House-rules or house-systems?

[waysoftheearth]

One of the most frequently cited complaints about "non-weapon proficiency" or "skill" systems for D&D, is that: they feel "bolted on" as an after-thought. Or, in other-words, they are not a seemless part of the game system.

This argument seems to contradict the generally accepted wisdom that house rules should target specific situations rather than attempt to adjust underlying mechanics. That way, small adjustments here or there won't have unforeseen impacts in other parts of the system.

So, on one-hand we seem to encourage bolt-on house rules, while on the other-hand, we scorn bolt-on skill systems.

Why this dichotomy?

I'd be interested to hear what folks think

[Deleted]

I don't use skill systems because, to my way of thinking, they don't add fun to the game. I don't hate them, nor would I decline to participate in a campaign that included them. At any rate, personally speaking, I don't see a dichotomy so much as I see a lack of need.

I know that doesn't truly answer your stated question, but since you asked for our thoughts I decided to give you a response. I hope you don't mind.

[coffee]

I think there are plenty of examples of bolt-on rules systems (the modifiers for stats found in Greyhawk for instance) that you can take or leave and that don't change the feel of the game as much.

Skill systems, on the other hand, change the feel too much. They make it easier for the character to look at a short list of possibilities, instead of imagining the situation and being fully free to explore possibilities. (Though this last may just be the people I know.)

With a class-based archetype system such as D&D, it's understood that Fighting-Men can do Fighting-Men-type things; Magic-Users can do Magic-User-type things, etc. Instead of having a list of skills needed and spells needed to create magic items, Men & Magic simply tells how much it costs and how long it takes.

Anyway, those are my thoughts such as they are.

[kesher]

This argument seems to contradict the generally accepted wisdom that house rules should target specific situations rather than attempt to adjust underlying mechanics. That way, small adjustments here or there won't have unforeseen impacts in other parts of the system.

@w.o.e.: I'm unclear as to what a "specific situation" would be that wouldn't adjust the underlying mechanics. I would suggest that small adjustments always have larger impacts. Take, for instance, my group's own small house rule of, on a natural 20, rolling an extra damage die. It's worked out great for characters in some instances but, since we apply it both ways, has also killed at least one character and I think a couple of hirelings. I would say this is a small adjustment that had a large impact. Now, maybe it was more foreseeable than some, but you see my point?

I think dubeers and coffee are right on here. My experience with house rules is that they exist for one reason only: to make the game more fun, whether you define fun as "narratively driven" or "realistic" or "random" or whatever. From that p.o.v., skill systems get scorned by those who don't find them "fun", where part of their definition, I imagine, includes "oldschoolness" as a component. I.e., a skill system is viewed as "impure" in terms of the fun of playing close to what's perceived as the spirit of the original game.

Cripes, that got wordy. Am I making sense?

[benoist]

Well, I don't see the dichotomy myself, because I have nothing against such things as an houseruled skill system, so I don't feel I really can answer the question without thinking in terms of stereotypes.

I think, however, that the reason why some people don't like bolted-on skills systems is because they weren't there back in the day. It's something that, moreover, these people attached in their minds to later designs (like Stormbringer etc), and representative of a "later school". So it's not really "authentic old school" to them.

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks to all who replied -- it's always great to hear others' perspectives. Well, on this board it is ;D

I was thinking to myself that it was at least partially about scope.

Perhaps a house rule is fine when it is little thing which might just as easily be ignored, but a skill system is a whole system with much broader implications.

But Coffee's reply touched on player psychology, which is probably far more important, and the general impression I'm getting from folks is that it isn't such a huge problem in general. Which is nice to hear!

[chronoplasm]

I have a problem with skill systems that don't integrate seemlessly.
If the skill system flows logically from everything else, then I'm fine with it.

[James Maliszewski]

For me, the single biggest problem with skill systems in D&D -- bolted on or otherwise -- is that they undermine the class system. I don't have as much of a problem with them in class-less games and, in fact, am rather fond of many skill-based systems, but they really don't make a lot of sense in games that already use classes.

[waysoftheearth]

Now that I've had a bit of time to think on all this... here's a few extra thoughts that came up;

Jul 28, 2009 7:53:26 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

I don't use skill systems because, to my way of thinking, they don't add fun to the game.

