I love this idea. I'm thinking that it'd be great for many things. Magic-users having a knowledge skill that might give them info on a monster. Fighters using this for disarms, parries, grapples, etc. Rangers tracking. Lots of stuff.
What an original approach to skills! I remember reading and optional rule somewhere that clerics who failed to turn undead rolling a 1, enraged them (so to speak) and said undead would attack the cleric over other party members. Something like that could also be used here: a thief that fails on a one could jam the lock with a tool, or break the tool, or make too much noise and alert whoever is on the other side. A ranger that drastically fails, could not only lose the trail, but follow the wrong trail for several hours or the tracked creature discovers the tracking party and ambushes them
Good video! I usually use the 2d6 Reaction roll as the basis for graded results (e.g. weather rolls during wilderness exploration). I've used the Turn Undead chart to model "beast master" abilities - tame or subdue wild beasts.
This is a really elegant way to borrow some of the form of PBTA but in the context of OSR. It's really interesting to note the kernel of that idea existing so long in the game, but not being developed much. Of particular note of this, I like that by having a table that has the "crit success" built into it, you have to actually engage with that. This can really help guide newer DMs and players on what a crit is really bringing to the table and how it lets a player shine.
I like this concept! It creates a very predictable system that players can use to better gauge their odds of success with different approaches to scenarios. Honestly, I think it could serve as the core mechanic of an entire new system.
Really nicely done. I will keep this in mind rather than simply jump to the popular d20 everything. You preserve both the original rule and mechanics but creatively give it another use!
Another slight mod to this really great idea is extrapolate the table numbers down a little just for skills (not undead turning). So what I mean is that a 6th level character’s block reading from left (difficulty 1) to right (up to difficulty 8 in this case) would be: D T T 3 5 7 9 11 You still get the D (auto success with a bonus) and T (auto success) at lower difficulties but you don’t have the abrupt shift from needing a 7 to T (auto success). The next “step” of improvement from 7 is 5, not T (auto success), from 5 is 3, and from 3 is T. Another great video Daniel!
Thanks! Upon further review, I think I would go 7 to 5 to T, not 7 to 5 to 3. Only double ones would fail when a 3 is needed to perform the skill, that’s less than a 5% chance, so it is probably not good to have the 3 in there. But adding in the 7 to 5 to then T for skills I still like.
Just wanted to say, your video thumbnails work. Ive clicked on quite a few videos of yours, not knowing it was you because you dont put your face into the thumbnail, and when you pop onto the screen and welcome me to Bandit's Keep, i almost audibly cheer every time. You make good content that isnt thirsty
I would replace the "T's" with their numbers going down by two each time. I would then treat the "D's" as auto-succeed. After a column is "D" three times, then add the bonus. This would still give a low chance for failure or even critical failure.
@@dajavuja Follow the pattern in each column. Instead of being an automatic success, use the number that should be there instead. This will still allow for failure but with a pretty low chance. When the columns become "D's", then they automatically succeed.
Yes also unscripted & unchained, jorphden, captcorajus, wasabiburger, 3d6 down the line, dungeon musings, questing beast, dungeondelver, and so many more making great old school content
Dang, I came into this video skeptical- "Skills in OSE/OSR? Sacrilege!", but after listening to the explainer I can imagine how I would use this in my game instead of arbitrary ability checks, when the ability only loosely applies to the nature of the check. The PC level/"HD" of the check comparison with the "even" odds at 7 on 2d6 is beautifully simple. This makes complete sense. Thanks!
As always, exceptionally good content. As I often comment, yours is among the very finest RPG content I’ve ever seen. Got a few random throwaway suggestions for topics/questions I’d love to hear your perspective on, what’s easier for you-have us just drop them in a comment or send you a message through the channel?
Brilliant. This could be adjusted for almost any game system by converting the 2d6 to 1d20 or 1d100. Roughly 7 is a 50% chance, 9 - 75%, and 11 being 90%. Easily allows the option that Grumpy Old Slan mentioned of the critical 1 failure or allowing success with a penalty. Can't remember if that was this channel a success with penalty was mentioned in a video or not. Simple system though. A character wants to do X and it fits their class/race/background roll the dice. Better than endless pages of rules and books on books of suppliments.
