My sci-fi OSR project will have a lot of skills, or proficiencies or what-have-you, and I'm bouncing around a couple of ideas on how to work them in. I can just go with the standard weapon and non-weapon proficiencies like those in the older rules, or treat them like thieving skills as they were handled in that Buck Rogers rpg TSR put out years ago. I'm leaning towards Buck Rogers personally. Any other options? What is your favorite system for skills?
I am a total pain in the ass about skills. I'm cool with them in every RPG...except D&D and OSR stuff. I'm not even 100% sure why because its not a nostalgia thing. I've been playing RPGs with skills (Traveller, BRP, Palladium) since the dinosaurs roamed the game table, but something FOR ME doesn't jive with D&D/OSR and skills. Maybe I'm the weirdo, but I've noticed that with many players too.
I'm not high on skills in class level based games either.
Even for the skill based games I run, I always trim the skill list to less than 20.
Personally, for class level based games, I like the backgrounds/occupations used as skills; like in Barbarians of lemuria or 13th age.
Like this:
Kraven the Thief has the following Backgrounds :
Thief: 3
Smuggler: 2
Hunter: 1
Urchin: 2
For proficiencies; I would have them name/label the specific thing that they want to be good at, and you get to roll with advantage when your proficiency applies. (weapon proficencies would be single-weapon specific). I would have armor proficiency be a class feature that simply allows the PC to not suffer any penalties for wearing the specific armor type.
Your former 'skill' list is now the proficiency list.
So Kravens player wants to sneak across the courtyard. Well Kraven has a Thief 3 that would certainly apply. Kraven also has proficiency in 'Silent move' which would certainly apply in this case.
So Kravens player Rolls a d20, + dex bonus + Thief 3, with advantage because of his proficiency.
Kraven is now across the courtyard to a wall. Luckily Kraven also has a proficiency 'Scale Sheer Surface'...
Notice that a characters "background" skills are not tied to any given stat.
So if Kraven now wants to open a lock box the GM may give him options: he can pick the Lock rolling with his thief + dex bonus, but that will take a few rounds and he can hear guards coming. Or the GM says you think you can force the lock as well; roll Strength bonus + Thief to get it done quick.
Kraven does not have a "Pick Lock' proficiency, so he does not roll with advantage unless he wants to spend a fortune point.
When playing Honor + Intrigue for the first time it took my players a session or so to wrap their heads around the 'backgrounds as skills' concept because they were so broad.
But those sessions convinced me that When I run an D&D style OSR game in the future, house-ruling in the system I have above is the way to go for class/level based games.
Quote from: Jaeger;1127823I'm not high on skills in class level based games either.
Even for the skill based games I've run I always trim the skill list to less than 20.
I prefer skill-based systems and tend to view classes as too limited and restrictive. However, I think that skill-based systems tend to suffer from too much specificity, relying on bloated lists of similar skills with overlapping functions treated as separate abilities that must be improved independently. That tends to complicate things significantly and a lot of times these are tasks that hardly ever come up in play. So you're basically complicating the skill selection and progression process and stretching your resources out for fluff.
I prefer a combination of general skills to cover common functions (melee combat, ranged combat, interaction, academic lore, piloting, etc.) then use specialties and special abilities to spice things up and cover the specifics. That way you have your bases covered and cut down on excess situational skills and complexity, but can still dive into details for added bonuses without having to take a bunch skills just to cover similar functions.
Regarding the OP, I tend to prefer d20 +Modifier for rolls personally. It tends to be more simple and skills increase in 5% intervals, which is the rate at which most people tend to increase thief skill-style abilities anyways when given the points. But that depends a lot on how you wanna layout skills in the game and how characters acquire them.
Are skills class-specific or does everyone have access to them? Do skills all start out at the same %, or do they vary by class? Do players get to spend points on them or do they increase automatically by level? Or are they more like AD&D proficiencies based on a relevant ability score? Or maybe an OSR/3e mix with skill ranks but old school stat modifiers capping out at +3 for an 18 score?
All of these factors can change the flavor of the game or have their own benefits or pitfalls.
I, too, tend to dislike skill systems grafted onto a class/level game design. However, that doesn't mean I don't like games that use skill systems. I just want it do be part of the design, not a clumsy add-on that doesn't fit well.