In my experience players do enjoy being able to differentiate their PCs from each others PCs, and also from the other characters they have run. This here PC may be just another fighting-man, but this one is a woodsman with a special empathy for wolves. Players like it.

I guess it is simply a finer granularity of distinction for players to mess with. Some may like it, and some may not. And that is fair enough too.

Jul 28, 2009 9:34:43 GMT -6 coffee said:

Skill systems, on the other hand, change the feel too much. They make it easier for the character to look at a short list of possibilities, instead of imagining the situation and being fully free to explore possibilities. (Though this last may just be the people I know.)

With a class-based archetype system such as D&D, it's understood that Fighting-Men can do Fighting-Men-type things; Magic-Users can do Magic-User-type things, etc. Instead of having a list of skills needed and spells needed to create magic items, Men & Magic simply tells how much it costs and how long it takes.

On the other-hand, Men & Magic does have a list of spells a magic-user or cleric might have. The player of a magic-user generally does look at this "short list of possibilities" as Coffee put it -- the spells he knows.

From that perspective it seems odd to me that it's okay to have a lists of possibilities for magic-users, but it's not okay to have a list of "non-weapon proficiencies" for skill-users.

Clearly skills are different to spells, in that every PC can "just try" any skill, where-as every PC cannot "just try" a magic spell. This simply requires that a supposed "skill system" handle that distinction elegantly. On the other-hand, you might allow every PC to "just try" to invoke a magic spell too! Why not?

Jul 28, 2009 10:49:46 GMT -6 benoist said:

I think, however, that the reason why some people don't like bolted-on skills systems is because they weren't there back in the day. It's something that, moreover, these people attached in their minds to later designs (like Stormbringer etc), and representative of a "later school". So it's not really "authentic old school" to them.

I think Benoist may be onto something there It could well be a simple case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

On the other hand, a highly regarded individual once advised:

"New participants bringing fresh ideas are the renewal process of game life ... they contribute to the whole of the game, in small or large measure, according to what they contribute"

Which I took as encouragement to try out new things

Aug 11, 2009 19:07:20 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

For me, the single biggest problem with skill systems in D&D -- bolted on or otherwise -- is that they undermine the class system. I don't have as much of a problem with them in class-less games and, in fact, am rather fond of many skill-based systems, but they really don't make a lot of sense in games that already use classes.

This would be true if the skills were the class-features themselves, but untrue if the skills were completely unrelated to the class-features. For example, skills that are more associated with life-styles, such as academia, animalia, craftsmanship, court and wilderness are not specifically the territory of any of the three OD&D classes.

A few more coppers to toss onto the pile ;D

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2009 10:36:43 GMT -6 kesher said:

I think dubeers and coffee are right on here. My experience with house rules is that they exist for one reason only: to make the game more fun, whether you define fun as "narratively driven" or "realistic" or "random" or whatever. From that p.o.v., skill systems get scorned by those who don't find them "fun", where part of their definition, I imagine, includes "oldschoolness" as a component. I.e., a skill system is viewed as "impure" in terms of the fun of playing close to what's perceived as the spirit of the original game.

I can't answer for Coffee, but I've little concern for Old School "purity". I work in a hospital, caring for premature children and I have more than enough stress on the job. This means I game for relaxation, and for leisure. My primary goal is to have fun and bullsh*t with my fellow gamers.

I have nothing against skill systems, as I've already stated I won't refuse to play in a campaign that features them. I simply don't like them because, for me, they do not add any fun for the added level of complexity and record keeping.

Thanks for the discussion, and I hope you don't mind my additional thoughts regarding this issue.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2009 16:54:42 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Thanks to all who replied -- it's always great to hear others' perspectives. Well, on this board it is ;D

That last phrase made me chuckle. I feel your pain, man.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2009 7:36:42 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

In my experience players do enjoy being able to differentiate their PCs from each others PCs, and also from the other characters they have run. This here PC may be just another fighting-man, but this one is a woodsman with a special empathy for wolves. Players like it.

I guess it is simply a finer granularity of distinction for players to mess with. Some may like it, and some may not. And that is fair enough too.

Sure. A campaign should be tailored to the players. Skill systems are a perfectly valid way to add individual flavor to your game. That is the cool thing about D&D, the system can take a lot of tinkering (a whole lot of it!) without breaking.

