So after re-engaging with AD&D 2e last year I'm interested in exploring old school play again. As I understand it, one of the key tenets of old school play is the use of narration as a resolution method wherever possible. So instead of making a check traps roll, describe to the GM how you open the chest.
My question is: how far does this go? Which dice rolls and stats are necessary, and which ones can be done away with? What is the bare minimum of mechanical structure that you need?
I'm assuming that combat is one area that needs a dice system. And that social interaction and perception are two areas that don't. But what about movement? Can't you describe to the GM your approach in climbing that mountain, or in sneaking up on the guards, and have him decide how well you did based on the precautions you took? Do you need a 'roll under your stat' type mechanism to resolve these general situations? Or is that just a luxury?
You don't need *any* mechanical structure. You just need to be able to toss in a mechanic on the fly when you don't have an answer.
To quote Tom Moldvay, in Basic D&D: "The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."
What kind of mechanical structure do you need to fulfill, and enjoy, your role as a DM? Do you need to nail down a structure to have a comfortable framework to work from? Because, I think the answers to your questions will be personalized to how you, specifically, run your campaigns.
Moldvay Basic, for example, contains plenty of guidelines to use, or tweak, or discard at will. And many of these guidelines - outside of combat - use a single or pair of d6 to determine the result. Opening stuck doors; listening at doors; retainer/monster reaction; morale; surprise; encounter distance; wandering monsters; finding traps. They all boil down to base chances on a d6, or a result based on 2d6, with modifiers based on stat bonus, or adjudicated by the DM.
Frankly, I think you're going to get a huge variety of answers to your questions - and you won't see a great deal of intersection with these answers. (And probably you'll see some resulting arguments ... blahblah...). Personally, if you're playing "old school" D&D, and you want to resolve an action that there's not a subsystem for, it's nice to settle on a simple mechanic ("roll 2 on a d6 to safely navigate that rickety bridge"), and modify probability based upon a stat, or circumstances, or forethought/planning. And, if failure isn't in doubt then just 'call' the result. Own this shit; don't let the book straightjacket you.
I call for a dice roll whenever the fickle hand for fortune would make a difference. So no, no perception roll to see what's in a room - first glance and I'll describe the basics of what's in there. Look in the chest of drawers and I'll tell you what's in them.
But I do roll for surprise.
I've read that MAR Barker ran his Tékumel games with %dice only. The player would suggest an action, and Barker would decide on a % chance of success. How he came up with the chance of success, I dunno.
Look at it as if you there in your player's shoes and imagine what he would be seeing using your knowledge and experience.
The problem to avoid is the game of twenty questions. In other words assume that the character has some amount of savvy and experience if his stats warrant that assumption and supply the added detail. Remember a 1st level fighter is a warrior capable of standing and fighting in the ranks of a medieval army. The 1st level magic-user, cleric, and thief are all of equivalent experience.
However the character has a 6 intelligence a low wisdom, dex, etc. Then filter your descriptions accordingly.
For example a Fighter leans down to examine a potentially trapped chest.
Fighter: I carefully slip my dagger into the crack of the lid and turn to lift it up slightly.
Not to do
Referee: Nothing happens
Fighter: I look in do I see anything?
Referee: It is dark you can't see anything
Fighter: I bring up the candle I lite earlier do I see anything now?
Referee: Yes you see a wire. running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.
The better way of doing it.
Referee: OK you lift the lid a little bit and when you bring the candle you lit earlier in you see a wire running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.
Both wind up with
Fighter: OK I gently set down the lid and turn back to the party to talk about this.
The first way is twenty questions and it drives everybody crazy. The second is a lot shorter because it assumes that the fighter character will do the things that have a minimal chance of failure (if any).
Quote from: soviet;620510As I understand it, one of the key tenets of old school play is the use of narration as a resolution method wherever possible.
No, it's more along the lines of, don't roll for things you don't need to roll for.
Frex, if you can stop a door from swinging shut with iron spikes or wooden wedges, then you don't need to roll to 'remove traps.'
Quote from: soviet;620510I'm assuming that combat is one area that needs a dice system. And that social interaction and perception are two areas that don't.
Actually, most old school games have reaction rolls, with modifiers for charisma or charm scores or skills, and they have surprise rolls, with modifiers or benefits for skills of class abilities.
