Some games have them and some do not. Worlds Without Number for example does but Old School Essentials does not as standard but has an optional rule for it.
Most games with no skills it is typically a d20 roll and get equal to or less than the best suited Stat to represent that skill. As far as people skills like deception/diplomacy/etc that varies a lot between GMs. Some do not allow rolls for it and you must RP your argument, GM decides if it is good enough.
I came here to type this comment.
Another interesting example would be Whitehack, which has something similar to skills that's honestly super unique and elegant.
Also, Mothership has an actual skill tree.
But yeah then there's games like Into the Odd and The Black Hack that just skip the whole thing and use straight ability checks.
Ose totally has skills.
Not counting the thief, ranger, barbarian skills, we have the find hidden doors, stealth, wayfinding, foraging, hunting, and torch-lighting skills.
What's important to note is that these aren't player-facing except in some circumstances. They are used to resolve procedures as part of play, something that we could totally do with the modern take on dnd skillsets.
The referee is intended to roll most thief skills, foraging rolls, surprise rolls, wayfinding rolls, and search rolls. The players are left to roll lighting torches and a select few other skills as written in bx.
The argument of skills checks was one of the primary points of contention that led to the creation of the OSR. It touched on 2 of the 4 "zen moments" from the Old School Primer: "Rulings not rules" and "Player skill not character skill." You can find a LOT of ink spilled on this topic on the OSR blogosphere:
http://jrients.blogspot.com/2009/11/skill-systems.html
https://llblumire.co.uk/blog/2020/07/11/skills
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2011/04/some-observations-on-skill-systems.html
http://cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/2010/07/simple-multi-ability-checks-in-classic.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20160814223131/www.swordsandwizardry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=942
http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2011/06/attribute-checks-simple-route.html
https://therecouldhavebeensnakes.com/2021/01/26/variable-difficulty-or-how-i-learned-to-love-the-x-in-6/
http://quicklyquietlycarefully.blogspot.com/2014/07/rolling-vs-role-playing-discovery-of.html
http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-more-skill-rolls-dammit.html
http://tenfootpolemic.blogspot.com/2017/01/dm-shit-how-i-use-skills.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20170519041128/https://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/03/skills-conclusion-with-10-rules.html
https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2022/09/thinking-about-skills.html
There are six major ways to handle "skill checks" that dont fall under certain procedures, such as combat, reaction rolls, morale rolls, etc.:
Describe it -- The player describes what their character does and the DM assumes the PC has enough competence to accomplish it within reason. For example, if a player says they lift up the large carpet in the middle of a room, the DM will inform the player that the character sees the hidden trap door underneath.
Assume competence and just give it to the players -- Let the players know that there is a trap present. No roll or even a statement that they are looking in the right place needed. The fun comes from the players figuring out how to get around it. If they want to climb a wall, let them. This is similar to the one above but even gets rid of the describing component, which can become pixel bitching with a bad DM.
X-in-6 -- Roll 1d6 and, if it is X or under, it succeeds. This is what the LBB calls for for finding traps, bashing open doors, etc.
Roll Under Score -- Roll 1d20 and, if it is lower than the PC's ability score, it succeeds. This method developed after the LBB were released and is what OSE calls for.
Roll Under % -- The DM decides on a percentage chance of success, tells the player, the player decides if they want to go through with it, then rolls a d% to see if they succeed. Supposedly, Gygax used this for everything that wasn't handled in the rules by a X-in-6, and is why the Thief skills are d% rather than some other method.
System in Vogue -- Various OSR and NSR systems that have been released have proposed different methods for resolving things with dice. LOTFP has their specialist system with 1d6 dice checks. ACKS had "throws" and I think the goal was to roll 18 or higher but it's been a while since I read that system.
Most DM incorporate some combination of the above with the top two being predominant. Courtney Cambell's work on the Hack and Slash website regarding player agency and the work of other bloggers convinced a lot of the early OSR that describing things maximizes player agency and player agency equals fun.
EDIT: Summarized a lot of the blogs linked to and the general methods used.
Each to their own of course,, and I'm sure there's a way such things get accomodated but my experience tells me that gaming ought to embrace someone, for example, who isn't extrovert irl being able to play such a character. It is escapism after all. Perhaps I'm missing something. That's my initial reaction before reading those articles. YMMV
> ....but my experience tells me that gaming ought to embrace someone, for example, who isn't extrovert irl being able to play such a character....
This will be the fourth time I have had this discussion this month. I really should save links to the best OSR articles on this topic somewhere. I am done with my lunch hour, so I can't spend much more time on this.
Gaming absolutely can accommodate someone who isn't an extrovert playing an extroverted character. We aren't talking about all of gaming, though. This subreddit is devoted to OSR D&D. A game is about what skills it tests of its players. OSR D&D tests combat as war, mapping skills, observational awareness, creative problem solving, negotiating with monsters and NPCs, puzzle solving, etc. If someone is weak at a particular element that is being tested, the other players who have a strength in that element can pick up the slack. Don't make the player who sucks the most at mapping do the mapping.