On the other-hand, you might allow every PC to "just try" to invoke a magic spell too! Why not?

Many, many great things have come from asking those last two words!

A few more coppers to toss onto the pile ;D

Thanks for the discussion. It is always great to discuss a game I love with others who feel the same way.

[greyharp]

I've been thinking about this subject lately and two different ideas have caught my eye as Clayton skill sets, the skill set you have when you're not having a skill set. The first is David Bowman's Delvers Delve article in Fight On! #4, which turns thief skills, and demi-human abilities into a d6 mechanic, gives the option of making them available to all as "Dungeon Tasks", as well as the idea of developing these skills (delving experience). Unlike most skill systems, which tend to unbalance the game in my opinion, the vague nature and low bonus d6 mechanic of Dungeon Tasks seems to offer the best of both worlds.

The other is the Good-At System, a similar idea that does away with the mechanics of dice rolling:

The Good-At System.

By bohemian

It's incredibly simple. At character generation, a player chooses a single verb or noun that their character is Good At. For instance, Hagar the Fighting Man is Good At: Climbing. During play, a situation like this might arise:

DM: The horde of bugbears slowly advances, their wicked blades gleaming in the moonlight. With only the sheer cliff wall behind you, you fear that you are trapped.

Hagar: Can I scramble up that wall?

DM: Hmmm... It looks like a pretty tough climb.

Hagar: Well, my guy's Good At Climbing.

DM: (Thinks for a moment) Okay, sure. You find some handholds that would have escaped the notice of an unskilled climber and are soon 15 feet above the heads of the howling bugbears.

You'll notice a few things about the interaction — The skill serves ONLY as a guide for the player and the DM, there are no percentages to take into account, no rolls to make (unless the DM decrees it), no mechanical guarantees at all. The player is encouraged to try this action out despite the knowledge that the cliff face is "sheer" because he knows Hagar is a skilled climber. The DM simply considers the situation in light of this information and takes the Good At into account when he makes the call. There's also no particular reason why a "normal" character wouldn't try the same thing because the Good At doesn't indicate a basic level of competency but rather an advanced skill. Thus a norm can still climb, just not as well.

Now, the Good At skill can literally apply to anything that your players come up with. Thief skills like Climbing, Picking Pockets, Lock Picking, Spotting Traps, etc are a natural fit, but so are things like Herbalism, Running Away, Working With Animals, Lying, Fast Talk, Horse Back Riding etc.

So, that's the basic idea. Here are some thoughts on implementing the system —

At generation, every player may choose one Good At for their character. A player *can* choose a second Good At, but only if they're willing to take a Bad At as well (which, obviously, would work the same way.)

Every 5 levels, a character gains EITHER an additional Good At OR they can get rid of a Bad At OR they may change an already existing Good At into a Really Good At. Which, of course, works like a normal Good At except that the player can now say "But Hagar is REALLY Good At climbing".

I'm itching to try these or a variation of the theme next time I DM.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 28, 2009 10:36:43 GMT -6 kesher said:

skill systems get scorned by those who don't find them "fun", where part of their definition, I imagine, includes "oldschoolness" as a component. I.e., a skill system is viewed as "impure" in terms of the fun of playing close to what's perceived as the spirit of the original game.

It took me a while to digest Kesher's reply, but I think he has a good point here. It's all ultimately about fun, and fun means different things to different people.

But to explain myself further (if anyone is still reading by now)...

OD&D, by it's loosely-defined nature, requires referees to fill in the blanks. One of the blanks is how to handle skilly stuff. So whenever a player wants to do anything other than fight or cast spells, the referee has to come up with a way of resolving it.

That could be a simple as saying Dwarves can just do Dwarfy things, or it might require an on the spot die roll of some sort. The way I understand it, most old schoolers are pretty comfortable with that kind of skill system.

I call it a skill system because it's a way of resolving skilly stuff. It's an informal system, sure, but it's still a system. In fact, most referees, have probably figured out their own informal skill systems for resolving this kind of situation, and use them over and over -- because players need some degree of consistency in order to make decisions about what to do next. And also because a particular referee will find and settle on a system that works for him (or her).

On the other hand, the way I understand it, most old schoolers are less comfortable with the idea that the referee might make their skill systems a little bit more formal, and have the players write down on their character sheet a few things that their PC is "good at" -- thanks Greyharp. Sure, you can infer a lot of this from PC race and class, but I'm thinking more of "other stuff" that a PC might be good (or bad) at.

