JeffB
Legend
DOH! You are correct, I made an erroneous conclusion about the erroneous conclusions about the old rules
I'm confusing OD&D with AD&D- OD&D is the "sheer surface" ability
How does a game work without skills?
- Thread starter Silvercat Moonpaw
- Start date
DOH! You are correct, I made an erroneous conclusion about the erroneous conclusions about the old rules
I'm confusing OD&D with AD&D- OD&D is the "sheer surface" ability
Fifth Element
Legend
I believe you may be right there. I don't have time to dig out my OD&D.DOH! You are correct, I made an erroneous conclusion about the erroneous conclusions about the old rules
I'm confusing OD&D with AD&D- OD&D is the "sheer surface" ability
Ad-hoc DM judgment, taking into account the circumstances of the specific situation, the class/level, stats, and background of the character, and perhaps a die-roll of some kind as a randomizer (if the former two aren't sufficient to make the result obvious) and/or player-level negotiation, observation, questioning, and decision-making. To take your two specific examples:
Sensing the bluff of an NPC -- the DM acts out the NPC's part in-character; the player observes (and asks questions: "does this guy seem nervous or fidgety?" "what are the other people around him doing?" etc.) and decides whether or not he believes what the NPC is saying. The DM takes into account the background and personality of the character being bluffed -- a quick-witted city-dweller is probably harder to bluff than a callow barbarian youth -- and factors that in both in the way he portrays the NPC (more exaggeratedly if he thinks the character would notice more, more neutrally if he thinks he wouldn't) and in the answers he gives to any questions the player might ask ("yeah, he's blinking a lot, fidgeting with the ring on his finger, and there's a bead of sweat running down his left temple" vs. "you don't notice anything particular"). The DM might even ask the player to make some kind of die roll before deciding how much info to give the player -- better roll (which could be either lower or higher, the player shouldn't necessarily be told) gives more info/hints.
Sneaking -- the DM considers some/all of the following: what is the light like (are there lots of shadows)?, how observant or attentive is the person/monster the character is trying to sneak past?, how well would this character be able to sneak (is he wearing metal armor or carrying lots of noisy gear (like a bag of loose coins), is he wearing heavy boots or bright-colored clothing, is he an elf, hobbit, or "roguish type" (i.e. giving his character a background and personality of that type))? are there other factors that might make sneaking more or less difficult than usual (leaves and twigs on the ground, something that might distract the observer, etc.)? and either makes a fiat yes/no decision or calls for a die roll. A d6 roll, giving the character 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 chances in 6 to succeed , as the DM feels is appropriate, is simple and usually sufficient though in some circumstances the DM might want more detail or granularity and call instead for another type of die roll (d20 or d% most commonly) or might even decide that an opposed roll is appropriate -- the player rolls 1 die for his character's sneakiness, the DM rolls another (possibly the same type, possibly different) for the guard's watchfulness, and the results are compared to see which side won. Note that in the rules the basic chance for surprise for characters who aren't making noise or carrying a light source is 2 in 6, so that's a very good rule-of-thumb to use for such a situation (since sneaking past someone is pretty much the same thing as taking them by surprise, even if the intent is different). The player can perhaps (at the DM's discretion) improve his chances by describing his actions in more detail (not "I sneak past the guard," but rather "I carefully remove my boots, make sure I don't have anything loose on me that's going to jingle or make other noises, look at my path to make sure there are no loose twigs or other obstacles in it, watch the guard from my position crouched down behind the stump, and as soon as I see him yawn or look in the other direction or otherwise be distracted or not paying attention I quickly scurry over to hide behind that next big tree" (DM thinks, "OK we'll give another +1 on the die-roll for all that").
The operative principle, as very well explained by Matt Finch in his Quick Primer for Old School Gaming (go ahead and download it -- it's a good read, it's short, and it's free), is "rulings, not rules." The DM is considering the situation (with input from the player) and making a decision that feels appropriate, not following a specific pre-defined procedure. It takes more mental effort and engagement, and probably takes a little longer to resolve (though more experienced DMs can shuffle through all these considerations and come up with a ruling very quickly), but the result is a more organic, more immersive, feel that a lot of us really like.
Hope this helps
Sensing the bluff of an NPC -- the DM acts out the NPC's part in-character; the player observes (and asks questions: "does this guy seem nervous or fidgety?" "what are the other people around him doing?" etc.) and decides whether or not he believes what the NPC is saying. The DM takes into account the background and personality of the character being bluffed -- a quick-witted city-dweller is probably harder to bluff than a callow barbarian youth -- and factors that in both in the way he portrays the NPC (more exaggeratedly if he thinks the character would notice more, more neutrally if he thinks he wouldn't) and in the answers he gives to any questions the player might ask ("yeah, he's blinking a lot, fidgeting with the ring on his finger, and there's a bead of sweat running down his left temple" vs. "you don't notice anything particular"). The DM might even ask the player to make some kind of die roll before deciding how much info to give the player -- better roll (which could be either lower or higher, the player shouldn't necessarily be told) gives more info/hints.
