TheRPGSite

So, 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?

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?

While it does work and I've used it playing a Thief in Rules Cyclopedia D&D, I don't feel right about roll under using a d20. In our old AD&D 1e campaign which we still play now and again, pretty much everything is done with percentage dice. There was a few reasons for this. For one, it's how thieving abilities work so we kind of applied it to secondary skills. There was a nifty little system that used this in the Buck Rogers XXVc RPG which was build on AD&D 2e mechanics and seemed to work better. Mostly we went with percentage because it just felt better when trying to roll under.

If I am playing a specific edition of D&D or OSR then I mostly default to the mechanic that game uses. However... I know it works but I don't really like the mechanic used in Stars Without Numbers. I'd rather use d20 roll under. d20 Style is a nice mechanic and it would make sense to use it in OSRs but to me it doesn't have the OSR aesthetic. However, I don't fault people for using it because it's easy to manage. I still prefer percentage dice.

In Swords & Wizardry your character has a single "Saving Throw", a number based on his level that you have to roll equal to or above on a d20. This is used for the vast majority of non-combat actions.

The criminally underrated Crypts & Things expands this to add that if your PC has training in a skill he gets to add +3.

In practice this is elegant and simple as fuck. Very nice.

Favourites are

Percentile +/- mods vs skill level: so if I have a skill of 50 in tracking then I need to roll a 50 or less to track.
Roll d20 +/- mods vs difficulty rating: so if I am tracking someone over hard terrain and the DR is 15 then I need to roll a 15 or better.
Roll d20 +/- mods vs stat: so I am trying to track someone and my WIS is 12 then I need to roll 12 or less.

One I dislike is roll 3d6 vs stat since the bell curve skews everything.

Quote from: Omega;932752Percentile +/- mods vs skill level: so if I have a skill of 50 in tracking then I need to roll a 50 or less to track.

That's my choice. BRP and its fellows. With skills of significant level not needing to roll at all for routine stuff in routine circumstances.

I never like roll under with D20. I'm not sure why because I have zero problems with roll under on D100.
I remember when 2e Proficiencies came out. I flipped the numbers and felt so much better.

I really don't like the D20 idea of every increasing target numbers.

I never found a satisfactory way to roll ability scores with OD&D. The best mathematically was roll 3D6 under your stat because now your stat was really important. We used to do that because we also played a fuckton of Champions so "roll 3D6 under something" was how we spent lots of our game time.

These days I'm all about D20 + Attribute + Modifier vs. Saving Throw Target Number (that decreases with level).

If I am not doing that, then I am doing D6 + Attribute to get 5+. That's my default for OD&D if I am using the S&W scale of -1 to +1 for stats.

Currently I'm running Beyond the Wall and liking its system. D20 roll under Attribute, if you have a relevant skill add +2 to your Attribute. Simple and makes Attributes useful. I don't mind subsuming a lot of what many people think of as "skills" into "Atributes". It keeps the skills list fluid and shorter with often broad skills.

I prefer to do away with skills in a class based game. Strong archetypes mix with individual skills much like oil & water. If I'm going to use skills at all step one is to remove character classes. If I'm going to use character classes then step one is to remove all skills.

Ability tests and general tests based on situational odds work just fine. Areas of loosely defined expertise can also be added to classes or added as part of backgrounds. If class is the primary means of defining character abilities then why fiddle with skill and difficulty levels? In a class based game, skills feel tacked on like some sort of patch. Design the classes right and skills won't be needed.

Last but certainly not least, skills can become a crutch used in place of actually working through situations, reducing the play experience to a die roll vs a target number. If combat already works much like this it can make the entire game a borefest just tossing dice against a pass/fail wall.

My least favorite is the SIEGE system from C&C. I don't know but the math just seems so wrong. It doesn't help that I've always disliked the idea of Prime Requisites.

I currently use a d20+mod vs target number with the target number largely based on character level. Similar to a saving throw, like a skill save.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;932769I prefer to do away with skills in a class based game. Strong archetypes mix with individual skills much like oil & water. If I'm going to use skills at all step one is to remove character classes. If I'm going to use character classes then step one is to remove all skills.