A referee might even go further, and ask players to write down a few numbers, or names of ability scores, to show "how good" (or bad) their PC is at those things. That's just another, albeit more formal, skill system.

I guess the part that still puzzles me is; why all the resistance to more formal skill systems when everyone is using some kind of informal skill systems anyway?

I guess, to some degree, it all comes down to Kesher's point about some people simply not enjoying it that way. People will eventually settle on the degree of formality they enjoy the most.

Aug 12, 2009 8:38:43 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

hope you don't mind my additional thoughts regarding this issue.

Looking forward to seeing more of them


I think we have seen a few good points out of this discussion already, that's what it's all about

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2009 19:09:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

But to explain myself further (if anyone is still reading by now)...

Still here!

I guess my basic take on skills is similar, by way of comparison, to that of original edition "Traveller". Even though there is a vacc suit skill, pretty much anybody can use a vacc suit if they needed one. Vacc suit skill only came into play when extraordinary circumstances arose.

I take a similar tack in my D&D games. With few exceptions, a character can ride a horse, tie a knot, build a fire, and so on. I believe that, so long as a skill system didn't forbid a PC without ranks in that skill from performing those tasks, I would probably be okay with it in my game. I would at least give it a try.

Horse riding skill, for instance, would only come into play if attempting to ride an untamed animal. This is similar to how most adults in the US can safely operate a motor vehicle, but if modeling this in an RPG one might require a skill check for avoiding a collision.

[dwayanu]

For D&D, I think it probably works best to treat skill listings purely as a means of description, rather than as another game within the game.

I think one reason for the resistance to "skill systems" is that the vast majority of those have been resource management systems, in a sense I hope becomes clear.

The "character class" scheme is already that. You get to pick a class instead of the other classes. There's an investment, and one is inclined to look askance at things seeming to devalue it.

I see that afoot when people try to secure "niche protection" for the thief class by prohibiting other characters from climbing, sneaking, or dealing with traps, by putting locks on everything, and so on.

Introduce another, much larger, "sub-game" of picking skills, and you tend naturally to get what we've seen in other games: an emphasis on "builds" and the desire to have more and more determined by set numerical values. Each of however many skills makes its own demands for "niche protection", and that makes the introduction of new skills especially problematic.

The chief benefit of the class system -- speed and ease -- is thus lost.

I have not seen such problems when skills are randomly generated, as in Empire of the Petal Throne, AD&D ("secondary skills"), or even Traveller or Top Secret.

In RuneQuest, any character can learn any skills (including any added to the game in the course of play) and there is no apparatus of classes, levels or "skill points". Time is the only rigidly limited resource (only so many hours in a day, the same for everyone); finances for training, and opportunities to use skills in the field, vary according to player choices and fortune.

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks Dwayanu for your thoughtful reply -- some intriguing points to consider, and very well put too.

Aug 12, 2009 21:42:48 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

You get to pick a class instead of the other classes. There's an investment, and one is inclined to look askance at things seeming to devalue it.

I see that afoot when people try to secure "niche protection" for the thief class by prohibiting other characters from climbing, sneaking, or dealing with traps, by putting locks on everything, and so on.

I am in agreement here -- I don't think anyone wants to see the base classes devalued. The way I see it, a respectable skills system should compliment the base classes rather than erode them.

I think this comes down to a question of which PC features are "packaged up" as part of the class decision -- and therefore which are not?

We happily allow players to choose race, alignment and (to a certain extent) equipment, regardless of their choice of class. Most importantly of all, we allow players to choose a course of action despite their choice of class. PCs of any class can try almost any kind of activity, skill-like or not, because (if you are willing to ignore Greyhawk's thief for a moment) skills are not part of the base class package.

Hence, from this perspective at least, a formal skill-system doesn't have to devalue the base classes, because these skills were never part of the "class package".

Aug 12, 2009 21:42:48 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Introduce another, much larger, "sub-game" of picking skills, and you tend naturally to get what we've seen in other games: an emphasis on "builds" and the desire to have more and more determined by set numerical values. Each of however many skills makes its own demands for "niche protection", and that makes the introduction of new skills especially problematic.

The chief benefit of the class system -- speed and ease -- is thus lost.

