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.