How does a game work without skills?

[Aus_Snow]

Somethings been bugging me recently about what people say about editions like 1e: If you don't have skills how do you adjudicate non-combat situations? In particular I don't understand how things such as sensing (Sense Motive, Spot, Listen), any sort of movement that has a consequence for failure (basically any Str or Dex skill), and being sneaky (Disguise, Forgery, Move Silently, Hide) work.

Ability checks are a common way, as others have said. For example, in Dragon Warriors (an old [paperback-novel-format x 6] RPG 'in competition with' D&D at the time, haha, but with British folklore and other intriguing source material informing the default setting, often in quite effective ways) all things not explicitly covered by the simple rules for combat, magic, or a couple of other things, could be decided as GM thought best, handled via a roll-under (as per the entire core system) ability check, or percentage chance. Rather like the classic [non-A]D&D of that period. This continued to be the case until Book 4, Out of the Shadows, which introduced rules for Stealth and Perception, thereby rendering other checks of these kinds unnecessary.

Anyway, evidently the authors saw a need for the senses, and defeating those senses, to be hardwired into the system, in a way other than random arbitrary surprise chances (on a d6) or the like.

Interesting that there were still some scenarios that the 3e designers saw fit to relegate to ability check status, or to keep there, whichever.

 

[RFisher]

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.

Personally, I like to talk through rulings I’m less confident on with the group.

I was skeptical about fully freeform, but I’ve been surprised at how well it actually works in practice.

These days, I tend to see freeform as the ideal and the fact that I still cling to rules systems as a personal fault.

Why do you use rules for combat then? (Or are those really simple in 1e too?)

It’s arbitrary. (Well, it may not be, but I don’t care to argue that.) Some things get rules. Some things are left to rulings. It’s done to taste.

I started playing with Moldvay. No ability checks.

Actually, it essentially does suggest ability checks as an option. See p. B60.

 

[RFisher]

Something I observed. Over my years of RPGing, it seemed that PCs tended to fail at things more and more often. It felt like my PCs were becoming less and less competent. Then I started to notice the number of times when GMing that I’d call for a roll and—once it failed—realized that I probably shouldn’t have called for a roll at all.

Over years, my friends and I more and more turned to the dice when we should’ve probably just let something succeed without a roll.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Something I observed. Over my years of RPGing, it seemed that PCs tended to fail at things more and more often. It felt like my PCs were becoming less and less competent. Then I started to notice the number of times when GMing that I’d call for a roll and—once it failed—realized that I probably shouldn’t have called for a roll at all.

Over years, my friends and I more and more turned to the dice when we should’ve probably just let something succeed without a roll.

Ah, how Take 10 (& Take 20) = greater peace of mind.

 

[catenwolde]

The overall attitude always seemed (at least to me) to be based on a reasonable interpretation of what the character could do, with a little luck thrown in when appropriate. The "reasonable interpretation" bit is based on the player and GM interacting with each other to establish what the character knows, including class descriptions and character background. Note that the luck element isn't always needed - sometimes GM and player interaction is all that is needed.

With the right group you don't even need a system, but it can help, especially with players used to having things spelled out for them. Over the years, I've put together the following (very simple) system and used it to good effect in one form or the other:

1. The character is competent in all skills relating to his class. He should be able to assume he can do basic tasks without any element of luck or further training involved, like a Fighter taking care of his weapons and even repairing minor damage to armor. Obviously, this is based to a certain extent on how the class operates within your own campaign world - a classic Medieval Fighter would have basic knowledge of siege combat, while a Viking Fighter wouldn't ,etc.

2. The character is also competent in skills relating to his general background, before he started adventuring. This is covered in the usual brief character background sketch, such as "He grew up in the hills herding cattle and hunting." A character with that background would be reasonably proficient in climbing, basic foraging and survival, animal handling, and even tracking. This is one way to create "Ranger" or even "Knight" types without even having those classes.

3. I allow the players to throw in three "background story" elements any time during play, which essentially give them extra skills that the party didn't know about. For instance, the party needs to cross a flooded stream in flimsy boats ... one of the characters can use of his three "surprises" to tell the party that he spent his summers fishing with his uncles on the rocky coasts, and knows how to handle small craft in difficult weather. This allows the characters' stories to grow in a meaningful way, and since they only have three for their whole career it doesn't go too overboard.

(BTW, using the above three elements, you can easily create different "Basic Fighters" or "Basic Clerics" or whatever that look and play very differently, which I think was the whole idea behind leaving things relatively undefined.)

4. Where there needs to be an element of luck, or a marginal element of success, use the "roll under the appropriate attribute" system with a few adjustments depending on the situation. I will have the players roll multiple d6, depending on the difficulty of the task. Easy task? 2d6, and so on. There can be things like 6d6 or 10d6 checks, but the kicker is that in some cases you can add either your class level or half your class level to the roll, depending on how closely connected the task is to the character's training and experience. It's a pretty loose system, but it gives the players a framework to understand task difficulty in relation to their character, and gives me as DM plenty of room to wiggle and adjust chances of success depending on the situation.

 

[darjr]

Moldvay Basic explicitly describes d20 roll-under-attribute checks as an optional rule.

It sure does. I stand corrected. Even goes so far as saying a 1 should always succeed and a 20 should always fail. All these years...

Edit: just to add, in my defense, it is in the back as an option, and the preceding paragraphs seem to be the suggested method of handling things. Anyway thanks, I love that feeling of discovery.

