We've seen already that Skills are a difficult topic to when it comes to OSR.
On one hand, having skills system helps players mostly to judge chances and ensure a somehow consistent behavior across sessions.
On the other hand, a list is always somehow limited. Not having a skill in the default list might influence players in thinking that they cannot do something out of the list, while a very long list is impractical, confusing, and leads players to distribute skill points in skills which will rarely come up, thus frustrating them. Also, a low value in a default skill would discourage players to attempt anything which has a basic low chance of success.
The first article in the post of today contains a sample list of skills, which is well suited for your classic fantasy game, and presents a different approach to skills. The author calls them "Genius", but the interesting part is not the name per se, but its premise ("time, the most important resource of an adventurer") how it works (roll for success and time).
The system presented uses a classic d6 with also attribute modifiers, if the GM allows it - which makes for a decent chance of success. But its most important part is the roll for the unit of time: the skill check will determine how many units of time (rounds, turns, hours, days, etc...) it will take for the attempt.
Genius: Yet Another Approach to Skills in OSR Play
by E.T. Smith
[...] Skills are a thorny subject in the context of old school gaming. Learning to embrace the freedom that comes from forgoing codified action resolution is one of the major experiences of old school play, and yet it can't be denied that delineated skills show up early in role-playing's history. And it can't be ignored that most people, when role-playing, expect to have defined skills on their character sheets.
Skills are definitely utilitous, from a purely procedural perspective. They offer quick clear means to resolve events and to define the capacities of characters. Unfortunately they tend to take the narrative away from discussion and negotiation, turning it over to the dice instead. And they curtail player initiative by discouraging any action that doesn't have a clear numerical advantage behind it. [...]
Regardless of origin, the approach immediately appealed to me because it put the focus of resolution not on pass/fail, but on time, the most important resource of an adventurer, the passage of which is the danger intensifier of any adventure. It doesn't really matter if you can unlock the door, so much as if you can unlock it before being discovered by somebody with reason to stop you.
Genius, a System for Character Excellence
Every character has aptitude in a non-combat, non-magical field of expertise. All characters start with 1 point of Genius to define as they choose. [...]
Some potential types of Genius:
Wilderness Travel
Ancient Lore
Masonry & Construction
Religious Ceremony
Weaponcraft
Politics & Statecraft
Seamanship
Trade & Barter
Burglary
Taxonomy of Monsters
Forgery & Counterfeiting
Brewing & Cooking
Music, Dance & Theater
Alchemy [...]
http://trollbones.blogspot.com/2018/09/genius-yet-another-approach-to-skills.html[...] Skills are a thorny subject in the context of old school gaming. Learning to embrace the freedom that comes from forgoing codified action resolution is one of the major experiences of old school play, and yet it can't be denied that delineated skills show up early in role-playing's history. And it can't be ignored that most people, when role-playing, expect to have defined skills on their character sheets.
Skills are definitely utilitous, from a purely procedural perspective. They offer quick clear means to resolve events and to define the capacities of characters. Unfortunately they tend to take the narrative away from discussion and negotiation, turning it over to the dice instead. And they curtail player initiative by discouraging any action that doesn't have a clear numerical advantage behind it. [...]
Regardless of origin, the approach immediately appealed to me because it put the focus of resolution not on pass/fail, but on time, the most important resource of an adventurer, the passage of which is the danger intensifier of any adventure. It doesn't really matter if you can unlock the door, so much as if you can unlock it before being discovered by somebody with reason to stop you.
Genius, a System for Character Excellence
Every character has aptitude in a non-combat, non-magical field of expertise. All characters start with 1 point of Genius to define as they choose. [...]
Some potential types of Genius:
Wilderness Travel
Ancient Lore
Masonry & Construction
Religious Ceremony
Weaponcraft
Politics & Statecraft
Seamanship
Trade & Barter
Burglary
Taxonomy of Monsters
Forgery & Counterfeiting
Brewing & Cooking
Music, Dance & Theater
Alchemy [...]
