a skill system I like!

[jrients]

Over at Knights & Knaves a fellow named northrundicandus has an interesting proposal for a skill system.

knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=44607

[coffee]

That has some possibilities. I'm not a huge fan of "skills" (in the 3rd edition sense) in OD&D, but this could actually work.

[simrion]

There is skill system I offered over on Dragonsfoot for Classic - B/X D&D Forum that might be useful:

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15923&highlight=

I have adapted it as ability bonuses in my current C&C Greyhawk and as a similar system in my 1E homebrew AD&D Campaigns

[jrients]

Thanks for the link, simrion. I hadn't seen that thread before!

[Wothbora]

I'm not sure where this method came from, but I basically just make "saving throws" based on ST, IN, WI, CO, DX, or CH stats (that's probably why I like the roll "6-in-a-row" method of character creation).

If it is a skill that seems attainable (and a roll seems necessary) then 3d6 (roll lower than attribute) is a success. Levels of difficulty are approached by dice mods (using the highest three and discarding the rest).

Simple 2d6 (box cars fail no matter what)
Ordinary 3d6
Hard 4d6
Extreme 5d6
Legendary 6d6

So, let's use Bili the Fighter for some practical application: ST:13 IN:7 WI:8 CO:14 DX:10 CH:5 (Bili is not a handsome man).

Example One:
Bili has reached an area of the dungeon that has some rusty bars that are blocking his way. Seems to the Ref that it'd be an Ordinary Task as the bars are rusty and Bili's pretty strong. Bili rolls three dice and rolls 3, 2, and a 5 for a total of 10 -- Bili manages to bend the bars enough to creak through. (A roll of three would be awesome and the bars would break).

Example Two:
Bili is being chased by a hoard of Kobalds and is crapping his pants as he runs down an unmapped corridor. He sees a chasm ahead that looks like he might be able to jump. The Ref has Bili roll 4d6 against either his ST or DX as the Ref considers this to be a Hard Task (Bili is winded and carrying a hunk of loot). Bili rolls a 4, 4, 5, and a 2. His total is then taken from the 3 highest rolls 4, 4, 5 for a total of 13. If based on ST then Bili just manages to make the leap with the Kobalds cursing on the opposite side of the chasm. If based on DX (again, Ref's choice BEFORE the roll) Bili leaps the chasm, loses his balance and falls into the darkness below (let's hope there's a ledge or a vine that saves Bili from his doom).

Example Three:
Bili's companion Hwalter walks into an old temple and a huge hunk of marble dislodges and falls on his foot, pinning him. Suddenly out of the darkness near the sanctuary come three huge insect-mutations. Bili and Hwalter want to get the heck out of there rather than fight, but Hwalter is pinned. Bili decides to try and lift the marble off of Hwalter, but Bili's not all that strong. The Ref has Bili roll for an Extreme Task (yes, it should be Legendary, but I'm a nice Ref). Bili rolls a 2, 2, 5, 6, and a 4. 4+5+6=15 and Hwalter's foot remains pinned to the floor. Bili looks with pity at his friend and says, "Sorry Buddy, but I'm not going to be able to stick around," as the clicking insects descend upon them. Bili hears Hwalter scream as he runs out of the room and hopes that Hwalter will be a large enough treat for three nasties to keep them off of his tail.

One could probably simplify this further or expand on it for their own taste, but it does work for me as it allows tasks to be tested without having to go down the "Thieves Skill Path" that was introduced in the Greyhawk Supplement.

[jrients]

That's great stuff Wothbora! I love the examples!

[Zulgyan]

If it is a skill that seems attainable (and a roll seems necessary) then 3d6 (roll lower than attribute) is a success. Levels of difficulty are approached by dice mods (using the highest three and discarding the rest).

Simple 2d6 (box cars fail no matter what)
Ordinary 3d6
Hard 4d6
Extreme 5d6
Legendary 6d6

This is what I've been using the most. VERY VERY similar to what you do. I try to recur to the dice only in CRITICAL moments. In other circumstances, if the PC description is good enough, I don't call for a roll. Success is granted.