I just let each player define a "archetype" for their character. If they are working for the archetype, they make skill checks at full level, otherwise they use half level or 0 if working against their archetype.

So if a player defines their fighter as a "barbarian", he will get a bonus when surviving harsh environments, but a penalty when trying to negotiate with a bureaucrat. Similarly, he'll get a penalty when trying to impress a noble lady but a bonus when trying to seduce the evil jungle queen with his rock hard abs. That sort of thing.

It's my way of having a "skill system" without having a predefined list of skills.

If it's multiple choice, I'm going with roll-under ability checks (the actual die roll can be used for "degree of success" if need be).

If it's an open-ended question, I'd go with what I've been doing for over 20 years, which is a percentile-based skill system, kind of like the Thieving abilities.

3 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.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;932775My least favorite is the SIEGE system from C&C. I don't know but the math just seems so wrong. It doesn't help that I've always disliked the idea of Prime Requisites.

How does it work?

QuoteI currently use a d20+mod vs target number with the target number largely based on character level. Similar to a saving throw, like a skill save.


I just let each player define a "archetype" for their character. If they are working for the archetype, they make skill checks at full level, otherwise they use half level or 0 if working against their archetype.

So if a player defines their fighter as a "barbarian", he will get a bonus when surviving harsh environments, but a penalty when trying to negotiate with a bureaucrat. Similarly, he'll get a penalty when trying to impress a noble lady but a bonus when trying to seduce the evil jungle queen with his rock hard abs. That sort of thing.

It's my way of having a "skill system" without having a predefined list of skills.

Sounds similar to the way Scarlet Heroes works. PCs get three points to spend on Traits, which can background details, innate talents, contacts or so on. "Redeemed Heretic", "Classical Education", "Eagle Eyed" and "Member of Physician's Guild" would all work as Traits. You can't have more than three points in any one Trait unless you are a Thief, as Thief skills are covered by the Trait system. When you need to make a check, you get to add the Attribute Bonus and one relevant Trait to the roll. You can never add Traits to your To Hit rolls though.

It gives characters a little more flavor without needing to bolt a whole skill system on to the game.

I think the best, best, best way to handle skills in a game is to not have them at all: your stats are your chance to succeed at categories of activities and saves, and that is all there is to it. This concept, plus ~4-8 stats (depending on how fussy you are about your granularity) will handle anything. And you get to cut 20 pages from your player's handbook.

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?

Really like? None of the above if understand them correctly, that is if they all use a linear probability.  If I had to choose it may be the first if using multiple dice and adding them together.  It doesn't really matter if the thing you roll under is an ability, score, skill or just some number for your class and level.

The later two methods It's a toss up on which I dislike more.  On the D20 method, just really dislike it as it is too binary, all or nothing, and can get complex with bonus stacking rules, and way out of balance.  I think it could work but the way D&D implements the d20 method does not.

The 1D6 method has an attraction for it's simplicity and elegance, but it is too simplistic and has no dynamic range.  The improvement increment are very large and it will be very sensitive to any bonus/detriment structure.  Dynamic range is probably not an issue for LotFP as that game is poorly designed for campaign play, which I doubt is the goal anyway.  It plays more like a one-shot misery-tourism/sadistic DM game, if you follow the modules and nihilism tone of the game.

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?

Of just those three, my favorite would be 1d6. My least favorite would be roll+bonus vs. difficulty, because the bonus is not fixed, but tends to be a lot of specific fiddly numbers you have to look up (+1 for this situation, +2 for that one, -3 for this other one.) And the bonus is usually a composite of many such numbers.

My absolute least favorite is the extreme version of that: roll + attribute + skill + mods vs. target number.

Middle ground for me is something like the Judges Guild roll under attribute, use either a d100 or d20 depending on how likely it seems.

