My personal skill resolution system: just what the blogosphere needs, yet another one......

Thought I'd share how I resolve skill issues in my fossilized OD&D campaign.

I assess a task on three axes. 
First, how important is a success for the gameplay:

• if it has to happen, the roll is usualy 3d6 + stuff vs stat, and simply gives degree of success. 
• If it will ruin the campaign, don't allow it in the first place.
• If it is a grey area, in that it could happen, but won't kill the game if it fails, read on.

Second, consider if it is it likely to be relevant to the character's class or, if they've taken the time, their personal . 

• If class appropriate, add their level to the stat.  
• If just a backstory skill, add half. 

Be generous -for example, bargaining for a good horse is probably a fighter related skill,  although reading may not be.  etc etc.

Third, do I have any idea how likely success is.
For the record, despote my deep and obsessive love of skill based games (Traveller Mon Amor) I think they can be a pain in class based games.  Plus, I hate (hate, hate) having elaborate difficulty lookup charts -(besides wondering if "amazing" is really better or worse than "incredible" ).


 In general, i use the well worn and reliable, roll under stat + stuff to succeed.

If I can take a guess at difficulty, I use an xd6 roll -

• For easy, I just let it happen. 
• If it isn't much of a challenge and if I wouldn't  mind it happening , 3d6 ; 
• if it is hard, but okay 4d6.  
• if it seems really hard, or I don't want it to happen, but can't justify it as a game killer,  5d6

 An honest appraisal of the above is most skill use is based on 30+ years of gming, and how difficulty really works: either its a gimmie, so don't waste time, or a 3d6 roll to give the player some dice time and a feeling of success.

If the player is coming up with an overly complicated plan, or missing the easy or obvious way, I use 4 d6. 

If he has outsmarted me (bastard ! ), and/or will really complicate my life (like, solving the mystery in game one before the pizza arrives) , or is being astonishingly stupid, stubborn, obtuse or all three at once on purpose (or at least it seems to be) I punitively go with 5d6.*

I use xd6 becuase I like the bell distribution -not only is this a phoilosophical thing for me, it is a more reliable distribution - if you have the target a point or two above the average, you have a really good chance of success -in other words, the chance of failure diminishes faster once you get good at somthing.

If I don't have the slightest idea of weather its likely or not, use a D20, and I have autosuccess and auto failure.  If I don't know (or care) about difficulty, I like a linear roll; since I don't know the liklihood of failure, it may as well be a constant factor.

If I'm remembering, I call a bell roll (xd6) a standard roll, and a d20 a wild (or whimsey) roll.


There we go.  What else ?  I generally assume that tools either allow it in the first place (lack of which makes it impossible), or make the task a gimmie.  Lockpicks would be an example of the first, climbing gear, the second.  I try not to add too much situational stuff -I assume that most of that is noise, and cancels out.  Finally, I always try to reduce things to a single roll; permutations are a stone bitch, and eventually get you a player who invents a maxim gun in the stone age, or a master ranger who cuts his foot off setting a snare.  And, while fun........well.  Y'know.  Table flips and all.

Roll on.

*Remember, I said this is how I work, and I'm a fossilized self aggrandized old grognard, so no irate responses about how my needs deprotagonize the colocated storytelling player's meta-experience, okay? I have the heavy lifting in the campaign, so I get a few selfish perks. Go empower the reprotagonized bloody albatross as much as your want on your own dime......

PPS.  My job is keeping me very busy and interested.  So, thus the lack of posts; fact is, I ain't cutting what little time I have for gaming so that I can write about gaming that I'm not doing; that way lies madness, and arguing on Traveller and D&D boards...;) .

I think the thief is hated because he got way better in 3E.

So, in essence, to the OSR antithief lobby, I guess they seem like collaborators ? 

Really, although I dislike the way they did it (the skill system is a bolt on kludge, and very finicky to keep track of), 3E does make useful thieves that are about as usefully unrealistic/heroically exaggerated as the other classes from level one; which, as I've noted, is one hell of an improvement. 

