So after re-engaging with AD&D 2e last year I'm interested in exploring old school play again. As I understand it, one of the key tenets of old school play is the use of narration as a resolution method wherever possible. So instead of making a check traps roll, describe to the GM how you open the chest.

My question is: how far does this go? Which dice rolls and stats are necessary, and which ones can be done away with? What is the bare minimum of mechanical structure that you need?

I'm assuming that combat is one area that needs a dice system. And that social interaction and perception are two areas that don't. But what about movement? Can't you describe to the GM your approach in climbing that mountain, or in sneaking up on the guards, and have him decide how well you did based on the precautions you took? Do you need a 'roll under your stat' type mechanism to resolve these general situations? Or is that just a luxury?

You don't need *any* mechanical structure. You just need to be able to toss in a mechanic on the fly when you don't have an answer.

To quote Tom Moldvay, in Basic D&D: "The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

What kind of mechanical structure do you need to fulfill, and enjoy, your role as a DM? Do you need to nail down a structure to have a comfortable framework to work from? Because, I think the answers to your questions will be personalized to how you, specifically, run your campaigns.

Moldvay Basic, for example, contains plenty of guidelines to use, or tweak, or discard at will. And many of these guidelines - outside of combat - use a single or pair of d6 to determine the result. Opening stuck doors; listening at doors; retainer/monster reaction; morale; surprise; encounter distance; wandering monsters; finding traps. They all boil down to base chances on a d6, or a result based on 2d6, with modifiers based on stat bonus, or adjudicated by the DM.

Frankly, I think you're going to get a huge variety of answers to your questions - and you won't see a great deal of intersection with these answers. (And probably you'll see some resulting arguments ... blahblah...). Personally, if you're playing "old school" D&D, and you want to resolve an action that there's not a subsystem for, it's nice to settle on a simple mechanic ("roll 2 on a d6 to safely navigate that rickety bridge"), and modify probability based upon a stat, or circumstances, or forethought/planning. And, if failure isn't in doubt then just 'call' the result. Own this shit; don't let the book straightjacket you.

I call for a dice roll whenever the fickle hand for fortune would make a difference. So no, no perception roll to see what's in a room - first glance and I'll describe the basics of what's in there. Look in the chest of drawers and I'll tell you what's in them.

But I do roll for surprise.

I've read that MAR Barker ran his Tékumel games with %dice only. The player would suggest an action, and Barker would decide on a % chance of success. How he came up with the chance of success, I dunno.

Look at it as if you there in your player's shoes and imagine what he would be seeing using your knowledge and experience.

The problem to avoid is the game of twenty questions. In other words assume that the character has some amount of savvy and experience if his stats warrant that assumption and supply the added detail. Remember a 1st level fighter is a warrior capable of standing and fighting in the ranks of a medieval army. The 1st level magic-user, cleric, and thief are all of equivalent experience.  

However the character has a 6 intelligence a low wisdom, dex, etc. Then filter your descriptions accordingly.

For example a Fighter leans down to examine a potentially trapped chest.

Fighter: I carefully slip my dagger into the crack of the lid and turn to lift it up slightly.

Not to do

Referee: Nothing happens

Fighter: I look in do I see anything?

Referee: It is dark you can't see anything

Fighter: I bring up the candle I lite earlier do I see anything now?

Referee: Yes you see a wire. running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.

The better way of doing it.

Referee: OK you lift the lid a little bit and when you bring the candle you lit earlier in you see a wire running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.


Both wind up with

Fighter: OK I gently set down the lid and turn back to the party to talk about this.


The first way is twenty questions and it drives everybody crazy. The second is a lot shorter because it assumes that the fighter character will do the things that have a minimal chance of failure (if any).

Quote from: soviet;620510As I understand it, one of the key tenets of old school play is the use of narration as a resolution method wherever possible.

No, it's more along the lines of, don't roll for things you don't need to roll for.

Frex, if you can stop a door from swinging shut with iron spikes or wooden wedges, then you don't need to roll to 'remove traps.'

Quote from: soviet;620510I'm assuming that combat is one area that needs a dice system. And that social interaction and perception are two areas that don't.

Actually, most old school games have reaction rolls, with modifiers for charisma or charm scores or skills, and they have surprise rolls, with modifiers or benefits for skills of class abilities.

