1st Ed AD&D did include secondary skills for player characters (they were labelled secondary as their class "is assumed to be that which the character has been following previously, virtually to the exclusion of all other activities") - see DMG p12.  Very general, and "it is up to the DM to create and/or adjudicate situations in which these skills are used or useful to the player character", so no preordained DCs.

Looking back over the old rules, I'm constantly amazed at how much depth there was back then, if not always in an easily digestible format.  :>

In reply to Skald (msg # 13):

It is intresting, but I can't find in my version. It was in the original edition from 1974?

My DMG seems to be original print, but it's from 1979 - AD&D, perhaps, not D&D ? :>

My Basic Set for D&D is 1981 reprint, and doesn't have anything.

It's under Skills, Player Character Secondary in the AD&D DMG index.

Addenum - just checked my copy of the 1991 D&D Rules Cyclopedia, and Chapter 5 covers Skills, though it looks a lot closer to 2nd Ed AD&D NWPs.  :>

In reply to Grungi (msg # 12):

You certainly don't have to be ashamed. And don't even think you have to choose one 'way' or the other. There are no 'ways.' If the characters are talking and having fun, let them talk. If the talking is boring, or if you want to move on, or if it's time to do something sudden and dramatic, call for a roll. Most GM's I know play in both 'styles' all the time, in every game. Any given one may just tend toward one way or the other.

And I agree with you on Skills. The earliest edition of D&D was just a different way to play miniature tactical wargames. So the game (and by 'game' I mean 'the system'), in its earliest days, was focused on combat almost to the exclusion of all else. Sure you could talk, bluff, negotiate, whatever, but the actual system was focused on modelling combat. Mostly everything else was sort of hand-waved.

I remember when I picked up my first Palladium game and the experience award table had entries for 'Good idea' and 'Playing in character' and things like that. And it was such an odd way to think about experience that the early editions had sidebars specifically explaining why this should be the case.

And, as role=playing games and their culture developed and different games were released that had different emphases or different settings or different thematic elements, it became normal for players to want the system to model things other than out-and-out combat.

And once the system models those things, they become part of the game in a way they weren't before.

Which is why I thought it was SO STRANGE that the article claimed adding skills was a way to increase emphasis on combat. I think he's dead wrong. And even if he's right and that's what the developers wanted, I think they're wrong too.

In reply to truemane (msg # 17):

This article was released int he same time with the autors rpg. So I think he wanted to create ideoligigal base to his product. People said: wow what a logic, the acestors were genius. I think they punched in middle of something and they won. So Gygax was lucky, without dnd he wouldn't be famous.

Please don't get me wrong, I play dnd (mostly d20 retroclone), but I would like to handle things realistically.
This message had punctuation tweaked by the user at 15:36, Sun 04 Jan 2015.

For the longest time all I knew about was D&D, good ole' D20 system.
To me many things did not make any sense on how they were handled, but it was the only kid on the block, As far as I knew.

Then A friend introduced me to the Call of Cthulhu RPG, 1920's investigators of strange and the occult where many times your best combat skill was trip the slower person so you could get away.

CoC and the current Basic Roleplaying System (BRP) us a non-level skill based system that is closer to accurate AND can be deadly trying to mimic a more realistic combat situation. CoC focused on the smarts and negotiation part of RP with Combat thrown in.

Best example would be "The Da vinci Code" Where the hero relied more on his brain than his ability to shoot a gun.

If anyone is sick of the older D20 style game play, look for a BRP/CoC style game to try out.

As far as questions go between the GM and players, that can be worked out through PMs, especially if the player(s) and GM are on at the same time.  For instance, in one GURPS 4E game, I wanted to set up traps around our campsite to defend against what was probably going to be an enemy attack, and I had a decent Traps skill.  The GM and I went back and forth on what kinds of traps I wanted to set up, how my character was going to make them, and where they were going to be placed.  Once we had all the details worked out, I made some dice rolls based on the appropriate skills, and when the enemy PCs showed up, they had to describe how they were going to Attack our camp.  Sure enough, one of the rope traps caught an enemy PC.  That was far cooler to me than any dice roll I've ever made for an attack.

But I do agree with the author that it's boring to simply use dice rolls to accomplish goals, particularly in unique situations like trying to fast-talk a guard or pulling off a swinging-from-the-chandelier attack.  However, I wouldn't necessarily go into great detail for routine or often-repeated tasks.  For instance, it would get rather tedious to describe in detail how a character is checking doors for traps in every single room of a dungeon.

In reply to Grungi (msg # 12):

Run your game in whatever fashion feels most comfortable to you.  You'll probably end up tweaking the way you run it a bit, so that it fits better with the players...but, to me, the primary rules of RPGs, regardless of the system used, is, "If everyone is having fun, you're doing it right."

Many of the GMs I've played with would let you simply roll if you wanted to do something like fast-talk a guard or con a townsperson...but if you wanted to actually explain HOW you were trying to fast-talk them, the GM would give you a modifier to the difficulty of the task.  If your idea seemed solid enough, they might even just hand-wave it and say, "I can't see any reason he'd question that...it works."