My go-to approach for skill system is probably BRP. Thinking about skills and modifiers in terms of percentages is natural, for me. One criticism might be too many skills, though.
The "abilities" in Lejendary Adventure strike a decent balance for that (i.e. number of skills), in my opinion. For example, there's an ability (which could be thought of as a "skill bundle") named "Ranging." It give the character skill in all activities having to do with hazardous travel, scouting, scavenging, smuggling, outdoors craft, survival in the outdoors, camouflage, concealment, deadfalls, pits, poaching, traps and trapping, etc. Then there's another ability named "Rustic." It gives the character skill in "activities having to do with farms, the countryside, villages, people and places therein, crops, husbandry, livestock, etc...[and] self-sufficiency in small things such as making rude things for personal use, mending, sewing, and so on, and knowledge of fishing, trapping, wild edible vegetables, herbs (including medicinal ones), and the like." My point in listing those two abilities (i.e., Ranging and Rustic) is to show that the two abilities overlap, and also to show that they are broad. I prefer that kind of broad approach (with possible overlap) over a more detailed skills list broken into numerous narrow skills.
Quote from: Jaeger;1127823I'm not high on skills in class level based games either.
Even for the skill based games I've run I always trim the skill list to less than 20.
Personally, for class level based games, I like the backgrounds/occupations used as skills; like in Barbarians of lemuria or 13th age.
Like this:
Kraven the Thief has the following Backgrounds :
Thief: 3
Smuggler: 2
Hunter: 1
Urchin: 2
For proficiencies; I would have them name/label the specific thing that they want to be good at, and you get to roll with advantage when your proficiency applies. (weapon proficencies would be single-weapon specific). I would have armor proficiency be a class feature that simply allows the PC to not suffer any penalties for wearing the specific armor type.
Your former 'skill' list is now the proficiency list.
So Kravens player wants to sneak across the courtyard. Well Kraven has a Thief 3 that would certainly apply. Kraven also has proficiency in 'Silent move' which would certainly apply in this case.
So Kravens player Rolls a d20, + dex bonus + Thief 3, with advantage because of his proficiency.
Kraven is now across the courtyard to a wall. Luckily Kraven also has a proficiency 'Scale Sheer Surface'...
Notice that a characters "background" skills are not tied to any given stat.
So if Kraven now wants to open the lockbox the GM may give him options: he can pick the Lock rolling wtih his dex bonus, but that will take a few rounds and he can hear guards coming. of the GM says you think you can force the lock as well; roll Strength bonus + Thief to get it done quick.
Kraven does not have a "Pick Lock' proficiency, so he does not roll with advantage unless he wants to spend a fortune point.
When playing Honor + Intrigue for the first time it took my players a session or so to wrap their heads around the 'backgrounds as skills' concept because they were so broad.
But those sessions convinced me that When I run an D&D style OSR game in the future, house-ruling in the system I have above is the way to go for class/level based games.
Jaeger, that is exactly how I think I will do skills for my Post Apocalyptic OSR Game. That reminds me that I should really get back to that project.
I like d6 System/Mini Six skills, though I don't see any need for the 'specialisation' rules. I especially like how Mini Six encourages me to curate the skills list.
For class & level games I think skills just get in the way; the Class ought to be the skills package, and level indicates competence, plus any natural talent from attributes.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4329[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1127832I, too, tend to dislike skill systems grafted onto a class/level game design. However, that doesn't mean I don't like games that use skill systems. I just want it do be part of the design, not a clumsy add-on that doesn't fit well.
My go-to approach for skill system is probably BRP. Thinking about skills and modifiers in terms of percentages is natural, for me. One criticism might be too many skills, though.
The "abilities" in Lejendary Adventure strike a decent balance for that (i.e. number of skills), in my opinion. For example, there's an ability (which could be thought of as a "skill bundle") named "Ranging." It give the character skill in all activities having to do with hazardous travel, scouting, scavenging, smuggling, outdoors craft, survival in the outdoors, camouflage, concealment, deadfalls, pits, poaching, traps and trapping, etc. Then there's another ability named "Rustic." It gives the character skill in "activities having to do with farms, the countryside, villages, people and places therein, crops, husbandry, livestock, etc...[and] self-sufficiency in small things such as making rude things for personal use, mending, sewing, and so on, and knowledge of fishing, trapping, wild edible vegetables, herbs (including medicinal ones), and the like." My point in listing those two abilities (i.e., Ranging and Rustic) is to show that the two abilities overlap, and also to show that they are broad. I prefer that kind of broad approach (with possible overlap) over a more detailed skills list broken into numerous narrow skills.