Resolving Challenging Use of Genius
To check genius in a challenging situation, throw 1d6 twice. The first throw determines how many units of time the effort takes. This can be days, hours, turns or rounds depending on what makes sense for the situation (maybe even years!) but usually it’ll be turns.
The second throw determines positive or neutral results. Add the points of a character’s relevant Genius to the throw, and the relevant attribute modifier if the referee allows it. If the total is 6 or higher, the effort succeeds. Characters may subtract 1 from the initial time result for every point a successful throw exceeds 6. If after modification the time throw is zero or less, the effort requires only one unit of the next lower time increment (hours down to a turn, turns down to a round, and so on). [...]
This system provides a "slow" progression for characters (thieves, or Journeymen as called in the article, or specialists as in LotFP) will receive only one point every two levels, and other characters one point every four levels. Either you level-up very fast, or the system will still cause some trouble (most likely, not attempting to use skills with low scores).
I believe it could be inserted, just for the 1d6 for the calculation of the units of times it takes, in a game like LotFP with no particular effort.
As GM, I would also consider the option of spending units of time to increase the chance of success. The system offers a rule focused on levels of success: the better you succeed, the faster you are.
But what about a fail-forward mechanic which actually allows you to "buy" a +1, a +2, etc., by spending more time on the task at hand? Instead of keeping that door locked, grant your players a bonus but roll an additional encounter or two.
I believe it could be inserted, just for the 1d6 for the calculation of the units of times it takes, in a game like LotFP with no particular effort.
As GM, I would also consider the option of spending units of time to increase the chance of success. The system offers a rule focused on levels of success: the better you succeed, the faster you are.
But what about a fail-forward mechanic which actually allows you to "buy" a +1, a +2, etc., by spending more time on the task at hand? Instead of keeping that door locked, grant your players a bonus but roll an additional encounter or two.
The second link also provides a fresh approach to the issue of skills and what characters can do. Or, as the title says, what characters can't do.
The author recognizes all the issues that we mentioned for skills, and tries a different approach: assume that you are decently capable except for a few things that you are really bad at.
While I like the premise of the article, I am not so sure on how the author developed it (it looks to me too close to a list of character Traits, rather than a focused rule for Skills), but it is an interesting take nevertheless, and I am sure it can inspire you to come up with your own house-rules.
If indeed you do, I'd love to link them here.
The author recognizes all the issues that we mentioned for skills, and tries a different approach: assume that you are decently capable except for a few things that you are really bad at.
While I like the premise of the article, I am not so sure on how the author developed it (it looks to me too close to a list of character Traits, rather than a focused rule for Skills), but it is an interesting take nevertheless, and I am sure it can inspire you to come up with your own house-rules.
If indeed you do, I'd love to link them here.
You Are What You Can't
by ktrey parker
I've been musing a little bit about one of my main issues with Skill Lists that have been inserted into D&D and the various clones over the years. I understand that defining the chances of success at a given task was an important driving factor behind this, but I chafe under the limitations it tends to impose. If a Skill List is provided, players have a tendency to use it as a guide what their character is capable of and this is a little anti-ethical to a certain style of Old School Play. Conversely, extensive skill lists also do tend to inform play by reminding a player of options that might not be readily apparent. [...] I'm wrestling with a very different approach.
What if characters were actually defined or differentiated by what they were “bad at” or “incapable of doing” rather than what they are “good at” or “capable of doing.” In a way, flaws are essential for interesting choices and characters, but other than the occasional low ability score (increasingly rare in more modern systems with standard arrays, cracked and subverted bell curves, and point buys) limitations above something broad (“No Edged Weapons”) or vague (“I'm Lawful, I wouldn't do that”) are still conspicuously absent from most D&D games.
