Quote from: Orphan81;844415It makes me wonder, if perhaps using something along the lines of "Careers" such as in Barbarians of Lemuria would be a better "Skill" system for Level games.

Yup, seems the best approach to me. If you really want to differentiate characters further, have them make career rolls using whatever attribute is relevant to the task at hand. This makes your high Int low Cha rat catcher different from a high Cha low Int one.

Quote from: Kiero;844457About a third of that is biography.

Leaving aside that the skills list look a lot like (mostly combat relevant) feats, biography is less useful to me when GMing than personality. The most useful version I've seen of this was in some 3rd party (I think) cyberpunk adventures where NPCs had an inmode (what they were like underneath their public mask) and an outmode (their public mask). So you could have outmode: extraverted, inmode: fearful (and random tables for both). Personally I'd phrase them more like aspects, but either way I can get more roleplaying milage out of two words and the conflict between them than a three page backstory.

Quote from: apparition13;844473Leaving aside that the skills list look a lot like (mostly combat relevant) feats, biography is less useful to me when GMing than personality. The most useful version I've seen of this was in some 3rd party (I think) cyberpunk adventures where NPCs had an inmode (what they were like underneath their public mask) and an outmode (their public mask). So you could have outmode: extraverted, inmode: fearful (and random tables for both). Personally I'd phrase them more like aspects, but either way I can get more roleplaying milage out of two words and the conflict between them than a three page backstory.

Some of us can derive personality just fine from seeing the biography so far. I suspect Kiero likes that approach as well.
For the guy he described, the relevant phrases would be, I suspect, "guilt of the survivor" and "finding a new reason to live".

Quote from: apparition13;844473Leaving aside that the skills list look a lot like (mostly combat relevant) feats, biography is less useful to me when GMing than personality. The most useful version I've seen of this was in some 3rd party (I think) cyberpunk adventures where NPCs had an inmode (what they were like underneath their public mask) and an outmode (their public mask). So you could have outmode: extraverted, inmode: fearful (and random tables for both). Personally I'd phrase them more like aspects, but either way I can get more roleplaying milage out of two words and the conflict between them than a three page backstory.

That's because that character in particular was a Fighter, though Manual of Arms, for example means he's an experienced trainer of fighting men.

Here's another example, another henchman:

QuoteNikeratos of Kyrene - a half-Libyan philosopher with interests in a wide range of topics, he was a contemporary of Hegesias and Anniceris in the Cyrenaic School, and recently studied under Epicurius in Athens. He claims to hold no allegiance to any particular school of thought, finding both merits and flaws in all. He's one of the few men Septimus has ever met who is able to match wits with him.

Expert 2. Move 120’, AC -1, HD 2, hp 6, Att 11+, Saves: Fort 13+ Ref 14+ Will 13+, Init +0, Mor +4
Dmg: 1d3-1 (fist)
Str-1, Int+3, Wis+1, Dex-1.
Proficiencies: Healing II, Knowledge (architecture), Knowledge (astrology), Knowledge (mathematics) II, Knowledge (natural philosophy) II, Knowledge* (philosophy) II, Navigation, Theology (Priest of Apollo).
Languages: Aegyptian, Aramaic, Libyan, Koine Greek, Nubian.
Equipment: Clothing, scrolls, various implements and tools. Enc 1/4 stone.

That one is a total non-combatant (though he is quite literally one of the smartest men alive). Septimus is the Latin PC who has the most interesting retinue, I'd say. He has a couple of philosophers, a couple of assassins and a trio of Cilician pirates. His player immediately saw the value of henchmen and went for maximum Charisma and took a full complement.

Quote from: AsenRG;844539Some of us can derive personality just fine from seeing the biography so far. I suspect Kiero likes that approach as well.
For the guy he described, the relevant phrases would be, I suspect, "guilt of the survivor" and "finding a new reason to live".

Exactly. Give me a short bio and some broad skills, and I've got a working character I can play for ages.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;844459I would say that is more of a problem of the player invoking game mechanics instead of just describing what the character is doing. No matter what system of abilities are used, it is the DM who decides if a check is needed in the first place , and then what abilities come into play or are rolled.

I really can't stand super narrow skills because you get skill lists like:

Observation
Perception
Notice
Awareness
Spidey Sense
Notice Obvious
Perceive Specific
Listen
Listen Carefully
Hear
Hear Unusual


These skills are ranked on a 1-10 scale. You have 30 points to distribute between them.  This is fucking Rolemaster by the way or a semi-accurate parody. You can either suck in general or hope the GM calls for the ONE type of skill where you have points. Good luck.

It's fine for a player to invoke a game mechanic if it represents a concrete thing their PC is doing though. Players invoke spells and magic items directly.