I agree that the speed and ease of the class system is a beautiful thing.

I also agree that a detailed system (such as 3E) with ranks and dozens of skill-points to assign is way over the top. It doesn't (and shouldn't) have to be like that.

I think all this comes back to setting the "granularity" right for your particular group of players. Some folks want to drive their PCs from the "big picture" level. Others want to get into the finer-grained detail that make up that big picture. Neither is better or righter.

For me, I like to believe that the informal skill systems which are in use right now could form the base of a very strong, formal skills system that can work with OD&D.

I'm not saying it's necessary, just trying to get a better understanding of others' perspectives

[chronoplasm]

What do you guys think of the skill system in Dogs in the Vineyard? I've never played it, but I've looked at it and it looks pretty interesting.
From what I understand, instead of having a premade list of skills (acrobatics, endurance, perception, etc.) you make up your own skills like "Expert Marksman 2d6" or "Loves Pedro 1d8".
These let you get a 2d6 in conflicts involving marksmanship or a 1d8 in situations involving a character named Pedro.

[dwayanu]

The system, in my opinion, takes one so far beyond OD&D that I would rather go for it on its own terms and leave the D&D baggage at the station.

Drop all that systematic stuff, though -- not just the Forge-y "narrative game" and "conflict resolution" bits, but all of it -- and you're in like Flynn.

"Expert Marksman" is already provided for! "Loves Pedro" suffices on its own, no need for numbers -- although the player might want to rate it so that when in doubt one might check the 5/6 (or whatever) chance that love conquers all other considerations.

This is really just shorthand for biography, isn't it? Why make it complicated? (That's been done at least a thousand times before, and a few of them produced pretty successful new games; the rest produced pretty forgettable new games.)

[irdaranger]

Mostly, I don't like "skill systems" as they are usually proposed for D&D.

I guess the first thing I should point out is that I am not a grognard. I was born late in '78 and only played AD&D 2E growing up where NWPs were a standard feature, and then I played Iron Heroes for many years (which has a d20-based D&D 3-like Skill System). Therefore I cannot be said to dislike skill systems merely because that's how it was done "back in the day." The only thing I was doing "back in the day" was eating Cheerios with my fingers and making oopsies in my pants.

So why don't I like Skill Systems as they are usually proposed?

First, let's zoom out a bit and look at what we do have rules for:

1. Killing stuff (to-hit tables) & avoiding getting killed (AC, Saves, and HP).
2. Overland & dungeon movement (Movement rates, climbing rules, ship movement).
3. Equipment.
4. PC-NPC Interactions (Languages, Morale, Charisma, Reaction Tables).
5. Stats (STR, age, movement rate, alignment, etc.)

I like to say that D&D has a primary game (role-playing a hero in a fantasy world) and two sub-games (dungeon/hex crawling and combat). Most of the rules in the book actually concentrate on the two sub-games, leaving the main RP-based game fairly free form.

Further, I can say that D&D has two types of systems - the stat system and the class system. One improves; the other does not. The one that improves (the class system) is a skill system. It describes your skill at killing things and taking their stuff, but whatever means you specialize in (fightin', spellcastin', prayin', whatever). The stat system (which includes stats like movement rate) is universal to everyone (everyone's got a STR score). Together these two systems allow all and every PC to: roleplay a fantasy hero, fight, and dungeon/hex crawl.

The problem with skill systems as they are normally proposed is that they either (1) freeze some classes out of one of the D&D sub-games (usually Dungeon Tasks, as Fight On! named them) or (2) address things that aren't central to a D&D game (like wood carving). Skill systems that do #1 are bad because "taking turns having fun" isn't my cup of tea; and Skill systems that do #2 (like NWP's) just aren't necessary. If you want a PC that's a good woodcarver, just write it down. Seriously - no one will care.

The Thief class, by the way, often leads to a bad case of Problem #1. That's why I have proposed a Revised Thief Class that is well integrated into the D&D combat and dungeon-crawl rule systems. There's no rules for Pick Pocket in there, but if you want 'em, just write 'em down. They're safely in Category 2 (Skills No One Cares About).

To summarize: My general theory on Why Skill Systems Are Bad is that if you want a Skill System, (1) you really want a game that isn't about dungeon crawling, killing things and taking their stuff, or (2) you just haven't figured out how to integrate your new sub-game into the classes that already exist. There are rare (very rare!) instances where your proposed Skill System is really a need for a new class (such as a Druid or Psionicist), but that's a topic for another post.