Quote from: soviet;620510Can't you describe to the GM your approach in climbing that mountain, or in sneaking up on the guards, and have him decide how well you did based on the precautions you took? Do you need a 'roll under your stat' type mechanism to resolve these general situations? Or is that just a luxury?
Again, don't roll for the things you don't need to roll for. If it should reasonably work, then it works. If it won't, it doesn't. If there's a chance of either outcome, assign a probability and roll.
I call for a roll whenever a chance of failure would be interesting.
For example, walking down a set of stairs - no roll. Running full speed down a set of stairs while being chased by a horde of undead - dex check!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;620578Actually, most old school games have reaction rolls, with modifiers for charisma or charm scores or skills, and they have surprise rolls, with modifiers or benefits for skills of class abilities.
.
I think one key difference between these, as well as nwps like ettiquette in 2E, versus newer editions, is they don't usually replace speaking in character but tend to support it. The reaction roll sets the stage for how foes respond to your charisma before the interaction begins (at least I always used them that way, it has been a while since I read that section of the book)----reaction rolls are also mainly there for when the GM isn't sure how monsters or npcs would react to the party, if he has a good sense of their reaction already, then he doesn't need to roll. With the ettiquette NWP, that isn't a roll to see how your character behaves, it is a knowledge roll made before you do anything, so the GM can tell the player what he knows about interacting with a king or eating at a noble's banquet. That isn't to say you couldn't roll for these things if you wanted to. You could just make CHR checks for example. But the idea of rolling a die to see how s social interaction plays out (especially rolling in place of playing it out at the table) is not something I really encountered in D&D until 3E.
Quote from: estar;620538For example a Fighter leans down to examine a potentially trapped chest.
Fighter: I carefully slip my dagger into the crack of the lid and turn to lift it up slightly.
Not to do
Referee: Nothing happens
Fighter: I look in do I see anything?
Referee: It is dark you can't see anything
Fighter: I bring up the candle I lite earlier do I see anything now?
Referee: Yes you see a wire. running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.
The better way of doing it.
Referee: OK you lift the lid a little bit and when you bring the candle you lit earlier in you see a wire running across the crack a inch from the edge of the lid going from the top of the lid to the bottom of the chest.
Both wind up with
Fighter: OK I gently set down the lid and turn back to the party to talk about this.
The first way is twenty questions and it drives everybody crazy. The second is a lot shorter because it assumes that the fighter character will do the things that have a minimal chance of failure (if any).
At the same time, it isn't always good to assume things on behalf of the player. A quick "what are you using as a light source?" when the player looks at the chest would be a good middle ground.
Its best if you don't ascribe actions not taken to players just as you shouldn't assign reactions to stimuli.
Suppose the chest was not wire trapped. What if instead there was a nasty critter inside that would strike if light is brought near enough to the chest?
In that case, assuming a candle was used brings the PC under attack.What if the fighter got near enough to the chest and heard a slight hiss in the dark?
I would rather have players outline SOP for such things and let me know when they intend to do things differently.
Here are the guidelines I give to GMs in Microlite74 3.0. They are
one way (there are others) of doing it and should work (in general) in any old school style of D&D. BTW, the following is open game content under the OGL.
QuoteRunning a Game Without Skills
The greatest change between Microlite20 and Microlite74 is the removal of all character skills. If you are used to just allowing players to just say "I'm searching the room. What do I find?" and make search skill roll or just say "I'll try to persuade the baron to loan us a catapult." and make a persuade skill roll, running without skill rolls is going to require as much change to your thinking as it will to your players' thinking.
First, you need to get your players to tell you what their characters are actually doing in the campaign world, instead of talking in terms of what skill they are using. Then you need to learn to listen to what they say and decide if there description of what they are doing a) would most likely solve the problem, b) wouldn't have a chance of solving the problem, c) might not immediately solve the problem but would provide more info that would help solve the problem, or d) would not definitely solve the problem but has a fair chance of doing so. Only d would require a die roll.
Let's take checking a chest for traps as an example. Get the players to describe in general terms how they are going to check the chest for traps. Note general terms are enough, the idea is to see what the characters are doing, not to require them to describe every single muscle and eye movement they make. Having to "click on one exact pixel on the screen" to succeed is boring and frustrating in a computer game, the verbal equivalent of it is even more frustrating in a tabletop game. Don't fall into the trap of doing it as it turns players off fast.
