill system into OD&D. This lead me to think that a few things would be needed to make such a system fit OD&D and its "spirit" well.

1. It would need to be rules light, no onerous computations, tables if any should be small.
2. It would need to work in such a fashion that it didn't disrupt the idea of classes as archetypes.
3. It would be best if drew from existing mechanics in OD&D.

Tinkering around with this I came to consider a few options.

1. Percentage skills; it certainly has a pedigree in OD&D with thief skills, the Con % checks, and things like percentage in lair. However it's debatable as to how rules light it is. While saying that you have a 35% chance to succeed is clear and easily understood OD&D tends to lean toward a coarse granularity rather than a fine one. The issue with this one is that you need to figure out some system of progression.

2. X in 6 skills; again based in existing precedent with things like chances to find hidden passages and the like. It's certainly simple and goes with the trend of being coarse grained. It would be quite easy to say that a character that has a "skill" in something has a 3 in 6 chance to succeed if a roll is needed, perhaps progressing it to 4 in 6 at name level.

3. Attribute checks; certainly easy, very versatile, and it has the added bonus of making character attributes even more relevant. There really isn't a precedent in game for such a thing but considering it works from an existing element of the rules it's close enough. One would have to figure out how to make skill figure into a check against an attribute which likely means adding steps somewhere.


One thing that I think is a must for any potential skill system in OD&D is that skills should be broad. Otherwise you end up with the "buffet of skills" problem. Categories should be things like Seafaring, Navigation, Acrobatics etc. Broad brushstrokes that should help flesh out a character, what kind of F-M are they? Not minutiae. Another thing to be made clear is that these shouldn't come up all that often, if a character is skilled in something then it shouldn't be in doubt that they will succeed on a related task without good reason. As well it should be noted that adventurers should always be presumed to be skilled in basic adventuring things.

Anyway that's the extent of my rambling on the subject for the moment? Thoughts? Preferences as to methods mentioned? Wanna bounce around ideas?

[cooper]

The "spirit" of 0d&d really is rogue-like dungeon crawling, once you start adding things like skills and whatnot, you will end up probably just reproducing rolemaster (which is how rolemaster was developed).

My honest opinion? Accept Arthurian legend themed dungeon crawling by using a very lightly reskinned D&D, or pick up a used copy of Pendragon if you really want to be committed to playing the Knights of the round table. I don't want to dissuade anyone from coming up with cool ideas in this thread, but I wanted to at least say this first.

[arkansan]

Apr 26, 2016 18:18:49 GMT -6 cooper said:

The "spirit" of 0d&d really is rogue-like dungeon crawling, once you start adding things like skills and whatnot, you will end up probably just reproducing rolemaster (which is how rolemaster was developed).

My honest opinion? Accept Arthurian legend themed dungeon crawling by using a very lightly reskinned D&D, or pick up a used copy of Pendragon if you really want to be committed to playing the Knights of the round table. I don't want to dissuade anyone from coming up with cool ideas in this thread, but I wanted to at least say this first.

This really isn't being Arthurian specific, it's more that I was brain storming anyway and got off on another subject as tends to happen. To be honest, I'm not so sure I agree entirely. I think skills can be done in a way that's true to the spirit of OD&D I think it just has to be done carefully. Like all other things in OD&D, coarse grained and vague enough to allow a good bit of wiggle room.

I think the beauty of OD&D is in the fact that, sure dungeon crawling maybe implied, but the framework is loose enough to allow you to shape into just about whatever you want. I mean book 3 is "The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures", I think the "just dungeon crawl" aspect is a bit over focused. To be honest my campaigns in the system haven't been that crawly at all and the game has served quite admirably.

[hengest]

I would like to see what happens on this thread since I have been wondering about it myself. I like to think I can just adjudicate or come up with a roll for anything on the spot but maybe I'm overselling myself.

I've wanted to check out Pendragon lately in any case.