My favorite is no skill rolls per se. Either you can't do something, or you can, and most of the time there's no roll, but in a critical situation, there's a flat 5+ on 1d6 chance that you can change it in your favor. Attributes, backgrounds, or skills change whether there is a roll or not. For example, walking a tightrope is automatic failure for untrained people, but Dex 15+ might get a roll, and trained acrobats never have to roll unless it's a really risky situation like high winds. That's how I would use the AD&D secondary skills, for example: having a skill lets you do something you normally can't, or eliminates the risk for a risky behavior.

In the system I am writing, everything is opposed die rolls. Your "Skill Attribute" is a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12. You get a bonus if a skill is within a Career background. You have one specific skill/action that uses a d20. The opposed difficultly is similarly a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12.

If the active (attacking) roller meets or beats the inactive (defender), the active roller wins.

Quote from: Tod13;932795In the system I am writing, everything is opposed die rolls. Your "Skill Attribute" is a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12. You get a bonus if a skill is within a Career background. You have one specific skill/action that uses a d20. The opposed difficultly is similarly a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12.

If the active (attacking) roller meets or beats the inactive (defender), the active roller wins.

Thats the system Fable uses.

Quote from: TristramEvans;932797Thats the system Fable uses.

Interesting. I'd never heard of it before. It took me quite some time to find it via Google, which might explain why I'd never heard of it. :D

I dislike the "make up your own attributes" system and the cost points for creating characters seem needlessly complex. But I'll read over it in more detail later. :cool:

I actually really like how Xd20 does things. The stats work almost like THAC0; the lower the stat, the better your skill, and your stat is the target number to make or beat. Talk about cutting right through the bullshit.

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?

Least favorite -- grafted on percentile systems even in AD&D
 
 D20 /Dif its fine in modern games, it works but i don't like the variability of the role system. I would use it in a hacked  Castles and Crusades though

I'm fine with  LotFP style though its not great on stealth checks

Best of all is "roll under stat" like AD&D and Beyond the Wall uses . It works for most skills pretty well and the way stealth is handled (an alertness penalty) works fine for me

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;932808Least favorite -- grafted on percentile systems even in AD&D

You mean that whack grafted-on d20 combat system on the beautiful percentile system that is AD&D?

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?

As a TFT/GURPS player, I like (and am very very used to) 3d6 roll-under with modifiers and occasional use of more dice (like 5d6 for something much  more difficult, or sometimes 3d6 + 1d10 / 10  for more precision). I like the bell-curve effect, and am very comfortable with what the various ability scores and rolls are like.

I tend to dislike single-die rolls unless precision isn't needed. Sometimes some things make perfect sense to determine with a single d2 through d20, but not if it involves precision or gradual skill improvement or steep difficulty or rare chances, because there isn't enough grain. Even 1d20 means the smallest interval is 5%, to the most certainty is 95% and the smallest chance is 5%, which is pretty common, so if you want things to be rarer or more certain than that, you can't unless you add a confirmation roll or effect table or something (which is completely acceptable to me, but then it is a multi-die roll, just the first die may usually make the later dice not needed, which is fine).

Similar with open-ended die-rolls that start with one die - those can be cool, and allow for extreme unlikely severe effects, which I like, but it can want a bunch of analysis to figure out what the actual odds are really like.

I also like to have various modifiers and contests between stats, so it makes various factors meaningful and it feels like when two characters go against each other, they're both involved. (I'm willing/happy to roll 36d vs. attack skill for the attacker to see how good his attack is, and then 3d6 versus defense skill for the defender to see if he can avoid getting hurt.) One reason I stopped playing TFT was the simple roll only against the attacker's skill to see whether the defender was hit or not - it started to feel too much like an error that the defender's ability wasn't taken into account.)

I prefer Die + Skill + Modifiers vs. Difficulty.

As long as:

1) Difficulty values are standardized across all subsystems.
2) The Skill-system isn't some tacked-on outlier to the other conventions of the system
3) You only roll if it matters.

Quote from: tenbones;932909I prefer Die + Skill + Modifiers vs. Difficulty.

As long as:

1) Difficulty values are standardized across all subsystems.
2) The Skill-system isn't some tacked-on outlier to the other conventions of the system
3) You only roll if it matters.

