Quote from: TristramEvans;9327843 levels in a skill: apprentice, journeyman and master. For each level in a skill, add an extra d6 to an ability check, take the highest 3.

I'm gonna have to try this, The numbers are interesting

Quote from: Lunamancer;932810You mean that whack grafted-on d20 combat system on the beautiful percentile system that is AD&D?

No the  thieves skills system.  Its a lousy grafted on mechanic that wasn't thought through. Its poor home brew that happened to be written by the designer

When I wanted all percentiles I'd play BRP which I did whenever possible (which wasn't often)  back in the day

Quote from: CRKrueger;933050No, just in your typical Rule Zero Fallacy way, you conveniently ignore that you weren't running DW as the designers wrote it.

I'm not ignoring any such thing when discussing mechanics, Green One. But generally, I don't discuss mechanics and ways to run a game in the same thread, and this one is about mechanics:).
Which is why I asked you whether I was running it "wrong", and not whether I was running it RAW or RAI (which I don't give a flying fuck about;)).

QuoteIf on any other type of board in existence, a modified version of {noun} isn't considered to be the same as the original {noun}.

So? The question is still "does it still sound so different after these modifications", not "was I running a True Dungeon World According To Its Designer's Vision (TM)"! I know I wasn't, but the question I wanted answered is "does that sound fun".

(Admittedly, at some point I had the feeling I was running T&T with the optional Saves-Only combat system suggested in TrollZine. Except DW had less stats, but whatever).

QuoteNot 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.

Because those changes were brought upon by my players (who just assumed we'd be tracking ammo, and I'd give them the answers to successful Lore rolls). It was due to them not paying attention to the rules.
And misunderstanding, while human-produced, is the closest you get to Chaos Theory IME;).

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;933097No the  thieves skills system.  Its a lousy grafted on mechanic that wasn't thought through. Its poor home brew that happened to be written by the designer

When I wanted all percentiles I'd play BRP which I did whenever possible (which wasn't often)  back in the day

This is totally fair. D&D's core systems were clearly grafted together bits and bobs of off-the-cuff house rules, starting with the combat system(s) and extending to pretty much everything else. The mechanics of it all is so bad it's almost hard to wrap your head around. On the other hand, everything you replace it with in a rationally built system is basically equivalent, just more elegant, sensible and easy to remember. I wish D&D had been designed by someone who thought these things through, but it wasn't. And that's water under the bridge. The question now is, when you replace its systems with something coherent, do you end up with a game that is as good, integrating across all the different things that go into the experience of playing a game? The evidence to-date is 'no'. There are plenty of versions of D&D that tidy up its system faults (3E, 4E, 5E, C&C, etc.). None of them are as creative and engaging as the original. And the proof of that is right in front of your eyes: pretty much nothing of any importance, creatively, has been added in these versions of the game. So, I'd rather play the version where I have to remember some stupid shit about the difference between d6 surprise rolls and d100 listen rolls, but the heart of the game is made up of all the stuff people thought of when the ideas were coming fresh out of the oven.

Quote from: Larsdangly;933108This is totally fair. D&D's core systems were clearly grafted together bits and bobs of off-the-cuff house rules, starting with the combat system(s) and extending to pretty much everything else. The mechanics of it all is so bad it's almost hard to wrap your head around. On the other hand, everything you replace it with in a rationally built system is basically equivalent, just more elegant, sensible and easy to remember. I wish D&D had been designed by someone who thought these things through, but it wasn't. And that's water under the bridge. The question now is, when you replace its systems with something coherent, do you end up with a game that is as good, integrating across all the different things that go into the experience of playing a game? The evidence to-date is 'no'. There are plenty of versions of D&D that tidy up its system faults (3E, 4E, 5E, C&C, etc.). None of them are as creative and engaging as the original. And the proof of that is right in front of your eyes: pretty much nothing of any importance, creatively, has been added in these versions of the game. So, I'd rather play the version where I have to remember some stupid shit about the difference between d6 surprise rolls and d100 listen rolls, but the heart of the game is made up of all the stuff people thought of when the ideas were coming fresh out of the oven.

OTOH, many retroclones have unified systems, and they have added new and creative stuff to do;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;932745-D20-style roll+bonus vs Difficulty Number

For my 2nd edition house rules, I went ahead and converted all the Thief/Bard abilities into proficiencies, and changed the proficiency system to d20+ability mod vs DN while I was at it.

