I posted this on the Swords&Sorcerey forums but I was hoping I could get some answers from people here as well. If I've posted this in the wrong section of the forum I apologize.
What I've been doing with skill checks in my games with my kids is deciding which attribute should be used for the skill they want to try and have them roll under the attribute to succeed. The problem is that doing it this way produces some wacky results. For example, in our last game the group was hunting and it was decided that int or wis
Averaged with dex would be the success number. It ended up that the magic user had the best chance of succeeding. But according to the background my daughter made that character wouldn't have been anywhere close to being the best hunter of the group.
I don't want to have to make up a long skill list then come up with rules to use them but I'd rather do that than make attributes almost almost meaningless. Have any of you made, or use, a skill check system that adresses these issues?
My skill system. (http://themetalearth.blogspot.com/2010/03/head-city-on-north-coast-of-xal-gordian.html) for S&W. I actually address some of the concerns you mention, but you may not find my way of doing things satisfactory. Also, I'm sure there is some foul language in that post.
Here's a similar, but ever so slightly different, and perhaps better system: Akratic Wizardry Task resolution. (http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/2009/06/s-saving-throws-as-general-task.html)
Thanks, I'll check them both out now.
I like both systems. The idea of using the saving throw means that level has an affect on the chance of success.I think I like your system slightly better because it makes attributes slightly more important.
There are to things that came to mind though. The first, is that in both systems attributes numbers are lumped into groups. In your system attribute scores of 3-5 get no bonus, 6-11 get +1, 12-17 get +2, and 18 gets a +3. The other system has even larger groups if I'm remembering correctly how the attribute bonuses in S&W are set up. Shouldn't a PC with a 17 str be significantly stronger than a PC with a str of 12? In your system its easy to just divide the ST by a smaller number to make the groupings smaller, but then the problem of making the bonuses too large and making the chance of success to easy.
Second, a PC of a high level who knows nothing about a skill, ill use hunting as an example again,might be able to hunt better than a low level PC that grew up hunting every day.
Is there a way to make attribute points mean more mechanicaly then just a +1-3 bonus while at the same time using the ST in some way so that level is still a factor?
I'm really new at this so I'm sure I'm just over looking an obvious solution so bare with me and my silly questions.
If you feel that one class or race has the clear aptitude on the skill, then have them roll Ability or less on D20. Everyone else has to roll 1/2 Ability.
Thus, hunting sounds like a Fighter task, Dwarf Lore would be a Dwarf task and religious iconography would be a Cleric task. Everyone still gets to roll dice and may succeed, but not overshadow those whose niche makes the most sense.
I also use the Saving Throw system. In these cases, I give +4 bonus based on character class or background.
Yeah, I think you have to give "character background" modifier. I touch on it in mt description, but I probably need to be a bit more explicit. As far as the difference between attribute scores goes, I think you have to pick a mod that works for you; maybe divide by 4?
Quote from: Chess;376111It ended up that the magic user had the best chance of succeeding. But according to the background my daughter made that character wouldn't have been anywhere close to being the best hunter of the group.
I don't want to have to make up a long skill list then come up with rules to use them but I'd rather do that than make attributes almost almost meaningless.
You have to decide what is most important: class and background, or skills and stats. Then have the less important one act as a modifier on the other one.
You mentioned hunting. Instead of trying to base it on stats, I'd base it on what makes sense. That is, if you've got a PC with a woodsman background, or a PC that is a trained archer, they're going to have a lot better chance than a magic user who stays inside and studies scrolls and such all day. I'd assign my probability based on that. If I decided a roll was necessary at all, I'd use stats to modify the base probability, which I'd just assign as I thought was appropriate, given the PCs in question and the specific circumstances.
Personally, I don't think OD&D (or S&W) is a very good fit if you're looking for task resolution modeled with stats and skills. OD&D is very much a class/level approach. The 1e AD&D Secondary Skills are just about the best "skill system" for traditional D&D that I've come across. If you want a stats/skills model, there are a lot of other games that do it better.
If you're dead-set on it, though, you might try C&C's SIEGE engine approach. However, be prepared for "that's just weird" situations with that, too. (It's one of my criticisms of the SIEGE engine: it's a universal mechanic that is shoehorned into everything, even when something else would model things better. The most grating example, to me, is Clerics (with high and Prime Wis) being the best ambush detectors, even when a Ranger is in the group...
