In one word, yes.
What Old School RPGs don't need is a skills system.
Both the above statements no doubt will have their backers and their detractors. Both statements can certainly be viewed as controversial. This is assured because plenty of OSR rule sets have skill systems, while plenty more have neither skill nor set task resolution systems. People play both types and enjoy them. So, how does one come to the above conclusion?
The original RPGs in the 70s had no standardized system for determining task resolution. The closest analog is perhaps that of the "Thief" class with its abilities to pick pockets, climb walls, hide in shadows, and move silently. These were the staples of the class. Without them the Thief was a poor fighter, almost on the same level of a Magic User though with thankfully a better level advancement table. While the added class skills were the clever, defining element of the "Thief" character class, they raised difficult questions in the rest of the game. If a Thief has 25% chance of moving silently, what chance should his Fighter companion in armor have?
As "Rulings, not Rules" was the standard of the day (brought about because no real resolution systems existed) this oddly limited the Referee. What once was done through role playing and Referee fiat, now was bounded by the Thief class values. If a Ref assigned a 50% chance of sneaking past a dozing guard for a Fighter, how did a low level Thief have a worse chance? Should a low level Thief have a worse chance?
This produced some confusion. Articles were written and published in the main gaming magazines trying to explain the rules and the odd contradictions they produced. Some suggested that the Thief's skills were just used in situations where others had no chance of success. Hiding in a well-lit room or sneaking past an alert guard were examples. But the questions of hiding in a dimly lit room or sneaking past a negligent guard remained. Further, what about character attributes? What percentage should a lightly armed fighter with a Dexterity of 18 have versus a marginal first level thief.
None of the above issues are insurmountable. A good Referee could simply assign a positive modifier based on the narrative situation. That could be used for the base percentage chance of success for a non-thief and added to a thief's base ability for the thief class. Still, the system rankled those that wanted a comprehensive resolution system as well as those old time Refs that thought a defined percentage chance dissuaded role playing. At the very worst a Referee could revert to the good old "Rulings, not Rules".
The odd vacuum formed by the above mentioned contradiction was of course filled almost immediately. The growing game market coupled with the explosive energy and unbridled enthusiasm of early gamers produced a blizzard of solutions. All of them were layered on the game systems adding a large amount of detail and complication. Player's desires for unlimited character development and options took precedence and quite quickly the very weight of such systems became immense. Does it really matter that I have a +2 Sewing skill that will add that much to a D20 roll? Why am I constantly searching my character sheet for something I can do instead of role playing? What happened to the simple Fighter I could roll up in 5 minutes?
On the other hand, these systems did give the Referee a framework within which to work. They also gave folks that publish adventures a way to further define the narrative of their published adventure. They however were not "Old School". They were a plethora of rules, not rulings.
For "Mythic Heroes and Legends" I included a task resolution system based on attributes. This is valuable for several reasons. First, it gives a Referee the aforementioned framework. Second, it adds value for a character having high attribute scores. I always disliked the way many of the original RPGs tended to ignore attribute scores except for defined combat additions. Thirdly it gives a Referee a way to more easily use published adventures. If a task in such an adventure is labeled or factored as "difficult", then one has a way to quickly and easily to translate it on the fly.
The questions arises though, "how does one encourage role playing instead of discourage it like so many other skill and task resolution systems?" The answer here was shockingly easy. Installing the concept of "Advantage" and "Disadvantage" solved the issue. The Referee by ruling (or the writer by writing) can assign the number of disadvantages to a task (as well of course the difficulty level). The players are then encouraged to "role play" for their advantages. A Fighter holding a door against an orc horde may enlist his comrade to help... a definite advantage. He may call for the Mage to use his 10' pole to brace the door... another advantage. He may shove the large chest full of treasure against the door footing- still giving room for he and his comrades to use their strength; yet another advantage. The examples are legion. All of this encourages the imagination rather than encouraging looking at a character sheet.
Why a d6? This is a good question. I struggled with the decision of using a d20 or d6 for some time. A d20 fits better with modern players. Even my "Old School" players still struggle to remember to roll a d6 for task resolution. Their hand immediately throws a d20. 5th edition has taught them such. This is not a bad thing. Using a d20 for all game resolution would probably be a smart option. It however doesn't feel right for an "Old School" game. I remember getting my first d20. All I had was it and a handful of d6s. This felt correct for an "Old School" game. (Though our first two gaming sessions featured pulling chits out of a cup for the d20... none were to had, until I found my 8th grade math teacher had a set of oddly shaped dice!)
So, I decided that the feel and simplicity of a d6 was correct. Combat and Saving Throws on a d20. Damage and task resolution on a d6. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I certainly am interested in people's opinions on this.
Comments