That's about where I am as well. Theoretically, if a system with classes and skills is going to work well, it is not only about limiting the skill list, but also carefully selecting the classes and their scope as well. I'm not saying that it can be done well, but if it can be, that's how I'd see it working.
For example, as far as the mechanics go, there's nothing terribly off about D&D 5E classes or skills. The problem is that it is rigid adherence to traditional classes grafted onto the 3E/4E skill sets--themselves already grafted onto prior classes. A different list of classes and skills designed from the ground up might work fairly well.
The other way I can see it working is grafting a class system onto a skill system, instead of the usual other way around. That is, in such a system, skills are common, and everyone is a skill's character for the basics. Then they may or may not take one or more classes as bundles of special abilities. In such a system, "fighters" (or more likely something more specific) aren't necessarily more skilled at the basics of weapon. They hit about as accurately and hard as anyone else that has developed those skills. However, they've got some abilities that supplement weapon use so that they are more effective in a fight.
What I like about OSR games is that they rely on problem solving, not just waving your stats in the general direction of a problem.
How D&D magic works is a big part of this, OSR spells do one very specific thing and you have to think about what you can do with it. For example one of my favorite spells is Command and it says exactly what it does but you can do a HUGE amount of creative problem solving with it by using it in different ways.
Skills/proficiencies/whatever should be the same. They should do very specific concrete things that players can then figure out how to leverage to get things done. If you make skills fuzzy and abstract like in a lot of games you get players just saying "this is an X problem, I have X skill, I would like to use my X skill to solve this X problem" which requires all of the creative problem solving of a slug.
So I'd like to see proficiencies that really really nail down the SPECIFIC things that they can do, have them be just as specific and concrete as spell write-ups.
The Buck Rogers XXVc system is really the best D&D skill system ever concieved. It blends seamlessly with the theif's abilities and makes sense in the context of the game. It is a little points spending oriented. I'd probably use some kind of class based list in 5% increments to speed things up while leaving the points buy option intact.
Quote from: Daztur;1127846What I like about OSR games is that they rely on problem solving, not just waving your stats in the general direction of a problem.
How D&D magic works is a big part of this, OSR spells do one very specific thing and you have to think about what you can do with it. For example one of my favorite spells is Command and it says exactly what it does but you can do a HUGE amount of creative problem solving with it by using it in different ways.
I take the opposite approach, for much the same reason. I like very few, very broad, and very abstract skills. Things like "Precision", or "Contortion" (interestingly, my OSR game takes a similar approach to spells). In my own experience, this level of abstraction
contributes to the amount of creative problem solving, rather than detracts from it, while simultaneously reducing the bookkeeping.
Quote from: Daztur;1127846Skills/proficiencies/whatever should be the same. They should do very specific concrete things that players can then figure out how to leverage to get things done. If you make skills fuzzy and abstract like in a lot of games you get players just saying "this is an X problem, I have X skill, I would like to use my X skill to solve this X problem" which requires all of the creative problem solving of a slug.
This is where we agree. No problem gets solved with a mere die roll in my game, and while the skills are broad and abstract, the language of each dictates that any problem-solving still be very specific. The chance to succeed is not a chance to "overcome the problem", it is the chance to "successfully complete the specified action." Whether or not that "overcomes the problem" will vary. I think whether skills are "old school" or not have a not to do with how they are treated in play.
And of course some skills, like "Climbing" for example, are by nature more specific and require little or no special handling, while things like puzzle solving and NPC interaction are always left to the player in my game -- there simply are no "skills" for such things. I think the larger point here is that problems arises when skills are created for activities that we actually want to leave to players. Just because we
can envision a mechanic for something doesn't mean we
should. Keeping a clear idea of how we want players to interact with the game at the table is a good guideline as to which of those mechanics should be included.