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;376160you might try C&C's SIEGE engine approach. However, be prepared for "that's just weird" situations with that, too. (It's one of my criticisms of the SIEGE engine: it's a universal mechanic that is shoehorned into everything, even when something else would model things better. The most grating example, to me, is Clerics (with high and Prime Wis) being the best ambush detectors, even when a Ranger is in the group...
I was going to suggest the SIEGE engine from
C&C as well.
I think you could make a three-tier system to modify SIEGE to avoid the wacky results:
12 Both in-class and prime stat skill
15 Either in-class or prime stat skill
18 Neither in-class or prime stat skill
This would mean that the Ranger would be able to roll against a 12 in ambush situations (in-class and prime) but the Cleric has to beat a 15 (prime but not in-class).
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;376160You have to decide what is most important: class and background, or skills and stats. Then have the less important one act as a modifier on the other one.
You mentioned hunting. Instead of trying to base it on stats, I'd base it on what makes sense. That is, if you've got a PC with a woodsman background, or a PC that is a trained archer, they're going to have a lot better chance than a magic user who stays inside and studies scrolls and such all day. I'd assign my probability based on that. If I decided a roll was necessary at all, I'd use stats to modify the base probability, which I'd just assign as I thought was appropriate, given the PCs in question and the specific circumstances.
Personally, I don't think OD&D (or S&W) is a very good fit if you're looking for task resolution modeled with stats and skills. OD&D is very much a class/level approach. The 1e AD&D Secondary Skills are just about the best "skill system" for traditional D&D that I've come across. If you want a stats/skills model, there are a lot of other games that do it better.
If you're dead-set on it, though, you might try C&C's SIEGE engine approach. However, be prepared for "that's just weird" situations with that, too. (It's one of my criticisms of the SIEGE engine: it's a universal mechanic that is shoehorned into everything, even when something else would model things better. The most grating example, to me, is Clerics (with high and Prime Wis) being the best ambush detectors, even when a Ranger is in the group...
Here is my thought, edited slightly as I think more about it:
I was going to suggest the SIEGE engine from C&C as well.
I think that the SIEGE mechanic uses 12/18 (I know I use different numbers for different camapigns, so I may be mis-recalling the actual numbers) and assumes that 12 is the number to beat for a prime roll and 18 for a non-prime.
You could make a three-tier system to modify SIEGE to avoid the wacky results:
12 Both in-class and prime stat skill
15 Either in-class or prime stat skill
18 Neither in-class or prime stat skill
This would mean that the Ranger would be able to roll against a 12 in ambush situations (in-class and prime) but the Cleric has to beat a 15 (prime but not in-class).
I remember in several games I played back in the day, the DM just assigned a % chance of success for a particular skill similar to what was done in the 1E AD&D PHB for particular class skills. (These were roll less than or equal to a percentage number, using percentile d100 dice).
If the DM wanted the skills to scale with level, the % chance table would be constructed similar to the thief function table (ie. open locks, move silently, etc ...). If the DM didn't want the skills to scale with level, the % chance table would be static percentages, such as some of the ranger's skills.
It's like a time warp. Seriously I love OD&D but this homebrew path was tread back in 1978 and led to some very good solutions.
That being said, I'd recommend the modified SEIGE engine suggestion or the saving throw suggestion. What I'd avoid is basing this on attributes. The D&D attribute selection is not designed for this. This is most clear (as already pointed out) for perception-like skills. Attribute based checks would work better under the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system where you have a specific Perception attribute for this.
So other suggestions, add a seventh attribute Perception. You could also use this in ways for secret doors etc. Look at TFT (cloned as Warrior & Wizard) a simple skill based approach with light class overlay, also look at Dragon Warriors, classed based but with ability progression that has built in utility for skill checks.
Here are the Skills rules from the current draft of my Microlite75 system. With slight modification they should work in S&W, OD&D, 1e, etc. without much problem. Even if you don't like them (as they are D20-like because they are written for a Microlite20 variant or something), they might give you ideas for ways to handle skill rolls you like better.
QuoteSkills
There are no specific skills in Microlite75. Instead players are expected to think like adventurers, tell the GM what they are doing and the GM decides if it will succeed in the situation, taking into account the character's class and background. If the GM decides a random success chance is truly needed he may resolve the situation with a roll of his choice or he may call for one of the following rolls:
Primary Skill Roll: 1D20 + Stat Bonus + Class Level if the character is attempting something directly related to their class or background.
Secondary Skill Roll: 1D20 + Stat Bonus + (Class Level/2, round up) if the character is attempting something only loosely related to their class or background.
Minor Skill Roll: 1d20 +Stat Bonus + (Class Level/3, round down) if the character is attempting something not really related to their class or background.
