The last skill list I'll ever need...

...because it'll work for everything!

Fantasy?  Check.

Historical?  Of course.

Modern?  Yup!

Superheroes?  Absolutely!!

TRON-style interprogram conflict within a computer system?  Uh...

Maybe not everything.  I guess.  But I do want to have one that I can apply across most genres I'll be playing...and potentially mixing into the games that sprout from my fantasy heartbreaker.

Well...I wanna create stats for Mutt from the G.I. Joe team, right?  So let me think through this...

The core of the game is D&D Fifth Edition.  It has 18 skills, which were kept identical in the transition from the 2014 to 2024 editions and which are used as-is by the 5e-forked rules of Tales of the Valiant.  They're a solid set for fantasy and in general hit a nice level of broadness (breadth? too weird a word for this use...).  Some of the really specific choices from 3e/3.5 have been absorbed by others, and we're left with a selection of nouns that feel more specific than ability/attribute descriptors, but that all could also be subdivided into more specific tasks.  So...no Use Rope.  They should all stay; here's our base:

• Athletics

-----

• Acrobatics
• Sleight of Hand
• Stealth

-----
• Arcana
• History
• Investigation
• Nature
• Religion

-----
• Animal Handling
• Insight
• Medicine
• Perception
• Survival

-----
• Deception
• Intimidation
• Performance
• Persuasion

And vehicles, FWIW, are treated as Tools, so a different kind of proficiency entirely.

Now, I consulted with a couple of modern takes on 5e to see how they deal with the skill list -- Everyday Heroes and Ultramodern5.  They're both worth looking at!  And since both games are pretty open and have SRDs just a search away, I think it's probably safe to talk about their skill selections pretty...er, openly.

So...both end up with 22 total skills.  Ultramodern5 does this by just adding four more on top of the 5e list: Computer Use, Demolitions, Engineering, and Sciences (all designated for use with Intelligence, although I'm not TOO concerned with that yet, as I think it might be best to just let every skill check have its associated ability determined at the time of the check).  And vehicles, once again, are handled by a proficiency separate from skills.

Image from DriveThruRPG

Everyday Heroes, meanwhile, also has a list of 22 but goes about it in a different way.  For one thing, as you might have imagined I would get to by my mentions of them above, Vehicles is a skill in itself.  The rules also drop Arcana, History, Nature, Religion, and Animal Handling.  Arcana is arguably gone just to fit the modern setting better.  It's also possible that it is simply taken up into the new skill Social Sciences, much as History and Religion must be.  Natural Sciences can then absorb Nature.  (Getting rid of Animal Handling is a little bit of a head-scratcher for me, though.)

Image from DriveThruRPG

The other additions are Endurance, Computers, Mechanics, Security, Arts and Crafts, and Streetwise.  (Oh...and if it matters, Medicine is moved from Wisdom to Intelligence as the standard base ability.  I do like it better with INT...)

As I mentioned above, I want to take the Ultramodern5 route and just keep the basic 18 from 5e, adding on what's necessary.  So, from what I see here...what's necessary?  Both games have a computer skill...that's a good one.  Demolitions?  Nah...I definitely had a phase where I thought Demolitions made sense as a skill, but that just seems so...specific.  It can be a Talent/Aptitude/whatever I end up choosing to call the proficiencies that work kind of like Tools but don't have to be tools.  Same with Security from Everyday Heroes.

I'm fine with just one Sciences skill and letting Nature hang around as a related but not identical set of knowledge that someone may have.  After all, quantum mechanics seems to be at the root of how nature works, but that's not what we mean when we say someone has an understanding of Nature.

Arts and Crafts?  It's broad enough to fit the theme, but just seems...unnecessary.  And do we need Streetwise when we already have Insight, Perception, Survival, and all the skills that describe characters' impact on those around them?  (I don't think so.)

Engineering and Mechanics hit a similar note for the games, and I'm definitely tempted to run with one of those...there is something a bit different about these approaches as compared to the more theoretical angle of the Sciences.  That's a tough one, though...especially since we so often think of the scientists in a story/RPG as the ones who come up with all the gadgets.  I'm leaning no, but with these and Endurance, I could still be convinced either way.