 

[Korgoth]

The overall attitude always seemed (at least to me) to be based on a reasonable interpretation of what the character could do, with a little luck thrown in when appropriate. The "reasonable interpretation" bit is based on the player and GM interacting with each other to establish what the character knows, including class descriptions and character background. Note that the luck element isn't always needed - sometimes GM and player interaction is all that is needed.

Very true.

My preferred approach to the matter of skills is just to go with what is reasonable to the character. If a character is known to be keen-eyed, or is an Elf, then he spots whatever is to be spotted first. We don't have to roll to spot something unless it's an ambush... and that's already covered in the Surprise roll. A clever ambush might offer a 1 point advantage in surprising or being surprised, or even both if it is particularly good.

Likewise, a surprise roll can handle stealth if it needs to be rolled for. A Fighting Man wants to sneak through the main room of a temple while the cultists are all chanting and looking in the other direction. The Fighting Man cannot be surprised; if he "surprises" the cultists then he moves through successfully. He might gain one or more points on the die as a circumstantial bonus (bonus if he's unarmored/unencumbered, bonus if the cultists are really absorbed in what they're doing, bonus if it's shadowy, etc.). If he just tries to waltz through in armor, though, he's taking his life into his own hands (but it may work).

I prefer "descriptive searching" to the alternate method of skill rolling that was introduced in Supplement I: Greyhawk. Here's how it worked the other night in my Empire of the Petal Throne (1975) game:

Scene: The PCs have entered a tomb chamber with a sarcophagus. They pried it open and surprised a Vorodla (winged undead warrior) inside. After a short fight they slew it. The sarcophagus appears empty.

Player: "I search the sarcophagus."
DM: "How closely?"
Player: "I want to feel the bottom, make sure it's the right height and so on."
DM: "Do you want to actually climb into the sarcophagus? It's pretty big."
Player: [pauses] "I climb inside it and search."
DM: "You find a small stone knob or button in the bottom."

My adjudication was that in the flickering torchlight, the button could not be seen from standing outside the sarcophagus (it was too well hidden and the lighting too flickery). However, someone up close on the inside would find it.

So this was a decision point in the game: does Player risk his character by entering a possibly deadly sarcophagus? He saw no evidence that it would be deadly (no eldritch apparatus or pool of slime or anything like that... just dry stone) so he decided it was worth the risk. In some cases there would have been nothing to find. But they knew they had not found a treasure cache in this entire tomb sub-complex and so Player figured on a payoff. And he was correct... although treasure room behind the secret door was very dangerous itself!

Further, characters can be understood to have reasonable areas of knowledge and mundane expertise. A character in my EPT game was a boat builder. When trying to sell a boat the party had, I just let him know what a good price was. He didn't have to roll or guess... he is trained in that, so he knows it. Another character is an alchemist and dye-maker who knows rocks and plants. In a partially-collapsed room he tried to evaluate whether the ceiling was dangerous. "You're not an engineer" I told him.

It can all be handled with common sense and a minimum of die rolling. I game to reveal hidden places in the gameworld and to let my players display their ingenuity and cleverness. I could care less if someone is able to roll high.

I think rolls should be used sparingly, and only at moments of high drama.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Scene: The PCs have entered a tomb chamber with a sarcophagus. They pried it open and surprised a Vorodla (winged undead warrior) inside. After a short fight they slew it. The sarcophagus appears empty.

Player: "I search the sarcophagus."
DM: "How closely?"
Player: "I want to feel the bottom, make sure it's the right height and so on."
DM: "Do you want to actually climb into the sarcophagus? It's pretty big."
Player: [pauses] "I climb inside it and search."
DM: "You find a small stone knob or button in the bottom."

This is a great example of why description of action is better than a simple die roll. This search had nothing to do with "player skill" and everything to do with the degree of risk the PC is willing to accept.

Suppose there was something nasty in that sarcophogus that was revealed when someone climbs inside. A player instructed to just make a search check might not have considered entering the area part of his action and the DM might have assumed that anyone making a check did in fact get inside to see. Description of activities gives everyone involved a clear picture of what is happening and as a bonus makes success for characters that assume the risk more assured of success than a die roll.

It is also in my opinion, less lazy and more fun.

 

[RFisher]

Ah, how Take 10 (& Take 20) = greater peace of mind.

Good mechanics!

Yet...I don’t know...they feel—to me—more like treating the symptom.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

There's usually a narrative element, with or without a roll.

I personally dislike ability checks. They render a 1st level character no less effective than a 10th level character, and take no account of class, which is absolutely key to making sense of the 1e system--so I prefer (and OSRIC advocates) using saving throws, or modified saving throws, as checks rather than direct rolls against ability scores.

So a "sense motive" to determine if someone is telling the truth might be a Wisdom check if you're an ability-check advocate, but I'd use the base numbers for a poison save, modified by your Wisdom bonus. The result is then:

1) A high-level character is automatically better at it;
2) A character with high wisdom gets a bonus; and
3) Your chance of success also varies by class (and in this example, cleric or druid > paladin > thief or assassin > mage or illusionist > fighter or ranger).

None of this is intuitive unless you know the rules backwards, though. That's a feature of the 1e/OD&D systems--they do include systems you can adapt to any circumstance, but you have to be able trust your referee to make the right call and be willing to run with him when he thinks outside the box.

3e and 4e codify all this stuff which makes them a lot more forgiving of referee inexperience or occasional stupidity.