But really, I think I'm likely to stick with adjudication plus the very odd check or roll. I just don't want to get bogged down in skills, skill points, and so on.

In other words, I tend to agree with cooper as far as what's likely for me, but I support arkansan 's notion of trying to invent something in the spirit of OD&D.

You read about people doing things like having some light character background that gets them informally recognized skills that can be used.  Horsa the mage is the daughter of a sailor and so can tie good knots when necessary.  That sort of thing.

[arkansan]

Apr 26, 2016 20:21:13 GMT -6 hengest said:

I would like to see what happens on this thread since I have been wondering about it myself. I like to think I can just adjudicate or come up with a roll for anything on the spot but maybe I'm overselling myself.

I've wanted to check out Pendragon lately in any case.

But really, I think I'm likely to stick with adjudication plus the very odd check or roll. I just don't want to get bogged down in skills, skill points, and so on.

In other words, I tend to agree with cooper as far as what's likely for me, but I support arkansan 's notion of trying to invent something in the spirit of OD&D.

You read about people doing things like having some light character background that gets them informally recognized skills that can be used.  Horsa the mage is the daughter of a sailor and so can tie good knots when necessary.  That sort of thing.

I can't recommend Pendragon enough, it's one of the best marriages of system and setting I've ever seen.

Yeah I've thought about that too, have the players give say two sentences of character background that gives informally recognized skills and then adjudicate from there as necessary.

[hengest]

Is there a big difference between the original Pendragon and the new edition?

EDIT: I was creeping off-topic without this edit, so...I like the idea of marriage of system and setting and want to check it out more.  Maybe this is a clue about what to focus on in considering skill systems for OD&D.  Keep the skill system relevant to the setting, whatever your setting is.  Don't try to make it universal (every possible thing one could do that involves skill).  

Tweak of arkansan's #2: in a LOTR-flavored overland or wilderness setting or adventure, maybe tracking and foraging are important.  Give a d6 chance based on background.  Don't scale it with level.  Half DIY for the player (background in broad strokes), half a low-res crunch for the DM.  Use sparingly or to taste.

[arkansan]

Apr 26, 2016 21:11:09 GMT -6 hengest said:

Is there a big difference between the original Pendragon and the new edition?

EDIT: I was creeping off-topic without this edit, so...I like the idea of marriage of system and setting and want to check it out more.  Maybe this is a clue about what to focus on in considering skill systems for OD&D.  Keep the skill system relevant to the setting, whatever your setting is.  Don't try to make it universal (every possible thing one could do that involves skill).  

Tweak of arkansan's #2: in a LOTR-flavored overland or wilderness setting or adventure, maybe tracking and foraging are important.  Give a d6 chance based on background.  Don't scale it with level.  Half DIY for the player (background in broad strokes), half a low-res crunch for the DM.  Use sparingly or to taste.

I can't say for sure what the differences between editions of Pendragon is, I only have the 5.1 edition but my understanding is that they are all fairly similar.

I definitely think keeping skills relevant to setting is a must, I also think keeping them broad in nature is critical for maintaining the feel of OD&D as a system.

I'm leaning most toward method 2 myself, though I like the idea of upping their odds a bit at name level to reflect them finally becoming "heroic".

You hit the nail on the head I think of what makes OD&D, OD&D, low-res crunch that gives you just enough to get by a given situation. It's what I love about the system, there is just enough there to paint in broad brush strokes and fudge the rest.

[Finarvyn]

My quick thoughts on skill systems:

(1) Fundamentally, I agree with cooper. OD&D plays just fine without skills.

(2) Simple add-on systems could include stat checks or adopting a system similar to C&C's SIEGE rules. Basically, keep things simple and base things heavily on already existing stats.

(3) If you want a real skill system, take a peek at the one for 5E. I think they have done a pretty decent job of keeping the list short. You might start with the 5E list and tweak it with Pendragon skills if you want to establish a particular flavor, but try not to add many extra skills. I think that skill lists work best when they are short and universal.

Just my two coppers.