I really dig this. I kind of want to implement something like this for solo narration. Its a simple way for skills to matter in a basic success matrix. Also i haven’t read swordworld yet but from what I understand its a super complicated version of 2d6 & charts.
Great idea, would you keep this confined to classes only rolling on "skills" outlined in their class or would you allow other classes to roll maybe with a modifer (I was thinking an unskilled class might roll 3 levels lower)?
I'm going to try this out using the FOR GOLD & GLORY Turn Undead Table, possibly the same one as ad&d 2nd. Because I'd like to get as much stuff uniform in my old school game and as close to d20 roll high as possible. I'm exciting the table for negative priest’s levels so I can keep the Thief starting percentages close to the original and having each class skill start at its own level and increasing all at the same rate up the table. I'm also letting in other class that will be handled similarly for bard, Assassin, Paladin, ect... and using the table for characters professions as a catch-all for other skills thy should have
I just listened to a couple videos of yours that were I think 1 year old or so. This video is a huge improvement regarding your sound. Your voice has alot more gain and clarity. New gear? Maybe a new mic? 😉
I'm so gonna use this for my game. I just began DMing and I'm running a duet game and we immediately came across the problem of adjudicating an elf sneaking. This would have come in handy. Question though, how would you use this concerning overland travel (hex crawl) or perhaps running single level dungeons for higher level players? Would you just average out the HD of the monsters in the dungeon and make that the "dungeon level"?
For a single level dungeon I’d likely average the level. For hex crawl is base it on either the distance from civilization or the HD of the primary monster type in that area
This is just off the dome, but there is a mirror to morale checks as well. Morale doesn't have a neat and tidy table etc but it does offer a sort of 'other direction's type of thinking if you're used to 3e plus where you add modifiers. This is much simpler I think though bc it's less arbitrary
Crypts and things is based off of swords and wizardry and does just that. Saving throw is changed to skill number and becomes the universal task resolution system. It begins at 15 at level 1, and goes down by 1 every level afterwards. The ref is free to grant any bonuses or penalties depending on the tasks difficultly. Anyone can attempt any skill, but if you actually have it (like a thief climbing walls or Barbarian tracking) you get a +3 bonus to the d20 roll. You also add the relevant attribute modifier. It works very well.
As mentioned by someone else, I would at least add the 5 DC. This is because for the Turn Undead, even for an automatic success, the cleric will roll 2d6 to determine the amount of HD to be turned; it is not an auto success to resolve all the problem.
For wilderness "levels" in a hex crawl, you could use the distance from the nearest town or settlement. So if you have your base in the middle hex, the six hexes around it are "level 1 wilderness". No idea how to do this for a point crawl. Unless it's something like a journey, where your first destination is "wilderness 1", your second is "wilderness 2" and so on.
I think that the ability bonus wouldn't mess up this system at all, unless adding a dc of 5 is added. Also, I like the idea of using resources like time, assistance, or even a better tool to lower the HD/Difficulty would be nice. So, if the the level 1 thief is wanting to pick a difficulty 4 lock they can spend 1 or more turns to lower the difficulty.
I thought this would be a perfect little system to run with the #23 challenges (Encounter, Dungeon, Hex)... and now I'm furiously remoulding BX around it. 😅
I've built a less blasphemous "Unified mechanic" using D20 as 5% per increment skill checks. (So a three in six is 11+ to succeed, or for the thief a 25% open lock is 15+) You can approximate almost any thievery/turn-undead/spell/door break check within 1-5% of the original probability. I also use this a way for each subclass to have a skill check they can make. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing it the old way, but my players are new to od&d/osr and keep getting confused by what die is used for what check. It also adds a lot more gradual progression at each or every other level for their class ability.
Cool. I pretty much just use d6s now for OD&D since dropping the alternate (d20) combat - but I can see the usefulness of d20 checks for sure - of course you loose the curve but it certainly works.
I like your idea, but I don't think "dungeon floor" makes sense. Why are the doors on level 2 of a dungeon not as good as the doors on level 3? Why is it harder to climb walls or hear a noise because I am one floor down? It just seems so bananas that it harms believability. OSE has an alternative thief skill system in their carcass crawler magazine, and I think also in Dolmenwood that you may like?