They may develop through play or be informed a little by Alignment choice, and the classics always crop up: “My Dwarf is Greedy,” “My Fighter cannot tell a lie” “My Thief is a Kleptomaniac” but there's nothing up front to encourage or direct players to behave in this fashion, other than this wonderful spontaneous development during play or occasionally a seed of an idea on the Player's part (informed by fiction or the prior imagining of something that “seems like it would be fun or interesting to try to play,”) or maybe even as a rationalization of low Ability Scores (I've messed with this a bit before with my previous post on Ability Score Tags).
So instead of a comprehensive skill list, or waiting for skills to develop through play and negotiation, what if part of character generation spelled out some of the character's flaws and deficiencies with a specific eye toward “You can't do this?” [...]
1 - I Always Cheat or Favor Short Cuts
2 - I Always Donate 10% Of My Wealth to The Church or Charity
3 - I Always Overestimate My Capabilities
4 - I Always Manage To Disappoint My Family and Friends
5 - I Am A Buzz-Kill
6 - I Am A Compulsive Gambler
7 - I Am A Coward
8 - I Am A Glutton
9 - I Am A Vegetarian
10 - I Am A Very Heavy Sleeper [...]
Entries like “I Can't Swim” are much more in tune with the original intention, this limits a Player's options very succinctly and concretely and could lead to interesting situations, back-story expansion, and tough choices. Binary characteristics like this have a more obvious impact, but naturally it's difficult to come up with a negation for every potential skill.
I can't shake the feeling that beginning play with a few examples of INCOMPETENCE or INEPTITUDE would immediately and directly inform play in a pretty different way. Instead of “I Can't Sneak Around because I'm Not A Thief” this option remains open or on the table (unless you choose or roll “I Cannot Be Stealthy, or am Very Noisy” of course). [...]
http://blog.d4caltrops.com/2015/02/you-are-what-you-cant.html
The last link provided in this post is very long, but definitely worth checking out.
It includes first a list of interesting guidelines (i.e. how do you decide if instead to just say yes and go on playing, or how do you decide if to roll dice as a resolution system), and a nice summary on the best attributes of a good skills system (and number 3 is indeed the most interesting part to read of the introduction to the post).
Consider, to summarize, things like this:
- Determine what basic characters can do without the need to roll (just say "yes")
- Determine what requires a description, or imagination, or planning, and what requires a dice roll
- Resolution mechanics (and dice rolls) should not replace skilled and creative play or GM judgement
- A list of skills is not the ideal solution, and a 1 in 6 chance is probably too low
- Skills are not necessarily just a function of the character level: they don't need to start very low or to improve with levels (levels are mostly just for combat/spells skills and related stuff); this changes the way Thieves work, but they are not one of the original classes...
OSR Skill System Fight Club
by Lloyd Neill
The first rule of OSR Skill System is there is no OSR Skill System…
One of the defining tenets of old school play (as much as there actually is such a thing as a unified “old school”, or defining tents of it) is player skill over character skill, specifically that description, role play, creativity, and problem solving should be looked to before game mechanics and character sheets when resolving in-game challenges. It's also often taken to mean rules-light, however it’s possible to have quite complex situational rules within an old-school game. I think a more helpful distinction is around the attitude a game takes to rules. The commonly used maxim rulings not rules, suggests that flexibility, judgement and at-the-table decision making should take precedence over codified rules, or at the least not be excluded by the existence of rules covering a situation. I find personally, (and for many other folks in the OSR if the amount of blog and G+ posts are any indication) that one of the murkiest areas of this in practice is around resolving non-combat situations and the use of “skills”. [...]
1) Does the task being attempted even warrant more than hand waving it and getting on with the game?
Consider:
Is the task actually difficult / complex / technical and are there significant consequences attached to failing at it?
Should someone with the character’s class, level, ability scores and background / shit they just made up to justify being able to do it, be able to just do it?
(It’s worth considering at the start of play what the baseline of PC competence in your game will be: what can anyone do?; what can members of a specific class do?)