Quote from: Larsdangly;933108This is totally fair. D&D's core systems were clearly grafted together bits and bobs of off-the-cuff house rules, starting with the combat system(s) and extending to pretty much everything else. The mechanics of it all is so bad it's almost hard to wrap your head around. On the other hand, everything you replace it with in a rationally built system is basically equivalent, just more elegant, sensible and easy to remember. I wish D&D had been designed by someone who thought these things through, but it wasn't. And that's water under the bridge. The question now is, when you replace its systems with something coherent, do you end up with a game that is as good, integrating across all the different things that go into the experience of playing a game? The evidence to-date is 'no'. There are plenty of versions of D&D that tidy up its system faults (3E, 4E, 5E, C&C, etc.). None of them are as creative and engaging as the original. And the proof of that is right in front of your eyes: pretty much nothing of any importance, creatively, has been added in these versions of the game. So, I'd rather play the version where I have to remember some stupid shit about the difference between d6 surprise rolls and d100 listen rolls, but the heart of the game is made up of all the stuff people thought of when the ideas were coming fresh out of the oven.

I don't have a single problem with what you said. In raw numbers I'd say I've had more fun with AD&D 2e than any other game system with Buffy coming in second place and Rolemaster 3rd.  I'd gladly play AD&D 2e again no problem

Of those only one is anywhere close to modern. Oh sure Rolemaster  is a bit more coherent than D&D but its still arbitrary in many ways

Least favorite way to handle skills in an OSR game is a d20 roll.

Typically I either just use percentile as in the thief skills or I turn the d6 checks into 2d6 and use those instead. I have players sum up their background in a sentence and I adjudicate skill rolls based on that.

ACKS is the best I've seen, although the skills pretty bland.

Don't much care about the specific mechanics so much as having the mechanics replicate what I like best about OSR combat rules.

With OSR combat if you just charge straight at the enemy and get into a slug fest the rules are simple and you can adjudicate it really fast without having to make pretty much any judgment calls as a DM. To replicate this on the skill side of things a simple check works well, better than anything fiddly or any system that requires that the DM constantly pull DCs out of their butt.

However, in OSR games if your party fights by constantly charging at things and trading blows toe to toe they're going to end up very very dead. Running right over a problem shouldn't work over the long haul, it should result in dead PC or PCs who've learned to be cunning and indirect. Simple roll under systems can result in players thinking "this is a problem that can be fixed with Dexterity. I have a lot of Dexterity. Therefore I'll use Dexterity here!" rather than being cunning. Thief skills (at low levels) are good here since their chance of success is too low for players to rely on them and work more as a fall-back if case of things going wrong than the crux of the party's plan. Having broad saves/attribute checks/whatever be used as a fall back "players try to do a thing" is great as long as the chance of success is low enough.

In OSR combat there are ways that the party can cheat and they're laid out very specifically. D&D combat spells are pretty specific in what they do therefore players can make plans knowing exactly what they're capable of rather than begging the DM for a favorable DC. Specific things that the players are trained in should have rules about what they do that are just as specific as the rules for spells. Skills like "survival" that mean "you can do anything nature related, just ask the DM for a DC" don't sit right with me in D&D for the same reason as spells like "fire" that mean "you can do anything fire related, just as the DM for a DC" would be a bad fit for D&D.

In OSR combat players trying to use the environment to get an advantage or similar cunning plans don't have a lot of rules attached since environments are infinite and trying to nail down everything results in stupid shit like rules about how even vs. uneven flagstones differ in 5ed or abstract rules that make everything seem samey and narrow the scope for cunning.

tl:dr
-Really specific rules for what PCs can do with the stuff they're trained in. Every bit as specific as the rules for spells.
-Don't be a dick, let players use rope, take dump, wipe ass without making any kind of check.
-Really broad rules for doing stuff that the PCs aren't trained in with punitive difficulties attached.
-Let the DM make shit up for players manipulating the environment.

I like roll equal or under stat, with possible modifiers at GM discretion. And access to a Reroll if you have the relevant skill.

Honestly, it doesn't matter much to me so long as there's room enough to vary the roll (or bonus to the roll) based on both skill and circumstance. I guess I tentatively prefer bell-curve rolls (2d6, 3d6) to % or d20s, but not strongly so. Framing this to D&D/OSR games, I think basing it off a saving throw (whether one existed in the game or not) or otherwise making level the primary influence makes more sense to me than a roll under attribute situation--if you're going to bother making a level-based system, use it. :-)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;933171Honestly, it doesn't matter much to me so long as there's room enough to vary the roll (or bonus to the roll) based on both skill and circumstance. I guess I tentatively prefer bell-curve rolls (2d6, 3d6) to % or d20s, but not strongly so. Framing this to D&D/OSR games, I think basing it off a saving throw (whether one existed in the game or not) or otherwise making level the primary influence makes more sense to me than a roll under attribute situation--if you're going to bother making a level-based system, use it. :-)

Of course, that would be completely fair for games that don't allow attributes to progress with levels;)!