What 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. :D

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.

I published mine, basically d20 style, 1d20+attribute bonus+skill bonus.

However my attribute bonuses are a lot less generous 12 to 14 is +1, 15 to 17 is +2, 18 to 20 is +3, and so on.
The minuses are 6 to 8 is -1, 3 to 5 is -2.

The biggest change I did, and the one that the designers of D&D 5e seem to have adopted for their own use, is a rule where every character can attempt any skill just some are better at certain skills than others. Because of that I call them abilities not skills.

The base chance of success of 15. Adjust by 5 up or down by difficulty. Additional modifiers would be imposed in +4, +2, 0, -2, or -4 increments. However since D&D 5e release I just go with advantage or disadvantage.

I find it interesting that some systems have the standard single d20 for combat rolls while skill rolls use multiple dice for a bell curve. I don't know if it is an intentional design, but it is interesting that you get more chaotic, swingy results from combat, but tend to get more more conservative results when simply using a skill.

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)?

Roll under ability score, if and only if the roll-under is done on Xd6, with X being a number between 2 and 6 depending on difficulty:).

QuoteWhich do you really dislike, if any?

The other two you listed, sorry!
I make exception for the d6 method being acceptable if the game is d6-based, like the Chainmail-inspired Five Ancient Kingdoms, Spellcraft and Swordplay, Crimson Blades, Epees et Sorcellerie, and Champions of ZED;).

I 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.

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.

:D
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;).

Quote from: AsenRG;932949:D
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;).

DungeonWorld is basically old school D&D with incredibly elaborate  training wheels affixed.

Quote from: AsenRG;932949:D
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:D
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. :D

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 (https://promisecity.blogspot.com/2016/11/secondary-skills.html).

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 (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/tractability.html).

If a game must have skills, I like the way Flashing Blades handles them, broad guidelines, broadly applicable (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/rulings-and-rules.html).

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%.

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)":D! 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.

Quote from: artikid;933313I use DM fiat.

Fascist.

Quote from: artikid;933313I use DM fiat.

I'm Black Vulmea, and I approve of this message.


By the way, artikid, checked out your deviantart site - I like your work very much. Do you take commissions?

Prefer Roll-Under Stat. Easy to gauge 5% increment on a d20 die. Leaves open-ended modifiers (stack them Called Shots!) if I so need. But for the most part, since Skills were opening professional grade usage, there is no rolling unless the task actually requires professional level skill. Otherwise anyone can attempt, but they run the risk of their stats one day getting in the way.

Then we can move on to more fun things faster! :)

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;933113I 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.

That's just groovy, man! You're bringing on flashbacks. Good times, good times. :cool:

Quote from: estar;933329Now 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.

I would even stipulate that that in particular isn't 'not getting something right.' That is exactly right for its' intended use, which was exclusively reaching a small group of miniatures wargamers looking for an expansion of the hobby, and in communication with each other (such that they could explain it to each other if a phrasing was ambiguous or unclear, etc.). It is only retro-active (including relatively soon afterwards, but still a huge cultural gulf if not a temporal one) attempts to use the document designed for that purpose by others does it start to fail. The real mistake/not-getting-right was that, once they realized that D&D was becoming a fad/business boom, not going and getting a professional technical writer. If the original D&D rules had been presented to the college kids who jumped onto the fad in the mid-late 70s in the way that B/X, BECMI, or even any of the modern OD&D retroclones do, the mythology of OD&D as inscrutable wouldn't exist.

And yet, for all I've heard ENDLESS sniveling about how bad OD&D is, by 1977 it had turned TSR into a nearly million-dollar company and the big dog in the gaming world.

Funny, that.

Maybe it's not as hard to understand as people whine.

No, that can't be it.  All those people only THOUGHT they were playing it and having fun.  Yeah, that's it.  Quick, let's start a "movement."  We could call it "THE SMELTER."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933368And yet, for all I've heard ENDLESS sniveling about how bad OD&D is, by 1977 it had turned TSR into a nearly million-dollar company and the big dog in the gaming world.

