I realize 2nd Ed. is probably not the most popular D&D variant around here, but I was thinking back to the 2e/3e transition, and how characters differed between the editions.

Concept-wise, it seems to me that 2nd Ed. characters had skills that went a lot deeper as far as building in RP possibilities for characters - just looking at the list you'll see Ancient Languages, Artist Ability, Dancing, Brewing, Animal Handling, Juggling...many of these are evocative and give background hooks, as well as interesting in-game possibilities. Basic's "General Skills" were good for pretty much the same reasons.

While 3e did keep alot of these skills, I think that folding a number of them together made them less 'visible' to players - and sometimes caused them to lose sort of their uses.  At the same time, new skills appeared to run rules off, and I think these were 'faster better stronger' than the old ones - why take Craft (Painting) or Profession (miner) when you could have Spot or Tumble instead? Even Jump or Climb are going to be better choices, so a character is split between interesting skill choices and those that will actually help their survival. So, in practice, no more dancing gypsies, goldsmiths or herbalist fighters.

In the end of course, in 4e, most of these underpowered skills - e.g. the so called 'CraPPer skills' - Craft, Perform, Profession- simply got removed. While this left characters free to claim they can do whatever thanks to their background, I'm guessing in practice this tends to default to 'Human Fighter kill stuff!' as that's whats written on the character sheet.

Of course alot of the 'new' skills are really useful as far as playing the game go - a GM can use Jump checks or Spot checks to handle easily all sorts of cases that were quite ambiguous before. But, how could you build a system that lets you have the best of both worlds -  a skill list that is interesting and evocative, and still be able to have rules for jumping or spotting ??

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;398017I realize 2nd Ed. is probably not the most popular D&D variant around here, but I was thinking back to the 2e/3e transition, and how characters differed between the editions.

I thought it was the only good edition, but that's certainly not a popular sentiment.

That said, it's been ages since I played 2e...didn't things like "spot" and "jump" default to ability checks, essentially, removing the need (in 2e) of choosing between a "background" skill and one with more utility for adventuring?

I prefer OD&D and 4e, but I have no issue with 2e.  The NWP reminded me a lot of Palladium Fantasy skills whereas 3e/4e skills are more in line with video game skill sets.  By which I mean, these skills shall definitely be used within the game on a regular basis and form the core of your character.

T&T 7th edition did a good job by letting players define their skills.  It kept from having the Palladium laundry list or the minimalist list.   Lots of Aspect Tag games do that as well.  Instead, you define the skill as narrow or as wide as you want.   Thus, my elf can be skilled in "Dancing" or "Blade Ballet Under the Autumn Moon".    The advantage of a narrower skill is you do it far better, but less often.

I think it was Unknown Armies, but the skill concept was you picked a general skill like Guns and then you could narrow down to specialties.  So I would have Guns (Pistol) and get a +1 bonus with all Guns and +2 with Pistols.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;398025I thought it was the only good edition, but that's certainly not a popular sentiment.

That said, it's been ages since I played 2e...didn't things like "spot" and "jump" default to ability checks, essentially, removing the need (in 2e) of choosing between a "background" skill and one with more utility for adventuring?

Well, I mostly play 3rd these days, but I think 2E gets alot less love than it deserves...haven't played it in awhile, but played a fair bit of it at the time.

As far as ability checks go...Yep that's pretty much how they did it. I checked and Jumping actually was a NWP, though I couldn't find any rules for how far someone without it could jump. Perception type checks didn't have a consistent rule so much - the usual rule was an Int or Wis check, apart from things like secret doors (1 in 6) or the dwarf abilities (d6 roll, though there's an optional rule in The Complete Dwarf that makes those proficiencies as well).
I suppose the only problem with that, for me, is that I do like the way skills improved with level in later editions (as saves and attacks do).

Quote from: Spinachcat;398038I prefer OD&D and 4e, but I have no issue with 2e.  The NWP reminded me a lot of Palladium Fantasy skills whereas 3e/4e skills are more in line with video game skill sets.  By which I mean, these skills shall definitely be used within the game on a regular basis and form the core of your character.

T&T 7th edition did a good job by letting players define their skills.  It kept from having the Palladium laundry list or the minimalist list.   Lots of Aspect Tag games do that as well.  Instead, you define the skill as narrow or as wide as you want.   Thus, my elf can be skilled in "Dancing" or "Blade Ballet Under the Autumn Moon".    The advantage of a narrower skill is you do it far better, but less often.

I think it was Unknown Armies, but the skill concept was you picked a general skill like Guns and then you could narrow down to specialties.  So I would have Guns (Pistol) and get a +1 bonus with all Guns and +2 with Pistols.