Sneaking -- the DM considers some/all of the following: what is the light like (are there lots of shadows)?, how observant or attentive is the person/monster the character is trying to sneak past?, how well would this character be able to sneak (is he wearing metal armor or carrying lots of noisy gear (like a bag of loose coins), is he wearing heavy boots or bright-colored clothing, is he an elf, hobbit, or "roguish type" (i.e. giving his character a background and personality of that type))? are there other factors that might make sneaking more or less difficult than usual (leaves and twigs on the ground, something that might distract the observer, etc.)? and either makes a fiat yes/no decision or calls for a die roll. A d6 roll, giving the character 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 chances in 6 to succeed , as the DM feels is appropriate, is simple and usually sufficient though in some circumstances the DM might want more detail or granularity and call instead for another type of die roll (d20 or d% most commonly) or might even decide that an opposed roll is appropriate -- the player rolls 1 die for his character's sneakiness, the DM rolls another (possibly the same type, possibly different) for the guard's watchfulness, and the results are compared to see which side won. Note that in the rules the basic chance for surprise for characters who aren't making noise or carrying a light source is 2 in 6, so that's a very good rule-of-thumb to use for such a situation (since sneaking past someone is pretty much the same thing as taking them by surprise, even if the intent is different). The player can perhaps (at the DM's discretion) improve his chances by describing his actions in more detail (not "I sneak past the guard," but rather "I carefully remove my boots, make sure I don't have anything loose on me that's going to jingle or make other noises, look at my path to make sure there are no loose twigs or other obstacles in it, watch the guard from my position crouched down behind the stump, and as soon as I see him yawn or look in the other direction or otherwise be distracted or not paying attention I quickly scurry over to hide behind that next big tree" (DM thinks, "OK we'll give another +1 on the die-roll for all that").
The operative principle, as very well explained by Matt Finch in his Quick Primer for Old School Gaming (go ahead and download it -- it's a good read, it's short, and it's free), is "rulings, not rules." The DM is considering the situation (with input from the player) and making a decision that feels appropriate, not following a specific pre-defined procedure. It takes more mental effort and engagement, and probably takes a little longer to resolve (though more experienced DMs can shuffle through all these considerations and come up with a ruling very quickly), but the result is a more organic, more immersive, feel that a lot of us really like.
Hope this helps
Surprise rolls and initiative ususally cover stuff like spot and listen. It's not necessary for each individual PC to have a specific number associated with these checks in order for the game to function; although even 1e varied surprise rolls based on race and class. The mechanics just weren't "skills" in the sense you seem to be using the term.
Well, there are definitely skills for moving silently and hiding in shadows in 1e, for certain classes at least. For everyone else those types of things were subsumed into the surprise and initiative mechanics.
For movement where failure had consequences (like balancing on a ledge) Saving Throws were used quite a bit IME. For other things you list, like Forgery or Disguise, the DM was given an entire book (the DMG) that was supposed to help him resolve situations not specifically covered by the rules. IME, DM fiat was used quite a bit (i.e. the DM just says "you succeed" if it's reasonable for you to succeed). Other times, percentages were arbitrarily assigned and rolled for.
So in some sense, 1e did have a plethora of skill mechanics, they just weren't called skills and some of them weren't hard-wired into the rules.
Jack Daniel
Legend
Heck, I just invented and added a skill system to by BECMI game. Fixed everything right up.
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
Contrary to things you often hear, there are rules for handling stealth and perception (and *not* just the Thief abilities). For example, the surprise checks and listen checks (which can be performed by anyone). The rules are not as granular as most skill systems, obviously. Some examples of how this works:
Situation: PCs need to sneak up on a guard in some gardens outside a tower.
A Fighter might say "okay, I remove my mail and hard boots, stripping down to my tunic and going barefoot. I also blacken my skin with soot. I'm going to sneak into the bushes near him, and try to grab and knife him when I have the opportunity." The DM considers, this, and decides that the Fighter's preparations and plan are good. The standard chance for surprise is 2:6, but the DM might decide the Fighter should get a 3:6 or 4:6 chance.