[Finarvyn]

Actually, the "Siege Engine" from Castles & Crusades would work well. Either you're good at it or not, two different target numbers to beat. Modify for level and/or difficulty as desired. Simple and easy to use "on the fly."

[Zulgyan]

I think that it's best not to stick with only one resolution system at all time, but to vary it now and them.

Also, it's better if you just never write it down. ;D

[ffilz]

I've got to disagree with changing systems and especially not writing them down. If the GM changes the system at will, and doesn't let the players know what the system is, how can they play effectively? How can they choose their desired risk level?

Frank

[coffee]

ffilz said:

I've got to disagree with changing systems and especially not writing them down. If the GM changes the system at will, and doesn't let the players know what the system is, how can they play effectively? How can they choose their desired risk level?

Frank

I won't speak to changing systems occasionally, but I'm a huge fan of not writing them down.

Having explicit rules for everything is what drove me away from 3e. (I'm not bashing here, folks; just stating my preference). It is a very player-centric way of writing rules.

Briefly, if there are explicit rules, someone will rules-lawyer them. It's inevitable.

OD&D is more DM-centric; the DM is the prime mover, the creator, the final arbiter. He makes things up on the fly, doing his best to challenge and entertain the players. He must maintain a scrupulous fairness, but there's no reason

(Sure, a real killer DM can wipe out a party with ease if he can just make things up, but even the most rules-heavy systems out there allow a fully prepared DM to achieve a TPK without much effort. So that doesn't change things.)

The way the players choose their desired risk level is through trusting the DM and listening to the descriptions of things he gives. They learn through playing; they try things. Some work and they succeed; others don't work and they die. There has to be a real fear of character death or they don't learn. Eventually, good players understand how things work in the DM's specific game world, and they can then successfully balance their risk versus the potential reward.

Sorry to dump on you like this, Frank; it's not personal. This stuff has been building up and this was the perfect opportunity for it to crystallize in my brain, so I had to get it down before I forgot it.

Of course, I could be wrong; everything I say may only be valid for me.

[foster1941]

ffilz said:

I've got to disagree with changing systems and especially not writing them down. If the GM changes the system at will, and doesn't let the players know what the system is, how can they play effectively? How can they choose their desired risk level?

Frank

Common sense; thinking (as Mike Mearls put it) "what makes sense for a person in this situation?" rather than "what makes sense according to the rules?" In real-life if you're considering climbing up a rope of jumping over a crevasse or swimming across a fast-moving stream you don't know in advance exacly what your odds of success are, exactly what you can do to improve them, or exactly what will happen if you fail. You have a pretty good idea, and the same applies in D&D, assuming the ref has a realistic grasp on the real life odds of such things (which, frankly, you must assume in order for D&D to work; the ref must be good (fair and knowledgeable and able to make accurate judgment calls on the spot) and the players must trust him and abide by his rulings -- if the ref sucks or the players are constantly arguing his calls the game doesn't work).

That said, when I'm reffing and I make such spot calls I'll usually tell the player the odds in advance if they ask and I think the character would have a reasonable chance of knowing (as much as a real person in the same situation would have): "if I try to jump across that pit, what do I need to roll to succeed?" "roll a six-sider; 1 or 2 you fall in the pit, 3 you're hanging off the ledge, 4 you're safely across but lying prone, 5 or 6 you're across and standing, -1 to the roll for each encumbrance level." "If I try to jump up onto the table, grab the chandelier and swing from it onto the balcony what's my chance to succeed?" "Not very good; roll percentile dice and try to get something low" [what I'm actually thinking: hmm, maybe Dex score as a % chance? Let's see what he rolls...]

[Zulgyan]

Yes. I meant something like foster's post.

In this particular jump, a 1d6 based system is used.

In that particular feat, a % is used.