Funny, that.

Maybe it's not as hard to understand as people whine.

No, that can't be it.  All those people only THOUGHT they were playing it and having fun.  Yeah, that's it.  Quick, let's start a "movement."  We could call it "THE SMELTER."

Bad as in poorly organized and written, with missing parts?  Yes, certainly.  Bad as in not fun?  Bogus.  In fact it was so fun that it overcame all the short comings in organizational quality and completeness.  Weighing all the factors, OD&D was/is so damn fun that it succeeds in spite of its flaws.  And were they really flaws?  If you take OD&D with a large grain of DIY (which in my view is the only way to serve it IMHO) it was the best RPG ever written.

Of course, OD&D was the first mover, the bar setter and held a monopoly on RPGs for a time, that is, there was no other available to buy.

Quote from: estar;933329Vancian 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.

BTW, does any retroclone adopt this approach to the magic system? It does seem rather interesting:)!

The other thing I'd like to learn are Dave Arneson's rules for magic items and how knowing their history changes the effects;).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;933366I would even stipulate that that in particular isn't 'not getting something right.' That is exactly right for its' intended use, which was exclusively reaching a small group of miniatures wargamers looking for an expansion of the hobby, and in communication with each other (such that they could explain it to each other if a phrasing was ambiguous or unclear, etc.).

I 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.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;933366It is only retro-active (including relatively soon afterwards, but still a huge cultural gulf if not a temporal one) attempts to use the document designed for that purpose by others does it start to fail. The real mistake/not-getting-right was that, once they realized that D&D was becoming a fad/business boom, not going and getting a professional technical writer. If the original D&D rules had been presented to the college kids who jumped onto the fad in the mid-late 70s in the way that B/X, BECMI, or even any of the modern OD&D retroclones do, the mythology of OD&D as inscrutable wouldn't exist.

I disagree. Why? Because it is my opinion that Gygax didn't put enough of the "zeitgest" of how things were done by him when running a RPG campaign and Greyhawk in particular. The things that Gronan's pithy remarks keep referring too. All a technical writer would have done is tightened up the game. I have long contended that RPGs are not about playing a game but experiencing a campaign that managed by a human referee. That the game is just one of the tools used to make the campaign happen.

We did get Holmes and B/X edition. Both of which in my opinion were tighter and more clear explanations of what OD&D was. But even they didn't focus enough on the idea that it all about running a good campaign not playing a game. With AD&D 1st we got corporate Gygax where he presented AD&D rules as the last word in how D&D is to be played. The tragedy is that it was an understandable response to the pressure they were under. Every account of the middle 70s always had as a centerpiece the incessant questions, and middle of the night phone calls. TSR was literally being spammed by thousand of gamers asking D&D questions. To deal with it, Gygax and his team starting with Tim Kask opted to tighten the rules.

People disagree with my assertion chalking it the AD&D development as result of greed, or if being charitable as a natural thing to do to keep revenue flowing into the company. Yes the fact TSR was a company and the popularity of D&D meant that they would followup on the original edition. But the shape of the followup, why AD&D was it way it was, is in my opinion, largely because of the rule spam problems Gygax and the company was experiencing.

There is a lot of good parts to AD&D, there was stuff that addressed the zeitgest of what Gygax was doing. But overall AD&D 1st was meant to present the one true way of playing D&D. And if something wasn't covered by god it will get a rule for it even if that rules hasn't been well tested or even tested at all. (Grappling is the biggest offender, followed by the initiative system.). But enough of AD&D kept the spirit of OD&D that it became a second classic for Gygax and TSR.

Quote from: Xanther;933382Bad as in poorly organized and written, with missing parts?  Yes, certainly.  Bad as in not fun?  Bogus.  In fact it was so fun that it overcame all the short comings in organizational quality and completeness.  Weighing all the factors, OD&D was/is so damn fun that it succeeds in spite of its flaws.  And were they really flaws?  If you take OD&D with a large grain of DIY (which in my view is the only way to serve it IMHO) it was the best RPG ever written.