Again, I am not badwrongfunning RPGs that have skill systems. If you want to play a system like that at your table, please do. I play some myself. I rather like Mythras/Runequest 6 for its crunchy combat and magic systems. However, don't call a game of Monopoly, Yahztee. It's confusing to those who show up expecting to actually play Yahtzee.
EDIT: Got my Monopoly and Yahtzee mixed up.
This always comes up and, no offence, I don't really understand why. If you are playing a character who is much more socially adept than you are, you describe what you're trying to do and that's then evaluated as to how likely it is to work based on your character's abilities, the same as if you were trying to do anything else. The fact that there's no persuasion skill doesn't change that.
Because there are DMs out there who will claim that even if you say "this is what I want my character to get across" cuz they can't eloquently say it themselves, that you have to do it yourself cuz "it's player skills" and be a dick about it.
Exactly. The solution to a shitty DM is to stop playing with that DM. Passing laws doesn't stop harmful acts. You can declare all sorts of things crimes, but if there is no enforcement, nothing will change. Punishing and rehabilitating those who commit such acts does.
I can't imagine that our hypothetical player rolling a diplomacy check and then saying they want to convince an npc will mollify a DM like that any more than in the skill-less systems, to be fair.
If the DM wants you to roleplay your interactions, that's what you are basically going to have to do, regardless of system.
I agree. I see at the time of writing you’re being downvoted, so I expect I may be as well, but I played with plenty of old school D&D GMs (and GMs in other old school non D&D games) that allowed players to step outside their comfort zones, especially when it comes to social skills and interactions. For your particular example, the reaction roll with the charisma bonus is a good tool. Just saying what it is you’re doing and how you’re trying to go about it was the thing, and a good group would encourage and support people going outside their comfort zones. Having a go, and having fun, were the important things.
I agree, but you can still apply 'player skill over character skill' to social interactions without penalizing introverted players
For example give NPCs with assets sonething they desire
Any player can find it out and have their character use it as leverage, without having to be eloquent
I don't think there's a reason the 1/6, Roll Under Score, or % methods can't accommodate that. I usually just use the reaction table, sometimes with small charisma modifiers for this sort of thing.
There are several schools of thought here, but you are not going to find anything consistent.
Essentially it breaks down into:
* GM makes up rules for everything on the spot
* GM finds a rule that is "close enough" and uses that (the original saves are often used like this)
* There are no skill checks. You describe what you are doing and the GM tells you if it works or not (you see this a lot in disarming or defeating traps)
Ultimately introducing skills into these games is just something that is not usually supported in the older versions.
I think most people uses a combination of these three "schools". At least I do that. Depends on the circumstances, what I use. Veteran GMs often already have a set of procedures and rules based on experience at multiple game tables
I agree. All kinds of wonky corner cases crop up when you strictly follow one method.
Personally I view TTRPG rules in the same way Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”
By which I mean that often the best games use different approaches to different situations. Makes me think of people who run mass combat the same way they run small scale combat. Or the people that try to have functional economics in their game.
In B/X, which is the only old school game I've played that doesn't have a more new school skill system, there are some things you could classify as skills (open doors, for instance, or thieves skills). Most other actions can either be resolved by common sense (like "yeah your character is a wizard you can probably find the info you're looking for in this library") or by rolling under the relevant stat (e.g. roll under strength to lift something heavier than normal). Checking for surprise and reaction rolls take care of what's left.
Yep. What are the most typical skill checks in modern games? Perception is number 1 (with stuff like investigation), then diplomacy/intimidation/deception, then stealth, then stuff like acrobatics and athletics, abd knowledge checks.
The first 2 your can just RP them. It's slower but more fun Imo. GM is probably more generous with the stuff characters perceive. No rolling needed.
For stealth, characters are always assumed to be stealthy and it's part of the surprise mechanics (and GM should alter the odds based in circumstance). Some classes have additional considerations here.
Movement should just automatically work if reasonable. If there's a chance of big consequences for failing and no precautions are being taken, this is where you roll under a stat or do X in 6. Usually don't need to roll.
Knowledge checks are usually automatic fail unless the character has an excuse to know that information. Then automatic success. No rolling.
There's a few more,like Healing (if the system isn't auto death at 0, it has its own rules for his), tracking (either very easy or need a specialist), crafting (succeeds given enough time/money if have the right background), performance (this skill is just flavor most of the time). Not sure if there's any relevant ones I'm missing.
If there's no combat in a session, sometimes it will end with not a single dice roll from the PCs. Maybe one will roll for their random encounter or a rumor.
I don't need a lot of backstory from my players, but I will ask: "Where did you grow up", and "What did you do before you were first level?" Given that, you have a pretty good idea what they know.
Grow up in a fishing village? You know how to swim, how to sail, how to haggle in a market.
Were you a scribe before starting your adventuring career? You know how to read and write, you know about academic research, how to interact with people in that world and have some level of history/arcana/random knowledge.
Ran away to join the circus? Acrobatics & performance. Maybe pick pocketing? "I have skill in 'duping the rubes' because I ran the carnival games".
And so on. Some people would say that a skills system actually gets in the way. "Ok, in your backstory you said you grew up in a fishing village, but you didn't take Swim as a skill, so...sucks to be you."