Yes, or progress fairly slowly (or very irregularly, if it is done via getting wish spells). I meant for games like TSR-era D&D, where attributes are (relatively) stable, but saves improve as you level.

I use DM fiat.

Quote from: Larsdangly;933108This is totally fair. D&D's core systems were clearly grafted together bits and bobs of off-the-cuff house rules, starting with the combat system(s) and extending to pretty much everything else.

Do you know how D&D was developed? Have you read Playing at the World or Hawk and Moor? Blackmoor was the campaign that largely consisted of Dave Arneson's ad-hoc rulings. However D&D had a much more deliberate design process. It more accurate to say that D&D itself was developed throughout the initial Greyhawk campaign. Which not only functioned as something fun to do but as a through playtest.

The fact it was hammered on and playtested in the Greyhawk campaign is why in my opinion D&D was the rare novelty that got it right from the get go. Why the basic mechanics endure to this day.

Now what the initial D&D did not get right was the presentation of the rules. The rulebooks were written by, and for, the circle of wargamers that Gygax associated with both locally and nationally. Gygax didn't states the many things that this group assumed. The foremost of which is that the rules were primarily an aide rather than a end all by all to run a D&D campaign.

Understand the norm back then was to figure out what you wanted to play, for example the Battle of Waterloo, or trying to take control of the town of Braustein, then figure out the rules to play that game. Published rules were few and far between. The default was to kit bash together. The OD&D core books reflect that ethos.

Quote from: Larsdangly;933108The mechanics of it all is so bad it's almost hard to wrap your head around.

It doesn't help that Gygax didn't write about how those mechanics developed especially in AD&D where he had the page count to devote a page or some paragraphs to the topic.

The heart of D&D is this. Gygax and Perrin developed a set of miniature wargame rules called Chainmail. Along with that they added two appendices, one to handle man to man combat, and the other to add fantasy characters and monsters. The first was because the historical accounts abound with tales of one on one duels in battle. Also for certain scenarios, storming a castle for example, man to man is a more satisfactory scale. The latter was because of the vivid battles describe in fiction like Howard's Conan and Tolkien's Lord of the Ring.

Man to Man combat worked by crossed indexing the weapon used by the armor worn. The result is a number that you have to roll equal to or higher on 2d6. One hit = one kill.

The fantasy supplement added Hero and Superheroes as options for a scenario. A hero was equal to four veteran warriors and took four hits to kill both in the mass battle rules and the man to man rules. A super hero was worth eight warriors and took eight hits to kill.

In Dave's Arneson Blackmoor campaign, one hit = one kill was found to be boring and unexciting. So it was expanded to one hit = 1d6 damage, and one hit to kill  = 1d6 hit points. So a hero would have 4d6 hit points, and a super hero had 8d6 hit points. From there the other levels were added. And the dice modifier for hit points was adjusted depended on your character class. With wizards getting less and fighting men getting more.

While Gygax offered chainmail's combat system as an option because a lot of his audience had a copy to begin, the system he settled (and presented as an alternative) was to use a d20 as a roll to hit. He made a chart cross-indexing the level of the character with the armor being worn. The higher level you are the more likely you are able to do damage to the target that round.

Vancian magic system was developed as an arbitrary choice by Gygax and refined from there. Arneson used a different system for his Blackmoor system that was based on finding reagents and components and crafting spells. Once crafted my impression is that you can then just use it whenever. While the reagents system was created by Arneson, this is consistent with Chainmail magic where Wizard could cast spells at will. The main limitation on a Chainmail Wizards was the number of spell he could maintain at once. A full Wizards could have 6 to 7 spells going at once. The original spells  (2nd edition Chainmail) were Phantasmal Force, Darkness, Wizard Light, Detection, Concealment, Conjurations of an Elemental, Moving Terrain, Protection from Evil. As well as at will Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

The point of this history lesson is point out that D&D is not a random collection of "Whatever". It make sense if you know how it was developed. It also doesn't mean that you should automatically like it. It is healthy for the hobby that we so many ways of handling the same basic set of actions. But it does point one of the main reason D&D endures. The core concepts are consistent and are do tie back to the fictional reality of fantasy medieval combat.