Also, one roll tends to not "end" combat, but a failed skill roll often "ends" the attempt at whatever is being done.  So two 8th level fighters swording* furiously away at each other, okay, one misses, no biggie.

An 8th level thief who has to roll 8 times to remain hidden while she sneaks from A to B is almost guaranteed to fail.

*when used as a verb the "w" in the word "swording" is pronounced.

As for my favorite.... I have spent a long time thinking (and writing) about that and I tend to change opinions a lot in this regard, TBH*.

Some of my favorite solutions are:

- 2d6 reaction table.
- d20 against a fixed DC if I want an "unified" system - I confess I often disliked that system in the past, but it works well when you want to have a little influence of you abilities but not too much.
- Roll xd6 under ability works really well, better than using modifiers IMO.

I dunno. As long as it works, I guess, and it is not TOO complicated. I like open ended stuff too - Xin6 is good and simple, maybe too simple for me. You can roll 1d8 or 1d10 for really hard tasks... or do the opposite, and rate skills from 1d4 to 1d12 against a DC of 3 or 4.

The ones I like the least are the ones I need to check a table to see that the level 7 thief has 55% chance of hiding an 45% chance of picking pockets (or something) - even though Moldvay is my favorite version of D&D. I would prefer adding a fraction of level to some activities (add Thief level to backstabbing, or 1/2 Fighter level to Athletics, etc).


As for an actual skill list... I prefer something lean, like 4e or 5e, over earlier editions.

In any case, it is worth remembering that CONVERTING from one system to another is not that hard. X-in-6 translate wells to 2d6+x (9+ means success), and +3x versus DC 20 (each point of NWP is a +3 bonus IIRC). The main difference, I think, comes from abilities (a +3 for STR 18 is almost meaningless when rolling 1d20, for example).

(* I once wrote that "there are parts of D&D that never change, or change very little: the six abilities, the main classes, roll a d20 to hit a foe (and wish for a high number on the d20), and so on. But there are other things that change constantly from edition to edition: skills, saving throws, weapons and its details, ability mods, feats, numbers, and so on. And I have realized that what I really like is this “core” D&D", even if the changing parts sometimes annoy me - not because they change frequently, but because if feel they could still be vastly improved")

Quote from: estar;933428I think that splitting hairs especially in light of the rest of your post. And even among Gygax's community there was confusion over aspect of the rules. And I will restate that while I am bringing up issues with the original core books, they were just that good in that their core mechanics and core ideas has lasted to this day.

Yeah. I probably overcompensated there. I'm usually very much in the "no, you/your favorite version of the game is not being picked on,"  but I do think oD&D/EGG gets unfairly maligned because, well, I think he'd have done more to make it clearer if he'd known we'd still care and be here 40+ years later overanalyzing it.

Quote from: estar;933459A very human picture, it was a golden age but also an age filled with some very human people. The major thing that leaped out that the whole corporate speak thing (Gygax and everybody else) didn't emerge until after the mid 70s. So that led me to look at what happened between 1974 and 1980.

Oh it makes me happy to hear something like this. I hate how these guys have to be either monsters or visionaries in peoples' minds, depending on preconceived notions. Why can't they be people (doing what seemed reasonable at the time)?

Doing what seemed reasonable at the time, in an environment that was changing almost daily, that nobody had ever experienced before.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933649There is no CON roll in 2nd Ed. CHAINMAIL, at least not for Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

Correct there is not equivalent in the Con Roll but there was at-will Fireball and Lightning Balls along with the eight spells. (Phantasmal Forces, Darkness, Wizard Light, Detection, Concealment, Conjuration of an Elemental, Moving Terrain, and Protection from Evil). I should have been clearer in saying what it was consistent with.

Quote from: Daztur;933645Despite its flaws what I think makes keep on going back to 0ed is that people have kept on trying to fix it by standardizing rules (which makes different kinds of actions seem samey) or by abstracting the environment (which makes the situations that players find themselves in seem samey).

While there are some who have a mentality of "It needs fixed", I think for most who like OD&D is more of a process of adapting it to the campaign they have in mind. Remember Gygax wrote it was a framework not the final word in running a fantasy campaign.

I like the Traveller method: Roll 2D6, add skill + mod, beat 8+ with the difference being the Effect.

Nice and intuitive. I only actively dislike skills systems where there is an excess in skill lists though.