The varying skill narrowness thing is interesting - something I haven't seen very often -though I'm more worried not so much by narrowness/broadness as by a strong adventuring focus of skills. ("When you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail").

T&T is sort of weird in that everything runs directly off the attribute scores, which increase with level...so I guess here 'adventuring' and 'nonadventuring' abilities do increase together, though with the price that attribute increases from level are fairly extreme.

OK more thoughts on this...

It occurs to me that, say, 4Es system of skill checks might actually work for what I want to do. Basically, kill the existing list of 4E skills, and use the NWP list instead but with the 4E mechanic (i.e. d20+ 1/2 level + 5 skill bonus).

I could potentially have stuff like "Spot" and "Jump" instead defaulting to just an ability checking (adding the +1/2 level bonus). Possibly I'd want class based bonuses to add to some of these.

Or, maybe I'm crazy. Maybe having skills that are "background-based" rather than "adventuring-based" means they shouldn't level up unless the PCs actual class is Commoner..

How about "You can automatically do anything in your history or background, so long as it doesn't have an impact on the game"?

Well, I like background skills that do have an impact on the game. Stuff like:
-gambler picks up some extra cash at the casino
-fisherman gets to roll to see if he can feed his friends
-miner gets to see if the tunnel is going to collapse
-sailor gets to 'work passage' and so has less trouble getting a ride on the ship.
-fletcher can make their own arrows out in the wild
-herbalist finds odd herbs on the way to the next adventure/identifies a strange mushroom.

Stuff like that...I think it adds more flavour to the game.

Also, even failing background skill checks can be a basis for interesting roleplaying e.g. we had a WFR 1e game once where the GM gave everyone tinea after trekking through the rain for several days, someone else remembered that the "home remedy" for this is to pee on your foot, and the dwarf alchemist botched their skill check and thought that yes, pee was the answer, but you had to drink it. He handed out several bottles of "tinea cure" without telling us what it was ("Mmm...fruity").

I don't understand why things like "Jump" are a check. How often has anyone had a player try to jump something and fail, falling to their death? It is stupid. Either they can do it or they can't.

Another good one is "Read Languages." Never mind how difficult to read the material on the page is. One day you can roll well and read a foreign technical manual. The next day you fail and can't read a personal log.

Disguise is another great one. One day you roll well and get the rubber mask from Scooby Do. Another time you roll low and opt for a baseball hat pulled low. No one with disguise even checks themselves in the mirror before they go.

I think skills are stupid. To me, the only thing they are good for is to develop a sense of depth for the player when he looks at his character's sheet. I've never seen a skill system I liked. The only one I can think of is Palladium, because they try to make a list of everything a highly skilled person could know how to do. Rolling % to do them is stupid.

Well, to me I expect the randomness in a skill check to represent a number of different things - alot of it being variation in circumstances, mostly small factors that aren't particularly trackable without going into alot of really minor details.  Sometimes a check might fail due to lack of character competency, but that's most likely when they're not fully trained, or attempting a knowledge-type skill where making it depends on whether you know something, or not.
I'd say that skill checks can be overused, but I wouldn't particularly want to play in a system that does away with them entirely.  I mean, I wouldn't make someone make a roll to read the ship's log unless it was written in an obscure dialect, or seriously smudged, or in awful handwriting with lots of maritime slang.

You may be onto something with Disguise there, though. In Palladium when you roll Disguise its really to see if someone sees through it - an opponent doesn't get a separate roll unless they have another specific skill in counterintelligence or the like. Skills like Disguise in d20 are slightly odd in that there's a roll where maybe there shouldn't be - since there's already another roll (Spot) for the viewer to see through it.  

Jump is useful at least being rated, since that lets a character figure out whether they're likely to make a given distance or not. Also, someone won't Jump exactly the same distance every time they Jump. It may be that for many systems, the amount of variation that the dice roll gives is too much, though.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;399147Well, to me I expect the randomness in a skill check to represent a number of different things - alot of it being variation in circumstances, mostly small factors that aren't particularly trackable without going into alot of really minor details.  Sometimes a check might fail due to lack of character competency, but that's most likely when they're not fully trained, or attempting a knowledge-type skill where making it depends on whether you know something, or not.
I'd say that skill checks can be overused, but I wouldn't particularly want to play in a system that does away with them entirely.  I mean, I wouldn't make someone make a roll to read the ship's log unless it was written in an obscure dialect, or seriously smudged, or in awful handwriting with lots of maritime slang.

You may be onto something with Disguise there, though. In Palladium when you roll Disguise its really to see if someone sees through it - an opponent doesn't get a separate roll unless they have another specific skill in counterintelligence or the like. Skills like Disguise in d20 are slightly odd in that there's a roll where maybe there shouldn't be - since there's already another roll (Spot) for the viewer to see through it.  