When the GM calls for a skill roll, he will declare the type of skill roll, which stat the skill roll falls under, and any situational modifiers and the player will make a skill roll.
Roll higher than the GM assigned Difficulty Class to succeed. Unless the GM rules otherwise, a natural roll of 20 always succeeds for a Primary Skill Roll. Suggested Difficulty Classes: Easy - 8, Normal - 12, Difficult - 16, Hard - 20, Very Hard - 24, Legendary - 28, Unbelievable - 32.
Certain classes (Thieves and Rangers, for example) have abilities that members of those classes are good at -- or even expert at. The GM must be sure to take such strong abilities into consideration when deciding success or failure of a related action.
Quote from: ggroy;376165I remember in several games I played back in the day, the DM just assigned a % chance of success for a particular skill similar to what was done in the 1E AD&D PHB for particular class skills.
This is what I tend to do. I evaluate the situation and assign a percentage chance, then call for a die roll. (Not necessarily d100, but it's usually that or a d6.)
I used to use more defined skill systems in D&D, but what I found myself doing was trying to back into the number I wanted. For example, if I was designing an adventure, I'd consider the appropriate PC/level and think "a 4th level such-and-such should have about a 35% chance of doing this." Then I'd figure out what difficulty number or modifier to slap onto it. Same thing in game: say a PC wants to take a running leap over a chasm and grab a rope. I'd figure: hmm, in armor and full kit he'd have about a 25% chance, but if he takes of his backpack and gear, it'd be a 90% chance. Then I'd figure out what modifiers and difficulty numbers to apply in order to get to those numbers.
Eventually I realized what I was doing, and cut out all the extra work. It was like putting down a bag or bricks. No more backing into the number I'm aiming for. No more trying to tweak and massage the skill/stat/class/level interaction to avoid weird results or odd percent chances. Just what makes sense, fast and easy.
The major criticism to this approach is that it relies on the DM's judgment. Yep. But so does assigning modifiers and difficulty. Another criticism is that it doesn't take stats/class/level into account. But actually, I *do* take that into consideration when coming up with a chance. In fact, I find it much faster to evaluate the situation (including class/level/stat) and come up with a number that makes sense, compared to performing a specific formula calculation and then trying to apply "official" and unofficial modifiers, whether you're backing into a number or not.
Might not work for everyone, and certainly isn't a good fit for every game system, but I definitely recommend it with traditional D&D.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;376171The major criticism to this approach is that it relies on the DM's judgment. Yep. But so does assigning modifiers and difficulty. Another criticism is that it doesn't take stats/class/level into account. But actually, I *do* take that into consideration when coming up with a chance. In fact, I find it much faster to evaluate the situation (including class/level/stat) and come up with a number that makes sense, compared to performing a specific formula calculation and then trying to apply "official" and unofficial modifiers, whether you're backing into a number or not.
Might not work for everyone, and certainly isn't a good fit for every game system, but I definitely recommend it with traditional D&D.
This sort of ad hoc stuff was common back in the day, without too many objections amongst the groups I played with back in the day.
These days it is a completely different story. Over the years I've noticed hardcore players who grew up playing WotC editions of D&D (and some late 2E AD&D players), tend to be very resistant to such ad hoc rulings. They prefer a concrete ruleset to cover such stuff, and tend to be highly against DM fiat when it comes to rules.
DM fiat has been reduced more and more over the years, with each new edition.
I remember when I first played D&D, quite a number of DM's I came across were very dictatorial. (These individuals were more like wargamer types). Some even banned any players from owning the 1E AD&D DMG. If they found out a player owned the DMG, they would automatically kill off the player's character and kick them out of the game.
Quote from: Xanther;376166It's like a time warp. Seriously I love OD&D but this homebrew path was tread back in 1978 and led to some very good solutions.
.
Actually, as pointless as it sounds, I've gotten a lot of satisfaction from reinventing the wheel. I imagine it was fun in '78, and, for me at least, it's fun right now.
Anyway, on topic, there is another version of the ST/skill mechanic in Doug Easterly's Savage Swords of Arthano (http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/savage-swords-of-athanor/6176053)r. He's got a skill list too. It's $2 download, and well worth it, imo.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;376160You have to decide what is most important: class and background, or skills and stats. Then have the less important one act as a modifier on the other one.