[arkansan]

Apr 27, 2016 4:26:24 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

My quick thoughts on skill systems:

(1) Fundamentally, I agree with cooper. OD&D plays just fine without skills.

(2) Simple add-on systems could include stat checks or adopting a system similar to C&C's SIEGE rules. Basically, keep things simple and base things heavily on already existing stats.

(3) If you want a real skill system, take a peek at the one for 5E. I think they have done a pretty decent job of keeping the list short. You might start with the 5E list and tweak it with Pendragon skills if you want to establish a particular flavor, but try not to add many extra skills. I think that skill lists work best when they are short and universal.

Just my two coppers.

Oh I certainly agree that OD&D gets along just fine without skills. I just like tinkering is all


Yeah I think it's important to base any such system off of concepts already present in the system otherwise you're just adding bulk. I like the idea of the SIEGE mechanic but I seem to recall complaints that it lead to some wonky class disparities.

Totally agreed on the last part, 5e handled it quite well and n part of that is the brevity of the list.

[bestialwarlust]

In my OD&D games I don't have skills spelled out unless the player wants one then this is what I use from my house rules:

Where are my skills?

Original D&D assumed that all adventurers are competent as opposed to most Normal Men, PC’s are adventurers. So an extensive skill list wasn’t part of the game. However some players like the extra bits to work with so here is a short list of assumed skills. Most of these can be used untrained (2 in 6 chance on the d6), the referee may grant bonuses or penalties depending on the situation. Those marked with an * require training (such as a class or background.)

Acrobatics — Feats of physical dexterity, balancing, tumbling.
Alertness — reduces chance of being surprised
Athletics — Running, Climbing, jumping. swimming. (fighters +1 bonus)
Arcana* — Knowledge of things magical (magic users +1 bonus)
Animal Handling — Skill with domesticated animals.
History — Historical events, Legendary people
Medicine — Skill a bandaging and basic first aid.
Religion — Basic information on common religions of the area. (clerics +1 bonus)
Riding — How good you are at controlling your mount under stress
Stealth — Increase your chance to surprise someone.
Streetwise — Gathering information on people, locations, etc. in
an urban environment.
Survival — Hunting, foraging for food, etc..

The list could go on, also remember that if you have a background that also may allow a “ability” not listed.

Now you have an “every-man skill list. Next come up with a background, this will give you other skills that aren't related to your class, or it can enhance one or two of the already basic adventuring skills. These can be labeled as good at. Give yourself a +1 with the good at skill.

Guidelines for skill use
Don't let rolling dice take the place of playing the game, use these as a reference only if a die roll is called for.
Don't let this list limit your imagination if you don't see it on your sheet it doesn't mean you can't try it.

[talysman]

I've fiddled with a "skill" system which is really more of a background system. My basic assumption is that if people with your background normally do it, you can, too, and there's normally no roll. Your background (culture + profession) determines what you can do.

Then I've got something like the X in 6 option, but it's a flat 5+ on 1d6 test. If something terrible is happening and you want a chance to escape or undo, you succeed on 5+. If you try something unusual and there's a chance something could go wrong, 5+ on 1d6 means it does go wrong. In D&D as written, the chance to take damage from a fall into a 10-foot pit trap and the chance of a spike not holding a door closed are examples of each, with the same odds; I just changed them to roll high (5+) instead of roll low (1-2 on d6).

Ability scores modify when you have to make these rolls. A low score means you might have to roll for a botched job when normally you wouldn't. A high score means you don't have to roll when normally you would. Some particularly simple tasks might be hard to botch, so only characters with the lowest ability scores ever roll. Other situations are almost impossible to overcome, so only characters with the highest score can skip the roll. If two or more abilities could apply to the situation, use either the best score or the worst, depending on the situation.

In contests, ability scores are compared. Can the prisoner escape from the knots you tied? If the prisoner's Dex is twice yours, yes, automatically. If your Dex is twice his, no, automatically. Otherwise, 5+ on d6 means escape.