It feels like an "I win" button if the skill is too abstract, like "I use Diplomacy on the Margrave".

But if the skill represents a concrete task, like Open Locks, then it's fine for the player to say they're using it (Unless you require your player to describe how they manipulate their thieves' tools before you call for the check. But no one does that. There is a peculiar degree of unspoken agreement between different groups on the appropriate level of abstraction for task resolution).

What's important is that the skill represents a concrete task, not how narrow it is as such. "Obsequious Inveiglement" is a narrower concept than "Diplomacy" but not really any closer to being an appropriate thing for a player to invoke. In fact that would make me more curious about what exactly the PC is doing than Diplomacy.

So to make "Perception" better, instead of dividing it into rods and cones-based vision or whatever you want something like "Read Lips". Skills that give the players more options in typical game situations. In play this functions more like a Ring of X-Ray Vision than a traditional descriptive skill. I guess some people would rather call this a "talent" than a skill.

I think there are a few good skills here for OSR D&D, but it's a pretty small design space. I recall Arcanum by Steven Michael Sechi had some cool skills like this but I didn't get around to adapting them. I run a pretty high magic game with the players often controlling multiple characters so I don't need any more fiddly bits. I'd look into it for a low magic game.

Since we're talking D&D, I'll say I tend to use the classes -- with their included skills! -- that are pretty well established in OD&D/AD&D. Others may be added as well.

A class gives some special advantages. Besides being interesting in its own right, the diversity of specialties puts a premium on teamwork, which tends to be a good thing for such a social game.

However, there's a sensibility at work in choosing what to play up like that. Who gives a fig about proficiency at blacksmithing or accounting? That's not the stuff of high adventure. We have hirelings for such mundane tasks.

Likewise, riding a horse or sailing a ship is interesting mainly in terms of where we're going and what we do when we get there.

When something's important enough to define a class (or race or whatever 'type'), that means it's not easy for others to do it as well (if at all).

For other things, the ref analyzes the situation at hand with the MK 1 Eyeball and comes up with a result. Why make the small stuff complicated?

I don't like mixing skills and D&D.

I haven't seen a way that makes me happy. At best, I use the 2 in 6 chance +1 or -1 Ability modifier in S&W.

Quote from: Orphan81;844202So what about you? How do you prefer their handled in level based games?

I dislike defined skill systems in D&D; I don't think such systems fit well with D&D's class/level design, especially when they're awkwardly grafted on to the existing system.  (I don't mind skill systems in skill-based RPGs that were designed to be skill-based systems, though.)

The only "skill system" I ever found worthwhile in D&D is the "secondary skill" approach from the 1e AD&D DMG.  And it's not really a skill system, it's more like "randomized background for your PC."

Quote from: Orphan81;844209Fair enough and a viewpoint I can see the appeal of... But how do you handle certain situations, like say... The Wizard wanting to sneak up on a group of enemies? Is it something he can do like the Thief? Is he just worse at it? Or is sneaking just a general Dex check for everyone with some modifiers depending on class and armor?

All PCs use a surprise check when sneaking up on enemies.  Special precautions, magic, class abilities, and the circumstances at hand can all modify the chance to surprise.

A Thief has the ability to move silently, and would receive a bonus on his surprise check (perhaps even negating the need for a surprise check, depending on the circumstances).  A wizard would not enjoy the same chance as a Thief who had succeeded at moving silently, although if the wizard was using some sort of magical silence, then their chances would be the same.

QuoteIs only the bard capable of recalling old lore and history, or is it a general Intelligence check for everyone?

It depends on the piece of lore and history that is under consideration.  Do any of the PCs have a class or background that might allow them such knowledge?  How obscure is the information?  Et cetera.  I would judge the situation and assign a chance of success, if applicable, then I'd make or call for a roll.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844265This.  Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack nestled between Ishtar's perfect tits, this.

This this this this this.

Alas, alack, weladay, and wooja wooja woo, I must lay the blame for this squarely at Gary's feet.  The introduction of the Thief in GREYHAWK vis-a-vis special abilities is possibly his least clear bit of writing.  Combine this with reorienting the game towards adolescent boys a few years later and you're doomed.

How freaking unclear is hiding in shadows,  moving silently,  climbing sheer surfaces?

Spotting and disarming traps was originally stipulated as concerning such small devices as poisoned needles in the locks of treasure chests -- like picking the locks themselves, and picking pockets, presumably (if perhaps anachronistically or even fantastically for the mechanisms) an art demanding more finesse than easier and messier brute force.

Least clear bit of writing? No way, not in the same league as the "whichever is applicable" initiative enigma in the DMG. The Monk surprise chance in the PHB has a simple meaning (which I hear eluded DM Prada in writing ADDICT), but it's stated in a roundabout way. The Chainmail figure vakues and HD progressions in Men & Magic are similar in the obscurity of the pattern, and may indeed be too unclear to reduce to single best-fit interpretation.