Quote from: soviet;620510Can't you describe to the GM your approach in climbing that mountain, or in sneaking up on the guards, and have him decide how well you did based on the precautions you took? Do you need a 'roll under your stat' type mechanism to resolve these general situations? Or is that just a luxury?

Again, don't roll for the things you don't need to roll for. If it should reasonably work, then it works. If it won't, it doesn't. If there's a chance of either outcome, assign a probability and roll.

I call for a roll whenever a chance of failure would be interesting.

For example, walking down a set of stairs - no roll. Running full speed down a set of stairs while being chased by a horde of undead - dex check!

Quote from: Black Vulmea;620578Actually, most old school games have reaction rolls, with modifiers for charisma or charm scores or skills, and they have surprise rolls, with modifiers or benefits for skills of class abilities.


.

I think one key difference between these, as well as nwps like ettiquette in 2E, versus newer editions, is they don't usually replace speaking in character but tend to support it. The reaction roll sets the stage for how foes respond to your charisma before the interaction begins (at least I always used them that way, it has been a while since I read that section of the book)----reaction rolls are also mainly there for when the GM isn't sure how monsters or npcs would react to the party, if he has a good sense of their reaction already, then he doesn't need to roll. With the ettiquette NWP, that isn't a roll to see how your character behaves, it is a knowledge roll made before you do anything, so the GM can tell the player what he knows about interacting with a king or eating at a noble's banquet. That isn't to say you couldn't roll for these things if you wanted to. You could just make CHR checks for example. But the idea of rolling a die to see how s social interaction plays out (especially rolling in place of playing it out at the table) is not something I really encountered in D&D until 3E.

Quote from: estar;620538For example a Fighter leans down to examine a potentially trapped chest.

Fighter: I carefully slip my dagger into the crack of the lid and turn to lift it up slightly.

Not to do

Referee: Nothing happens

Fighter: I look in do I see anything?

Referee: It is dark you can't see anything

Fighter: I bring up the candle I lite earlier do I see anything now?

Referee: Yes you see a wire. running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.

The better way of doing it.

Referee: OK you lift the lid a little bit and when you bring the candle you lit earlier in you see a wire running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.


Both wind up with

Fighter: OK I gently set down the lid and turn back to the party to talk about this.


The first way is twenty questions and it drives everybody crazy. The second is a lot shorter because it assumes that the fighter character will do the things that have a minimal chance of failure (if any).

At the same time, it isn't always good to assume things on behalf of the player. A quick "what are you using as a light source?" when the player looks at the chest would be a good middle ground.

Its best if you don't ascribe actions not taken to players just as you shouldn't assign reactions to stimuli.

Suppose the chest was not wire trapped. What if instead there was a nasty critter inside that would strike if light is brought near enough to the chest?

In that case, assuming a candle was used brings the PC under attack.What if the fighter got near enough to the chest and heard a slight hiss in the dark?

 I would rather have players outline SOP for such things and let me know when they intend to do things differently.

Here are the guidelines I give to GMs in Microlite74 3.0. They are one way (there are others) of doing it and should work (in general) in any old school style of D&D. BTW, the following is open game content under the OGL.

QuoteRunning a Game Without Skills

The greatest change between Microlite20 and Microlite74 is the removal of all character skills. If you are used to just allowing players to just say "I'm searching the room. What do I find?" and make search skill roll or just say "I'll try to persuade the baron to loan us a catapult." and make a persuade skill roll, running without skill rolls is going to require as much change to your thinking as it will to your players' thinking.

First, you need to get your players to tell you what their characters are actually doing in the campaign world, instead of talking in terms of what skill they are using. Then you need to learn to listen to what they say and decide if there description of what they are doing a) would most likely solve the problem, b) wouldn't have a chance of solving the problem, c) might not immediately solve the problem but would provide more info that would help solve the problem, or d) would not definitely solve the problem but has a fair chance of doing so. Only d would require a die roll.

Let's take checking a chest for traps as an example. Get the players to describe in general terms how they are going to check the chest for traps. Note general terms are enough, the idea is to see what the characters are doing, not to require them to describe every single muscle and eye movement they make. Having to "click on one exact pixel on the screen" to succeed is boring and frustrating in a computer game, the verbal equivalent of it is even more frustrating in a tabletop game. Don't fall into the trap of doing it as it turns players off fast.