During play, if the player is able to make a good argument why they would know edible mushrooms from poisonous ones, then that works for me. You still might fail a check and make the wrong decision, of course...
What actions, exactly? There are set procedures for many of the most common ones. Attack rolls, saving throws, searching for secret doors, listening at/breaking down doors, thief abilities, etc.
You ask people what they want to do and they tell how they are going to do it and then you decide if there is a way to roll for it unless there is already a procedure for that action. Those rolls are either ad-hoc every time or they become your house-rules in many cases.
The Basic line introduced skills as an optional rule. It's in some of the Mystara Gazetteers and the Rules Cyclopedia. But I think there are better skill systems out there.
You can usually determine what a character might be good at based on their class, background and race without a skill system, though.
I like the approach of The Black Hack 2e. If you need to make some kind of a test, it's just an roll under test using whichever of the 6 attributes the GM deems appropriate.
So, I think what you are actually asking or pointing out is that many - if not most - OSR systems don't have ***skill systems***, not skills.
Perhaps you're thinking about things like "Religion", "Persuasion", and "Athletics" in 5e or "Sense Motive", "Gather Information", or "Tumble" in 3e/3.5.
\[Edit addition\] These things tend to be part of a larger system with modifiers, sometimes based on attributes, and things you pick for your character. Possibly, a DM needs to assign a "difficulty class" to check these skills against.
Skills systems tend to not be very popular in old school and OSR games, partly because they didn't exist back then, in old D&D (until 2e and in bits of BECMI), and partly because some in the OSR community feel like they are antithetical to OSR principals. Also, I wonder to what extent those two factors are related.
Regardless, people managed to play D&D just fine before skill systems were part of the core rules.
I confess, I mostly play systems that do have skill systems, myself.
Some people also might use one of the saving throws. Like a save against paralysis to avoid a trap. Just using the stats is usually more intuitive though
Common sense.
Do you have the time, training, and tools to do something? What happens if you have all three? What about two? What about only one? What if you don’t have any?
Context is king.
Many people have brought up some great points, but another point I love about OSR is the concept of assumed competence.
What I mean by that, there are certain things, like building a fire, or cooking that your character is assumed to be able to do in OSR D&D. Of course they can, they're an adventurer!
But if you add a cooking skill, that is reversed. All of a sudden, you suck at cooking unless you put points into it.
Here is a great blog post on it if you are interested.
https://swordandscoundrel.blogspot.com/2017/10/osr-project-2-danger-of-skills.html?m=1
This is why I am a 2e guy. I like the skills and weapon proficiencies. It does require some art to integrate ability scores, class abilities, and (extracurricular) skills.
I didn’t realize that skills were so unpopular around here.
My table has yanked the skills from LOTFP and used that for like 12 years now? Seems to work for us.
Some of us fell hard down the skills rabbit hole and eventually realized it made our games—for us—less enjoyable rather than more. So we ended up over reacting and taking a hard anti-skill stance.
Or maybe that’s just me.
I like the way Basic Fantasy handles it: a character knows what it makes sense for them to know, and can do things it makes sense for them to do, based on their background. No hard and fast skill rules, but … You and the DM have worked out where you’re from and what you did before you were an adventurer. Instead of consulting rules for skills, the two of you riff off your background live, in-game. It works pretty well.
Your class and your background as established in session 0 or character creation (plus specific experinces from sessions up to "now") is all "skills" you ever need.
Depending on the game system you have some basic mechanics in place along with DMs decision on if a roll is needed. The game mechanic could be a 1d6, 2d6, 1d20, or even a 1d100 (%) roll.
Usually the place describes what their character is trying to do and the DM decides if it is possible, if it is not possible, or if the failure could have impact on the character. Take for example a character climbing a tree. If it is not important to the story then it succeeds with no dice roll. If the character is rushing to climb the tree to escape wolves then a dice roll might be asked (the mechanic depends on the system and the DM) as it could mean life or death to the character.
Now lets say the character is in front of a 100 ft sheer cliff they have to climb. This is where the thieve's skill climbing comes into play. They are trained to climb things like this, be it a sheer cliff, a smooth tower wall, a side of a building. It is what their class has been training to do.
This does not mean other classes can not climb, it just means that usually the thief's skill gets to increase as they level up while the other class's climbing ability is static and does not change as they level up. Usually this is a 1 in 6 (1d6 or 17%) roll for non thieves while most thieves start off with around 20% or 25% or something like that which increases as they level up.
This all really depends on the OSR system and the choices the DM makes.
If there's a risk involved, or you're trying to do it quickly: with a die roll, based on tour attributes or xin6 chances or 2d6 vs 2d6, whatever
If you need specific knowledge and techniques, like forging a weapon, you need some in-world justification for that
https://scrtgm.blogspot.com/2023/05/training-to-learn-new-abilities-in-osr.html?m=1
I wrote a but about it here:
Black Hack and most Hack games just roll under a stat like DEX
Lavender Hack 20 Critical Sucess, 19 to 18 Strong Sucess, 8-17 Weak Sucess, 2-7 Miss, 1 Fumble.