----------

Alright...uh, drumroll please...?  The WIP skill list for the Monstrous Heartbreaker stands at (and please feel free to check my math on this):

• Athletics

-----

• Acrobatics
• Sleight of Hand
• Stealth

-----
• Arcana

• Computers
• History
• Investigation

• Medicine
• Nature
• Religion

• Sciences

-----
• Animal Handling
• Insight
• Perception
• Survival

-----
• Deception
• Intimidation
• Performance
• Persuasion

----------

I think it might work.  And I'm definitely up for whatever criticisms you may have to send my way...!

The fantasy heartbreaker rolls on: Drafting a Thief class

Image from the Forgotten Realms Wiki

Listening to the Pomps' "World Full of Traps" this past weekend eased me into thinking about how a Rogue should be set up in this fantasy heartbreaker I'm currently dedicating my heart and soul to (eh, more or less). This is, of course, the skill class...the one that became an Expert in the True20 system and a Specialist in Lamentations of the Flame Princess.  So I have to really start working out the answer to two big questions if I'm going to make any progress:

1. Do I want a general "skill user" class, or one that maintains the old school Thief flavor?

...and probably more importantly...

2. How the heck are skills even gonna work in this game?

For the first...as I noted on Saturday, I really think I want to go with a Thief in both style and name.  I like the idea of the class having an explicit connection to previous editions of D&D.  Calling it The Thief will certainly do that, as will giving it some of the classic Thief/Rogue abilities...the climbing and the listening and the backstabbing and the Thieves' Canting.  I'm fine with having some sort of Expert class as well...and in fact, that almost seems like it will eventually become a necessity.  BUT...I don't think it makes sense to have a character that's an expert in...well, pretty much any random skills that aren't related to thievery...and then carry on with, "Oh, yeah, and they're good at sneaking around and killing people from behind.  Just because."

So, for now at least, a Thief it is...

That second question is one that's surely going to take more actual play to determine if I'm moving in the right direction or not.  This whole Monstrous Heartbreaker is essentially 5e-based, with some quirks in how the modifiers are derived from ability scores -- and in how proficiency is treated -- that will hopefully make it suitable for older editions of D&D as well.  Fifth Edition has an interesting approach to skills in that most of them are REALLY broad...like they almost occupy a space in between the broad application of an ability score and the more specific skills that would be used in something like D6 Star Wars.

I want to build on that and also snag the approach that 5e takes with Tool proficiency...although classifying those proficiencies specifically as "Tools" has always felt a little too limiting for me.  I think the term should be open-ended enough that anything you want to work into a character concept is feasible.  I've been going with the word Talents for now (the name for skills in D6 Star Wars' predecessor, WEG's Ghostbusters).  Having recently realized that Tales of the Valiant uses the term Talent for an aspect of its rules, I may need to rethink that...but there really don't seem to be a lot of great options as synonyms.  I mean, I don't know, I've never had much of a knack for words.  You might say I lack prowess with vocabulary, so obviously I keep consulting a thesaurus to compensate for my lack of aptitude in this area.  But maybe something will come to me.

Oh!  Two other important things to note: (1) As in 5e, Expertise will denote a higher level of capability in a skill, and (2) The rules are going to be very clear in how to handle situations where both a broad Skill and a Talent (or whatever) apply.  This seems like it is bound to happen a lot, and it's another spot where 5e has just never felt quite right to me.

So, anyway, here's what I've got so far...

----------

The Thief

Art by David A. Trampier from the 1e Player's Handbook

Hit Die: d8

Proficiencies

Armor: Light armor
Weapons: Simple weapons, swords, hand crossbows

Saving Throws: Dexterity, Charisma
Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth

Talents: Climbing, Lockpicking

To represent your experience up until Level 1, choose one additional Skill and one additional Talent; you gain those proficiencies.

Equipment

Begin with a set of campaign-appropriate equipment (per DM). This should definitely include what are usually known as “thieves’ tools,” which include lockpicks and instruments used to disable traps.

Thieves’ Cant

At Level 1, you are able to read, write, and speak in the heavily coded jargon known as Thieves’ Cant.

Backstab

Beginning at 1st level, you are exceptionally good at harming an unsuspecting foe. When you make an attack at an enemy’s back, and the target is is unprepared to be attacked from behind, you get a +1 Class Bonus to the attack roll and a +1d6 Class Bonus to any damage dealt. These bonuses go up to +3 / +2d6 at Level 3 and +5 / +3d6 at Level 5.