I allow players to specify how many years of experience they have in a background (sailor for 15 years before becoming an adventurer.) In situations where a background applies to the task at hand, players can substitute years of experience for an ability score.

I specifically came up with these rules to keep the system as simple as possible, avoid adding too much that isn't already present, and focus on spur-of-the-moment judgment calls instead of lists of skills or detailed subsystems for knot-tying and the like. The only customizations necessary for a particular setting, like Arthurian, would be to decide what backgrounds are common in what areas, what the "knight" or "enchanter" backgrounds would normally include, and perhaps limits on how good a knight could be at a secondary background.

[Porphyre]

Apr 27, 2016 10:30:01 GMT -6 talysman said:

 If something terrible is happening and you want a chance to escape or undo, you succeed on 5+. 

I also use Saving Throws in that case

[talysman]

Apr 27, 2016 15:12:36 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Apr 27, 2016 10:30:01 GMT -6 talysman said:

 If something terrible is happening and you want a chance to escape or undo, you succeed on 5+. 

I also use Saving Throws in that case

I don't anymore. I reserve traditional saving throws for magical hazards or attacks only (and poison.)

[hengest]

That sounds like a nice system, talysman. I like running the 5+ on d6 usually, unless the "contest" is wackily unequal, in which case you don't even roll. That seems like enough of a nod to simulation to please anyone without really adding anything onerous. Do your players handle this well?

[talysman]

Apr 27, 2016 21:06:30 GMT -6 hengest said:

That sounds like a nice system, talysman. I like running the 5+ on d6 usually, unless the "contest" is wackily unequal, in which case you don't even roll. That seems like enough of a nod to simulation to please anyone without really adding anything onerous. Do your players handle this well?

Everyone seemed OK with it, especially since the 5+ rule for every situational die roll means more freedom of action. Some GMs are afraid to allow players to try absolutely anything because of fear: not knowing how to resolve the task, or not knowing what the target number should be. Having a fixed target number means I don't have to figure out a target number for the vast majority of possible actions. Only things I have to think about is whether there *should* be a roll, and do I want to use another kind of roll instead (attack, reaction.)

[premmy]

I've run an ODnd-based but heavily houseruled game a while back and based skill checks on Saving Throws. In that specific case I only had a single ST category and that also happened to be the target number for skill rolls - if you have several ST types, just add a new one called Skills and give it some sort of progression.

At any rate, it was simply rolling d20, adding your most relevant attribute modifier, an extra +4 if the activity was especially appropriate for your class (e.g. legerdemain for thiefy types, spotting ambushes for fighters, knowing and recognising arcane stuff for wizards, etc.), and maybe a -4/-2/+2/+4 situational bonus. This had to hit or exceed the ST target number. Really simple and also gives the DM some flexibility.

On another note, I absolutely loathe using attribute checks for skills (or pretty much anything, really), for the simple reason that attributes by and large don't increase with levels, so the characters never get better. That shatters my suspension of disbelief: a 15th level thief should be much better at swinging on a chandelier than a 1st level one with the same dexterity.

[hengest]

I'm not super into the idea of attribute checks myself, but I'm ok with that they don't improve by level. New levels get you better at living and better at killing and other benefits. But even a Hero or Lord can be imagined with martial prowess and so on, but still not be better at bending bars or balancing on a wobbly table on the back of a running giraffe.

[talysman]

Apr 28, 2016 16:16:10 GMT -6 premmy said:

On another note, I absolutely loathe using attribute checks for skills (or pretty much anything, really), for the simple reason that attributes by and large don't increase with levels, so the characters never get better. That shatters my suspension of disbelief: a 15th level thief should be much better at swinging on a chandelier than a 1st level one with the same dexterity.