Jump is useful at least being rated, since that lets a character figure out whether they're likely to make a given distance or not. Also, someone won't Jump exactly the same distance every time they Jump. It may be that for many systems, the amount of variation that the dice roll gives is too much, though.

I never ran track, but in gym class I felt like we all knew how far we could jump. After the first time, it didn't change. Someone could say, "I can jump 6'" and a really, really good jump would be 6'5". They couldn't roll a 20 and jump 10', or roll a one, trip, and get 2', ever.

I think you are right about it. I had a thought just a minute ago.

What about a skill system where the number of skill ranks you have in it determines the size of die you roll to determine the number of rounds it takes to complete.

For example, a really skilled character setting up a computer does it in 1d8 rounds. An unskilled character does it in 2d20.

That way, r2d2 can almost always hack a door faster than Leia, but they both can do it. The only difference is how many rounds they have to get shot at.

For other checks, like jumping on and off a horse, jumping over a ledge, tumbling behind cover, or any other immediate physical activity, a failed roll means the character doesn't land it perfectly, resulting in losing initiative the next round. It never results in a real failure. So if you jump on the back of someone's horse and fail, they can turn around and shoot at you before you get a turn. If you pass, you can still act.

Well I think it could work, and the losing initiative aspect could be interesting for the fast physical actions.

Many systems effectively do have varying times to perform a skill based off skill level, since there are tasks where characters can reroll if they fail until they succeed - so that the expert can do it in 1 or a couple of attempts and the beginner takes several rolls. Just using a single roll for 'how long' like you're suggesting is less clunky though, and reduces the chance the novice will get lucky and go faster than an expert.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;399026How about "You can automatically do anything in your history or background, so long as it doesn't have an impact on the game"?

This is close to how I handle "Background" in Microlite75. Chacters are assumed to be competent in anything related to their class or background.

Here are the actual (OGL) rules from the current rules draft (0.60):

QuoteBackground
Characters may select, with the approval of the GM, a one or two-word background that represents a broad base of skills and knowledge, e.g. Farmer, Merchant, Desert Nomad, Noble, Shaman, Templar, Thyatian Mercenary, Ritualist, etc. Backgrounds need not be related to the PCs class, e.g. a player who creates a deeply religious fighter skilled in the arts of vision interpretation, divination and oration might pick 'Prophet' as a background. Backgrounds may not duplicate a class.

The GM will consider the character's background just as he would the character's class when deciding if a character will succeed with an action. For example, a character with an "Engineer" background should have a much better chance of damning a creek or building a bridge over it than a character with a "Courtier" background.

Skills
There are no specific skills in Microlite75. Instead players are expected to think like adventurers, tell the GM what they are doing and the GM decides if it will succeed in the situation, taking into account the character's class and background. If the GM decides a random success chance is truly needed he may resolve the situation with a roll of his choice or he may call for one of the following rolls:

Primary Skill Roll: 1D20 + Stat Bonus + Class Level if the character is attempting something directly related to their class or background.
Secondary Skill Roll: 1D20 + Stat Bonus + (Class Level/2, round up) if the character is attempting something only loosely related to their class or background.
Minor Skill Roll: 1d20 +Stat Bonus + (Class Level/3, round down) if the character is attempting something not really related to their class or background.

When the GM calls for a skill roll, he will declare the type of skill roll, which stat the skill roll falls under, and any situational modifiers and the player will make a skill roll.

Roll higher than the GM assigned Difficulty Class to succeed. Unless the GM rules otherwise, a natural roll of 20 always succeeds for a Primary Skill Roll. Suggested Difficulty Classes: Easy - 8, Normal - 12, Difficult - 16, Hard - 20, Very Hard - 24, Legendary - 28, Unbelievable - 32.

While it is certainly not obvious, the germ of this system came from 2e's broad NWP background-type skills.

Quote from: RandallS;399237This is close to how I handle "Background" in Microlite75. Chacters are assumed to be competent in anything related to their class or background.

While it is certainly not obvious, the germ of this system came from 2e's broad NWP background-type skills.

OK interesting -actually reminds me more of 2nd Ed's optional "Secondary Skills" system, where characters had a single very broad skill (picked or rolled off a table).

I tend to like some more exact definition of what a character can do, though maybe I can adapt the Microlite 0.6 approach - it seems to suggest a breakdown of skills into 'class based skills' and 'background skills' that I could maybe use, having separate lists for each. Jump/Spot/Tumble/Survival could then become class skill options, while Mining or Blacksmithing etc. go into the background skill list. Cool.