Let's say a player says "I'll look the chest quickly over for obvious traps, paying special to the keyhole, clasp, and anything that looks out of the ordinary. I'm not touching it yet."
If the chest had a poison needle near the clasp or some holes for poison gas or needles to shoot out of, this should be enough for the character to notice it without a roll, even if he isn't a Rogue or the like. However, if the chest if set to explode (or shoot daggers out of the opening when opened, such a search is not going to discover the trap - again no matter what the character's class or background as such a trap isn't visible from the outside. If you are feeling generous, you might have a Rogue make roll and if she makes it tell her player that while she doesn't see a trap, something still doesn't seem right about the chest.
If the character had said he was then poking the chest with a pole instead of rushing to open it, he might hear something strange if the chest had the above-mentioned dagger trap. Of course, unless he is a Rogue or has some strange background, chances are he would not associate the noise with a trap, but rather just that there was something loose in the chest. Again, you might give a Rogue a roll, especially an experienced Rogue.
As this example shows, it really isn't hard - unless you choose to make it hard. It's just different. After a few sessions both you and your players will find that it really isn't as hard as it looks.
Some players, however, really want die rolls. Because of previous bad experiences with poor GMs, they just can't trust the GM enough to handle some decisions being made without die rolls. If your players are like this, you can use "skill" rolls as a safety net. The players will still have to describe what their character does to solve the problem just as above. Once the player describes what his character is doing, the GM calls for a class/background based "skill" roll as described in the skills section of these rules. The results are determined by your opinion as GM of the action described and the skill roll. There are basically two situations:
In the first case, you feel that the player has a good plan that should likely succeed. Therefore it will succeed regardless of the result of the roll, but how well it succeeds is determined by the skill roll. A failed skill roll is a minimal success; the character succeeds, but just barely. A successful skill roll means the character's plan succeeds without any major hitches.
In the second case, either the player obviously knows less than his character does about the situation or just comes up with a bad idea that you feel is unlikely to work. You let the skill roll decide the result. A failed roll means the plan fails, while a successful roll means the plan somehow worked after all, but probably not perfectly.
Players who refuse to even try to come up with some type of rational statement about what their character is actually doing but just want to let the skill roll decide automatically fail.
Quote from: soviet;620510So after re-engaging with AD&D 2e last year I'm interested in exploring old school play again. As I understand it, one of the key tenets of old school play is the use of narration as a resolution method wherever possible.
Roleplaying, not "narration".
RPGPundit
I would say that learning when a die roll is needed or not, is a skill that you learn as you gm. I suspect that this is somewhat difficult for most novices, and somewhat easy for most veterans.
Quote from: Bill;621317I would say that learning when a die roll is needed or not, is a skill that you learn as you gm. I suspect that this is somewhat difficult for most novices, and somewhat easy for most veterans.
I'd agree with that. Its a bit of an art form knowing when to minimize the amount of dice rolling, especially without eliminating the point of certain mechanics you've chosen to use... of course, choosing which mechanics to use for the type of campaign you want to run is ALSO a learned skill.
RPGPundit
To the OP: One of the things I've been getting into lately is the idea of the thief skill roll as a backup. Think about it this way: Before the thief was added to the game, any character could disarm a trap. You got a description, you interacted with it Q&A-style (I have begun to call this the "text adventure" method), and - failing that - you had your basic 2-in-6 chance to disarm a simple trap. So the thief's 15% (or whatever) chance to disarm is ON TOP of that (if both those methods fail). It was a real revelation when I started to look at it this way. Suddenly the thief gets a lot better at his job.
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;621698To the OP: One of the things I've been getting into lately is the idea of the thief skill roll as a backup. Think about it this way: Before the thief was added to the game, any character could disarm a trap. You got a description, you interacted with it Q&A-style (I have begun to call this the "text adventure" method), and - failing that - you had your basic 2-in-6 chance to disarm a simple trap. So the thief's 15% (or whatever) chance to disarm is ON TOP of that (if both those methods fail). It was a real revelation when I started to look at it this way. Suddenly the thief gets a lot better at his job.
Yes, I've sometimes considered it that way too.
RPGPundit
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;621698To the OP: One of the things I've been getting into lately is the idea of the thief skill roll as a backup. Think about it this way: Before the thief was added to the game, any character could disarm a trap. You got a description, you interacted with it Q&A-style (I have begun to call this the "text adventure" method), and - failing that - you had your basic 2-in-6 chance to disarm a simple trap. So the thief's 15% (or whatever) chance to disarm is ON TOP of that (if both those methods fail). It was a real revelation when I started to look at it this way. Suddenly the thief gets a lot better at his job.