Quote from: Simlasa;933636Yes, I think it's an interesting system with some fun ideas. I'm not sure how close it is to how Arneson did things... I think that's part of what is being revised in the face of new information.

The spells that channel energy are Wizard Light, Lightning Bolt and Fireball. Cast them all you want but failing a roll vs. Con will put you on your ass for 2d6 turns.
Any other 'spells' in the basic rules are crafted in magical laboratories for later use. They have some physical form that can be carried till needed or sold/given to others. They're usually single shot (like a potion or a gas globe). So not 'constant', you'd have to go back to the lab once you used up your powder/potion/gas/whatnot.
There is no detailed list of components/recipes. Crafted spells have alignments and further requirements for use... and you don't know if you made the thing correctly till you try to use it.

The expanded rules include Elfin song magic, which uses spell points, and has access to all the basic spells but the songs take time to cast depending on their power and the person casting them.

Also, to stay on thread, there isn't a list of 'skills' but there is Education, which is open-ended option that gives a PC 1d6 specialty skills... like picking locks for a non-thief or creating a specific spell for a non-caster. There are also some interesting bits regarding Persuasion, available to the Merchant class and some magical items... social combat to make others do what you want.

Quote from: estar;933638That is consistent with 2nd edition Chainmail.

Thank you all, that sure makes Dragons At Dawn seem an interesting game:). I'm not so sure about the Combat vs Combat table, unless weapons modify the score...but that's easily houseruled, at least.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933649There is no CON roll in 2nd Ed. CHAINMAIL, at least not for Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

Quote from: estar;933694Correct there is not equivalent in the Con Roll but there was at-will Fireball and Lightning Balls along with the eight spells. (Phantasmal Forces, Darkness, Wizard Light, Detection, Concealment, Conjuration of an Elemental, Moving Terrain, and Protection from Evil). I should have been clearer in saying what it was consistent with.

At-will Fireballs! That's a game about superhumans, not D&D! /irony mode

(I like it a lot for a "squad wizard". I'm not quite as sure I like Fireball for adventurers, but maybe something like Greeze or Slow could be at-will).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933663Also, one roll tends to not "end" combat, but a failed skill roll often "ends" the attempt at whatever is being done.  So two 8th level fighters swording* furiously away at each other, okay, one misses, no biggie.

An 8th level thief who has to roll 8 times to remain hidden while she sneaks from A to B is almost guaranteed to fail.

*when used as a verb the "w" in the word "swording" is pronounced.

That's why some people suggest a Let It Ride rule, or using an extended roll (get X successes before you get X/2 failures). Other say both of these are "dirty hippy narrativist rules".

Quote from: estar;933695While there are some who have a mentality of "It needs fixed", I think for most who like OD&D is more of a process of adapting it to the campaign they have in mind. Remember Gygax wrote it was a framework not the final word in running a fantasy campaign.

GURPS suggests the same and gives examples how to tweak for different kinds of campaigns, as you no doubt know.
But you know there are some people who don't like that aspect of GURPS, no doubt:D?

Ironically although I find old style D&D's rules to be quite disjointed I have found that "one resolution method for all situations" isn't a desirable outcome for me. What works well for "can I hit the Orc" doesn't work well for "can I win this arm wrestling competition" or "can I jump this chasm" or "can I lift this boulder". So I use various methods for different situations - but the difficulty is keeping that simple.

For a long time I used Katherine Kerr's scheme from Dragon Magazine: pick an attribute or skill number you think is relevant to the task, adjust as you find reasonable and roll %. If it's under the adjusted score, success. If above, failure.

I cooked up my own, which I call VESDEY: Basically the same as Kerr's scheme, only I use a d20 or d100 and the adjustments are more formalized:

Very easy (x3)
Easy (x2)
Standard
Difficult (half)
Extremely difficult (quarter)
You gotta be kidding me! (10% of base score)


A roll of 20% or 4 higher than the roll needed means not only failure but a total pooch screw. For example, you didn't just fail to keep quiet when trying to sneak past the guard, you also coughed out loud or broke a pane of glass or did something to really draw attention to yourself.

As for the ones I don't like, I have no use for skill/task resolution schemes where I need to keep a list of all the things my PC can do. As a DM, I'll allow a roll for pretty much anything if the PC can justify it within a country mile of reason.