Quote from: AsenRG;932949
Gronan, I know this is going to give some people fits, but that's more or less Apocalypse/Dungeon World, except your system is more detailed;).

Except I'm willing to bet that Gronan doesn't let the player choose their own complication for the character from a list of options, or have such a complication be the only possible way to run out of arrows, or any other resource.

Quote from: TristramEvans;932955DungeonWorld is basically old school D&D with incredibly elaborate  training wheels affixed.

I concur:).
I've noticed the training wheels are useful for inexperienced Referees, though, at least for short periods.

Quote from: CRKrueger;932956Except I'm willing to bet that Gronan doesn't let the player choose their own complication for the character from a list of options, or have such a complication be the only possible way to run out of arrows, or any other resource.

I didn't any of those, either, when I was running DW, do you mean I was running it wrong:D?

Quote from: AsenRG;932949
Gronan, I know this is going to give some people fits, but that's more or less Apocalypse/Dungeon World, except your system is more detailed;).

I've played DW, and it's about 75% "old D&D as we used to play, very painstakingly explained."  I never CALLED it "Defy Danger," but that's EXACTLY how we used it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;932745So, the most common methods seem to be:
-roll-under ability score checks
-D20-style roll+bonus vs Difficulty Number
-1d6 method (in the style of LotFP)

Which is your favorite (of those, or others used in some OSR game)?  Which do you really dislike, if any?

In D&D-style games, I like the emphasis to be on class and level, rather than on skills and stats, so I prefer to assign a probability based on my evaluation of the circumstances and call for a roll. If there is an applicable class ability (e.g., ranger's ability to track), I'll use that. If there is a general rule, I'll use that. An example might be sneaking/surprise: I'll use the 1d6 BTB method, possibly modified by class or race based skills (e.g., a Thief's successful use of silent movement or a ranger's increased chance of surprise), and possibly also modified by circumstances. If there is no general rule involved, I'll evaluate the probability based on the class/level/circumstances, and usually call for a d100/roll-under check (because my mind works with %-chances without needing to translate the numbers to a smaller die).

Roll-under ability score checks would be my most disliked method of resolving "general skills" in D&Dish games.

If considering non-D&Dish games that are designed around skills, then my preferred method is roll-under d100 (again, because my mind works with %-chances easily).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933000I've played DW, and it's about 75% "old D&D as we used to play, very painstakingly explained."  I never CALLED it "Defy Danger," but that's EXACTLY how we used it.

Always was saying something like this, based on your and Chirine's accounts:). But from the reaction last time, I can predict that is still going to give some people fits:D!

Fuck them, that's fun. As a follow-up question, if the Referee in DW was using his own, fixed homebrew setting, and skipping the "pick your own consequences" or "name setting facts" mechanics, how close would it get to your games of that time?
Would it be just a question of the PC in your games not being assumed to be "the stars of the show" at least until they earned it by levelling up;)?

And BTW, are you familiar with Tunnels and Trolls, too:p?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;932925I roll 2d6 and use my judgement for any additions or subtractions based on character level and how they described what they're trying to do. A 9 or better is a solid success, a 6 to 8 may be a complication or no effect depending on the situation, a 4 or 5 or maybe 6 depending on situation is probably a comic failure but you can try again, a 3 means complication, failure, and injury, and a 2 is the worst thing that can happen.  Depending on the precautions you take, the "worst thing that can happen" will vary.

Reminds me of Traveler, with the added complications which I really like.

Quote from: AsenRG;932957I didn't any of those, either, when I was running DW, do you mean I was running it wrong:D?

No, just in your typical Rule Zero Fallacy way, you conveniently ignore that you weren't running DW as the designers wrote it.

If on any other type of board in existence, a modified version of {noun} isn't considered to be the same as the original {noun}.  Not sure why "You can totally mod Toon into Phoenix Command and Vice Versa" always has to be the default response to commenting on words actually written down and placed on paper in a specific order to mean a specific thing for a specific purpose, by design, by human intent, not random fucking Chaos Theory.