Yeah, that's a good idea, I'm going to try this out next time. When I ran 2e last year the thief did seem like the weakest PC, although this was also because after he found a +1 sword, he tried to play like a fighter.
So in effect the thief abilities become
Move Silently (as opposed to the automatic ability Move Quietly, that every PC gets by describing themselves taking relevant precautions) allows automatic surprise maybe? And can be achieved at any speed?.
Hide in Shadows (as opposed to Hide Behind Stuff, that every PC gets by describing themselves as hiding behind something sufficient) lets thieves try to hide in implausible places such as the corner of the room or 'in the half-light'.
Climb Walls needs no rope etc and can act as a save against falling whenever the thief tries to climb something like a normal PC (ie using a rope and making a Dex check).
Find Remove Traps is effectively a saving throw for when the player's described precautions wouldn't be enough to automatically find the trap through exploration. Ditto for Open Locks and Detect Noise.
Pick Pockets is something that only thieves can even try maybe?
Should thieves also get some kind of Spot Secret Doors and Dodge abilities? Maybe combine both with Detect Noise for an Extraordinary Senses % ability?
Quote from: soviet;622128Move Silently (as opposed to the automatic ability Move Quietly, that every PC gets by describing themselves taking relevant precautions) allows automatic surprise maybe?
That's how I've been handling it. (Normal surprise rolls should assume the PCs are at least attempting to move quietly.)
QuoteHide in Shadows (as opposed to Hide Behind Stuff, that every PC gets by describing themselves as hiding behind something sufficient) lets thieves try to hide in implausible places such as the corner of the room or 'in the half-light'.
Ditto.
QuoteClimb Walls needs no rope etc and can act as a save against falling whenever the thief tries to climb something like a normal PC (ie using a rope and making a Dex check).
Worth noting that B/X calls it "Climb Sheer Surfaces".
Aside from http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/On_thief_skills_in_classic_D&D what I've thought of doing is saying that for stealth activities, a non-thief will generally leave a chance for the "opponent" to detect by some means, whether it be a perception roll against an ability (or saving throw, etc.) or a straight die roll (2 in 6 or whatever). The DM could even decide arbitrarily based on situation. Whereas if a thief makes the attempt and succeeds, it's no longer an issue of whether the opponent hears/sees; rather there is nothing to hear/see. Even here the DM could overrule (e.g. if there simply are no shadows large enough, or if someone is looking straight at the thief before the hide attempt is made) but should generally give the player the benefit of the doubt.
The reason this stands out in my mind is that the thief skills are pretty awful at low levels in some versions of D&D. Interestingly I don't think that's true for all versions.
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;622130Worth noting that B/X calls it "Climb Sheer Surfaces".
Random footnote: I only noticed 'cause I just received a LOVELY copy of "Shadows over Bögenhafen" and I was scanning the handouts, but Warhammer FRP 1e has the "Scale Sheer Surface" skill, which specifically
exempts the character from risk tests when climbing (except for especially difficult climbs). Just another perspective on how this might be handled (especially relevant if, like me, you see WFRP as basically "old D&D smashed into Call of Cthulhu").
The following is assuming you want to run a RPG with a focus on roleplaying in an IC manner. If you just want to play "old school" by going Full KoDT, then just do whatever is funny and fun and blow the doors off the place.
As has been said, Roleplaying not "narration".
Die rolls for running down stairs when chased by zombies if you're looking at things from an "old school" roleplaying perspective (as I think you are meaning the term) aren't made because they are "interesting" or because the consequence for failure is dramatically important, but because running down stairs when chased by zombies has a pretty good chance of failure, hence you should check.
If you are familiar with an NPC enough to know how they would react in a given situation to a PC, then have the NPC react appropriately. If you're not sure, then roll using the Reaction Tables.
As an Old School GM, you Roleplay the inhabitants of the setting from animals to gods as honestly and as impartially as possible based on how those beings would actually act, randomly determining (with probability aided by rules sometimes by not always) when the outcome is not clear.
When the outcome of the player's actions is not clear, you use the game system to resolve it.