Basically. You could select one of the many cool variants of this thread, or stick with your own, and just use class and background as mods on either the roll, or the difficulty to beat. It could be variable for instance, whether it's dead on, close or rather far from the class and/or background concept. A hunter trying to hunt could get up to a +5 to his ability to then beat under with a d20. A Cleric trying to understand the religious paintings on the wall from another religion could get a +3. A carpenter trying to identify tools used for stonecarving could get a +1. And so on.
Quote from: Benoist;376200. A Cleric trying to understand the religious paintings on the wall from another religion could get a +3. .
or a -4 :)
Quote from: Benoist;376200A Cleric trying to understand the religious paintings on the wall from another religion could get a +3.
What's to understand, clearly it is just delusional heresy. ;) It might be interesting to also throw in a + based on alignment similarity.
Quote from: Xanther;376224What's to understand, clearly it is just delusional heresy. ;) It might be interesting to also throw in a + based on alignment similarity.
Absolutely. :)
Quote from: Aos;376199Actually, as pointless as it sounds, I've gotten a lot of satisfaction from reinventing the wheel. I imagine it was fun in '78, and, for me at least, it's fun right now.
...
Actually I don't find it pointless at all. I went down this road myself to get to the homebrew monstrosity I use today. It's still fun and I like alot of the ideas here, the class based / saving throw chart with modifier in particular. I also like the idea of using the combat tables and if the area is on point to your class you use the fighter table, if far off you use the mu table, etc.
I do find it ironic in a way that a retro clone is being modified to do this, as part of the whole retro clone movement (I thought) was to get back to the way D&D was. Yet we are already traveling away from that.
Quote from: Aos;376199Actually, as pointless as it sounds, I've gotten a lot of satisfaction from reinventing the wheel. I imagine it was fun in '78, and, for me at least, it's fun right now.
Absolutely, it's fun, AND it's useful to you, and the people who find some inspiration in the stuff you share on your blog, as well. Useful because the rules become
literally yours, your own, and useful for others, because they might inspire them to build their own, and make the resulting game their own, through and through.
So I'd say: It's fun, and there's a point to it too!
Quote from: RandallS;376168Here are the Skills rules from the current draft of my Microlite75 system. With slight modification they should work in S&W, OD&D, 1e, etc. without much problem. Even if you don't like them (as they are D20-like because they are written for a Microlite20 variant or something), they might give you ideas for ways to handle skill rolls you like better.
Nice stuff. A BoL with more meat it seems to me. How specific are you in these prime skills, etc. Are they general like fighting, magic, etc.?
Quote from: Benoist;376229Absolutely, it's fun, AND it's useful to you, and the people who find some inspiration in the stuff you share on your blog, as well. Useful because the rules become literally yours, your own, and useful for others, because they might inspire them to build their own, and make the resulting game their own, through and through.
So I'd say: It's fun, and there's a point to it too!
Amen to that. I may have ended up farther afield, but this still applies.
Another way of handling skills would be to expand on the d6 mechanic in OD&D (though I wouldn't call it a *cough* "skill system" *cough* originally). Basically, everyone has a 1 in 6 chance of succeeding anything. Then, according to race, class, etc, character gain advantages expressed as a +1 or more on a d6. Dwarf? +1 to detect concealed pieces of masonry. Relevant ability score (Wis for concealed pieces of masonry, say) above a score of 12, as per S&W rules? +1 to the check. Engineer background? +1 to the check. And so on.
If you want modifiers to not affect probabilities too drastically, spread them out with levels, or whatever, you could change the die type from d6 to d12 (a die that is not nearly used enough, by the way).
Quote from: Xanther;376230Nice stuff. A BoL with more meat it seems to me. How specific are you in these prime skills, etc. Are they general like fighting, magic, etc.?
I just decide whether what the character wants to do is directly related to his class or background, somewhat related, or not really related. If I decide a die roll is needed, this determines which type of skill roll I ask for. It's really a simple system -- it basically treats class and background as two fairly broad "skills" which define how likely a character is to be successful at what he tries to do. This is less hassle than a narrow skill system (and much harder to min-max) and seems -- to me, at least -- to fit better with a class-based game.
Addenda to Benoist's idea, you might notice that there are checks that started out as a '1 in 6' roll by default in AD&D (Listening at doors, surprise), but that some classes got bonuses on by having these 'skill' chances increase when levelling up (monks or thieves). Usually they just converted the 1 in 6 to an equivalent percentage ( a base 15% chance), then slowly add percentiles each level.
Dragon #156 had an optional OD&D skill system that used percentages too ("Can you swim? Juggle? At the same time?").
The skill system in Majestic Wilderlands is pretty great.
RPGPundit