Edit, afterthought: It may also be germane here that my game provides no means of independently
improving skills outside of class and attributes -- every character gets their attribute bonus, and thieves add their level. This makes skills essentially class-based: every adventurer will have some base level of proficiency, but only thieves do really cool skillful things, ever. In this way "skills" provide (1) a class-feature for thieves, and (2) a general mechanic for resolving non-combat actions.
Quote from: Daztur;1127846So I'd like to see proficiencies that really really nail down the SPECIFIC things that they can do, have them be just as specific and concrete as spell write-ups.
Have you ever played Rolemaster? If not, you might like its approach, especially if you include the expanded skills list from RM Companion II, et cetera.
Rolemaster is also interesting because it has "professions" (i.e., classes) and levels, but is skills-based at its core. The classes don't define a set of abilities, they define a set of costs for acquiring skills with skill points that are awarded each level. So a Fighter could acquire spell lists, but it might cost 20 develop points per skill level, while it would cost a Sorcerer 1 point per skill level. (There's also an optional rule for the "no profession" profession. When using that, characters don't have professions/classes at all, everyone uses the "no profession" set of skill costs.)
And here is the skill listing from RM Companion II (put in a code block so it will scroll). Each of these has its own detailed description/write-up:
Acrobatics
Acting
Administration
* Each type of government
Adrenal Defense
Adrenal Move
Balance
Landing
Leaping
Quick Draw
* Each type of weapon
Speed
Strength
Advanced Math
* Each dimension
Advertising
* Each medium
Alchemy (Chemistry)
* Each tech level
Ambush
Animal Handling
* Each type of animal
Animal Healing
Animal Training
* Each animal
Anthropology
* Each race
Appraisal
* Each culture
Architecture
* Each tech level
Armor Evaluation
Soft Leather
Rigid Leather
Chain
Plate
Astronomy
* Each dimension
Athletic Games
* Each game
Attunement
Basic Mathematics
* Each dimension
Beast Mastery
* Each animal
Begging
Biochemistry
* Each dimension
Boat Pilot
* Each water course
Body Damage Stabilize
Body Development
Brawling
Bribery
* Each area
Camouflage
Caving
Channeling
Circle Lore
Climbing
Contortions
Control Lycanthropy
* Each type of lycanthropy
Cookery
* Each type of cookery
Crafting
* Each craft
Dance
* Each dance type
Demon/Devil Lore
* Each demon/devil type
Detect Traps
Diagnostics
* Each race
Diplomacy
* Each government/culture
Directed Spells
* Each type (e.g., fire, ice, water, etc)
Direction Sense
Disarm Foe, Armed
One-Handed Edged
One-Handed Crushing
Two-Handed
Pole Arms
Two Weapon Combo
Disarm Foe, Unarmed
One-Handed Edged
One-Handed Crushing
Two-Handed
Pole Arms
Two Weapon Combo
Disarm Trap
Disguise
Distance Running
Divination
* Each divination method
Diving
Dowsing
Drafting
Dragon Lore
* Each dragon type
Driving
* Each type of vehicle
Drug Tolerance
* Each type of drug
Duping
Engineering
* Each tech level
Faerie Lore
* Each type of faerie
Falsification
* Each type
Fauna Lore
* Each region/climate
First Aid
* Each race
Fletching
Flora Lore
* Each region/climate
Flying/Gliding
* Each form
Foraging
* Each region/climate
Frenzy
Gambling
* Each form
General Perception
Balance
Body
Hearing
Sight
Smell
Taste
Touch
Gimmickry
Grappling Hook
Heraldry
* Each culture
Herb Lore
* Each region/climate
Herding
Hide Item
Horticulture
* Each form
Hostile Environments
* Each type
Hypnosis
Iai
Interrogation
Juggling
Jumping
Lancing
Leadership
Leather Working
* Each craft
Lie Perception
Linguistics
* Each language
Lip Reading
Loading
* Each animal type
Locate Secret Opening
Lock Lore
* Each tech level
Magical Language
* Each language
Magical Ritual
* Each ritual
Maneuvering in Armor
Soft Leather
Rigid Leather
Chain
Plate