Of course, OD&D was the first mover, the bar setter and held a monopoly on RPGs for a time, that is, there was no other available to buy.

Okay, fair enough.

Actually, it's odd; CHAINMAIL, DGUTS, and other games Gary wrote or helped write are nowhere near as disorganized as OD&D.  I often wonder if sometime in late summer of 1973 Don Kaye said "I'm tired of you screwing around, Gygax, we're publishing this damned thing."

Quote from: AsenRG;933424BTW, does any retroclone adopt this approach to the magic system? It does seem rather interesting:)!

Dragons at Dawn claims to be based off Arneson's notes and stuff. But the deal is that Dave Arneson didn't really organize his stuff. He was a very smart and creative and most certainly the Father of Tabletop Roleplaying. But it took Gary Gygax organizational skills to take his ideas and turn them into Dungeons & Dragons. And from the various accounts D&D reflects more of what happened with Greyhawk than Blackmoor. Gygax used Arneson's ideas, and adapted them for his own purposes. So the reagent system was dropped in favor of Vancian magic. But we still have craftable scrolls and potions.

Gronan can relate first hand the differences between Arneson and Gygax.

Quote from: AsenRG;933424The other thing I'd like to learn are Dave Arneson's rules for magic items and how knowing their history changes the effects;).

First Fantasy Campaign by Judges Guild has the rules for magic swords. For the rest it the same problem I mention above. First Fantasy Campaign is pretty much Dave's raw notes formatted for publication by Judges Guild. Supplement 2 Blackmoor in contrast had some thing by Dave Arneson in there buunder Tim Kask's supervision other material was added and it was written to read more like the Greyhawk rules and the core books.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933431Okay, fair enough.

Actually, it's odd; CHAINMAIL, DGUTS, and other games Gary wrote or helped write are nowhere near as disorganized as OD&D.  I often wonder if sometime in late summer of 1973 Don Kaye said "I'm tired of you screwing around, Gygax, we're publishing this damned thing."

We probably never know but it is a very human thing to do and has happened in other places in similar situations.

It why I don't buy the corporate greed mantra that people want to hang around Gygax's neck when it comes to why AD&D and rest of the product line was developed. It too pat and simplistic.

People forget "D&D tournaments," run at wargame conventions like wargame tournements, with prizes.

Origins in 1976 -- 250 people in the D&D tournament.  You can't do that with one judge.  At that point, "make up some shit you think will be fun" falls to the ground, especially with prizes with a significant money value.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933438People forget "D&D tournaments," run at wargame conventions like wargame tournements, with prizes.

Origins in 1976 -- 250 people in the D&D tournament.  You can't do that with one judge.  At that point, "make up some shit you think will be fun" falls to the ground, especially with prizes with a significant money value.

Yup, a lot of how D&D is played nowadays is still influenced by those D&D tournaments that have been dead and gone for decades. The most important thing you can do to make a tournament fair is to make the judges interchangable but that's one of the worst things that you can do to a private RPG game.

Quote from: Daztur;933439Yup, a lot of how D&D is played nowadays is still influenced by those D&D tournaments that have been dead and gone for decades. The most important thing you can do to make a tournament fair is to make the judges interchangable but that's one of the worst things that you can do to a private RPG game.

Yeah.  And that was a big part of what led to AD&D and Gary's "nailing it all down."  Not the only thing, no; but it was a strong force at the time.

Quote from: estar;933329Do 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.


 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.

This answers quite a bit a of my personal issues, actually.  And I've always been under the impression that a lot of Gary's stuff was mostly assumed by his players because everyone at that table had been there on the ground floor, thus could make some assumptions that us poor saps who came in decades later couldn't quite get.

Food for thought, thank you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933438People forget "D&D tournaments," run at wargame conventions like wargame tournements, with prizes.

Origins in 1976 -- 250 people in the D&D tournament.  You can't do that with one judge.  At that point, "make up some shit you think will be fun" falls to the ground, especially with prizes with a significant money value.

