Feelings on 'Dungeoneering Skills' in OD&D

[Arminath]

Jul 2, 2007 11:37:22 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

My second issue with thieves, beyond the troublesome precedent of the fiddly percentage-based skill system and the slippery slope to RQ it introduces...

I see this statement alot and in many places and it confuses me. Not to start a pro-or-con thieves thread (it's been done), but more focused on the skills of OD&D is my aim. Almost any kind of 'skill' roll in OD&D is based on the d6, which is roughly 16.66% per pip. So most things in OD&D function/succeed/happen 1 (16%) or 2 (33%) in 6 chances and elves detect secret doors a whopping 4 (66%) in 6 chances.

I know the allocation of the way different dice types can affect different outcomes, but everything being diced for on d6's are based on a percentage. Is it the asthetics of an 'only' d6 game that makes it so difficult to accept or more a pure numbers thing (it is easier to roll a 1-2 on d6 than 33% or less on d100)?

[kent]

I believe the principle objection is that as soon as you concoct a hard list of skills for a game you create a sense in which characters lacking those skills feel they have no chance to attempt actions which are frequently plausible and so explicit skill lists end up have a limiting narrowing effect on play.

I am guessing that Foster's dislike of the 'fiddly' percentages amounts to a dislike of cumbersome overly detailed character definitions more than simply preferring d6 checks to d100 checks.

[Ynas Midgard]

What kent has said, plus there would be no need of d10s if thieving skills were not resolved with them.

[waysoftheearth]

For whatever it's worth, these are my observations...

"Fiddly" percentage-based rolls are not limited to thieves. They occur in many places including spell resolutions, monster "in lair" checks and treasure determination to name but a few.

I believe that the "fiddly" adjective may be applicable to the d100 roll for several reasons...

1) It does actually take more time to roll two d10s, figure out which is the tens and which is the ones, and put together a result than it takes to roll one d6 and read the result. Not much more, but more none-the-less.

2) It does take significantly more time for non-mathematicians (which is most of us ordinary mortals) to figure bigger numbers than smaller ones. That means it takes longer to figure that 53% + 19% = 72% (on a d100) than it does to figure that 3 + 1 = 4 (on a d6). That's just the way the grey-matter works.

3) Using a d100 sets an expectation that this is a fine grained thing. There are one hundred possible outcomes on the die, and adjustments as fine as +1% are meaningful. Players and referees are encouraged, therefore, to think of all the tiny circumstantial effects which might contribute another 1% to the roll.

This, in my view, is the main problem because it opens the way for huge tables of adjustments that arguably don't add much to the game but certainly add delays and opportunities for descent into rules litigation. This is, in fact, the way AD&D went with thieves', rangers', and assassins' skills (to name but a few examples).

On the other hand, using a d6 sets an expectation that this is coarse grained thing. There are only 6 possible outcomes on the die so a +1 adjustment is huge. Clearly then, only huge factors are at play. If something isn't obviously an advantage, then it isn't worth worrying about, so forget it.


So in answer to Arminath's original question:

Oct 16, 2011 20:03:09 GMT -6 Arminath said:

Is it the asthetics of an 'only' d6 game that makes it so difficult to accept or more a pure numbers thing (it is easier to roll a 1-2 on d6 than 33% or less on d100)?

I don't see it as aesthetics. For me it's all about facilitating quick, smooth game play.

You may have heard it said that "A quick game is a good game.", and it's true. The more players you have sitting around the table waiting to have their say, the truer it gets!


p.s. Ynasmidgard don't worry, d10s are also used for constitution "survive adversity" checks, many monster's "Number Appearing" and "% in Lair" rolls, treasure type, random magic items rolls, and many more I'm sure

edit : grammar.

[Finarvyn]

Oct 17, 2011 0:10:16 GMT -6 Ynas Midgard said:

What kent has said, plus there would be no need of d10s if thieving skills were not resolved with them.

It's perhaps worth noting that back in "the day" polyhedral dice sets didn't come with d10's. Only 5 dice in the original sets -- d4, d6, d8, d12, d20.

We did percentile dice by rolling d20's twice and only using the 0-9 part. I never even owned a d10 until much later....