And do you really consider yourself a thief...?

At Level 2, you determine which of the many capabilities of the Thief you will take on as your specialty. This decision will file you into one of the following less-broad categories within the broad Thief class. However…I mean, hey, being called a Thief doesn’t even mean you’re actually a thief (just that you’re good at thief things), so being called one of these doesn’t define you as a character, either. (Unless you want it to...)

•  Assassin – You gain proficiency with the Talent Poisons and an extra 10% chance of achieving a critical hit. (For example, if a weapon normally provides a critical hit on a 20 only, you score one on an 18-20 instead.)

•  Burglar – You gain proficiency in Investigation; you also gain expertise in Stealth and the Talents Climbing and Lockpicking.

•  Cutpurse – You gain proficiency in Deception and the Talent Picking Pockets; you also gain expertise in Sleight of Hand and Stealth.

•  Scam Artist – You gain proficiency in Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion 

•  Scout – You gain proficiency in Survival and the Talent Finding/Disarming Traps; you also gain expertise in Athletics and Perception.

Move Like Lightning

Starting at 3rd level, whenever you make a Dexterity saving throw, you only fail on a roll of natural 1.

Ability Score Increase

When you reach 4th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1.

Extra Attack

Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Only the first of these can be used to Backstab, as you will no longer have the element of surprise with your second attack.

----------

Looking at 5E for quick pickup games...

A while back, in the midst of remembering Ivan Reitman, I wrote a little about rule conversion that hinted at the possibility of using 5E D&D as the base for a game intended to be about as streamlined as the old Ghostbusters RPG.  You could create a character pretty much the same way in either system just by determining attributes/traits and adding on some proficiencies/talents.  If it works for a pickup game of Ghostbusters, it should work for a pickup game using 5E rules, eh?

During this year's run of holiday gaming, I ran a Lovecraftian horror one-shot for Halloween and wanted to try out this streamlined approach to 5E as a universal system.  So, I just took 5E, added in a couple of modern skills and tools that might be important, and asked everyone to make a character using a Background only (or an equivalent set of proficiencies plus an extra roleplaying-based characteristic).  Sanity was tracked like hit points, and everyone rolled both that and HP (instead of maxing out at "1st level") to keep things tense(?).  I had come across at least one example on the net where someone discussed setting up a 5E funnel with background-only characters, and this seemed like it should work just as well.

For the adventure, I modified and quickly converted the Call of Cthulhu convention module Dead Boarder to take place at Miskatonic Community College on Halloween 1985.  (Note: I definitely recommend this scenario, as it's a pretty cool and easily adaptable Lovecraftian romp, and its convention-game focus helped us keep a one-shot as an actual one-shot, which we sometimes have trouble with...!)  And honestly, I think it went pretty darn well.  Background-only 5E gaming may just become a go-to for themed one-shots I want to try out.

I mean, when players come to the game with characters like the one below, how can things go wrong?  Quick creation...just enough substance to care about the character through a single session...defaulting to 5E rules that we all know reasonably well...I realize there's nothing groundbreaking to this approach, but I was really pleased with the outcome.  Here's Rachel's character, sharing without her knowledge or permission or anything like that but I really don't think she'll have an issue with it...

Milton Casey

40s or 50s, tall and slight but with ropey muscles, thinning brown hair and clean shaven. Wearing classic olive-beige jumpsuit of a custodial worker.

Str 10, Dex 12, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 9, Cha 14

Skill proficiencies: Repair, Perception

Tool proficiency: Cleaning equipment (floor buffer, wet vac, etc.)

Languages: English, Spanish

Background Feature: Knows Where the Bodies are Buried - For the campus where Milt works, he knows where every employee (staff and faculty) keeps their files and important papers and can access them at any time (licitly or otherwise).

Project 5.5 - System finalists

After going over options in my head for...well, months now...I have finally narrowed the choice for a set of rules to serve as the basis for Project 5.5 (a wargame using bulky MOTU-style action figures) down to two.