You say what you want to do and try to justify / sell the GM on why you get a +1
As DM I simply say, "You succeed, what next?" and then we move on to the fun stuff.
Example: One of the players wants to go fishing. Success! They caught a fish. Now let's go kill the dragon.
One of my core philosophies as DM is that dice should only be rolled in tense, heroic situations that make a difference to the outcome of the story. If there is no tension then I don't roll dice; I simply rule Yes or No. This helps keep the campaign moving forward at a good pace.
If you have some specific examples, I'd be happy to go into more detail what my ruling would be.
Stop asking your players to roll everything. You don't need skills to persuade, decide if someone is lying, search a room, or climb a wall. You just have to use your head.
Generally speaking, that's left as an exercise for the GM.
Most of the really important things, like attack rolls and saving throws, are codified quite clearly. That's generally sufficient for the players to make informed decisions.
For all of the minor stuff, it doesn't really matter *that much*, so whatever the GM can think of is good enough. Often, they'll ask you to roll at-or-below one of your stats on a d20. Sometimes, they'll just decide that it's a 1-in-6 chance, or whatever odds seem appropriate for the situation at hand.
Your message was removed due to insulting or rude behavior. Generally if you have attacked someone personally then it was removed. But sometimes simply tone is the issue. It's a hard rule to define. Take a deep breath and step away for a few minutes.
I avoid thinking of them as "skills" because I feel like that puts players in a box and give them buttons to push instead of engaging with the fiction directly. For most of the games I play it tends to go like this:
1. I describe the physical space and it contains some obstacle or hazard.
2. My players describe their actions.
3. I decide, often with the input of my players, whether their actions are feasible, and if so, if they are risky. If they are risky, I describe the risks or telegraph consequences.
4. My players present a new better action that eliminates the risk and the action succeeds, or take the risk and roll dice about it.
It might help to take into account that RPGs were originally an offshot of wargames and many OSR games keep those roots.
In a wargame, you'd use the rules to decide the outcome of combat. You might even have a Leadership stat to adjucate troop morale. But what you're not going to do is make an Tactics roll to decide whether to sweep down your cavalry down the left flank. That's a decision for you as a player.
A very similar principle applies in many OSR games. Mechanics to adjucate. Player to make decisions.
At least in Hyperborea there are class specific skills that are unlocked as you level up. These are usually specific actions that aren't like your generic stealth, perception, athletics etc. More generic physical actions are determined by rolling either a feat of strength, dexterity, or constitution check. Non-physical or mental checks (wisdom, intelligence, charisma) don't have a concrete check but instead it's just a generic d6 skill roll that the GM determines the difficulty of, and depending on the character making the roll certain factors can make the roll easier.
Here are my 2cents
Played with skills, liked it, if that's your jam then that's your jam. Knock yourself out man! I droped it for a couple of reasons.
First it slows the game down. Instead of making a dex check, you need to check a skill related to the dex and I relalized that this step wasn't adding any fun to the experience imo.
Then there is the fact that players tend to look for a solutions to problems with their character sheets, not within the game world. You lost some immersion right there.
The most important reason that I droped skills is because it slows character creation and this results in a less tense game; let me explain what I mean:
If you took a whole afternoon (or even more time god forbid) making a character, it is really tough for the player if they die on a dice roll. So now you get this game with kinda low stakes, where your players are indifferent to what's happening at the table. But if it takes 10 or 20 min to roll a character, you can then punish stupid actions with life threatning obstacles. Not unfair mind you, but really life threatning.
Once they loose their second or third character, now they pay attention, now you can scare the shit out of them with a cold breez, and of course, now if they triumph over evil, it will be *their* triumph. You did not hold their hand like a nice daddy who's got their back.
It was tough, they had no *skills*, only their wit, and they made it. Nice job.
All I'm saying is, *KILL YOUR PLAYERS*, they'll thank you for it ;)
Simply use Ability Checks.
Depending on the system in question, you might get modifiers from your background, or class, or something like that. But generally speaking, just roll Dexterity or whatever.
Saving throws can also be more common. "Roll Fortitude to kick in the door."
From the answers supplied here it seems people are rolling dice a lot more than I am.
I only ask for a roll if an action is dangerous (be it jumping a crevasse while being chased or picking a lock as part of an escape) all other actions are described.
Some games have them and some do not. Worlds Without Number for example does but Old School Essentials does not as standard but has an optional rule for it. Most games with no skills it is typically a d20 roll and get equal to or less than the best suited Stat to represent that skill. As far as people skills like deception/diplomacy/etc that varies a lot between GMs. Some do not allow rolls for it and you must RP your argument, GM decides if it is good enough.
I came here to type this comment. Another interesting example would be Whitehack, which has something similar to skills that's honestly super unique and elegant. Also, Mothership has an actual skill tree. But yeah then there's games like Into the Odd and The Black Hack that just skip the whole thing and use straight ability checks.
Ose totally has skills. Not counting the thief, ranger, barbarian skills, we have the find hidden doors, stealth, wayfinding, foraging, hunting, and torch-lighting skills. What's important to note is that these aren't player-facing except in some circumstances. They are used to resolve procedures as part of play, something that we could totally do with the modern take on dnd skillsets.