I concur that the D&D tournaments, the first form of organized play, were also had a major impact on how RPGs developed. After Judges Guild paved the way, it was only natural to turn to the writeups for tournament adventures. They were only a hop and a skip away from being publishable. And unfortunately that became THE way that people thought adventures ought to be for RPGs when it should be one of many ways of presenting adventures and campaign ideas.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933442Yeah.  And that was a big part of what led to AD&D and Gary's "nailing it all down."  Not the only thing, no; but it was a strong force at the time.

Just one more thing to add to rules spam they were already getting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933443This answers quite a bit a of my personal issues, actually.  And I've always been under the impression that a lot of Gary's stuff was mostly assumed by his players because everyone at that table had been there on the ground floor, thus could make some assumptions that us poor saps who came in decades later couldn't quite get.

Food for thought, thank you.

Glad to help. Not everybody agrees with me. Rob Kuntz had a "vigorous" objection to my conclusions over on the Ruins of Mirk Hill forums as well as others over the years.

I admit it just conjecture based on the anecdotes, and the commentary in the various rules books themselves (for example Kask's intro in Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes). But what clinched the deal for me is the work done in Playing at the World and Hawk and Moor. Playing the at World relies on primary sources first. The author had access to dozens of newletters and personal papers to do reasearch with. Hawk and Moor is more of a collection of antedotes but it is a very thourgh collection and individual stories often have more than one sources. Both are very good and together for me paints a compelling picture of how it was before, during, and after the release of D&D.

A 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.

And lay this point to rest, I don't do this to try to play like people back in the day. I do this to learn to improve what I do for the future. Because when you take the rulebooks as published AND what you learn from reading this stuff. You get a much broader picture of the possibilities and that is a good thing. If a person does this to be a slave to the past, then I feel they are missing the point.

Quote from: estar;933433

Quote from: AsenRG;933424BTW, does any retroclone adopt this approach to the magic system? It does seem rather interesting:)!

Dragons at Dawn claims to be based off Arneson's notes and stuff.

AFAICT, Dragons at Dawn has been brought down, or something:).
I'd love to get it, but it seems that's no longer an option. Southerwood Publishing is offering Champions of ZED instead, and some rules for magic in Zero-Edition Campaigns.
I actually own the magic rules, but they didn't seem that different from standard D&D. Maybe I should check them again and see whether I've missed a key difference hidden behind the spell lists;).

However, before that there was a review. And the review (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14768.phtml) says the following about magic.

QuoteMagic, the next section, is definitely different than the pseudo-Vancian magic that has never left D&D. The very first paragraph reads: "Wizards can channel raw magic energy to make Wizard Light, Lightning Bolts and Fireballs. This magic may be thrown at will but requires the Wizard to make a Saving Throw versus Constitution for the spell to successfully trigger. Failure of the Saving Throw means failure of the magic and causes the Wizard to collapse with exhaustion..." The rest of the section describes the spells and explains they use material components. After a quote by Arneson about wanting to use spell points, it describes a system of magic using Spell Points. I know many people who think Spell Points are broken, but Spell Points allow a freedom that hundreds of pages of rules could not.

So, spell points (to do what?) and saving throws to keep doing the effort. Where did you get "can do it at will, but can't sustain multiple spells" from?

QuoteBut the deal is that Dave Arneson didn't really organize his stuff. He was a very smart and creative and most certainly the Father of Tabletop Roleplaying. But it took Gary Gygax organizational skills to take his ideas and turn them into Dungeons & Dragons. And from the various accounts D&D reflects more of what happened with Greyhawk than Blackmoor. Gygax used Arneson's ideas, and adapted them for his own purposes. So the reagent system was dropped in favor of Vancian magic. But we still have craftable scrolls and potions.

I can't tell who was The Father of Tabletop RPing, and frankly, it doesn't matter - I certainly like games that were created decades later, too:p. What matters to me is which ideas we like. And I like the ideas you mentioned, so I'd like to know more.
For once, I like wizards that create items to use continuously much better than those that Vancian magic.

QuoteGronan can relate first hand the differences between Arneson and Gygax.

If he chooses to.