Level is a gage of difficulty in this system. I find dragons make the world unbelievable 🤷🏻♂️- I have looked at those systems, always fun to see what people come up with.
Listen Up - I figured out a way to do the FASERIP ability checks in the Marvel system (red,yellow,green,fail) without referencing the chart or using percentile. Its not exact but its very close, only like 1-2% chance off at most for greens. 2d12 plus a modifier, each ability category is +1, you're rolling against a fixed difficulty. Its been awhile since I was working with this so I forgot the specifics. I think a Red Success was 23+. Run the statistics for what the lowest ability score would score a Green success and set the difficulty based on the 2d12+1 roll. And for Yellow success check several of the lower abilities (up to Amazing) for their percentages, and the percentages they can score with 2d12+X. Average those together and you get the Yellow Difficulty (I think its somewhere near 17 IIRC). The advantage to this is you just roll and you know what your target number is, it doesn't jump all over the place, no need to reference the chart.
But what's the point with a full table when you only need two numbers, power/ability and difficulty/resistance? And what if there are more types of "undead" or "tracking uses" ? What if the environment and the nature of the attempt call for modifiers? I just don't get it, beyond that i understand that tables can be pretty to look at.
The table is what exists - the exercise is to show how one can use existing mechanics 🤷🏻♂️ don’t use a table if you don’t like them, also I go over modifiers in the video. In all cases, so what works at your table is my mantra. Thanks for taking the time to comment
I don't have a good handle on OSR progression, but going from an 8% chance of success to automatic success in three levels seems fast. (Also, you jump from about a 60% success rate to auto success, which looks like a big jump mathematically, but may seem like a natural progression.) That doesn't seem in line with how characters advance in combat power, on paper at least. But, again, I haven't actually played any OSR games since BECMI was on the shelves, and just reading the rules doesn't give you a solid understanding of how it plays.
I'm thinking as you go up in level, maybe you expand down to the 5's, or up to 12's and 13's - i.e. add some uncertainty. You never want to penalize someone for being higher level, so it's tricky. But nothing says the table has to be symmetric. Just because your character is awesome, maybe they are not awesome the "right way" for some exotic or bizarre challenge. Lots of different skills, classes, cultures, sources of magic, whatever; regardless of the game system you use. So more uncertainty as you expand into that larger world. The trick is making it feel organic, not that the intent is to screw the character.
Neat idea, but here's a thought, since we already use a d20 to determine success in combat, what if we use a d20 for skill checks? Oh, and your idea of adding an ability modifier doesn't get too out of hand when you're rolling a d20, so we could apply ability modifiers if we use a d20! Then, we could set a standard difficulty, let's call it a DC... and... sounds like you're trying to recreate 3rd edition, my dude.
@@BanditsKeep It was a bit of a joke. I was pointing out that you're adding things to BX which were basically added in later editions, but making it more complicated by needing a chart to look up rather than just having the ability to set a DC and using d20 + modifier. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Use whatever die rolls you want, whether it's d20, 2d6, 3d6, d%, none of it really matters. They're all just means to an end. I just suggested you use d20, because you're already using d20 for attack rolls, and it's easier and makes more sense to use the same die for everything. I used to play Rifts a long time ago, and it never made sense why it used d20 for attacking, but d% for skills. It's a needlessly overly complicated system imo. OSR is about simplifying the game, so why complicate your game by using two different die mechanics? If you're going to use 2d6 for skills, why not use 2d6 for attacking and use the same chart? If you're going to use d20 for attacking, why not use d20 for skills? When designing a game, remember, a good mechanic is one that solves more than one problem. So, anytime you can use the same mechanic for more than one thing, do it. Keep it simple.