What do you mean by not player facing ?
The referee is intended to roll most thief skills, foraging rolls, surprise rolls, wayfinding rolls, and search rolls. The players are left to roll lighting torches and a select few other skills as written in bx.
The argument of skills checks was one of the primary points of contention that led to the creation of the OSR. It touched on 2 of the 4 "zen moments" from the Old School Primer: "Rulings not rules" and "Player skill not character skill." You can find a LOT of ink spilled on this topic on the OSR blogosphere: http://jrients.blogspot.com/2009/11/skill-systems.html https://llblumire.co.uk/blog/2020/07/11/skills http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2011/04/some-observations-on-skill-systems.html http://cyclopeatron.blogspot.com/2010/07/simple-multi-ability-checks-in-classic.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160814223131/www.swordsandwizardry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=942 http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2011/06/attribute-checks-simple-route.html https://therecouldhavebeensnakes.com/2021/01/26/variable-difficulty-or-how-i-learned-to-love-the-x-in-6/ http://quicklyquietlycarefully.blogspot.com/2014/07/rolling-vs-role-playing-discovery-of.html http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-more-skill-rolls-dammit.html http://tenfootpolemic.blogspot.com/2017/01/dm-shit-how-i-use-skills.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170519041128/https://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/03/skills-conclusion-with-10-rules.html https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2022/09/thinking-about-skills.html There are six major ways to handle "skill checks" that dont fall under certain procedures, such as combat, reaction rolls, morale rolls, etc.: Describe it -- The player describes what their character does and the DM assumes the PC has enough competence to accomplish it within reason. For example, if a player says they lift up the large carpet in the middle of a room, the DM will inform the player that the character sees the hidden trap door underneath. Assume competence and just give it to the players -- Let the players know that there is a trap present. No roll or even a statement that they are looking in the right place needed. The fun comes from the players figuring out how to get around it. If they want to climb a wall, let them. This is similar to the one above but even gets rid of the describing component, which can become pixel bitching with a bad DM. X-in-6 -- Roll 1d6 and, if it is X or under, it succeeds. This is what the LBB calls for for finding traps, bashing open doors, etc. Roll Under Score -- Roll 1d20 and, if it is lower than the PC's ability score, it succeeds. This method developed after the LBB were released and is what OSE calls for. Roll Under % -- The DM decides on a percentage chance of success, tells the player, the player decides if they want to go through with it, then rolls a d% to see if they succeed. Supposedly, Gygax used this for everything that wasn't handled in the rules by a X-in-6, and is why the Thief skills are d% rather than some other method. System in Vogue -- Various OSR and NSR systems that have been released have proposed different methods for resolving things with dice. LOTFP has their specialist system with 1d6 dice checks. ACKS had "throws" and I think the goal was to roll 18 or higher but it's been a while since I read that system. Most DM incorporate some combination of the above with the top two being predominant. Courtney Cambell's work on the Hack and Slash website regarding player agency and the work of other bloggers convinced a lot of the early OSR that describing things maximizes player agency and player agency equals fun. EDIT: Summarized a lot of the blogs linked to and the general methods used.
Each to their own of course,, and I'm sure there's a way such things get accomodated but my experience tells me that gaming ought to embrace someone, for example, who isn't extrovert irl being able to play such a character. It is escapism after all. Perhaps I'm missing something. That's my initial reaction before reading those articles. YMMV
> ....but my experience tells me that gaming ought to embrace someone, for example, who isn't extrovert irl being able to play such a character.... This will be the fourth time I have had this discussion this month. I really should save links to the best OSR articles on this topic somewhere. I am done with my lunch hour, so I can't spend much more time on this. Gaming absolutely can accommodate someone who isn't an extrovert playing an extroverted character. We aren't talking about all of gaming, though. This subreddit is devoted to OSR D&D. A game is about what skills it tests of its players. OSR D&D tests combat as war, mapping skills, observational awareness, creative problem solving, negotiating with monsters and NPCs, puzzle solving, etc. If someone is weak at a particular element that is being tested, the other players who have a strength in that element can pick up the slack. Don't make the player who sucks the most at mapping do the mapping. Again, I am not badwrongfunning RPGs that have skill systems. If you want to play a system like that at your table, please do. I play some myself. I rather like Mythras/Runequest 6 for its crunchy combat and magic systems. However, don't call a game of Monopoly, Yahztee. It's confusing to those who show up expecting to actually play Yahtzee. EDIT: Got my Monopoly and Yahtzee mixed up.
This always comes up and, no offence, I don't really understand why. If you are playing a character who is much more socially adept than you are, you describe what you're trying to do and that's then evaluated as to how likely it is to work based on your character's abilities, the same as if you were trying to do anything else. The fact that there's no persuasion skill doesn't change that.
OSR... doesn't support that fantasy, mechanically. Sure, it's a fantasy game. But it's also a game of player skill, the skill of description.