A Thief might say "I move silently into position and attempt to backstab the guard, clamping my hand over his mouth as I do so. I blacken my exposed skin with soot, first, as well." The DM calls for a move silently roll. If it succeeds, the Thief moves without making a sound the guard can hear. In this case, since the Thief is out of the guard's line-of-sight, and is completely silent, the DM might decide to grant auto-surprise, or maybe a 5:6 chance, if the guard is fairly alert and looks around, periodically. If the move silent rolls fails, this does not mean the Thief is automatically heard. Instead, it means he's moving quietly, but without perfect stealth. In other words, he's much like Fighter in the initial example, and would have the same chance to surprise as that Fighter.
A lone Ranger in this situation has a class-related 1:6 bonus to surprise. He'd be like the Fighter, but 1:6 better.
Et cetera.
For other actions, I make a ruling based on the situation. I handle the things PC's want to try with a ruling of one sort or another. Yes/no is nice and straightforward. If there's some question, then I'm likely to assign a flat percentage chance based on the PC and the situation. I don't run a formula, I just gauge the situation and assign a percentage. Note that this isn't much different from using a DC; it's just faster. For example, when I used target numbers and a skill system, I'd often find myself "backing into" the right DC. That is, I'd think of a rough percentage chance, first, and then figure out what DC would fit. I've just cut out the extra steps; it's fast and natural for me to think in percentages, and I can evaluate complex situations with lots of variables more efficiently -- it would take lots of complicated rules and modifiers and special cases to match what a human can judge pretty quickly. I use the class concept and the PC's stats and background as a guideline for what that PC would be good at, rather than a list of skills and skill ranks/points/etc.
Saving throws are another good way to handle many things. Lastly, if I want an attribute check, I'm likely to use an Xd6 approach. That is, roll 3d6 equal to or below your stat. Harder tasks might be 4d6 or 5d6, et cetera. But I don't often call for an attribute check.
I accept a healthy amount of player skill overshadowing mental stats; it's just a part of the game that I embrace. To a certain degree, the PC is an avatar of the player, rather than a separately defined entity. However, I don't completely overlook the mental stats. For example, in OD&D, Wis has almost no mechanical game effect, but my wife has an Elf PC with Wis as her highest stat. Consequently, during play I tend to offer common sense advice and such to that PC. Similarly, if a given player is very smart, but playing a dumb PC, any good ideas that the player might suggest get channeled to a smarter PC. Thus, if NASA engineer Todd comes up with a great concept while playing Thrud the Dim, the idea can still come into play, but in the game, it comes from Dim's companion, Lemmundo, Sage of the Alabaster Tower.
The "rules for everything" approach does make for a more defined set of expectations...sort of. A DM can still modify things, or set the DC to suit his fancy, et cetera. Also, I think that sometimes the skill/DC approach is too granular for many situations. If you get out of the habit of thinking in DC/skill terms, the same game situations are often pretty simple and intuitive. I think that players get used to it, too, and start thinking more in terms of the character and the situation, rather than the numbers. The DM can still give the player an idea of his chances:
Thrud: "Does it look like I could make the leap and grab that rope?"
DM: "It's iffy, in your armor and gear -- maybe 50/50. If you took that off and had a running start, you're pretty sure you could make it..."
Lemmundo the Sage: How about me?
DM: Just looking at the distance makes you feel slightly ill. You don't think you could make it.
Thrud: "Can I disarm this guy, instead of killing him?"
DM: "He looks like a farm-boy in his grandpa's militia gear from the antediluvian wars, and holds that spear like it's a hoe. Make a successful attack -- it won't do damage, but his weapon will be gone."
Thrud: "I want to disarm this guy, too."
DM: "Okay, but he appears much more competent than that militia-boy. This one has the stance and look of an experienced swordsman. You don't think he'll lose his grip quite as easily."
Thrud: "What do I need to do?"
DM: "Roll really well, and we'll see how it goes..." [Player doesn't really know, in this situation...I'd probably assign a percentage based on the relative Fighter levels, but might adjust or trump it for a natural 20 or a high damage roll.]
Thrud: "Can I swing on a chandelier and kick him with both feet? I want to it to knock him down."
DM: "Do you want to damage him, too?"
Thrud: Yeah. Both.
DM: "Okay, the move isn't too tough for a physical fellow like Thrud. Let's treat it as a charge attack. If you hit, the half-orc will need to make a roll to keep standing."
Lemmundo the Sage: "Hey, I want to try that, too!"
DM: "Whoa, feeling athletic, old man? You can try it, but you're not very comfortable with stuff like that. Even if you hit, I'll call for a roll to see if you end up flubbing the maneuver. You're likely to fall off, or let go too late, or stumble on the dismount..."
Lemmundo: "Nah, never mind...I'll cast charm person on the bouncer, instead..."
Thrud: "Can I throw a rock and shatter that flask in his hands?"
DM: "If you make an attack against AC2."
Et cetera.
I think that playing the older systems works best when they're approached with the idea that they're a different game from the later editions (i.e. play them for what they are, and don't try to make them into something they're not).