Quote from: Kiero;844557Exactly. Give me a short bio and some broad skills, and I've got a working character I can play for ages.

Sure you can. Some other people find it easier to use explicit notes on personality, though, as demonstrated in the thread:).

If you ever publish your setting, which I hope you do, just make sure to include both guidelines and bio in the example NPCs descriptions;).

Skills are great.

AD&D's implementaiton of skills was horrible. You have 3 concurrent skills systems. theives' skills, rangers' tracking and background professions. Thieves' skills have laughably low base chances, the background system is entirely DM fiat and can lead to either dickish DMs making traps for PCs who think their background makes them competent or by bolshi players trying to wheedle their "I used to be a barrel maker so of course I can make a ship" etc.
The ranger skill is the only one well thought out and detailed which is why it looks like a typical skill from another game.

If D&D had wanted to stay true to its vague and ill defined roots with all adventurers can do adventurer stuff (so the fact that Mouse is sneakier and a better pickpocket than Lord Crush Skull is because Mouse is a 3rd level fighting man and Lord Crush Skull is 12th level oh hold on...) then the thief abilities should have been read to read - a 1st level theif can add 1/2 their level as a bonus to any ability check to Open Locks, Pick Pockets etc ... the background skills should have been a +1 bonus to stuff that suits that background and the Ranger added 1/2 their level to tracking checks...(using that Perception Stat that D&D forgot to add to the game ).

Instead you get three mismatched skill systems - don't blame early days of the hobby either Traveller, Bunnies and Burrows and Runequest were all knocking about by the time the DMG was printed.

I love skills because they let me do this .
"As you enter the room you notice the table and chairs are all over the place there has obviously been a fight in here and the place was knocked up a bit and the window is smashed."

"You would guess from the wreckage that there were two men sitting round the fire. Two more men entered through the door and launched themselves forward. They were both carrying short bladed swords as you can make out the fresh marks where the blows hit the table and the back of one of the chairs. Then the two seated men took action. It looks like one of them let leash some sort of electrical strike as there are burns here and here and the handle of the outer door has been fused by extreme heat. One of the attackers fell and the other was struck with a mighty blow with a chair which shattered upon impact throwing the man out of the far window you sumise."


I think often it's easier if you have a threshold for a skill and if the PC supasses the threshold they succeed and the quality depends on the degree of excess.

Quote from: Phillip;844641How freaking unclear is hiding in shadows,  moving silently,  climbing sheer surfaces?

Based on forty years of stupid-ass interpretations, pretty unclear, apparently.

I forgot I' m in a place where I can say " lots of gamers apparently have really shitty reading comprehension" and get away with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844709Based on forty years of stupid-ass interpretations, pretty unclear, apparently.

I forgot I' m in a place where I can say " lots of gamers apparently have really shitty reading comprehension" and get away with it.

Admittedly while the skill TITLES may seem straightforward, the actual descriptions of those abilities is certainly not. If anything, the text in the PHB & DMG would actively discourage such a generous interpretation of thief abilities
(at least in 1e  - I don't recall much in the way of descriptive text in ODD for the thief).

Here's how I'm doing it these days:

https://shade-isle.obsidianportal.com/wikis/skills

(It's easier to just post a link that re-write an explanation that already gets my point across.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844392...you DO know who you're talking to, right?

A dork who changed his screen name!

I read a couple posts wondering who this Gronuts of Dorkmerya was and then then reread your sig!

When is your book coming out?

How is it progressing?

Have you planned a Kickstarter for it?

Quote from: Eric Diaz;844406Let me try something more specific: two charachters are in a horse race for some reason (or some other kind of race or conflict, but not a fight). One is a 3rd level Fighter with STR 15 and DEX 16, and the other a 10th level Fighter with STR 12 and DEX 8. Who wins, and how?

Here's what I would do in my OD&D/S&W game.
1) Does either Fighter have any background in horseriding?
2) Does either Fighter have any knowledge of the terrain?
3) Is there any notable difference in their horses?
4) Is there any notable differences in their encumbrance?

I'd build out some modifiers based on those questions. Then I would have the player character Fighter make saving throws.

If two PC fighters were racing, then the greater level of success would be the winner.

I would also not make it one roll. I'd probably make the race 3 laps or 3 areas, aka long hard run, obstacles, tight curves. Then depending on the terrain, I would consider if we would be looking at STR, DEX or WIS saving throws where the appropriate ability score would affect the situation.

Also, by making it 3 sections, pulling ahead in one section gives you bonuses for the next, etc.