In fact, I like playing thieves in 3E (and 3.5); but then, I also think that in many ways, 3E is the logical goal of the style of gaming that D&D got its base from:  hard core miniature and board gaming players; which includes me...and Gygax and arneson, FWIW.  My main complaint is that unless one plays it all the time, the rules get foggy in ones head, and rules spotting and searching really starts to get in the way of play.  Kind of like Star fleet battles, advanced squad leader, and vi. ( I pretty much had to give up playing SFB when I went into grad school, because there wasn't room for both.....not time, room. As in, my hard drive was over full. )

That said, the best parts of 3E for the thief are really twofold: feats, and not starting off as a bumbling fool.  The implementation of skills is lacking, but on the whole, it makes thieves (excuse me: Rogues) quite effective out the gate -sure they have corresponding gaps, but that's what being a specialist is all about.   And feats are one of the big things I like best about 3E. Really, I think that but for feat bloat, the feat system could absorb the skill system, and give a very nice system for  customizing classes. Wonder what that could offer to a rules lite or )D&D sensibility style set of rules.

Okay, that's enough for tonight.  BTW, hello to the new readers and commenters !  Nice to get an anonymous comment that isn't tying to sell me viagra.... ;)

Straining at motes, part 3

Kobold said...

Dr Allthumbs, with a negative DM for his DEX, has an effective Skill of, what?, Medic 1?

Actually, on the table I'm testing, he'd only have a -1.  But I get your point.

But, and this is an important but, only in situations where he has to use his DEX.

As a consulting physician, he can identify Interstellar Blot by just looking the patient in the eye and sampling his urine. As a surgeon, he is a skilled butcher, and probably doesn't do much cosmetic work.

Dr Giftedpratt, on the otherhand, both knows his stuff, and can perform delicate keyhole surgery on eyeballs, and other bits you don't want a cleaver-monkey fiddling with.

March 5, 2011 1:09 AM

Good points.  So, it seems that hard cutoffs where the stat allows you to do something help the issue- if I recall, CT had a DEX requirement along with Medic 3 to be a surgeon, and having stat minimums for use of weapons without a minus dm.

Second, the effect of stats are more situational than skills.  Which makes sense, especially with fairly broad skill categories.  It's not hard to imagine that most of the very high level skills could have different situations where different stats are important.  In which case, does capping the plus or minus mods at +/-1 for most situations seem enough ? With -2 being a big penalty ?

I am coming to think that part of the problem is that the perceived value of a modifier is based on its observed effect on a d20  system roll.  Thus, in a d20 system a +/- 1 represents a 5% difference and seems particularly trivial. However, in a 2d6 system, a -1 on an otherwise straight roll for success (8+) reduces the likelihood of success by 14%,  from ~42% (8+) to ~28% (9+);  almost three times the effect of a d20 +1.

So we see that not only shouldn't Dr Allthumbs be considered a surgeon (using a hard requirement for DEX), he would have a non trivial penalty to his likelihood of success vs Dr Giftedpratt.  Assume Medic 3 for both, with one having a +2 (12 DEX) and the other having a -2 (2 DEX), the chances of success are  ~58% (thumbs) and ~97% (gifted).
With a +/-1 for DEX  we have 72% vs 92% success, still a 20% difference. And remember we are talking about surgery here.....so that 20% represents life and death in many cases.

Given those numbers it seems to me that input from stats of 1 or 2 is quite enough -especially if there are some tasks with a hard requirement.

One thing: thanks to input, I've decided to give myself permission to make the stat effects non-symmetric .  Stat =3 is now only a -1 mod, whereas stat=11 is still a +2 mod. Plus, I've added a 9 stat to the +1 column.  With this arrangement, one gets a bonus vs penalty proportion of 13/7 or making a "good result" almost twice as likely as a bad one.  This is entirely because I do think that players need at least some edge... ;)   and possibly by having the +2 outnumber the -2 by 3:1 , they may just complain a bit less.

Stat     Mod

0-2       -2

3-4       -1

5-8        0

9-10  +1

11+     +2

 Comments ?