@@BanditsKeep I know you love fiddling with the old chart design crap from earlier editions to try and make it relevant again, but there are practical reasons why mechanics have evolved the way they did. 1) It adds unnecessary complexity to skill checks by adding additional numbers to track. If I already have ability score modifiers, why add another category of number? 2) It’s harder to adjudicate. Instead of simply determining a target number in my head, I now have a chart to reference. I don’t want more tables to look stuff up on while running a game - I want to stay in the moment. 3) The concept doesn’t scale outside of the context of a dungeon. What level is the skill check if I’m not down on the third level of the dungeon? And what is making that determination? Like I said - interesting thought experiment, bad practical design.
@@HardyLeBel-c9r gotcha - I totally understand the modern “core mechanic” ideal - I just don’t agree with it. I prefer mini-games. To call that bad design… more like “I don’t like this style” which it seems is the case here.
@@BanditsKeep Hmm… I don’t agree with that. Games allow players to make choices and gain mastery over mechanics - even mini games. Calling a different resolution system a “mini-game” is a misnomer if the player can’t learn and express mastery over the mechanics, or if there are no other supporting systems in the design. Artisanal design is the process of refining a design through successive generations of users - like the design of a modern shovel. Each successive generation of craftsmen continued to refine the design, eliminating bad structural choices and reinforcing good ones. Game design follows similar principles - older design ideas die off as newer designs refine or replace them. That’s why rogues (thieves) no longer use different resolution mechanics for their thief skills - those systems proved to be inefficient and cumbersome compared to a common core mechanic: d20 vs a target value. That’s also why advantage/disadvantage is such a powerful innovation - it simplifies plusses and minuses into a simple, intuitive mechanic that is more streamlined in use. So - no, this isn’t a case of preference. This is example is a case of objectively inferior game design.
I love this idea. I'm thinking that it'd be great for many things. Magic-users having a knowledge skill that might give them info on a monster. Fighters using this for disarms, parries, grapples, etc. Rangers tracking. Lots of stuff.
Yes!
What an original approach to skills!
I remember reading and optional rule somewhere that clerics who failed to turn undead rolling a 1, enraged them (so to speak) and said undead would attack the cleric over other party members.
Something like that could also be used here: a thief that fails on a one could jam the lock with a tool, or break the tool, or make too much noise and alert whoever is on the other side. A ranger that drastically fails, could not only lose the trail, but follow the wrong trail for several hours or the tracked creature discovers the tracking party and ambushes them
For sure!
Good video! I usually use the 2d6 Reaction roll as the basis for graded results (e.g. weather rolls during wilderness exploration).
I've used the Turn Undead chart to model "beast master" abilities - tame or subdue wild beasts.
Nice
This is a really elegant way to borrow some of the form of PBTA but in the context of OSR. It's really interesting to note the kernel of that idea existing so long in the game, but not being developed much. Of particular note of this, I like that by having a table that has the "crit success" built into it, you have to actually engage with that. This can really help guide newer DMs and players on what a crit is really bringing to the table and how it lets a player shine.
For sure
Fascinating! I might add a 5 or 3 before the 7 to give a bit more variability, but it’s a fascinating idea.
Let me know if you try it
I like this concept! It creates a very predictable system that players can use to better gauge their odds of success with different approaches to scenarios.
Honestly, I think it could serve as the core mechanic of an entire new system.
Thanks
Really nicely done. I will keep this in mind rather than simply jump to the popular d20 everything. You preserve both the original rule and mechanics but creatively give it another use!
Thanks! I tend to like the curves created when rolling multiple dice
Another slight mod to this really great idea is extrapolate the table numbers down a little just for skills (not undead turning). So what I mean is that a 6th level character’s block reading from left (difficulty 1) to right (up to difficulty 8 in this case) would be:
D T T 3 5 7 9 11
You still get the D (auto success with a bonus) and T (auto success) at lower difficulties but you don’t have the abrupt shift from needing a 7 to T (auto success). The next “step” of improvement from 7 is 5, not T (auto success), from 5 is 3, and from 3 is T.
Another great video Daniel!
Nice!
Really good idea!
Thanks! Upon further review, I think I would go 7 to 5 to T, not 7 to 5 to 3. Only double ones would fail when a 3 is needed to perform the skill, that’s less than a 5% chance, so it is probably not good to have the 3 in there. But adding in the 7 to 5 to then T for skills I still like.