Quote from: soviet;620510So after re-engaging with AD&D 2e last year I'm interested in exploring old school play again. As I understand it, one of the key tenets of old school play is the use of narration as a resolution method wherever possible. So instead of making a check traps roll, describe to the GM how you open the chest.
Proper Old School would be to roll for everything.
New Old School would be to roleplay and then roll for things that need rolling.
New School would be to narrate everything.
A sensible compromise would be to narrate those things that need narrating, roleplay those things that need roleplaying and roll those things that need rolling.
The flip-side of using less rolling to decide what happens in conflict is using more rolling to decide what the conflict will be in the first place (wandering monsters, random encounters, reaction tables and a bunch of other random tables).
Quote from: soltakss;622351Proper Old School would be to roll for everything.
New Old School would be to roleplay and then roll for things that need rolling.
New School would be to narrate everything.
Amusingly, I don't think you're right about any of these.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;622619Amusingly, I don't think you're right about any of these.
RPGPundit
Yup. All three are wrong.
Quote from: soltakss;622351A sensible compromise would be to narrate those things that need narrating, roleplay those things that need roleplaying and roll those things that need rolling.
But he's right about this bit, with the understanding that what activity falls into what bucket will vary by DM and group.
Quote from: VectorSigma;622645But he's right about this bit, with the understanding that what activity falls into what bucket will vary by DM and group.
More or less.
RPGPundit
I reckon it depends on which "old school" you want to take marching orders from.
Obviously, the old school that says (a la Arneson, Gygax, St Andre) "Do whatever is fun for you!" won't be any help.
We dare not defy the gaming ideological purity of either Ron Edwards or Pundit. Glory before fun, after all. Hail the gaming popes!
Quote from: Benoist;622628Yup. All three are wrong.
Nope, speaking from my gaming experiences circa 1984 playing AD&D 1, that's pretty spot on. The whole 'ruling before rules' thing is pretty much a reaction against 'rules matters' as purported by the Storygames movement and as a reaction to the 3.x optimization craze (which was a modern manifestation of what was called min-maxing.)
Nearly every GM I knew back in the 80s, especially those in D&D, made it a big deal that they were interpreting rules objectively, especially for square movement, checking for traps and secret doors, and use of thief abilities. If you made alternative rulings, you were looked down upon as some kind of loosey goosey hippy. I remember more than one conversation at Origins in Baltimore in 1984, for instance.
Would it be fun for a PC to slip in the bath and break his neck, or for a planet-slamming asteroid to wipe out all the characters in the campaign? If not, then don't roll for it!
Even if a low-probability occurrence is in itself fun, a lot of rolling for it may be tedious.
If a question is of no great significance, then coming up with an answer probably does not warrant a great investment of time. Tastes differ, of course; if a group gets a kick out of devoting a quarter hour to the carrying capacity of a mule, fine for them -- but that might be the wrong group for some other players.
Rolling dice can provide surprises for the GM. This can be a way of "keeping one honest" in a sense.
Is it fun to pile on a lot of modifiers? I think this usually depends on how much the players' choices influence those. Routinely invoking penalties to cancel out experience bonuses strikes me as adding labor for no purpose, but YMMV.
The true OLD SCHOOL experience is to roll 3d6 for six attributes, in sequence. None of your roll four dice and keep the best three, or moving points back and forth. Just 6 x 3d6. This is the very essence of OLD SCHOOL.
Which means that in order to be really OLD SCHOOL, you must maximise character generation. This means you SAVE VS DEATH whenever you do anything, including going upstairs. Or downstairs. Hey, I'm not some rules lawyer. The DM chooses.
And if you go into the kitchen, or landing, or library, or garden shed, or bathroom, you roll wandering monsters. If you roll goblins you DIE, roll another character. If you roll zombies, you DIE, roll another character. If you roll giraffes, you DIE TWICE, roll another character, who DIES, then roll another character.
If you're not grinding through a tree's worth of character sheets in a session you are NOT PLAYING HARD ENOUGH.
This message brought to you by the International Paper Marketing Consortium.
Quote from: Phillip;623289or for a planet-slamming asteroid to wipe out all the characters in the campaign? If not, then don't roll for it!
As a matter of fact I had that exact thing happen to me the one time I played Rolemaster, ever, in what could arguably be called "old school" days. And everyone thought it was fucking retarded and terrible GMing. So no, I don't think "roll for everything" was ever a standard of old-school play.
RPGPundit