What will be the impact on play of spending time resolving the task? (e.g. how long will it take, will it make the game more fun?)
As a GM what is stopping me from simply saying "yes" or "no"? ...and if "no" why not "yes"? [...]
2) If the task needs to be resolved in some way, should you be using dice? [...]
I like Ben Milton’s simple rubric for deciding when the dice should be used:
Whenever possible, players should overcome challenges by simply describing what their characters do. [Dice rolls] are only used to resolve risky situations that would be too time-consuming to describe, or involve immediate danger.
e.g. Disarming a trap doesn't involve immediate danger, so as long as it is fairly simple, you have to describe how you do it.
e.g. Picking a lock doesn't involve immediate danger, but describing the process would be tedious and hard to visualise, so you [roll].
e.g. Dodging dragon's breath is easy to describe, but it involves immediate danger, so a [roll] is required. [...]
3) If the final decision is that rollin’ dem bones is the best way to proceed, what’s the best approach? [...]
Ideally a “skill system” will provide guidance for the other two points above, not just a dice mechanic
Anyone should be able to attempt anything
For tasks that are "hard" there should be a distinction between whether the task is technical or difficult (i.e. is the limiting factor for a PC a lack of training or of talent - my personal preference is that a character with experience and training relevant to a technical task should be more likely to succeed than a novice with high ability scores).
The existence of a resolution mechanic shouldn't replace or override skilled and creative play or GM judgement (e.g. no use of "search" or "disarm" checks to circumvent description and problem solving
The situation at the table should determine the task/skill to be checked, not skills written on character sheets
No lists of skills (this is probably implicit in the last point, but anyways). Whilst I think there are some really well implemented systems based on skill lists (such as LotFP) the moment you start codifying discrete skills you open a door to the need for more (Rolemaster, I'm looking at you... *)
If you are going to rely on dice to resolve a situation, characters should have an average chance of succeeding at tasks. I'd much prefer a 50% base chance of success for an average task than the 1 in 6 for many activities in B/X (secret doors I'm looking at you: pixel bitching + 17% chance of success ≠ fun)
Ability in non-combat skills should not directly tie to character level. D&D levels represent combat power, and shouldn't necessarily increase capability in all things (a number of retroclones have basic skill systems tied to character level, either directly, or indirectly through saving throw and I'm not a fan of this approach)
Should be equally valid as a system for detailing a character before play or emergent during play
Advancement should be possible through a number of possible expenditures of resources - character level only being one of them [...]
The article provides an analysis of various skills systems, but I think its introduction is very useful if you want to design your own system.
Design notes:
- Skills provide a way for players to judge their chances of success, besides what's described by the GM and which is subject to interpretation
- Skills usually ensure a consistent behavior and consistent consequences across sessions and adventures
- A list of skills might influence players, both if too short (narrowing the scope of what they feel they can accomplish), and if too long (impractical and confusing)
- Low chances of success in a default skill, moreover, would discourage players from attempting those actions
- Time is a crucial factor in a lot of games: connect the skills system also to the units of time it takes to attempt an action
- Consider not only levels of success as a factor to reduce time, but also an additional effort which takes a a longer time as a way for players to get more bonuses
- Present perhaps not a list of skills, but a list of things your character is not good at (somehow related to Traits, perhaps?)
- Determine what basic characters can do without the need to roll (just say "yes")
- Determine what requires a description, or imagination, or planning, and what requires a dice roll
- Resolution mechanics (and dice rolls) should not replace skilled and creative play or GM judgement
- A list of skills is not the ideal solution, and a 1 in 6 chance is probably too low
- Skills are not necessarily just a function of the character level: they don't need to start very low or to improve with levels (levels are mostly just for combat/spells skills and related stuff); this changes the way Thieves work, but they are not one of the original classes...
Next time, we can try to put together a few ideas I had. The post will be called Everyone is a Thief.
No comments:
Post a Comment