@@matthewkirkhart2401 Even better idea! :D
Just wanted to say, your video thumbnails work. Ive clicked on quite a few videos of yours, not knowing it was you because you dont put your face into the thumbnail, and when you pop onto the screen and welcome me to Bandit's Keep, i almost audibly cheer every time. You make good content that isnt thirsty
Thanks! I appreciate that
I would replace the "T's" with their numbers going down by two each time. I would then treat the "D's" as auto-succeed. After a column is "D" three times, then add the bonus.
This would still give a low chance for failure or even critical failure.
Good idea
I'm sorry to bother. I don't understand what you're saying. Could you explain, I'm dumb sometimes.
@@dajavuja Follow the pattern in each column. Instead of being an automatic success, use the number that should be there instead. This will still allow for failure but with a pretty low chance.
When the columns become "D's", then they automatically succeed.
Great ideas. This is helping me really think about some of the aspects of the game in a pure game mechanics structure sort of way.
Awesome
The OSR needs this channel. Especially in 2024.
😊
Yes also unscripted & unchained, jorphden, captcorajus, wasabiburger, 3d6 down the line, dungeon musings, questing beast, dungeondelver, and so many more making great old school content
@Michael Johnson, why specifically in 2024?
@@DjigitDaniel these be interesting times we are living through...😊
@@benmorgan4790 , no kidding. Am I missing something? Is this channel on a particular side of the culture war barricades?
This is pretty brilliant. Thank you!
Thanks
This is GENIUS! So much better than roll under systems. Adding the option for a yes but, yes and is nice.
Thank You!
Great idea, bringing something new to an old school system, well done.
Thank You!
I will definitely test this out at my table next time I run D&D!
Awesome
Dang, I came into this video skeptical- "Skills in OSE/OSR? Sacrilege!", but after listening to the explainer I can imagine how I would use this in my game instead of arbitrary ability checks, when the ability only loosely applies to the nature of the check. The PC level/"HD" of the check comparison with the "even" odds at 7 on 2d6 is beautifully simple. This makes complete sense. Thanks!
Thanks! Let me know if you give it a try
Wow, you have a new mic, new studio, new logo, and everything. Shit, movin up in the world!
🙌🏻🙌🏻
Cool approach! I'm designing a homebrew game where the primary action resolution system is inspired by the thief skill checks.
Nice
This is an interesting concept! I like the idea.
Thank You!
Ever since the first video I saw I keep expecting you to say "Welcome to Bandit's Keep; I'm Bandit!" 😂
Ha ha
Thoughtful and practical
Thanks
Love this! Always enjoy your channel Daniel. Keep doing what you're doing brother!
Thank You!
As always, exceptionally good content. As I often comment, yours is among the very finest RPG content I’ve ever seen.
Got a few random throwaway suggestions for topics/questions I’d love to hear your perspective on, what’s easier for you-have us just drop them in a comment or send you a message through the channel?
Either way works, thanks
Brilliant. This could be adjusted for almost any game system by converting the 2d6 to 1d20 or 1d100. Roughly 7 is a 50% chance, 9 - 75%, and 11 being 90%. Easily allows the option that Grumpy Old Slan mentioned of the critical 1 failure or allowing success with a penalty. Can't remember if that was this channel a success with penalty was mentioned in a video or not. Simple system though. A character wants to do X and it fits their class/race/background roll the dice. Better than endless pages of rules and books on books of suppliments.
For sure
This is called "good design". Nice job. It's obvious once it's pointed out, but so deviously hard to see otherwise.
Thank You!
I really dig this. I kind of want to implement something like this for solo narration. Its a simple way for skills to matter in a basic success matrix. Also i haven’t read swordworld yet but from what I understand its a super complicated version of 2d6 & charts.
That is what I plan on using this for - solo play that is
I like it. This is pretty much the basis for my entire homebrew.
Cool
Great idea ! Need testing on table.
Let me know how it works for you
The outro looks amazing! :D
😊
Thats a pretty good idea. Very simple
Thanks!
I did something very similar in a supplement I published for S&W. I think this is better!
Thanks! What is the supplement, I’d love to check it out
@@BanditsKeep Swords & Wizardry Dark, it’s a supplement to S&W and assumes you own a copy of S&W Complete. I used the saving throw as the skill TN
This might be my favorite 2d6 system ever.