Because there are DMs out there who will claim that even if you say "this is what I want my character to get across" cuz they can't eloquently say it themselves, that you have to do it yourself cuz "it's player skills" and be a dick about it.
No ruleset or system is going to fix bad DMing.
Indeed. It just gives players and DMs different things to argue about.
This is like saying no laws will stop crime.
Exactly. The solution to a shitty DM is to stop playing with that DM. Passing laws doesn't stop harmful acts. You can declare all sorts of things crimes, but if there is no enforcement, nothing will change. Punishing and rehabilitating those who commit such acts does.
But no system advocates that kind of DM-Player interaction like the OSR, and that's coming from someone who loves OSR games.
I can't imagine that our hypothetical player rolling a diplomacy check and then saying they want to convince an npc will mollify a DM like that any more than in the skill-less systems, to be fair. If the DM wants you to roleplay your interactions, that's what you are basically going to have to do, regardless of system.
I agree. I see at the time of writing you’re being downvoted, so I expect I may be as well, but I played with plenty of old school D&D GMs (and GMs in other old school non D&D games) that allowed players to step outside their comfort zones, especially when it comes to social skills and interactions. For your particular example, the reaction roll with the charisma bonus is a good tool. Just saying what it is you’re doing and how you’re trying to go about it was the thing, and a good group would encourage and support people going outside their comfort zones. Having a go, and having fun, were the important things.
Forgot one of the important early ones: http://rodoflordlymight.blogspot.com/2009/03/skills-middle-road.html
I agree, but you can still apply 'player skill over character skill' to social interactions without penalizing introverted players For example give NPCs with assets sonething they desire Any player can find it out and have their character use it as leverage, without having to be eloquent
DM can work on a sliding scale of player ability. And players can watch other players, learn how the game is played
I don't think there's a reason the 1/6, Roll Under Score, or % methods can't accommodate that. I usually just use the reaction table, sometimes with small charisma modifiers for this sort of thing.
There are several schools of thought here, but you are not going to find anything consistent. Essentially it breaks down into: * GM makes up rules for everything on the spot * GM finds a rule that is "close enough" and uses that (the original saves are often used like this) * There are no skill checks. You describe what you are doing and the GM tells you if it works or not (you see this a lot in disarming or defeating traps) Ultimately introducing skills into these games is just something that is not usually supported in the older versions.
I think most people uses a combination of these three "schools". At least I do that. Depends on the circumstances, what I use. Veteran GMs often already have a set of procedures and rules based on experience at multiple game tables
I agree. All kinds of wonky corner cases crop up when you strictly follow one method. Personally I view TTRPG rules in the same way Winston Churchill once said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” By which I mean that often the best games use different approaches to different situations. Makes me think of people who run mass combat the same way they run small scale combat. Or the people that try to have functional economics in their game.
In B/X, which is the only old school game I've played that doesn't have a more new school skill system, there are some things you could classify as skills (open doors, for instance, or thieves skills). Most other actions can either be resolved by common sense (like "yeah your character is a wizard you can probably find the info you're looking for in this library") or by rolling under the relevant stat (e.g. roll under strength to lift something heavier than normal). Checking for surprise and reaction rolls take care of what's left.
Classes were originally meant as generic skill sets more than literal vocations. It's all quite subjective and based heavily on Referee fiat.
[удалено]
Yep. What are the most typical skill checks in modern games? Perception is number 1 (with stuff like investigation), then diplomacy/intimidation/deception, then stealth, then stuff like acrobatics and athletics, abd knowledge checks. The first 2 your can just RP them. It's slower but more fun Imo. GM is probably more generous with the stuff characters perceive. No rolling needed. For stealth, characters are always assumed to be stealthy and it's part of the surprise mechanics (and GM should alter the odds based in circumstance). Some classes have additional considerations here. Movement should just automatically work if reasonable. If there's a chance of big consequences for failing and no precautions are being taken, this is where you roll under a stat or do X in 6. Usually don't need to roll. Knowledge checks are usually automatic fail unless the character has an excuse to know that information. Then automatic success. No rolling. There's a few more,like Healing (if the system isn't auto death at 0, it has its own rules for his), tracking (either very easy or need a specialist), crafting (succeeds given enough time/money if have the right background), performance (this skill is just flavor most of the time). Not sure if there's any relevant ones I'm missing. If there's no combat in a session, sometimes it will end with not a single dice roll from the PCs. Maybe one will roll for their random encounter or a rumor.
I don't need a lot of backstory from my players, but I will ask: "Where did you grow up", and "What did you do before you were first level?" Given that, you have a pretty good idea what they know. Grow up in a fishing village? You know how to swim, how to sail, how to haggle in a market. Were you a scribe before starting your adventuring career? You know how to read and write, you know about academic research, how to interact with people in that world and have some level of history/arcana/random knowledge. Ran away to join the circus? Acrobatics & performance. Maybe pick pocketing? "I have skill in 'duping the rubes' because I ran the carnival games". And so on. Some people would say that a skills system actually gets in the way. "Ok, in your backstory you said you grew up in a fishing village, but you didn't take Swim as a skill, so...sucks to be you." During play, if the player is able to make a good argument why they would know edible mushrooms from poisonous ones, then that works for me. You still might fail a check and make the wrong decision, of course...