Detailed rules on areas of expertise outside your class is one of those things that you lose in the trade-off. The way I handle those things is through character background, much like AD&D's "secondary skills." That is, if a certain Fighting Man has a decent Int, and wants to study Ancient History, or Botany, or whatever, he just needs to note it and pursue it as an interest. I'll incorporate that into any situations and rulings, as appropriate. I'm generous with this kind of thing, as long as players don't try to abuse it. Also, I tend to make backgrounds or "secondary skills" very broad, so they cover a lot of territory. You can say "I used to be a bosun's mate," and it's safe to assume that your PC knows a lot about operating a ship, climbing rigging and using ropes, knowledge of local ports and waters, et cetera.
In my experience, these kinds of "outside my normal area of expertise" things truly are secondary, most of the time (if they're not, you're looking more at a multi or dual class, or maybe a custom class). They don't come up *that* often, and when they do, they're usually not critical elements. Is it really worth the additional granularity and detail of a system of skill points and such for the Fighter to have a layman's knowledge of alchemy, for example (especially given the presence of specialist alchemists and magic users)? Usually, I think the answer is no; it's enough to know that the Fighter has that layman's knowledge. Exact numbers and details don't add anything significant. That's just me, of course -- YMMV.
(You might check out Mythmere's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.)
Last edited:
This I'll jump in and say that it's basically handled by the "surprise" check (start of combat: 1d6 each side, surprised on 1-2). Some classes modify that chance of surprise. If you're moving silently (thief) or magically silent/invisible, you should get +1 chance to suprise for each condition (implied in back of PHB).
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Ah, okay, I get it. I'd have to say I'd never be able to use it: there's only so far I can work out imaginary actions without rules unless the whole thing's freeform.
hellbender
First Post
I actually (and quite respectfully) disagree with this. GM fiat has worked with me for quite some time, from b/x to S&W and really, the skills from 3.x on don't improve the game that much and my players spend little time in dungeon combat and a lot more time roleplaying. Skills are usually problematic and not needed for a fast paced game.
Maybe I have just been lucky enough to be (usually) around players who enjoy telling a story together over needing a skill for everything. The house of cards at my gaming table has endured a lot of storms and is still standing.
Darrin Drader
Explorer
Ability checks aren't DM fiat; at least not in most cases, and not any more than the skill system is. Take for example needing to balance on a lot suspended by chains, over lava and you must get to the other side to achieve the ultimate goal. Now, any smart PC is going to rig up a rope system to keep the sudden death scenario from occurring, but aside from that, how do you achieve the outcome?
3.5 - Make a balance check with the DC set to the width of the log and then modified by a number the DM assigns.
1st & 2nd edition - Make a Dex check. Try to roll under your Dex. The DM may assign a modifier that makes the check easier or harder.
In both cases, the DM (or just as often as not, the adventure designer) is the final arbiter of how difficult something will be. In both cases, there is a solid mechanic upon which to allow a character to attempt an action. The only real difference is that one system acknowleges that a character might be more accomplished in specilized sorts of activities than the other, which prefers a more broad interpretation. It's usually fairly easy to determine which ability score to use, so it isn't as though there is no basis upon which to decide what sort of check to make.
3.5 - Skill check vs. DC.
1st and 2nd edition - Ability check against ability score.
Another point to consider is that it's actually much less time consuming to reference an ability score when deciding how to adjudicate a non-combat action than it is to find the appropriate skill, then reference the rules for that specific skill to set the suggested DC, and then modify it based on specific conditions. The first is more intuitive while the second is more precise, but in my experience, both lead to similar results most of the time.
3.5 - Make a balance check with the DC set to the width of the log and then modified by a number the DM assigns.
1st & 2nd edition - Make a Dex check. Try to roll under your Dex. The DM may assign a modifier that makes the check easier or harder.
In both cases, the DM (or just as often as not, the adventure designer) is the final arbiter of how difficult something will be. In both cases, there is a solid mechanic upon which to allow a character to attempt an action. The only real difference is that one system acknowleges that a character might be more accomplished in specilized sorts of activities than the other, which prefers a more broad interpretation. It's usually fairly easy to determine which ability score to use, so it isn't as though there is no basis upon which to decide what sort of check to make.
3.5 - Skill check vs. DC.
1st and 2nd edition - Ability check against ability score.
Another point to consider is that it's actually much less time consuming to reference an ability score when deciding how to adjudicate a non-combat action than it is to find the appropriate skill, then reference the rules for that specific skill to set the suggested DC, and then modify it based on specific conditions. The first is more intuitive while the second is more precise, but in my experience, both lead to similar results most of the time.
Similar Threads