Awesome, thanks
Geezer here.....
In my homebrew, turning and beguiling undead are Feats. Those things are beyond a skill.
Great vid.
Gaming on.
Cool
I will gladly try this, this weekend. Hopefully I will return with my players thoughts on it.
Awesome, can’t wait to hear
Brilliant
Thank You!
Great idea, would you keep this confined to classes only rolling on "skills" outlined in their class or would you allow other classes to roll maybe with a modifer (I was thinking an unskilled class might roll 3 levels lower)?
You could do that for sure
This is pretty genius. It’s like you know what you’re doing or something… ;)
Thank You!
I'm going to try this out using the FOR GOLD & GLORY Turn Undead Table, possibly the same one as ad&d 2nd. Because I'd like to get as much stuff uniform in my old school game and as close to d20 roll high as possible. I'm exciting the table for negative priest’s levels so I can keep the Thief starting percentages close to the original and having each class skill start at its own level and increasing all at the same rate up the table. I'm also letting in other class that will be handled similarly for bard, Assassin, Paladin, ect... and using the table for characters professions as a catch-all for other skills thy should have
Very cool
I loved the idea!!! Have you tested in your table?? Keep the great work!! 🙌
I’ve only messed with it in a few one shots, works pretty well
I've been waiting for this! Yay!
😊😊
I really like this!
Thank You!
I just listened to a couple videos of yours that were I think 1 year old or so. This video is a huge improvement regarding your sound. Your voice has alot more gain and clarity. New gear? Maybe a new mic? 😉
I was using OBS before - now I record audio and video separately (usually anyway)
Interesting taking an existing idea and modifying it. I always felt that the HtH combat charts in Top Secret would make great Monk combat charts.
Oh man, yes!
I'm so gonna use this for my game. I just began DMing and I'm running a duet game and we immediately came across the problem of adjudicating an elf sneaking. This would have come in handy.
Question though, how would you use this concerning overland travel (hex crawl) or perhaps running single level dungeons for higher level players? Would you just average out the HD of the monsters in the dungeon and make that the "dungeon level"?
For a single level dungeon I’d likely average the level. For hex crawl is base it on either the distance from civilization or the HD of the primary monster type in that area
@@BanditsKeep simple and elegant. I appreciate the feed back!
Whelp, you stole my idea, Daniel, but I think you did a better job with it than I did! 😂 👍
there is a bit of prior art here
Ha ha, that’s where I got it from!
@@BanditsKeep Its the magic of OSR that keeps us all alive.
This is great!
Thank You!
Easy and cool system!
Thanks
This is just off the dome, but there is a mirror to morale checks as well. Morale doesn't have a neat and tidy table etc but it does offer a sort of 'other direction's type of thinking if you're used to 3e plus where you add modifiers.
This is much simpler I think though bc it's less arbitrary
Morale is another great system to hack
Fantastic idea.
Thank You!
Our Swords & Wizardry group uses something similar except its based on the characters Saving Throw.
Cool
Crypts and things is based off of swords and wizardry and does just that. Saving throw is changed to skill number and becomes the universal task resolution system. It begins at 15 at level 1, and goes down by 1 every level afterwards. The ref is free to grant any bonuses or penalties depending on the tasks difficultly.
Anyone can attempt any skill, but if you actually have it (like a thief climbing walls or Barbarian tracking) you get a +3 bonus to the d20 roll. You also add the relevant attribute modifier. It works very well.
SKILLS IN THE OSR!? WHAT IS THE BLASPHEMY!? 🤣🤣
"...Cleric turn undead chart..."
👀👀 🤣🤣
I personally like how ad&d 2e handles skills- I mean non-weapon proficiency hahahha
😂😂
As mentioned by someone else, I would at least add the 5 DC. This is because for the Turn Undead, even for an automatic success, the cleric will roll 2d6 to determine the amount of HD to be turned; it is not an auto success to resolve all the problem.