Martial Arts Strikes
Strikes Rank 1
Strikes Rank 2
Strikes Rank 3
Strikes Rank 4
Martial Arts Sweeps & Throws
Sweeps & Throws Rank 1
Sweeps & Throws Rank 2
Sweeps & Throws Rank 3
Sweeps & Throws Rank 4
Mapping
Mechanition
* Each tech level
Meditation
Cleansing
Death
Healing
Ki
Sleep
Trance
Metal Evaluation
* Each culture
Metal Lore
* Each culture
Midwifery
* Each race
Military Organization
* Each type
Mimicry
Mimery
Mining
* Each type
Missile Artillery
* Each type
Mnemonics
Music
Navigation
* Each area
Painting
Philosopy/Religious Doctrine
* Each knowledge area/school
Physics
* Each tech level
Picking Locks
Pick Pockets
Planetology
* Each planet
Play Instrument
* Each type of instrument
Poetic Improvisation
Poison Lore
* Each region/climate/culture
Poison Perception
Pole Vaulting
Power Perception
Power Point Development
Power Projection
Propaganda
Public Speaking
Racial History
* Each race
Rappelling
Read Tracks
* Each region type
Region Lore
* Each region
Reverse Stroke
Riding
* Each animal type
Rope Mastery
Rowing
Runes
Sailing
Sanity Healing Lore
* Each tech level
Sculpting
Scrounge
* Each urban area
Second Aid
* Each race
Seduction
Siege Engineer
* Each type of fortification
Sense Ambush/Assassin
Sense Reality Warp
Set Traps
Signaling
Singing
Silent Kill
Skating
Skiing
Skinning
Smithing
Each type of craft
Spatial Location Awareness
Spell List Acquisition
* Each spell list
Spell Mastery
* Each specific spell
Sprinting
Stalking & Hiding
Star Gazing
* Each hemisphere
Stilt Walking
Stone Crafts
* Each type
Stone Evaluation
* Each culture
Stone Lore
* Each culture
Streetwise
* Each city
Stunned Manuevering
Subduing
* Each race
Surfing
Surgery
* Each race
Surveillance
Swimming
Symbol Lore
Tactical Games
* Each type
Tactics
* Each type
Tale Telling
Targeting Skill
Tightrope Walking
Time Sense
Tracking
Trading
Trading Lore
* Each area
Transcend Armor
Trap Building
Trickery
Tumbling
Tumbling Attack
Tumbling Evasion
Two Weapon Combo
Use/Remove Poison
Ventriliquism
Warding Lore
Weather-Watching
Weapon Evaluation
One-Handed Edged
One-Handed Crushing
Two-Handed
Bows
Thrown
Pole Arms
Weapon Skill
One-Handed Edged
One-Handed Crushing
Two-Handed
Bows
Thrown
Pole Arms
Wood Crafts
* Each type of craft
Xeno-Lores
* Each dimension
Yado
1 Handed Weapons
2 Handed Weapons
Pole Arms
Bare Handed
Two Weapon Combo
I like the backgrounds concept more than individual skills for class based games. AKA, the sorcerer with a barbarian background. But class based games are all about archetypes, but I get the desire to individualize. I don't think there's a right answer because its always a matter of taste.
Certainly, keeping the skill list short helps, aka Classic Traveller (book 1) where a PC is going to have 3-5 different skills. Palladium's list of a nigh-thousand skills is annoying and why I often run Mechanoids rules even in the RIFTS setting.
Mechanoid Invasion Book III was such a good system.
If I do skills in an OSR system I tend to keep it pretty light. Pick a couple of broad things at character creation, players simply succeed if there is no pressure or the task is simple, it it's in doubt they succeed on a 5 or 6. If they want they can spend substantial time and coin to find a teacher and improve a skill or learn a new one.
I've tinkered with other skill systems for these type of games but that is typically what I go back to.
Personally I find the aversion to skill systems in OSR games a bit odd seeing as they are present from nearly the start, as soon as Greyhawk added the Thief. Though I understand the addition of the Thief is contentious at best.
Quote from: Arkansan;1127893Personally I find the aversion to skill systems in OSR games a bit odd seeing as they are present from nearly the start, as soon as Greyhawk added the Thief. Though I understand the addition of the Thief is contentious at best.
I think the aversion to skills is mostly due to years of play experience, at this point.