That's the same reason why I prefer linking mundane abilities to the ability scores. I don't want things like "swing from chandeliers" to improve with level, in general. Now, as for acrobatics, I don't see that as related to the thief class, anyways, so I wouldn't want them getting better at swinging from chandeliers... but an acrobat class might. Maybe add level to ability. Or, my preference, just let acrobats do ordinary acrobatics automatically without a roll, and give them access to extraordinary acrobatics impossible for other classes to perform.

One thing I haven't decided on is whether to allow substituting level for ability score, where appropriate. Thus, low-level types would rely on their ability scores, but when they reach a high enough level, their abilities would effectively improve. Probably, this should be limited to one ability score, perhaps the prime requisite for the class: Fighters could substitute level for Strength when performing feats of strength, M-Us could substitute level for Intelligence, and so on.

[arkansan]

Apr 28, 2016 16:16:10 GMT -6 premmy said:

I've run an ODnd-based but heavily houseruled game a while back and based skill checks on Saving Throws. In that specific case I only had a single ST category and that also happened to be the target number for skill rolls - if you have several ST types, just add a new one called Skills and give it some sort of progression.

At any rate, it was simply rolling d20, adding your most relevant attribute modifier, an extra +4 if the activity was especially appropriate for your class (e.g. legerdemain for thiefy types, spotting ambushes for fighters, knowing and recognising arcane stuff for wizards, etc.), and maybe a -4/-2/+2/+4 situational bonus. This had to hit or exceed the ST target number. Really simple and also gives the DM some flexibility.

On another note, I absolutely loathe using attribute checks for skills (or pretty much anything, really), for the simple reason that attributes by and large don't increase with levels, so the characters never get better. That shatters my suspension of disbelief: a 15th level thief should be much better at swinging on a chandelier than a 1st level one with the same dexterity.

What about attribute checks modified by level? For instance for every other level get a -1 to attribute checks (if you are going roll under that is). I've thought about doing roll under attribute checks with "skilled" characters getting a flat bonus to the roll that increases at name level and that's it.

The more I think about this though the more I am leaning to super broad skill categories with "skilled" characters getting a base 3 in 6 chance to succeed that improves to 4 in 6 at name level or after investing time and coin in training.

[Deleted]

Because "simplest is always best" I'm strongly opposed to skill systems for OD&D.

If it's appropriate for the class, the class can do it. The referee decides if it is appropriate for the class. The higher the level, the better.

Done. Now somebody get me a beer.

[krusader74]

Most oldschool players will agree with gronan that D&D is about player skill, not character skill. That said, there are some oldschool examples of ability checks and skill systems.

WRT ability checks, Dave Arneson's FFC (1977), p. 28 describes a dexterity check:

Should the players ascend the stairway...they fall towards Blackmoor Bay some 5 - 100 feet below them. Any rope that is holding them is broken when they hit the water. They must then avoid drowning (I ask them while they are falling what they are doing; if they are in Plate Armor, I give them a 1/10 chance of getting it off in time; others must make a throw less than their Dexterity rating when they are wearing some other Armor).

The Dragon #1 (Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1976) describes a general method for ability checks. So does Underworld Oracle, #1 (1977).

All of these early examples, and more, are spelled out in more detail in Elisha Abuyah's 14-page booklet, A brief history of ability checks in D&D (thread, PDF, and ODT).

WRT skill systems, the section on "Traps, doors, ..." in Holmes, p. 10 sure looks like an early d6 skill system. It is clearly not class-based. It is only partly race-based:

Skill	Die Roll
Detect trap	1-2
Force door open	1-2
Listen at doors (race=humans)	1
Listen at doors (race=elves, dwarves, hobbits)	1-2
Detect secret door/passive (race=elves)	1-2
Detect secret door/active (race=elves)	1-4
Detect secret door/active (race=others)	1-2
Surprise opponent	1-2

For guidance on building a skill system, I recommend Delving Deeper -- Skill Systems (Labyrinth Lord) by Brave Halfling Publishing. It is a 5 page PDF for $0.75. It describes 3 different systems.