True
For wilderness "levels" in a hex crawl, you could use the distance from the nearest town or settlement. So if you have your base in the middle hex, the six hexes around it are "level 1 wilderness". No idea how to do this for a point crawl. Unless it's something like a journey, where your first destination is "wilderness 1", your second is "wilderness 2" and so on.
For sure
I think that the ability bonus wouldn't mess up this system at all, unless adding a dc of 5 is added. Also, I like the idea of using resources like time, assistance, or even a better tool to lower the HD/Difficulty would be nice.
So, if the the level 1 thief is wanting to pick a difficulty 4 lock they can spend 1 or more turns to lower the difficulty.
Could be interesting for sure
This reminds me of the Chainmail wizards vs spell complexity chart.
Ah yes, it does a bit - hmm that would also work and adds the “delay” as well
I thought this would be a perfect little system to run with the #23 challenges (Encounter, Dungeon, Hex)... and now I'm furiously remoulding BX around it. 😅
Nice!
I've built a less blasphemous "Unified mechanic" using D20 as 5% per increment skill checks. (So a three in six is 11+ to succeed, or for the thief a 25% open lock is 15+) You can approximate almost any thievery/turn-undead/spell/door break check within 1-5% of the original probability. I also use this a way for each subclass to have a skill check they can make. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing it the old way, but my players are new to od&d/osr and keep getting confused by what die is used for what check. It also adds a lot more gradual progression at each or every other level for their class ability.
Cool. I pretty much just use d6s now for OD&D since dropping the alternate (d20) combat - but I can see the usefulness of d20 checks for sure - of course you loose the curve but it certainly works.
Nice video Daniel! :)
Thank You!
I like your idea, but I don't think "dungeon floor" makes sense. Why are the doors on level 2 of a dungeon not as good as the doors on level 3? Why is it harder to climb walls or hear a noise because I am one floor down? It just seems so bananas that it harms believability.
OSE has an alternative thief skill system in their carcass crawler magazine, and I think also in Dolmenwood that you may like?
Level is a gage of difficulty in this system. I find dragons make the world unbelievable 🤷🏻♂️- I have looked at those systems, always fun to see what people come up with.
The concept here is very clever. I think it might become a bit unwieldy with charts, but I'm very chartphobic haha.
One chart for all levels is not so bad
Listen Up -
I figured out a way to do the FASERIP ability checks in the Marvel system (red,yellow,green,fail) without referencing the chart or using percentile. Its not exact but its very close, only like 1-2% chance off at most for greens.
2d12 plus a modifier, each ability category is +1, you're rolling against a fixed difficulty. Its been awhile since I was working with this so I forgot the specifics. I think a Red Success was 23+.
Run the statistics for what the lowest ability score would score a Green success and set the difficulty based on the 2d12+1 roll. And for Yellow success check several of the lower abilities (up to Amazing) for their percentages, and the percentages they can score with 2d12+X. Average those together and you get the Yellow Difficulty (I think its somewhere near 17 IIRC).
The advantage to this is you just roll and you know what your target number is, it doesn't jump all over the place, no need to reference the chart.
Interesting
So would this replace Thief skills or be a separate skill system?
Could be either depending on the table
But what's the point with a full table when you only need two numbers, power/ability and difficulty/resistance? And what if there are more types of "undead" or "tracking uses" ? What if the environment and the nature of the attempt call for modifiers?
I just don't get it, beyond that i understand that tables can be pretty to look at.
The table is what exists - the exercise is to show how one can use existing mechanics 🤷🏻♂️ don’t use a table if you don’t like them, also I go over modifiers in the video. In all cases, so what works at your table is my mantra. Thanks for taking the time to comment
I don't have a good handle on OSR progression, but going from an 8% chance of success to automatic success in three levels seems fast. (Also, you jump from about a 60% success rate to auto success, which looks like a big jump mathematically, but may seem like a natural progression.) That doesn't seem in line with how characters advance in combat power, on paper at least. But, again, I haven't actually played any OSR games since BECMI was on the shelves, and just reading the rules doesn't give you a solid understanding of how it plays.
Remember the success is based on your level vs the level of the situation
What is the thumbnail art from?