Straining at motes, continued.

So, thanks for the input !

From here and some forums, it looks like the main issue is a feeling that two practitioners of the same level should differentiate by characteristics.  This is obviously one of those things that has been struggle over since the first skill based RPG showed up (RQ ? Traveller ?); and while it does make intuitive sense, the simple solutions (mods based on characteristics) rapidly become too much -and this is especially true in a 2d6 system.  Would a reframing of the issue help ?

My "ah-ha" moment was this:  why do two characters with the same skill level need to be differentiated in their results ? The short version is this:  consider the two doctors at medic-3, one with DEX 14 and one with Dex 5. One can assume that they should have different outcomes based on their Dex, but why ?  I'd suggest that the most important differentiation would be in how long and with what effort it took them to get to level -3.  The naturally gifted surgeon probably took less time to get his level 3 than Dr Allthumbs -but they both got there.  Now, if Allthumbs had only taken the time and effort that Dr Giftedpratt took, he would only be at level 2.

The more I look at this, the more it seems at least as reasonable as assuming two equally trained Doctors would differ significantly in their results -especially as their effectiveness would be part of their rating.

Logic check ?

Adventurer update, new rules for characteristics and modifiers

Yes, the initial impetus for this blog, Adventurer, the traveller pastiche of D&D is still progressing. Its been undergoing playtesting and a serious reedit and reorganization  which I'm now adding to the main ms -which will eventually be available for download.

For now,I'd appreciate  comments on once particular change I've decided on:  modifiers for characteristics.  They are very genre appropriate, but often come to dominate chargen and task resolution.  Specifically, Traveller, (and I) seem to be predicated on the concept that while your basic makeup is important, what one learns is more important.  The classic example is this: would you rather have  heart surgery by another character with average stats and Medical -1, or an unskilled character with a +4 dex modifier (assuming Dex is what should be used, substitute whatever works for you) ?   How about an average character with Medic  4 vs the high dexterity  medic 0  ? Both have the exact same chance of success, but should they ?  In other words, a high Stat modifier allows a character access to lots more skills by balancing out the unskilled penalty.

Yet, genre conventions of Swords and Sorcery are full of the characters superior makeup (mighty thews, catlike grace, pantherish speed and all that ) being of notable importance.  So, here's how I'm hoping to address it in adventurer.

Traveller (and by extension Adventurer) is based on the premise that what a character knows and learns is more important than what abilities they were born with. While it is important not to let the characteristics become more important than the skills, the genre is full of examples where a protagonists raw makeup, be it strength, endurance or intelligence, makes the difference, particularly in a contest of equals.   Accordingly, extreme scores provide a modifier to unskilled task attempt (discussed in the section on skills).

Stat     Mod

0-2       -2

3-4       -1

5-9        0

10-11  +1

12+     +2

For opposed skilled task rolls, the characteristic effects the contest by providing a +1 to the character with the highest relevant characteristic.

For simple unopposed tasks rolls, no characteristic modifier should be used. It is assumed that the characters native trait is included in the skill level.

Hows that sound ? 

The Thief Is NOT Guilty ! (part 2)

So, after a surprising amount of thought, and even more unsurprising amounts of dawdling (and working), I’ve decided to sum up my long hanging discussion on thieves.

In my imperial manner, I will ignore almost all of the arguments I previously said I’d discuss, and focus on two points: a discussion of one particular complaint, and one argument in favor not advanced before. Here goes the first part.

No, 'twas proficiency that killed the beast……

It is said that Thieves introduced D&D to the long painful slide into skill systems, and thus roll-playing rather than role playing, and , to those of us who care, this is a most damming accusation, for the heinousness of skillsystems in D&D  is true, to the extent that skills in almost all later editions are a train wreck, and promote the “roll to resolve” mindset for play. And when I say “train wreck", I mean it. Skills from 1E onwards just didn't work or were too clumsy for words.
Skills are and always were a bolt-on that really didn't add much. So, this, then, is what the thief stands accused of: nothing less than striking a  conceptual backstab to the rules of D&D at their  very birth birth in Greyhawk. A wound that has ulcerated and bled more each edition, until the entire structure of the game seems to be half intended to support it, as with some terrible parasite.  Were the thiefs abilities truly the wound that could not heal ?  A dolorous stroke to the system? No good readers, I say it is not. For while the skill systems of D&D are an abomination, they are not the thieves fault. No! Not the thief, I say. It was NOT the humble thief that struck the blow which we see now killing the colossus.  Then Who?  There ! He stands before you brazenly showing his known weapon proficiencies and specializations! The Fighter! THE FIGHTER !(Gasps from the crowd).