To summarize: In all 3 systems, you have 11 skills that are relevant to your game. Each skill is associated with one of the 6 ability scores.

d6 Skills: At level 1 you get 3 skill points. At each additional level you get 1 more skill point. You assign these to the 11 skills as desired. You can have no more than 4 points assigned to any skill. To use the skill, roll d6 ≤ #skillpoints

d20 Ability Skills: You get 3 skill points per level to assign to the 11 skills. You can have no more than 10 points assigned to any skill. Remember, each skill is tied to an ability. To use the skill, roll d20 ≤ AbilityScore + #skillpoints

Percentage Skills: You get 30 percentage points at each level. You can have no more than 99 points assigned to any skill. To use the skill, roll d% ≤ %skillpoints

So, basically, each system has a different "granularity" of probability, ranging from 16.67% granules in d6 Skills down to 1% granules in Percentage Skills.

Another source of inspiration might be Classic (1977) Traveller's 2d6 skill system.

To conclude, I think the trick is to not overuse ability checks and skill systems. Used sparsely, they can add fun and tension. Overused, they can add frustration and slow things down!

[arkansan]

Apr 28, 2016 20:08:28 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Because "simplest is always best" I'm strongly opposed to skill systems for OD&D.

If it's appropriate for the class, the class can do it. The referee decides if it is appropriate for the class. The higher the level, the better.

Done. Now somebody get me a beer.

What about a simple background system? One word, say "Sailor", it's appropriate to that background you can do it.

[arkansan]

Apr 28, 2016 22:01:35 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Most oldschool players will agree with gronan that D&D is about player skill, not character skill. That said, there are some oldschool examples of ability checks and skill systems.

WRT ability checks, Dave Arneson's FFC (1977), p. 28 describes a dexterity check:

Should the players ascend the stairway...they fall towards Blackmoor Bay some 5 - 100 feet below them. Any rope that is holding them is broken when they hit the water. They must then avoid drowning (I ask them while they are falling what they are doing; if they are in Plate Armor, I give them a 1/10 chance of getting it off in time; others must make a throw less than their Dexterity rating when they are wearing some other Armor).

The Dragon #1 (Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1976) describes a general method for ability checks. So does Underworld Oracle, #1 (1977).

All of these early examples, and more, are spelled out in more detail in Elisha Abuyah's 14-page booklet, A brief history of ability checks in D&D (thread, PDF, and ODT).

WRT skill systems, the section on "Traps, doors, ..." in Holmes, p. 10 sure looks like an early d6 skill system. It is clearly not class-based. It is only partly race-based:

Skill	Die Roll
Detect trap	1-2
Force door open	1-2
Listen at doors (race=humans)	1
Listen at doors (race=elves, dwarves, hobbits)	1-2
Detect secret door/passive (race=elves)	1-2
Detect secret door/active (race=elves)	1-4
Detect secret door/active (race=others)	1-2
Surprise opponent	1-2

For guidance on building a skill system, I recommend Delving Deeper -- Skill Systems (Labyrinth Lord) by Brave Halfling Publishing. It is a 5 page PDF for $0.75. It describes 3 different systems.

To summarize: In all 3 systems, you have 11 skills that are relevant to your game. Each skill is associated with one of the 6 ability scores.

d6 Skills: At level 1 you get 3 skill points. At each additional level you get 1 more skill point. You assign these to the 11 skills as desired. You can have no more than 4 points assigned to any skill. To use the skill, roll d6 ≤ #skillpoints

d20 Ability Skills: You get 3 skill points per level to assign to the 11 skills. You can have no more than 10 points assigned to any skill. Remember, each skill is tied to an ability. To use the skill, roll d20 ≤ AbilityScore + #skillpoints

Percentage Skills: You get 30 percentage points at each level. You can have no more than 99 points assigned to any skill. To use the skill, roll d% ≤ %skillpoints

So, basically, each system has a different "granularity" of probability, ranging from 16.67% granules in d6 Skills down to 1% granules in Percentage Skills.