EDIT: Not entirely true. I remember my first set of "high impact" poly dice from the late 1970's or so. My sister gave them to me and I still own them and the cloth bag they came in. The d20 was numbered 0-9 twice instead of 1-20, so when I wanted to roll a d20 I had to either use a "control die" or my old soft-plastic one.

[3d6]

Hey. This just my take on it:

I agree with what waysoftheearth has said, and would add that for me it is not so much what shapes are used to generate random numbers (though I do prefer "coarse d6"). What it is is that in DnD (as I see it - and everything here is just mo, of course), the "order of imprtance is : 1. Character level, 2. Character Class, 3. Ability Scores, and 4. Skills

(As evidence that level is primary, is the fact that, for instance, a 6th level MU has better TH than a 2nd level fighter. There can be logical arguments made against this, but it is DnD).

Any skills that are truly _special abilities of a class_ are fine with me. I don't so much care how they're rolled (d6, d100, ...). Possibly lock picking and disarm traps could fall in this category for me.

It's the skills like climb that are to me a "slippery slope." For me, this wouldn't be a special ability of a class (you could argue with that, I know). Everybody would have this skill (or at least they could try it), and then the slippery slope is that you end up with a big long list of skills for everyone, and/or you get into what kent said about plausible actions. That makes "Skills" a more important part of DnD than I think they are (4th place on that list).

Note - I've played RuneQuest a lot. Great times, love it. I also developed a FRP with no levels, entirely skills based, every single roll was d100, it's just about how I see things specifically in DnD.

Also, just introducing the thief doesn't all of a sudden turn the game from one where level and class are empasized to one where skills are, it is just that possibly that's where it leads, and if it does lead there, then I think that's turning that list (1,2,3,4) upside down. This is just the way I personally see DnD. (Other ways just as legit of course!).

In addition, and aside from these sort of abstract thoughts, as a practical matter, to just keep things moving,"roll a d6, tell me what you got" is quicker than scanning a character sheet for this and that.

[Deleted]

As Gary played, everybody was assumed to have basic "adventuring" skills. Thief abilities represented a chance of success where ordinary 'adventurers' had none.

And we used '2d6 and fake it' for resolution.

[foxroe]

Oct 17, 2011 4:39:19 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I remember my first set of "high impact" poly dice from the late 1970's or so. My sister gave them to me and I still own them and the cloth bag they came in. The d20 was numbered 0-9 twice instead of 1-20, so when I wanted to roll a d20 I had to either use a "control die" or my old soft-plastic one.

...or we would "ink" half of the faces (0-9) in one color, and the other 0-9 faces in another color. One color meant straight 0-9, and the other color meant 11-20.

[Finarvyn]

Oct 23, 2011 10:57:43 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Oct 17, 2011 4:39:19 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I remember my first set of "high impact" poly dice from the late 1970's or so. My sister gave them to me and I still own them and the cloth bag they came in. The d20 was numbered 0-9 twice instead of 1-20, so when I wanted to roll a d20 I had to either use a "control die" or my old soft-plastic one.

...or we would "ink" half of the faces (0-9) in one color, and the other 0-9 faces in another color. One color meant straight 0-9, and the other color meant 11-20.

I did that for my soft plastic d20, but my "high impact" hard plastic one was already inked black for both sets of numbers.

[mgtremaine]

I find myself still rolling a d6 and a d10/20 some days. Old habits and all.

-Mike

[Arminath]

Thanks guys! Even with seemingly simple questions there is a diversity of how's and why's for different people to do the same thing in different ways! My question was sparked initially by all of the RQ references (I've never played it personally) and then delving a bit into the LBB and looking at the things that are laid out that evolved into "skills". Personally I find a d6 too restrictive and d100 too wide open (my own games do not have a Thief class and all adverturers can try to perform Dungeoneering skills ), but I was curious at the d% lack of love.

[howandwhy99]

For me it isn't the percentile aspect of the Thief. There are plenty of areas in the game which utilize percentiles and the OP's observation bears out.

My issue is what on the map behind the screen do those rolls refer to? All too often for most DMs it isn't anything. I think this can be worked out, but I haven't figured out a method yet.

[Arminath]

I'm not sure what you mean? What the rolls refer to? As a Referee I occasionally have a random player just roll a die to keep them on their toes, or I'll roll a bunch when they do something...just to keep them wondering...