Here's a little of what happened in the Old Days:

Quote from: ChirineWhat we used to call 'travelling' and 'bounding' 'overwatch', where the various sections / people of the party covered each other's moves;
Communication - saying to the party, and not just to the GM, what they were wanting or about to do;
Covering people engaged in a task by someone with a ranged weapon or spell - covering fire, as it were;
Rearguards that guarded the rear of the party.
Archers or crossbowpersons carry one arrow or bolt that has oil-soaked tow wrapped around the head, so that it can be used as an 'illumination' or 'incendiary' round - giant spiders have webs, webs burn, ambush blown;
Carry lanterns, not torches - and carry them low, so as not to blind everybody

Yeah, that sure sounds like complications were covering all the possible fuckups and other than that, there isn't really any dealing with resources or actual inventory, or anything.  

Oh wait, it actually sounds nothing even fucking remotely like any Xworld game in existence...

That's because it ISN'T.

Quote from: Tod13;932910What is your thought on my system? I'm not trying to convert you. I'm treating you as a focus group, to see if you run in horror.

As a short recap, my system is: dieSizeA + skill + modifiers vs dieSizeB
The size relationship between dieSizeA and dieSizeB determines the difficulty.
It isn't tacked on, since all rolls use this same system. There are no other rolls.

Yep I'm familiar with this kind of resolution.

I think this kind of skill-resolution system is good for combat if you like very kinetic combat where the PC's feel their skills directly impact the moment-by-moment portions of tactical combat. I liken it to playing Streetfighter vs. playing Civilization. I don't have a problem with it as long as the static numbers for non-contested rolls don't prove to make your die-as-skills too swingy. I could definitely see this working - I'm not familiar with Fable but it "sounds" like you're creating a more dynamic form of Savage Worlds. But in Savage Worlds they use a static number (4) to determine success with higher results increasing degrees of success with extra bonuses based on the roll.

Quote from: tenbones;933054Yep I'm familiar with this kind of resolution.

I think this kind of skill-resolution system is good for combat if you like very kinetic combat where the PC's feel their skills directly impact the moment-by-moment portions of tactical combat. I liken it to playing Streetfighter vs. playing Civilization. I don't have a problem with it as long as the static numbers for non-contested rolls don't prove to make your die-as-skills too swingy. I could definitely see this working - I'm not familiar with Fable but it "sounds" like you're creating a more dynamic form of Savage Worlds. But in Savage Worlds they use a static number (4) to determine success with higher results increasing degrees of success with extra bonuses based on the roll.

Responding to the bold: there are no "uncontested" rolls. Difficulties are in terms of die size. For example, for disarming a trap, if your skill attribute is a d8, and you have a +1 in Career of Thief, and have an adequate set of tools, against a d6 trap, you roll 1d8 + 1 >= 1d6.

Quote from: Tod13;933063Responding to the bold: there are no "uncontested" rolls. Difficulties are in terms of die size. For example, for disarming a trap, if your skill attribute is a d8, and you have a +1 in Career of Thief, and have an adequate set of tools, against a d6 trap, you roll 1d8 + 1 >= 1d6.

Ahh gotcha. Hmm. Hmmm. HMMMM.

It *sounds* fine. Perhaps the only concern I have is that it might feel "too swingy" but I'd have to run it to see. What are the assumed "average" stats for a regular person? d4? d6?

Quote from: RPGPundit;932745Which is your favorite (of those, or others used in some OSR game)?

None of the above.

Quote from: RPGPundit;932745Which do you really dislike, if any?

Any system with (1) many different niche skills - Athletics good, Jump Tumble Swim Climb Balance very, very bad - and (2) tons of fiddly modifiers can fuck straight off.

Roll-under-attribute runs the risk of the game-world being defined by what's on the character sheet.

If a game must have skills, I like the way Flashing Blades handles them, broad guidelines, broadly applicable.

Quote from: tenbones;933054Yep I'm familiar with this kind of resolution.