Another source of inspiration might be Classic (1977) Traveller's 2d6 skill system.

To conclude, I think the trick is to not overuse ability checks and skill systems. Used sparsely, they can add fun and tension. Overused, they can add frustration and slow things down!

Excellent post, those booklets are good resources.

[premmy]

Apr 28, 2016 18:38:31 GMT -6 arkansan said:

]What about attribute checks modified by level? For instance for every other level get a -1 to attribute checks (if you are going roll under that is). I've thought about doing roll under attribute checks with "skilled" characters getting a flat bonus to the roll that increases at name level and that's it.

Well, here's the thing: the design philosophy of ODnD (and to a somewhat lesser extent, all old-school DnD in general) is that the practical difference between a high attribute score and a low one isn't very great. If you're playing extremely old-school, a character will not receive any bonus or penalty to his attack rolls for STR, or extra HP for CON, or extra spells for INT, etc.. Even if you're less stringent and play with attribute modifiers (say, ADnD), the difference between a high and a low attribute is maybe a +/- 4 on a d20 roll or thereabout - that's 20% percentage points.

In contrast, if you do your attribute checks as a straight d20 roll, the percentage chance for success between a high and a low score will be massive, with the high score character succeeding not 20%, but several hundred percent more often. Which makes it much more deterministic than anything else in the game.

[arkansan]

Apr 29, 2016 0:03:27 GMT -6 premmy said:

Apr 28, 2016 18:38:31 GMT -6 arkansan said:

]What about attribute checks modified by level? For instance for every other level get a -1 to attribute checks (if you are going roll under that is). I've thought about doing roll under attribute checks with "skilled" characters getting a flat bonus to the roll that increases at name level and that's it.

Well, here's the thing: the design philosophy of ODnD (and to a somewhat lesser extent, all old-school DnD in general) is that the practical difference between a high attribute score and a low one isn't very great. If you're playing extremely old-school, a character will not receive any bonus or penalty to his attack rolls for STR, or extra HP for CON, or extra spells for INT, etc.. Even if you're less stringent and play with attribute modifiers (say, ADnD), the difference between a high and a low attribute is maybe a +/- 4 on a d20 roll or thereabout - that's 20% percentage points.

In contrast, if you do your attribute checks as a straight d20 roll, the percentage chance for success between a high and a low score will be massive, with the high score character succeeding not 20%, but several hundred percent more often. Which makes it much more deterministic than anything else in the game.

Right but I would be doing attribute checks as a number of d6 determined by the supposed difficulty of the task at hand.

[bestialwarlust]

Apr 28, 2016 22:16:06 GMT -6 arkansan said:

Apr 28, 2016 20:08:28 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Because "simplest is always best" I'm strongly opposed to skill systems for OD&D.

If it's appropriate for the class, the class can do it. The referee decides if it is appropriate for the class. The higher the level, the better.

Done. Now somebody get me a beer.

What about a simple background system? One word, say "Sailor", it's appropriate to that background you can do it.

This is how I do it unless a player pushes for having skills written down. It's also how I demonstrate that two fighters can be completely different and not need feats or skills.

"My fighter is a former sailor" that character will be an expert in any thing sailing/seafaring related

"My fighter was part of a barbarian tribe" the character is an expert outdoorsman, skilled at hunting and can help with reactions with other barbarian type cultures.

[Deleted]

Yes. For Crom's sweet sake don't make this more complicated than it has to be.

[premmy]

Apr 29, 2016 2:12:04 GMT -6 arkansan said:

Right but I would be doing attribute checks as a number of d6 determined by the supposed difficulty of the task at hand.

Well, that could work if you do the math beforehand, sure.

Of course, I still think that whatever your skill system is, it should factor in a character's level for most situations. Like, not for bending bars, sure (but then, that isn't really skill use, is it?), but that's more the exception than the rule.