As for the thief, with hindsight, I think the thief could've been better implemented by using a slightly different approach, and referring to the thief skills as class-specific "special abilities" rather than "skills." Looking at them as special abilities fits well, IMO. For example, anyone can sneak around, but the thief has a special ability to move without making any sound. equivalent to magical silence (and a thief that fails a move silently check isn't necessarily heard, he would still be moving quietly -- just not "special ability silent"). Anyone can climb, but the thief has the special ability to climb sheer surfaces without any climbing gear or assistance. Anyone can hide, but the thief has the special ability to hide in shadows that wouldn't normally conceal a person. Anyone can listen and hear a noise, but the thief can get better at it than even the average demi-human. Pick pockets and locks/traps are are more "thief only" abilities.
Also, I think some of those abilities would've worked better and been more consistent with the rest of the game if they weren't a separate sub-system. For example, take move silently. Elves have a similar "stealthy" thing: they surprise 4 in 6 if they're alone and not in metal armor. Rangers also have a "stealth" ability: they surprise 3 in 6. The thief's move silently ability (and possibly hiding) could've been handled in a similar fashion, as a "stealth" ability that gives them 3 in 6 surprise at 1st level, increasing to 4 in 6 or 5 in 6 at higher levels.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1127895I think the aversion to skills is mostly due to years of play experience, at this point.
As for the thief, with hindsight, I think the thief could've been better implemented by using a slightly different approach, and referring to the thief skills as class-specific "special abilities" rather than "skills."
Total agreement that the original thief could have been handled better. As you said the X in 6 mechanic is well established in the rules for exactly such situations. Off the top of my head the only other place I recall percentages are for determining monsters and treasure and the Constitution based survival tables.
Out of curiosity do we have any idea why the percentile skill system was used? It's rather fiddly and seems to clash with the rest of the game.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1127843The other way I can see it working is grafting a class system onto a skill system, instead of the usual other way around. That is, in such a system, skills are common, and everyone is a skill's character for the basics. Then they may or may not take one or more classes as bundles of special abilities. In such a system, "fighters" (or more likely something more specific) aren't necessarily more skilled at the basics of weapon. They hit about as accurately and hard as anyone else that has developed those skills. However, they've got some abilities that supplement weapon use so that they are more effective in a fight.
That's somewhat how Professions work in my system. They're ability packages that determine your starting abilities to speed up character creation and ensure each character is competent in at least some type of role or function. Beyond that you can build your character however you want. But professions may also provide additional bonuses to give you a certain edge, similar to the way races in D&D grant bonuses to your ability scores. Except profession bonuses may apply to skills or certain types of rolls.
Professions can also be setting-specific and I see them as a modular addition to the system, which may be beefed up depending on how important you want professions to be in the world. But the underlying mechanics of the system are basically skill-based, with professions and other Origins being a supplementary component to add flavor and facilitate character creation.
Quote from: Arkansan;1127908Out of curiosity do we have any idea why the percentile skill system was used? It's rather fiddly and seems to clash with the rest of the game.
It was an addition first made in a fanzine, and Gary noted "These rules have
not been tested and should be treated accordingly." That was in May of 1974. Presumably it received more play and testing by the time it made it into the Greyhawk supplement. So read into that what you will.
Some more info here: https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/gygaxs-thief-addition-1974.html
FWIW, I actually like %-based skill systems, in general (I find it easy to think in terms of percentages). However, for the thief abilities it seems like a strange fit with the rest of D&D. That said, my main issue with the way thief abilities were handled isn't so much about the use of percentage dice (after all, any dice ultimately produce some form of percentage), but with the way the thief subsystem seems so divorced from the rest of the system's design. I don't think it's *terrible*, but I think it could've been better integrated.
Broad or abstract skills in OSR games don't exist, this is because that type of skill falls under player skill. Ability checks cover niche situations where there should still be some chance of failure, so a roll is needed. I rarely use roll equal to under ability checks myself.
When OSR class skills are employed they apply in specific situations which relate to a specific circumstance in the game. Finding a trap anyone can do. Disarming it is something only the thief can do and only when the trap is located. If the thief succeeds, no one needs to worry about setting the trap off next time they walk past it.