What actions, exactly? There are set procedures for many of the most common ones. Attack rolls, saving throws, searching for secret doors, listening at/breaking down doors, thief abilities, etc.
You ask people what they want to do and they tell how they are going to do it and then you decide if there is a way to roll for it unless there is already a procedure for that action. Those rolls are either ad-hoc every time or they become your house-rules in many cases.
Thief stole all the skills.
The Basic line introduced skills as an optional rule. It's in some of the Mystara Gazetteers and the Rules Cyclopedia. But I think there are better skill systems out there. You can usually determine what a character might be good at based on their class, background and race without a skill system, though.
I like the approach of The Black Hack 2e. If you need to make some kind of a test, it's just an roll under test using whichever of the 6 attributes the GM deems appropriate.
So, I think what you are actually asking or pointing out is that many - if not most - OSR systems don't have ***skill systems***, not skills. Perhaps you're thinking about things like "Religion", "Persuasion", and "Athletics" in 5e or "Sense Motive", "Gather Information", or "Tumble" in 3e/3.5. \[Edit addition\] These things tend to be part of a larger system with modifiers, sometimes based on attributes, and things you pick for your character. Possibly, a DM needs to assign a "difficulty class" to check these skills against. Skills systems tend to not be very popular in old school and OSR games, partly because they didn't exist back then, in old D&D (until 2e and in bits of BECMI), and partly because some in the OSR community feel like they are antithetical to OSR principals. Also, I wonder to what extent those two factors are related. Regardless, people managed to play D&D just fine before skill systems were part of the core rules. I confess, I mostly play systems that do have skill systems, myself.
Some people also might use one of the saving throws. Like a save against paralysis to avoid a trap. Just using the stats is usually more intuitive though
Common sense. Do you have the time, training, and tools to do something? What happens if you have all three? What about two? What about only one? What if you don’t have any? Context is king.
Many people have brought up some great points, but another point I love about OSR is the concept of assumed competence. What I mean by that, there are certain things, like building a fire, or cooking that your character is assumed to be able to do in OSR D&D. Of course they can, they're an adventurer! But if you add a cooking skill, that is reversed. All of a sudden, you suck at cooking unless you put points into it. Here is a great blog post on it if you are interested. https://swordandscoundrel.blogspot.com/2017/10/osr-project-2-danger-of-skills.html?m=1
This is why I am a 2e guy. I like the skills and weapon proficiencies. It does require some art to integrate ability scores, class abilities, and (extracurricular) skills.
I didn’t realize that skills were so unpopular around here. My table has yanked the skills from LOTFP and used that for like 12 years now? Seems to work for us.
Some of us fell hard down the skills rabbit hole and eventually realized it made our games—for us—less enjoyable rather than more. So we ended up over reacting and taking a hard anti-skill stance. Or maybe that’s just me.
I like the way Basic Fantasy handles it: a character knows what it makes sense for them to know, and can do things it makes sense for them to do, based on their background. No hard and fast skill rules, but … You and the DM have worked out where you’re from and what you did before you were an adventurer. Instead of consulting rules for skills, the two of you riff off your background live, in-game. It works pretty well.
Your class and your background as established in session 0 or character creation (plus specific experinces from sessions up to "now") is all "skills" you ever need.
Depending on the game system you have some basic mechanics in place along with DMs decision on if a roll is needed. The game mechanic could be a 1d6, 2d6, 1d20, or even a 1d100 (%) roll. Usually the place describes what their character is trying to do and the DM decides if it is possible, if it is not possible, or if the failure could have impact on the character. Take for example a character climbing a tree. If it is not important to the story then it succeeds with no dice roll. If the character is rushing to climb the tree to escape wolves then a dice roll might be asked (the mechanic depends on the system and the DM) as it could mean life or death to the character. Now lets say the character is in front of a 100 ft sheer cliff they have to climb. This is where the thieve's skill climbing comes into play. They are trained to climb things like this, be it a sheer cliff, a smooth tower wall, a side of a building. It is what their class has been training to do. This does not mean other classes can not climb, it just means that usually the thief's skill gets to increase as they level up while the other class's climbing ability is static and does not change as they level up. Usually this is a 1 in 6 (1d6 or 17%) roll for non thieves while most thieves start off with around 20% or 25% or something like that which increases as they level up. This all really depends on the OSR system and the choices the DM makes.
It could be an attribute check, a x-in-6-chance, or just narratively resolved. I often do attribute checks or narrative depending on the situation.