[talysman]

Apr 28, 2016 22:01:35 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

WRT skill systems, the section on "Traps, doors, ..." in Holmes, p. 10 sure looks like an early d6 skill system. It is clearly not class-based. It is only partly race-based:

Skill	Die Roll
Detect trap	1-2
Force door open	1-2
Listen at doors (race=humans)	1
Listen at doors (race=elves, dwarves, hobbits)	1-2
Detect secret door/passive (race=elves)	1-2
Detect secret door/active (race=elves)	1-4
Detect secret door/active (race=others)	1-2
Surprise opponent	1-2

This is also in the original books, of course, just not all in one place and thus easy to miss.

I went through the books a while back to track down every reference to a 1d6 roll for a "skill check" and realized it's pretty much always 1-2 on 1d6, or the equivalent. There's a couple harder situations, like humans hearing a noise on 1 in 6. There's a couple that are expressed as 5 or 6 on 1d6, which is the same odds, just set up for roll high instead of roll low. And there's elves finding a secret door on 1 to 4, which is the same as failing to find a door on 5+. The average chance of getting lost is the same, and so is the chance of a spike slipping when a door has been spiked shut. That's why I decided to standardize around 5+ on d6 for everything.

The thing I noticed about this "skill system", though, is that it's really more of a "situation system". It's not really about performing a task successfully. There are no craft skills, no "Use Rope on 1 or 2 in 6". The chance to surprise is clearly not about skill, and listening for noises is really about rolling your surprise check early so that you aren't surprised later.

Apr 29, 2016 7:33:36 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

Apr 28, 2016 22:16:06 GMT -6 arkansan said:

What about a simple background system? One word, say "Sailor", it's appropriate to that background you can do it.

This is how I do it unless a player pushes for having skills written down. It's also how I demonstrate that two fighters can be completely different and not need feats or skills.

"My fighter is a former sailor" that character will be an expert in any thing sailing/seafaring related

"My fighter was part of a barbarian tribe" the character is an expert outdoorsman, skilled at hunting and can help with reactions with other barbarian type cultures.

This is what I was getting at in my first post in the thread, but I wasn't clear. A background guarantees you can do the routine tasks of that background, which mainly means getting rid of some situation rolls. For example, trying to navigate by the stars would require a roll to avoid getting lost, for most characters, but a sailor or maybe a barbarian wouldn't need to roll. In cases where failure is automatic, like getting lost in a snow storm, a barbarian background might allow a roll. I also allow the same benefit for characters with a high ability score. So, no actual ability checks.

[machfront]

Old thread, but I wanted to shove my belchings in as well (despite those far more erudite than I, *cough* Talysman *cough*, and those who can lift one portion of their gluteus maximus and let fly in simpler/fewer words a deal more wisdom than I can impart *cough* Gronan *cough*).

Oh, how I foolishly wished and tried to force skills/skill lists into old-school D&D of every flavor. I spent many months not just trying to perfect a system but also a list. I eventually learned it's a fool's errand.

When, in around about 2007/8 until 2011/2 or so, I used T&T as my main go-to system, I eventually came around to something that resembled both backgrounds as well as a PC's 'talent' or so.

That's what I've, after all these decades (since my once 'Hallelujah' moment of "general skills" in the RC) I've settled on and it's the only thing that has not only worked but worked very well.
Write a few sentences, or short phrases or heck even just a handful of keywords that communicate your PCs background and then write in one or three words some inherent talent the PC may have. This adds a +1 or +2 (depending on scale of edition/iteration of D&D) to an ability check. (I've long used the d20 roll under with mods being between -4 to +4 as per B/X). It's not absolutely perfect but it works so well that itty bitty and extremely minor whatsits matter not at all in play and don't mess with fun, which is what really matters.)

With the basic, broad classes + backgrounds + talent players can get the tough fighter that's a forester and has a shockingly brutal and terrifying belch. A thief that is a former noble and has a knack for woman-weakening poetry. A magic-user that grew up hunting and fishing and making/repairing his own leather garments and has a keen sense of direction, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah... YouknowwhatImean.