 How is this so ?  I will say, it was the lust for weapons and proficiency and clarification that birthed the blood-sucking tabeworm of dispair and confusion that is has grown, leviathan like, into the current skill systems.  But how you ask ?  Surely the thief brought skills into being, not the fighter ? No, lean close and I'll tell you the truth. (san loss =1/3-18)

Put aside the argument that the thieves “skills” are in fact class talents, and poorly explained at birth – and rather consider that the skill system as it exists, grew directly from the perceived need for weapons proficiency in D&D. See, back in the day, the argument was something like this;

• 1. We have limits of weapon use by class, but not within fighters
• 2. A fighter can thus use any imaginable weapon at all
• 3. The limits on non-fighters are assumed to be due to lack of training
• 4. If so, non-class weapons aren't impossible to use (do they burn us?) but rather usable poorly and at a penalty and
• 5. Fighters should have limits on weapons use, too, since knowledge of all weapons is clearly unbalancing or (your pick) unrealistic.

Now, I can't recall the exact source, but it might have been in the dragon, where EGG argued against weapon proficiencies for the exact reasons stated above: fighters should be able to grab anything, and class limits were no wonkier than armor limits or spell casting.

 “Weapon proficiency” was, however a constant source of variants everywhere, and at some point, EGG himself caved , insofar as it became official in the PH. Then came the cries for specialization –surely we need the ability to be insanely (here it is) SKILLED with less weapons if we are willing to limit the total number of slots. So, unfortunately, UA included weapons specialization that allowed trading slots for bonuses. At some point, I think it was the dragon in the AD&D era; we have “non-weapon proficiencies” which allow trading weapon slots for …other….skills! And by 2E it was a huge hodgepodge of variants and semi-official rulings accreted on the PH weapon proficiencies. So it was “improved” and regularized, and made completely core book official; and, it sucked, too. (Truth in advertising: I never liked 2E all that much)

Now, at some point, and I think it must have been just prior to 2E, or early on, at least, some clever Nelly came along and said some fateful words: “Hey, look, since thieves use skills and proficiencies, and now so does everyone, perhaps we should make them all work together  ? “; or at least that what it sounded like. And thus, when 3E came along with its rules heavy agenda we discovered that what the clever Nelly said was actually:

"I have an unresolved need for order and symmetry in my life, which is far more important than any consideration of rules intent or play, so I’m going to bollux up the thieves because they make me itch. And, I’m going to claim it’s more modern and advanced to have a defined skills system just to make it superficially acceptable , but mainly I want to do this to make DocGrognard's head explode in frustration ten years from now when he tries to play a 3.5 edition Thief" 

So, yes, Skills have been one of the banes of later edition D&D, but it isn't the thieves fault. It’s those damned “non-weapon Proficiencies.” And the bean counter fighter players who just HAD to know if they could use a three headed Battle parang, and if they used it in both hands, did it hit harder? Thanks dudes.

NEXT: Why the thief defined and created D&D as a role playing game. No, really.

Postscript, because I can.
I really don't know where the idea came from that if thieves could sneak, and then no-one else could. At least in the LBBGHBMEW games, we seemed to have assumed that sneak (for example) was ninja style sneaking, and hiding in shadows was batmanesque.

Actually, what we also assumed was that first level thieves suck and are unplayable as anything but muggers (backstab + loot); except for climb, every other “skill” was absurdly low. Which usually meant house rules to make them useful, which invariably included some notice of what they meant?