It’s a public domain image
I'm thinking as you go up in level, maybe you expand down to the 5's, or up to 12's and 13's - i.e. add some uncertainty. You never want to penalize someone for being higher level, so it's tricky. But nothing says the table has to be symmetric. Just because your character is awesome, maybe they are not awesome the "right way" for some exotic or bizarre challenge. Lots of different skills, classes, cultures, sources of magic, whatever; regardless of the game system you use. So more uncertainty as you expand into that larger world. The trick is making it feel organic, not that the intent is to screw the character.
Indeed
Neat idea, but here's a thought, since we already use a d20 to determine success in combat, what if we use a d20 for skill checks? Oh, and your idea of adding an ability modifier doesn't get too out of hand when you're rolling a d20, so we could apply ability modifiers if we use a d20! Then, we could set a standard difficulty, let's call it a DC... and... sounds like you're trying to recreate 3rd edition, my dude.
Nah. You are recreating it. I’m using something from BX which I prefer as two dice create a curve.
@@BanditsKeep It was a bit of a joke. I was pointing out that you're adding things to BX which were basically added in later editions, but making it more complicated by needing a chart to look up rather than just having the ability to set a DC and using d20 + modifier. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Use whatever die rolls you want, whether it's d20, 2d6, 3d6, d%, none of it really matters. They're all just means to an end. I just suggested you use d20, because you're already using d20 for attack rolls, and it's easier and makes more sense to use the same die for everything. I used to play Rifts a long time ago, and it never made sense why it used d20 for attacking, but d% for skills. It's a needlessly overly complicated system imo. OSR is about simplifying the game, so why complicate your game by using two different die mechanics? If you're going to use 2d6 for skills, why not use 2d6 for attacking and use the same chart? If you're going to use d20 for attacking, why not use d20 for skills? When designing a game, remember, a good mechanic is one that solves more than one problem. So, anytime you can use the same mechanic for more than one thing, do it. Keep it simple.
This sort of reminds me of ICRPG with effort
Oh? I’ll have to bust out ICRPG and take a look
Watch Guillermo Del Toro's Cabinet of Horrors Episode 2 for good ideas to run Undead and Rats
🐀
Seduction table for a courtesan class... errrrr I meannnn potion brewing for an alchemist yeeahhh that's it...
Either one could work
Interesting thought experiment, terrible game design.
Curious why you would think that. Please elaborate.
@@BanditsKeep I know you love fiddling with the old chart design crap from earlier editions to try and make it relevant again, but there are practical reasons why mechanics have evolved the way they did.
1) It adds unnecessary complexity to skill checks by adding additional numbers to track. If I already have ability score modifiers, why add another category of number?
2) It’s harder to adjudicate. Instead of simply determining a target number in my head, I now have a chart to reference. I don’t want more tables to look stuff up on while running a game - I want to stay in the moment.
3) The concept doesn’t scale outside of the context of a dungeon. What level is the skill check if I’m not down on the third level of the dungeon? And what is making that determination?
Like I said - interesting thought experiment, bad practical design.
@@HardyLeBel-c9r gotcha - I totally understand the modern “core mechanic” ideal - I just don’t agree with it. I prefer mini-games. To call that bad design… more like “I don’t like this style” which it seems is the case here.
@@BanditsKeep Hmm… I don’t agree with that.
Games allow players to make choices and gain mastery over mechanics - even mini games. Calling a different resolution system a “mini-game” is a misnomer if the player can’t learn and express mastery over the mechanics, or if there are no other supporting systems in the design.
Artisanal design is the process of refining a design through successive generations of users - like the design of a modern shovel. Each successive generation of craftsmen continued to refine the design, eliminating bad structural choices and reinforcing good ones.
Game design follows similar principles - older design ideas die off as newer designs refine or replace them.
That’s why rogues (thieves) no longer use different resolution mechanics for their thief skills - those systems proved to be inefficient and cumbersome compared to a common core mechanic: d20 vs a target value.
That’s also why advantage/disadvantage is such a powerful innovation - it simplifies plusses and minuses into a simple, intuitive mechanic that is more streamlined in use.
So - no, this isn’t a case of preference. This is example is a case of objectively inferior game design.
@@HardyLeBel-c9r yup, I’ve heard this all before.