You just don't use 3d6belowstat or SIEGE engine all the time.

But you must try to be consistent with your own criteria, and similar situacions should call for similar rulings.

[jrients]

I tend to agree with both coffee and foster in this matter. Even if I were to wholesale adopt the system I linked in the original post or wothbora's excellent methodology, I would keep it behind the screen as much as possible and would feel free to use it or not as situation dictates. I don't want players finessing the rules to improve their situation, I want them interacting with the imaginary environment to achieve that.

BTW, foster's second paragraph pretty closely describes how I handle these situations in actual play.

[ffilz]

Ok, I can see Trent's position. And I don't think it actually requires good knowledge on the DM's part, all it requires is that the GM at least give an idea of what he thinks the difficulty is. Who cares if a real life athlete could or could not jump a 10' wide chasm while wearing plate, what we care about is can a "hero" do so in this fantasy world? The GM needn't give actual percentages to the players all the time either. It could just be "hmm, don't you think that's quite a stretch?" If the player goes for it, the GM decides the PC has a 15% chance of success (based on the fact that he does have an 18 strength). He's then free to tell the next fighter "you fall in the pit" (said fighter having only a 12 strength).

I do think that if a particular type of situation is going to come up often, having a system at least based on something written down that makes it easy to come up with consistent rulings is worthwhile. And that's why I like roll against stats systems. You can pick the modifier on the spot.

Frank

[redpriest]

This is striking right at the heart of what I'm dealing with philosophically with OD&D. As a big RQ and RM fan, I find pretty, shiny skill checks to be quite attractive, but I find the possibility of no checks at all very intriguing. Other than using Man-to-Man or the optional combat rules and using saving throws, I really mean no roll checks at all. No checks against stats, percentile probabilities, thief skills or even some kind of skeletal skill system.

This is where it is important for the referee to be knowledgeable and trusted. The ref doesn't have to be a rocket surgeon, but a good general understanding of how the world works and a heaping dose of good common sense can go a long way. The ref also need only be trusted by the players to the extent that they know the ref will adjudicate fairly and in the interest of fun for the group. Ghod doesn't have to be precise to the nth decimal point, only precise enough that the players agree that the DM made a fair enough ruling, even if it goes against them.

I'm comfortably certain that I finally have two guinea pigs for my experimental quest, and hopefully, I may wind up with four (woohoo). In the experiment, the players will have to tell me exactly what their characters will do to check for traps, jump a chasm, climb a tower or open a locked chest. No rolls whatsoever. Not against STR, DEX or Open Locks. I let 'em know whether they have a good, fair or poor chance and approximately how long they think it may take to accomplish. If they decide to implement the plan, then if I'm satisfied it's solid, then it's DONE, but if I think it absolutely stinks, then it FAILS. For borderline cases, I'd adjudicate to partial success, if applicable, or FAIL if not applicable and let them know that they almost had it, and could try again with a slightly refined attempt. They succeed when I'm satisfied.

I don't know how well this will go, but I want to see just how far I can really take no rolls at all (other than combat* & saves) and everyone still enjoy themselves. No way this works if the players don't completely trust the ref, me, to adjudicate fairly and for fun.

Yeah, maybe this is how most gamers already play OD&D, as far as I know, but this is skills-based gaming detox for me.

* oh yeah, I got ideas for even faster, yet still tactically sound and fun combat too (37 years of wargaming experience has to be useful for something), but I'm still working on 'em.

[ffilz]

redpriest: the danger here is that the game becomes "try to please the GM." If you do what the GM wants or expects, things work. If you go off the rails, things start failing. The advantage of some kind of random resolution is that it helps make sure plans other than the ones the GM thinks should succeed can succeed (now obviously the GM can still block, but it's more obvious because he has to assign penalties to the rolls that make it impossible to succeed).

I'm not absolutely convinced diceless gaming can't work, but I honestly feel that it creates a different animal.