The first option builds from my last contender post, which was...wow, way back in 2019...taking the game in an OSR direction using Swords & Six-Siders as a model (although I'll probably end up going with a more freeform "OSR but only using d6s" style).  The lean toward this choice comes from the free and open nature of various OSR products produced under the OGL, the quantity of OSR resources to draw from, and the fact that I can pair this effort with work I have done and will do on Light City, which I really need to spend a little time on at some point.

In addition, as James from James Mishler Games and Adventures in Gaming v2 was kind enough to point out when I asked for info on the origin of 1d6 skill rolls in D&D, d6-only resolution was there from the very start, on page 9 of OD&D's third booklet (The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures).  There's something very clean and simple about taking the approach originally used for dealing with doors and applying it to all rolls in the game.

However, there's another great option that I just can't quite shake.  Starting with the fact that this might be my favorite RPG of all time...

...and that it was used to later create this game, another great one...

...and then the fact that there is already a miniatures system based upon those rules, which I very handily have a copy of...

...AND the fact that even the minis system has been released under the OGL (you can find it HERE)...

...and, well, that's a tempting way to go.  Also, the next RPG I plan to run (hopefully starting next week!) is a semi-homebrew setting using semi-homebrew rules based upon Ghostbusters and its descendant Mini Six...which means that going this route could synthesize a couple of my gaming projects much like Light City and Project 5.5 could mix in an OSR approach.

At the moment, I'm leaning OSR.  But that could change at any time.

I'm thinking.

Where does 1d6 skill resolution originate?

In finally following up a bit on exploring some sort of OSR-based framework as a basis for the action figure combat game I'm currently calling Project 5.5, I've realized how much I like the idea of "X in 6" task resolution in games.  As in...the door to the next room of the dungeon is stuck, I have a 2 in 6 chance of opening it, I roll a 3, it's still stuck.  I suppose Lamentations of the Flame Princess is the main system I've ever played that used it extensively, and while I'm not all-in on skill systems that don't modify the required roll according to the specifics of the situation (an issue that's easily remedied, of course...and I don't doubt LotFP actually has some guidelines for this), there's just something about the simplicity of rolling a regular old d6 and knowing you need to hit a target number or lower to succeed.

For one thing, there's something about it that feels really old school to me.  And I don't really know why that's the case.

I think I've noted on this blog before that I didn't play most of what we now think of as "old school" RPGs during their first run in the spotlight.  I didn't really become what I'd call a tabletop gamer until a bit later in life than many of my current gaming friends and acquantances, essentially cutting my roleplaying teeth on Risus and 3rd/3.5 era D&D.  Well...maybe Risus is kind of old school.  It is not, however, old school D&D, which is clearly the shared DNA that connects most of the OSR.

In other words, it's not like I enjoy those 1d6 roll-under checks because they remind me of the way I used to game way back in the day.  And so I started wondering recently...where does that feeling that "X in 6" fits my idea of old school gaming come from?  Is it just because LotFP, one of my favorite retroclones, uses it for skills?  Is it the ad hoc nature of an "X in 6 chance" declaration that makes the system fit into the "rulings not rules" mindset I associate with old school gaming?

I really don't know...AND I'm legitimately looking for insight from anyone reading this into (1) whether I'm alone in thinking this sort of task resolution feels very old school for some reason, and (2) where this may originate.  I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, as it seems I've come across its use quite often in the OSR realm, including complete approaches to implementation like this one over at the blog Blood, Death, Satan, & Metal.

Where it originates is a bit trickier.  I've found where the work has been put into demonstrating how "X in 6" is built into B/X D&D.  But was it found much in the three OD&D booklets?  Did early modules influence its use?  I'd definitely like to find out a bit more about the roots of these rolls...!

EDIT:  I realized later that at one point in time, I did seem to be aware of the fact that "X in 6" shows up in the original three booklets of D&D.  Clearly, I didn't internalize that info very well (and I'm not even sure how I came to the understanding I did).  And maybe...the old memory isn't what it used to be...

Tackles & Touchdowns

After musing on a d6-skill-based football game back here, I've followed up by exploring the idea a little more...settling on some rules, playing some games with generic players, and figuring out quick-n-dirty conversions of Madden 16 player ratings to skill values (making the occasional adjustment as I see fit).  I'm getting closer to having a full version of this ready...

The basics of the rules:

The average value of a game skill for a starter in the NFL is 4 on offense and 3 on defense.