I think this kind of skill-resolution system is good for combat if you like very kinetic combat where the PC's feel their skills directly impact the moment-by-moment portions of tactical combat. I liken it to playing Streetfighter vs. playing Civilization. I don't have a problem with it as long as the static numbers for non-contested rolls don't prove to make your die-as-skills too swingy. I could definitely see this working - I'm not familiar with Fable but it "sounds" like you're creating a more dynamic form of Savage Worlds. But in Savage Worlds they use a static number (4) to determine success with higher results increasing degrees of success with extra bonuses based on the roll.

Responding to the bold: there are no "uncontested" rolls. Difficulties are in terms of die size. For example, for disarming a trap, if your skill attribute is a d8, and you have a +1 in Career of Thief, and have an adequate set of tools, against a d6 trap, you roll 1d8 + 1 >= 1d6.

The difference in combat is that, much like Barbarians of Lemuria, career bonuses do not apply to combat. For combat, if your offense attribute is a d10, and you have a +1 sword, against an opponent with a d8 for defense, you roll 1d10 +1 >= 1d8.

Quote from: Tod13;933063Responding to the bold: there are no "uncontested" rolls. Difficulties are in terms of die size. For example, for disarming a trap, if your skill attribute is a d8, and you have a +1 in Career of Thief, and have an adequate set of tools, against a d6 trap, you roll 1d8 + 1 >= 1d6.

How high do skills go?  Where's the Grey Mouser at in Career of Thief?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;932925I roll 2d6 and use my judgement for any additions or subtractions based on character level and how they described what they're trying to do. A 9 or better is a solid success, a 6 to 8 may be a complication or no effect depending on the situation, a 4 or 5 or maybe 6 depending on situation is probably a comic failure but you can try again, a 3 means complication, failure, and injury, and a 2 is the worst thing that can happen.  Depending on the precautions you take, the "worst thing that can happen" will vary.

So, basically, adapting the reaction roll table to degrees of success. I don't do this for risky situations or skills used in combat, but I do it for things like crafting. So, I break the rolls down as:

 - "Did I succeed?" Yes/No Questions: 5+ on 1d6, if there's a roll at all.
 - "How well did I do?" Degree of Success Questions: 2d6.

But lately, I've been adding a twist to the second type: roll 2d6, and if it is below an attribute, you succeed, with the result being degree of success (5 or less = success with some downside,) but if it is above the attribute, you fail, with the result being degree of failure (9+ = not so bad, 2 = very very bad.) In some cases, your attribute is effectively half normal. The first example I came up with was an alternative way of doing system shock rolls, where 2d6 under Con is successful, but possibly with disfigurement on a bad roll.

Quote from: CRKrueger;933079How high do skills go?  Where's the Grey Mouser at in Career of Thief?

The Skill Attribute goes up to d12 (d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12). The Career bonuses depend on the player. Characters have 2 Careers and have a +1 to apply to one of the careers at each level (max level of 10). Currently, I don't have a rule against putting all ten +1s into a single Career.

I did design most of a game that was rules-abuse-resistant, but it wasn't fun and was way too complex during setup, so I basically say to just make sure everyone in a group is playing the same way (either rules-abusing or none-abusing).

I haven't read the Grey Mouser books. But I include the Rolls as Percent Table to give guidelines. (d20s are included for comparison.)

                    Active
Passive       1      1d4     1d6     1d8    1d10    1d12    1d20
1           100%     100%    100%    100%    100%    100%    100%
1d4          25%      63%     75%     81%     85%     88%     93%
1d6          17%      42%     58%     69%     75%     79%     88%
1d8          13%      31%     44%     56%     65%     71%     83%
1d10         10%      25%     35%     45%     55%     63%     78%
1d12          8%      21%     29%     38%     46%     54%     73%
1d20          5%      13%     18%     23%     28%     33%     53%

If I did the AnyDice setup right, a +5 and d12 gives ~85% success against a d12.
+8 gives ~96%.
+10 gives ~99%.