The reason why specificity is important is not so the player knows how to use the skills, but instead the referee knows when a player needs to make the skill check. A referee doesn't have to wait for the thief to say "I attempt to disarm the trap." Instead, the referee says "Thief, do you try to disarm the trap?". Skills are coded into the game.This is important, because that thief player is still able to immerse themselves in the game without having to reference their skill list at all.
If you want to design a skill system in an OSR sci-fi setting, think first about the modes of play that will exist in the game. Thieves fall under the Exploration sub-system. Would an Engineer class be associated with some sort of sub-system that helps to provide knowledge by hacking cameras or computer systems? Does a Pilot class associate with the ability to fly/travel/control drones in a subsystem that centers around ship to ship combat or space travel?
If you are just going to make a massive skill list and let the players work out the best time to use them, that isn't OSR, not to me anyway. I'm not saying a large and broad skill list is a bad thing either. I love the d6 system.
Quote from: David Johansen;1127886Mechanoid Invasion Book III was such a good system.
It's still IS a great system! It's the raw core of the Palladium system, and so easy to modify.
My OSR skill system is very simple and D20 based. You get a D20+ skill bonus + ability score + miscellaneous against a difficulty level.
I like the system in Searchers of the Unknown. The combat system is 1d20 <= your level + your opponent's AC (descending), while the stunt system (sneaking, climbing, whatever) inverts that to 1d20 <= your level + your own AC. It looks a little different, but it is equivalent to the combat system in old school versions of D&D -- it just moves the terms around. But by switching to roll under, it allows the game to easily represent Conan wanting as much armor as possible when on the battlefield, but wearing nothing but a loincloth and oil when sneaking in to steal a gem from a sorcerer's tower. Doesn't have a defined skill list, it assumes the PCs are competent.
Quote from: Pat;1128193I like the system in Searchers of the Unknown. The combat system is 1d20 <= your level + your opponent's AC (descending), while the stunt system (sneaking, climbing, whatever) inverts that to 1d20 <= your level + your own AC. It looks a little different, but it is equivalent to the combat system in old school versions of D&D -- it just moves the terms around. But by switching to roll under, it allows the game to easily represent Conan wanting as much armor as possible when on the battlefield, but wearing nothing but a loincloth and oil when sneaking in to steal a gem from a sorcerer's tower. Doesn't have a defined skill list, it assumes the PCs are competent.
That's a cool idea. Would this work for Roll-over:
1. Ascending AC
2. Attack roll = d20 + Level >= 10 + defender's AC
3. Stunt roll = d20 + Level >= 10 - your AC
My B/X homage Dark Fantasy Basic (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide?src=newest_recent&coverSizeTestPhase2=true&word-variants=true) has about 10 skills...
Including combat, thievery, spell-casting, athletics (climb etc.), lore...
TBH I've been reconsidering the whole idea of skills in D&d... AND classes. Maybe some backgrounds and "there is always a chance) would be enough if everyone is an adventurer.
Like this:
Quote from: Pat;1128193I like the system in Searchers of the Unknown. The combat system is 1d20 <= your level + your opponent's AC (descending), while the stunt system (sneaking, climbing, whatever) inverts that to 1d20 <= your level + your own AC. It looks a little different, but it is equivalent to the combat system in old school versions of D&D -- it just moves the terms around. But by switching to roll under, it allows the game to easily represent Conan wanting as much armor as possible when on the battlefield, but wearing nothing but a loincloth and oil when sneaking in to steal a gem from a sorcerer's tower. Doesn't have a defined skill list, it assumes the PCs are competent.
Yeah, good point.
Quote from: arcanuum;1127836Jaeger, that is exactly how I think I will do skills for my Post Apocalyptic OSR Game. That reminds me that I should really get back to that project.
Thanks! And your welcome. To be honest I'm sure someone must have hit on this idea before, it is just merging two different systematic bits that are already in games. All PC's get a broad general "Skill" list and the ability to specialize without having to add more math.
No having to remember if you have a +1 or 2 in this or that - just grab the extra die.
To me it is a natural direction to take when you have advantage/disadvantage in a D&D game.
Playing 5e now, I feel that the ad/disad mechanic should have been implemented far more thoroughly through its core system than it is.