Frank

[kormydigar]

I thinks its a good idea for the DM to have a consistant resolution system for events somewhere. This doesn't mean that the Players need to know thier odds before attempting something.
In OD&D as written, characters don't get stat bonuses for "regular" combat stuff but trying to do something heroic and extraordinary is where thier high scores should really be given a chance to shine.

In most games I run the only instances where the players have a good sense of the odds before attempting something is in situations where time is not a factor. In dangerous, real time activities there is the option of pausing to consider the odds (which could lead to unpleasant consequences on its own).

I like fast paced real time decision making.

[kormydigar]

Mar 17, 2008 7:30:21 GMT -6 Wothbora said:

I'm not sure where this method came from, but I basically just make "saving throws" based on ST, IN, WI, CO, DX, or CH stats (that's probably why I like the roll "6-in-a-row" method of character creation).

If it is a skill that seems attainable (and a roll seems necessary) then 3d6 (roll lower than attribute) is a success. Levels of difficulty are approached by dice mods (using the highest three and discarding the rest).

Simple 2d6 (box cars fail no matter what)
Ordinary 3d6
Hard 4d6
Extreme 5d6
Legendary 6d6

The example you provided were very entertaining reads, but after looking at the system again it seems to break down for very high stats.

Lets say Crom the fighter with a mighty 18 Strength needs to lift the corner of a stone building to free his friend Lothar from prison. The building is very heavy and this counts as a Godlike difficulty (8d6). If we only keep the 3 highest dice rolled Crom will succeed at the task far more often than he fails (assuming 3 6's fail)

I think this system has a lot going for it without just using the 3 highest dice! If you keep all dice rolled it will mean that even super high stats can fail if the task is difficult enough and moderate stats will have a very tough time doing super deeds, but the look on a player' s face when his/her 7 Dexterity character makes that 4d6 jump will be priceless.

[hackman]

I really like the skill system that started this thread. It's abstract to a good degree and avoids the whole thief thing. Thieves constantly checking for traps, searching etc. it really takes a lot of the magic away in my opinion. I tend to enforce rigid wandering monster checks to deal with it. Anyways back to topic here. I feel a bit leery about skill systems in OD&D at least. However other games like RM2 and any of the chaosium stuff I really like, just a different expectation as far as skills are concerned.

[badger2305]

Seems like Wothbora and I were thinking along similar lines (or maybe I was just borrowing from him); check out this post: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=27&page=2#710

...which said (in an edited form):

Here goes: uncertain tasks may be resolved by rolling a number of D6s against a specified character stat, the number of dice increasing relative to the difficulty of the task. Have the player roll 3d6 all the time - and the referee rolls the rest, behind the screen. The difficulty rating would look like this:


* Easy (but still uncertain) task: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 1d6 and subtracts the result from the player's roll. Compare against selected stat - under the stat = success.
* Average difficulty: player rolls 3d6
* Hard: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 1d6 and adds that to the player's roll.
* Very hard: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 2d6 and adds that to the player's roll
* Impossible: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 3d6 and adds that to the player's roll.

Mind you, I now think that (a) this sort of thing ought to be used when there is a task that DOESN'T relate to the character's class, and (b) I'm not sure how to take into account a character's level.

Hmmm.

[philotomy]

What I've found with skill systems is that I often find myself thinking of a percentage, and then trying to back into that number with the skill system. For example, with 3E, I'd think "I want a 4th level Rogue to have about a 60% chance of success, here, so what DC do I need to assign, assuming a vanilla Rogue 4?" With C&C, I tended to do the same thing with the SIEGE engine: "I want a 4th level PC with Dex prime to have X% chance at this..."

Since that's been my usual approach, I've dispensed with skill systems. Instead, when the PC wants to do something, I typically come up with a percentage based on the PC and the situation, tell him how hard he thinks it will be, and make or ask for a roll. I'm using percentages because I find it natural and easy to think in those terms.

(That said, I sometimes call for Xd6 rolls underneath a stat. I still like the idea of d6 checks.)