Let's say a player says "I'll look the chest quickly over for obvious traps, paying special to the keyhole, clasp, and anything that looks out of the ordinary. I'm not touching it yet."

If the chest had a poison needle near the clasp or some holes for poison gas or needles to shoot out of, this should be enough for the character to notice it without a roll, even if he isn't a Rogue or the like. However, if the chest if set to explode (or shoot daggers out of the opening when opened, such a search is not going to discover the trap - again no matter what the character's class or background as such a trap isn't visible from the outside. If you are feeling generous, you might have a Rogue make roll and if she makes it tell her player that while she doesn't see a trap, something still doesn't seem right about the chest.

If the character had said he was then poking the chest with a pole instead of rushing to open it, he might hear something strange if the chest had the above-mentioned dagger trap. Of course, unless he is a Rogue or has some strange background, chances are he would not associate the noise with a trap, but rather just that there was something loose in the chest. Again, you might give a Rogue a roll, especially an experienced Rogue.

As this example shows, it really isn't hard - unless you choose to make it hard. It's just different. After a few sessions both you and your players will find that it really isn't as hard as it looks.

Some players, however, really want die rolls. Because of previous bad experiences with poor GMs, they just can't trust the GM enough to handle some decisions being made without die rolls. If your players are like this, you can use "skill" rolls as a safety net. The players will still have to describe what their character does to solve the problem just as above. Once the player describes what his character is doing, the GM calls for a class/background based "skill" roll as described in the skills section of these rules. The results are determined by your opinion as GM of the action described and the skill roll. There are basically two situations:

In the first case, you feel that the player has a good plan that should likely succeed. Therefore it will succeed regardless of the result of the roll, but how well it succeeds is determined by the skill roll. A failed skill roll is a minimal success; the character succeeds, but just barely. A successful skill roll means the character's plan succeeds without any major hitches.

In the second case, either the player obviously knows less than his character does about the situation or just comes up with a bad idea that you feel is unlikely to work. You let the skill roll decide the result. A failed roll means the plan fails, while a successful roll means the plan somehow worked after all, but probably not perfectly.

Players who refuse to even try to come up with some type of rational statement about  what their character is actually doing but just want to let the skill roll decide automatically fail.

Quote from: soviet;620510So after re-engaging with AD&D 2e last year I'm interested in exploring old school play again. As I understand it, one of the key tenets of old school play is the use of narration as a resolution method wherever possible.

Roleplaying, not "narration".

RPGPundit

I would say that learning when a die roll is needed or not, is a skill that you learn as you gm. I suspect that this is somewhat difficult for most novices, and somewhat easy for most veterans.

Quote from: Bill;621317I would say that learning when a die roll is needed or not, is a skill that you learn as you gm. I suspect that this is somewhat difficult for most novices, and somewhat easy for most veterans.

I'd agree with that. Its a bit of an art form knowing when to minimize the amount of dice rolling, especially without eliminating the point of certain mechanics you've chosen to use... of course, choosing which mechanics to use for the type of campaign you want to run is ALSO a learned skill.

RPGPundit

To the OP:  One of the things I've been getting into lately is the idea of the thief skill roll as a backup.  Think about it this way:  Before the thief was added to the game, any character could disarm a trap.  You got a description, you interacted with it Q&A-style (I have begun to call this the "text adventure" method), and - failing that - you had your basic 2-in-6 chance to disarm a simple trap.  So the thief's 15% (or whatever) chance to disarm is ON TOP of that (if both those methods fail).  It was a real revelation when I started to look at it this way.  Suddenly the thief gets a lot better at his job.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;621698To the OP:  One of the things I've been getting into lately is the idea of the thief skill roll as a backup.  Think about it this way:  Before the thief was added to the game, any character could disarm a trap.  You got a description, you interacted with it Q&A-style (I have begun to call this the "text adventure" method), and - failing that - you had your basic 2-in-6 chance to disarm a simple trap.  So the thief's 15% (or whatever) chance to disarm is ON TOP of that (if both those methods fail).  It was a real revelation when I started to look at it this way.  Suddenly the thief gets a lot better at his job.

Yes, I've sometimes considered it that way too.

RPGPundit