Castles & Crusades and Shadowdark both manage to have "skills" without skill lists. C&C basically gives characters the skills they'd reasonably have based on their classes, while Shadowdark also adds in what they'd reasonably have based on their backgrounds.Skill list or not?
Descending AC is silly. A unified resolution system is a lot more intuitive and speeds up play.As this list goes on it seems like OD&D got it right the first time
Fantastic Medieval Campaigns by Traverse Fantasy
A new version of the original role-playing gametraversefantasy.itch.io
Ok, agree on descending AC. However, while it's true that unified resolution is more intuitive, it also constrains game design in a number of ways, especially when that resolution is always tied to the same stats (as in wotc-era dnd). fwiw, I like the way the Dolmenwood system cleans up b/x in this regard, as it makes everything into a d20 roll (attack, saves) or a d6 rolls (skills, ability checks), and in every case higher is better.Descending AC is silly. A unified resolution system is a lot more intuitive and speeds up play.
Moderation in all things is wise. After recently playing 2E with my family, while I have no issue with THAC0 and descending AC, I wouldn't put it in a game anymore. I would like to see D20 rolled against the ability score, not the modifier, though. Not doing it as a "roll under your score" would be an interesting challenge of doing it in a way that bonuses to the roll aren't negative numbers (maybe 1d20 + ability score vs. DC default 20?).Ok, agree on descending AC. However, while it's true that unified resolution is more intuitive, it also constrains game design in a number of ways, especially when that resolution is always tied to the same stats (as in wotc-era dnd). fwiw, I like the way the Dolmenwood system cleans up b/x in this regard, as it makes everything into a d20 roll (attack, saves) or a d6 rolls (skills, ability checks), and in every case higher is better.
Someone should tell the author they only have three chapters and two appendices despite the description listing four chapters.As this list goes on it seems like OD&D got it right the first time
Fantastic Medieval Campaigns by Traverse Fantasy
A new version of the original role-playing gametraversefantasy.itch.io
Exactly. Not everything fits the d20+stat+skill vs DC model. And not everything needs to be forced into that model. Sometimes a % chance makes more sense, other times a X-in-6 or X-in-8, etc makes more sense. Design mechanics that make sense for what they’re supposed to represent, don’t shoehorn everything into a single mechanic.Ok, agree on descending AC. However, while it's true that unified resolution is more intuitive, it also constrains game design in a number of ways, especially when that resolution is always tied to the same stats (as in wotc-era dnd). fwiw, I like the way the Dolmenwood system cleans up b/x in this regard, as it makes everything into a d20 roll (attack, saves) or a d6 rolls (skills, ability checks), and in every case higher is better.
Same as advantage-disadvantage isn't the answer every single time a bonus or penalty on a roll is required.Exactly. Not everything fits the d20+stat+skill vs DC model. And not everything needs to be forced into that model. Sometimes a % chance makes more sense, other times a X-in-6 or X-in-8, etc makes more sense. Design mechanics that make sense for what they’re supposed to represent, don’t shoehorn everything into a single mechanic.
Meh. I’d rather have a bit of randomness added than fixed bonuses. Something like +1d4 or +1d6 would work better, I think. But anything is infinitely preferable to having to hunt down and argue over an endless string of +1s and -1s. D&D has always been crap at simulating physics. Gygax knew that and said so many times. So trying to come up with any kind of representative list of circumstances and their relevant modifiers is a fool’s errand.Same as advantage-disadvantage isn't the answer every single time a bonus or penalty on a roll is required.