The field is divided into four spaces, plus end zones.  For the purposes of the rules, I'll number the spaces like so...

After a kickoff, the offense starts in space 1.

Outcomes are then determined by identifying crucial skill matchups in a drive.  For solo play, flip a play card to determine which offensive and defensive skills to compare (e.g. running back's Agility vs. linebacker's Tackling).  (I'm still figuring out the best way to handle this for head-to-head play.)  Both players roll against their indicated skills, with success on a roll ≤ the skill's value.

IF the offense succeeds, and the defense fails…move one space with the chance to move more (the matchup to continue is indicated on the card...this is how big plays are made).

IF both succeed or both fail…one space if offensive roll > defensive roll, none if not.

IF the offense fails, and the defense succeeds…it's fourth down.
Two consecutive plays of no movement lead to fourth down no matter what.

The offensive coach can then choose to go for it, punt, or try for a field goal.  If successful on fourth down (moving at least one space), continue as normal; if unsuccessful, the ball changes hands at the current space.

A punt moves ball two spaces (or one space if in space 3).

Field goals are made on 5 of 6 if in space 4, 3 of 6 if in space 3.

There are six drives per quarter.  (I count up on a d6.)

Onside kicks have 1 in 6 chance of success if there are two or fewer possessions left to play; teams may attempt one onside kick per game with more than two possessions left at a success rate of 3 in 6 (by announcing a “surprise onside kick”)

And here's Cam Newton's updated player card:

Gonna update here when I hit the next stage of "developing" this...

Are you ready for some...

Well, it's a big week here in the U.S. of A., in which we all gear up for the national holiday that is Super Bowl Sunday.  Naturally, that means I'm thinking a lot about American football gaming.

It was a homemade baseball simulation that first led me to purchase "funny dice" (d10s, in this case) as a kid.  I have a soft spot for tabletop sports games and have often thought about how sports might be approached within the framework of old school D&D type games.  So here's where I'm headed at the moment...

It makes sense to build such a game based on players' skills.  Interestingly, this is one of the most open-ended ideas in the realm of OSR games, so there are a lot of options.  Some folks like the idea of modeling skills after saving throws.  Some use a d20 roll-under method like that in the popular Rules Cyclopedia.  Many, however, are willing to stick with the tried-and-true d6 for resolving questions of skill.

The d6 approach does have some history on its side, as some aspects of original D&D were apparently resolved with "x in 6" chances of success.  The use of the six-sider has been further codified in games such as Weird West and White Lies, which use roll-high systems with target numbers, as well as Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which stays somewhat true to OD&D with a unified roll-under skill mechanic.  (I really enjoy the look of skills on the LotFP character sheet, too, where pips are filled in on individual dice.)

While I may not use it all the time, I like the idea of the d6 for its history and simplicity.  Rolls can be modified with White Box-type ability score bonuses without breaking things.  And it would be easy to imagine classes like LotFP's Specialist that are able to gain ranks in whatever skills you could imagine.  Like, say, the skills used in a game of American football.  So that we can come up with something like this:

Now, how do we use these numbers?  An easy way would be to generate player-vs-player matchups and resolve them with a couple of rolls.  Stealing a page from the football card game Third and Long, we can reduce an offensive drive to a few "key plays" and identify the players critical to each (getting as specific as the exact skill(s) required by each player).

By random roll (the reason I numbered the skills on Manning's card above) or playing/drawing a card, we can establish which skills to roll for...so there's a showdown between, say, Manning's Accuracy and Luke Kuechly's ability to Read an offensive formation:

Then, resolve it with either an opposed roll (Manning's d6+5 vs. Kuechly's d6+4, with ties going to the defense?) or an attempt by both players to roll under for success.  I can imagine a somewhat abstract board that teams move along as an indication of general field position:

Manning succeeds, Kuechly fails...move two spaces.  Both succeed...one space.  Both fail...retry.  Offensive failure + defensive success...it's fourth down and time to make a choice.

Or something like that.  (Or, just use opposed rolls...)  Then, add in field goals and punts and whatnot.

This is all pretty much thinking out loud at the moment.  I'm having fun with it and am really open to any suggestions others might have for such a minigame!

And for the sake of my wife...the biggest Cam Newton fan I know...I'll make sure to include this in the post:

Enjoy the game on Sunday, football fans!