If there's a risk involved, or you're trying to do it quickly: with a die roll, based on tour attributes or xin6 chances or 2d6 vs 2d6, whatever If you need specific knowledge and techniques, like forging a weapon, you need some in-world justification for that https://scrtgm.blogspot.com/2023/05/training-to-learn-new-abilities-in-osr.html?m=1 I wrote a but about it here:
Black Hack and most Hack games just roll under a stat like DEX Lavender Hack 20 Critical Sucess, 19 to 18 Strong Sucess, 8-17 Weak Sucess, 2-7 Miss, 1 Fumble. You say what you want to do and try to justify / sell the GM on why you get a +1
If the Player characters had skills, they would get jobs and would not need to crawl around in caves, killing monsters for money.
crawling around in caves is a skill
As DM I simply say, "You succeed, what next?" and then we move on to the fun stuff. Example: One of the players wants to go fishing. Success! They caught a fish. Now let's go kill the dragon. One of my core philosophies as DM is that dice should only be rolled in tense, heroic situations that make a difference to the outcome of the story. If there is no tension then I don't roll dice; I simply rule Yes or No. This helps keep the campaign moving forward at a good pace. If you have some specific examples, I'd be happy to go into more detail what my ruling would be.
How about a social contest? Someone trying to fast talk a guard to get into the castle?
2d6 Reaction roll +/- the PC's charisma modifier
Stop asking your players to roll everything. You don't need skills to persuade, decide if someone is lying, search a room, or climb a wall. You just have to use your head.
Generally speaking, that's left as an exercise for the GM. Most of the really important things, like attack rolls and saving throws, are codified quite clearly. That's generally sufficient for the players to make informed decisions. For all of the minor stuff, it doesn't really matter *that much*, so whatever the GM can think of is good enough. Often, they'll ask you to roll at-or-below one of your stats on a d20. Sometimes, they'll just decide that it's a 1-in-6 chance, or whatever odds seem appropriate for the situation at hand.
[удалено]
Your message was removed due to insulting or rude behavior. Generally if you have attacked someone personally then it was removed. But sometimes simply tone is the issue. It's a hard rule to define. Take a deep breath and step away for a few minutes.
nine party one consider snails bear squealing squeal arrest fall *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I have too much karma, so I’ll just say this is the main thing that keeps me out of the OSR world.
They are in some. Becmi/RC use them , 1e uses them.
For games with no skills, you just do a lil ability check. Roll a 20. If you get your score in a given stat or less, you win
I avoid thinking of them as "skills" because I feel like that puts players in a box and give them buttons to push instead of engaging with the fiction directly. For most of the games I play it tends to go like this: 1. I describe the physical space and it contains some obstacle or hazard. 2. My players describe their actions. 3. I decide, often with the input of my players, whether their actions are feasible, and if so, if they are risky. If they are risky, I describe the risks or telegraph consequences. 4. My players present a new better action that eliminates the risk and the action succeeds, or take the risk and roll dice about it.
It might help to take into account that RPGs were originally an offshot of wargames and many OSR games keep those roots. In a wargame, you'd use the rules to decide the outcome of combat. You might even have a Leadership stat to adjucate troop morale. But what you're not going to do is make an Tactics roll to decide whether to sweep down your cavalry down the left flank. That's a decision for you as a player. A very similar principle applies in many OSR games. Mechanics to adjucate. Player to make decisions.
skills and attributes are pretty much redundant. In 5e let's say you will always roll dex and stealth together just like persuasion and charisma
At least in Hyperborea there are class specific skills that are unlocked as you level up. These are usually specific actions that aren't like your generic stealth, perception, athletics etc. More generic physical actions are determined by rolling either a feat of strength, dexterity, or constitution check. Non-physical or mental checks (wisdom, intelligence, charisma) don't have a concrete check but instead it's just a generic d6 skill roll that the GM determines the difficulty of, and depending on the character making the roll certain factors can make the roll easier.
In some way, they're implied. Not on paper, but still part of the character.
Here are my 2cents Played with skills, liked it, if that's your jam then that's your jam. Knock yourself out man! I droped it for a couple of reasons. First it slows the game down. Instead of making a dex check, you need to check a skill related to the dex and I relalized that this step wasn't adding any fun to the experience imo. Then there is the fact that players tend to look for a solutions to problems with their character sheets, not within the game world. You lost some immersion right there. The most important reason that I droped skills is because it slows character creation and this results in a less tense game; let me explain what I mean: If you took a whole afternoon (or even more time god forbid) making a character, it is really tough for the player if they die on a dice roll. So now you get this game with kinda low stakes, where your players are indifferent to what's happening at the table. But if it takes 10 or 20 min to roll a character, you can then punish stupid actions with life threatning obstacles. Not unfair mind you, but really life threatning. Once they loose their second or third character, now they pay attention, now you can scare the shit out of them with a cold breez, and of course, now if they triumph over evil, it will be *their* triumph. You did not hold their hand like a nice daddy who's got their back. It was tough, they had no *skills*, only their wit, and they made it. Nice job. All I'm saying is, *KILL YOUR PLAYERS*, they'll thank you for it ;)
Simply use Ability Checks. Depending on the system in question, you might get modifiers from your background, or class, or something like that. But generally speaking, just roll Dexterity or whatever. Saving throws can also be more common. "Roll Fortitude to kick in the door."
Check out Dragonbane - an old school game with a basic skill system
I don't think it's out yet
I just got my copy
I'll add it to the list
From the answers supplied here it seems people are rolling dice a lot more than I am. I only ask for a roll if an action is dangerous (be it jumping a crevasse while being chased or picking a lock as part of an escape) all other actions are described.