[waysoftheearth]

Irdaranger, we meet again!

Please allow this post to serve as notice that I fully intend to reply to your post...

Although I will (attempt to) contest your argument, I enjoyed your post all the same. Unfortunately -- right at this minute -- I cannot truly offer up the intellectual focus this debate deserves.

None the less I *exalt* thee for your invigorating post. Great to see

[waysoftheearth]

Sept 1, 2009 11:28:08 GMT -6 irdaranger said:

My general theory on Why Skill Systems Are Bad is that if you want a Skill System, (1) you really want a game that isn't about dungeon crawling, killing things and taking their stuff, or (2) you just haven't figured out how to integrate your new sub-game into the classes that already exist. There are rare (very rare!) instances where your proposed Skill System is really a need for a new class (such as a Druid or Psionicist), but that's a topic for another post.

From a height of 100,000 feet, perhaps the most significant difference between D&D and all the games that pre-dated it is that the scope of play in D&D is left W I D E open, while it is relatively closed in those other games.

Sure there is dungeon-crawling. But there is plenty of room for barter, smuggling, piracy, joining guilds (not to mention running them), wilderness exploration, ruling kingdoms, mass battles involving 1000s of troops, naval battles, travelling to other planes of existence, confronting the Gods Themselves! And that's just what's mentioned explicitly by the authors. Limiting the scope of play to dungeon crawling, and then merely to combat within that, is diluting the game considerably.

While the written D&D rules certainly do elaborate on "killing stuff", it is also made plain that there is a lot more for adventurous PCs to entertain themselves with. And it doesn't take players very long to discover that "not killing things and taking their stuff" is a far more profitable strategy.

With all that in mind, some kind of structure around achieving goals which do not involve slaughter of foes can only be helpful when the players, inevitably, attempt something else. This is where, in my view, skill system can be a very nice fit.

Irdaranger, I refer you to your own recent comments in another thread (where you argued the case for entirely unique resolution systems to figure out non-combat actions such as chariot racing, economics, picking locks, and tossing coins). How are your own recommendations there so vastly different from alternative skill systems I wonder? And these are but a few examples of interesting game play beyond the scope of "dungeoneering and killing stuff". Players will certainly find many, many more, that much is certain.

When I think back to some of the D&D campaigns I have enjoyed over the years, I don't remember much of the combat or the dungeon crawling. That stuff was was merely the bread and butter.

What I remember is the new spells characters invented, the frontier township that was eventually established against great hardship. I remember the enemy Princedom which was over-thrown because of our cunning adventurers. I remember the sprawling spy-network we established, that took years of real time to set up. I remember the Demon Wars that ran riot over the whole World. I remember the epic triumph of ultimately waking the Dragons to fight them back.

Do I "really want a game that isn't about dungeon crawling, killing things and taking their stuff"?? Hmm, let me think about that...

[chronoplasm]

Sept 1, 2009 11:28:08 GMT -6 irdaranger said:

First, let's zoom out a bit and look at what we do have rules for:

1. Killing stuff (to-hit tables) & avoiding getting killed (AC, Saves, and HP).
2. Overland & dungeon movement (Movement rates, climbing rules, ship movement).
3. Equipment.
4. PC-NPC Interactions (Languages, Morale, Charisma, Reaction Tables).
5. Stats (STR, age, movement rate, alignment, etc.)

I'd like to add:

6. Locating secret passages (on a roll of 1or 2 on a six-sided die for men, dwarves, or hobbits, and 1-4 for elves. See Underworld and Wilderness adventures).
7. Springing traps (roll of 1 or 2).
8. Listening at doors (a roll of 1 for men, or a roll of 1 or 2 for elves, dwarves, and hobbits).

I'm tempted to give characters with high wisdom a bonus on rolls for locating hidden doors and listening to them.

*edit*
I'd also like to add...

9. Random encounters and evading them. Perhaps characters with certain abilities or certain classes should have an increased percentage chance of evading monsters, or running away when pursued?
10. Random treasure tables. Perhaps certain characters can get a higher chance of finding better treasures? Maybe some characters are better treasure hunters, or maybe they are just more lucky?