QuoteFirst Fantasy Campaign by Judges Guild has the rules for magic swords. For the rest it the same problem I mention above. First Fantasy Campaign is pretty much Dave's raw notes formatted for publication by Judges Guild.

I might have been able to get that...except it's not in the list of Judges' Guild (not any more, at least).
Then again, the rules remind me of Earthdawn, and I own those, so I might be able to make up something that would be fun;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933431Okay, fair enough.

Actually, it's odd; CHAINMAIL, DGUTS, and other games Gary wrote or helped write are nowhere near as disorganized as OD&D.  I often wonder if sometime in late summer of 1973 Don Kaye said "I'm tired of you screwing around, Gygax, we're publishing this damned thing."

Can certainly see that.  At the time it appeared to written by war gamers for war gamers who had Chainmail.  It was frustrating at times the organization and sketchiness of the rules, but also a breath of fresh air.  I was so used to playing war games with the tight rules, such as Squad Leader and Blitzkrieg, OD&D was dream come true.  I'm self selecting though aren't I; almost 40 years later and still playing RPGs.

Roll under percentile is probably the one that everyone gets immediately, so I'll go with that. I also like BRP.

Having said that : using die roll plus bonuses, particularly with exploding dice (Rolemaster, Artesia) can be fun.

Quote from: AsenRG;933482

Quote from: estar;933433AFAICT, Dragons at Dawn has been brought down, or something:).

The author says it's being 'revised'.

QuoteSo, spell points (to do what?) and saving throws to keep doing the effort. Where did you get "can do it at will, but can't sustain multiple spells" from?

The saving throws vs. constitution are just for wizard spells that directly channel magical energy on the spot... not the material/prepared spells that finalize in the form of potions and such.
The spell points are an optional/advanced addition that has wizards and elves (I think) still rolling to cast, but using up spell points gained from level and dexterity (IIRC). Once out of spell points the wizard can burn down constitution, but that's a desperate move and those points don't return as quickly.

Quote from: Simlasa;933619The author says it's being 'revised'.

Let's hope it's going to be a good game when it shows up again, preferably without too major changes from the old practices:).

QuoteThe saving throws vs. constitution are just for wizard spells that directly channel magical energy on the spot... not the material/prepared spells that finalize in the form of potions and such.

Are these the same as the "constant" spells estar mentioned?

QuoteThe spell points are an optional/advanced addition that has wizards and elves (I think) still rolling to cast, but using up spell points gained from level and dexterity (IIRC). Once out of spell points the wizard can burn down constitution, but that's a desperate move and those points don't return as quickly.

I see, thank you for the explanation;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;933629Let's hope it's going to be a good game when it shows up again, preferably without too major changes from the old practices:).

Yes, 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.

QuoteAre these the same as the "constant" spells estar mentioned?

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: Simlasa;933636The 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.

That is consistent with 2nd edition Chainmail.

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

Favorite:
Roaming difficulty target number, roll 2D6 (with modifiers) equal to or higher.

Least Favorite:
Any linear die rolls used.

Despite 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).

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

There is no CON roll in 2nd Ed. CHAINMAIL, at least not for Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

Quote from: Baulderstone;932918I find it interesting that some systems have the standard single d20 for combat rolls while skill rolls use multiple dice for a bell curve. I don't know if it is an intentional design, but it is interesting that you get more chaotic, swingy results from combat, but tend to get more more conservative results when simply using a skill.

In my case, it is intentional; I tend to dislike system that use d20 for skills AND combat because skills often rely on a single roll, and combat takes many rolls; therefore, if you sue the same system for both, combat will be a lot LESS swingy than skill, when the contrary should be true IMO (the level 10 wizard will beat the level 10 fighter in a fist-fight about 0.01% of the time, but the figther beats him in an arcana roll 25% of the time, for example).

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 (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/11/one-table-to-rule-them-all-using-2d6-or.html).
-  d20 against a fixed DC if I want an "unified" system (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2016/11/unified-bx-did-i-finally-crack-code.html) - 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 (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2016/06/single-digit-charachters-and-fractional.html) (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.