BUT--they modified how they handled these situations because of the players involved.  I was in a game years ago with a guy who LOVED rolling the dice...so the GM had him roll for everything.  I preferred to logic my way around stuff if I could, so if I had an explanation for how I was going to do something and he thought it was practical, he'd just nod and say, "Okay...it works."  Most of the time, I'd explain and he'd have me roll for some detail here or there to make the plan work.

If you prefer rolling dice so you don't have to bog down a game with talking details with your players, then go that route.  It will turn some players off...but it will attract others.  The secret to a good, successful game is managing to get a GM and players who are not only dedicated, but share the same opinion about what the game should be.  If you've got a 'talky' player and a dice-oriented GM, they're just going to frustrate each other...but since it's the GMs game, I've always felt that they get to set the tone for how the game will run.  A smart GM will adapt somewhat to suit the players...but smart players won't try and force a GM into running a game in a way that makes the GM feel uncomfortable or overly burdened.

So, yeah...if you like rolling dice, do it.  Personally, it's not my style of play (I'm not opposed to dice, but I don't like feeling like the game constantly hinges on the dice, either).  But if you like it, you're more likely to stick to the game and keep it afloat to find players that will enjoy that style of play.

My experience matches facemaker329's.

I'm not against dice, but you should judge the situation by how important it is, and how "fun" any given outcome is. If it is much better for the story and the game if a good idea can work, you can have it work regardless of a die roll.

If it's unclear, or it seems like a bad idea, ask for a die roll to "make it work" somehow, with whatever modifier you feel is warranted. Or if it's a terrible idea, feel free to tell the players that their characters know for certain it won't work in any way like the player expects.

Sometimes it's fun to have a long, developed plan, a conversation with an NPC, a brilliant solution to a problem -- but sometimes it's not really worth the effort as far as the players are concerned, so resolving things with a die roll saves a lot of time.

The dice tell a story as much as people do. I don't think I'd have as many memories if it was not for the odd twist a dice roll threw into the situation.

Oh, don't get me wrong.  The Star Wars group that I played in years ago had some notorious characters in it, all due to the behavior of the dice.  My character was the guy you wanted to take the shot if there was only one chance and the fate of the party depended on it.  My friend's mercenary was somehow unable to hit anyone she shot at...until she was wounded and under a dice penalty, then she could shoot the right wing off a housefly at 50 meters.  Our aspiring Jedi/Sith (depended on the day) had an incredible knack for rolling a 1 on the Wild Die when it came to controlling her temper, and an equally astounding knack for rolling 6 on the Wild Die when it came to using the Force while being influenced by the Dark Side.

We have HOURS of stories in that group that revolve around spectacular situations that happened because of the dice.

However, we also have just as many stories that came out of the players fast-talking NPCs, asking seemingly trivial questions of the GM about the environment and getting details that became relevant in the most bizarre fashions, and players taking actions that the GM said, "Yeah...that makes sense.  I'm going to say it works, because there's no reason it shouldn't."

If the game had been exclusively one or the other, we still would have had fun.  But because the GM was willing to take the time to develop a fusion of the two styles of play, we had a LOT of fun, so much so that, despite all of the other games I've played in, whenever I think of games that I no longer play and wish I could, that's the first one that comes to mind.

I (and my local group) always prefer to Roleplay a situation out as much as possible and then, depending on how well it was done, confer a situational bonus to the roll. So if you were trying to con your way onto a Noble's ship you might get a straight roll for just saying your character uses Bluff, a +2 for 'Ho matey, Master Gibbs sent me - I'm the new deckhand', and more like a +5 for a good descriptive or convincing argument. Humour also got a bonus so faking a peg leg, grabbing a scroll from the party mage, and pretending to be a ship inspector that could confiscate the ship if a detailed inspection was failed (with hints to bribes being accepted), well that could be a good bonus and have everyone around the table laughing away.

It's more difficult on a forum as accents, tones, etc are easily lost. However the principles of rewarding good roleplaying even in a heavy rollplay type game is one I think works anywhere.

The problem I always have with bonuses for good roleplay, is what it ends up doing is rewarding those talented, and punishing shy players. It means I'm less likely going to be able to coax someone who's primarily  roll-player, into role-playing.

"What do ye mean 'accents an' tones' be lost, ye lubber chrisormie ?  Tis ye that talks strangely, not I !"  :P

willvr, it's the way of the world ... like rewarding people who are really good at baseball by putting them in the major leagues and paying them a lot of money ... really disadvantages those of us who miss out because we lack hand-eye coordination. <grrrins>

But seriously, I'd have thought XP bonus for good roleplay would encourage people to get in character and post, which is the only way you can learn to be a good roleplayer.  Personally as a player I'll take the roleplay option over strategical advantage every time (though it is nice when you can get both).

I associate 'old school' with face-to-face gaming which in my experience is slanted towards the strategic vs online gaming which is slanted towards roleplay.  I've run the classic adventures online and my players were more than able to take full roleplaying advantage of even the simplest dungeon crawl.

@Willvr: I agree it can separate those out, but as a shy player I always enjoyed watching the talented actors in the groups do their thing and be rewarded for it. I used to just take the roll without a bonus, but after a while I got used to doing enough to grab a +2 and can now be the face of a party if needed. The mechanic has made me a more confident person as well as a more rounded roleplayer, so whilst it's not perfect it really worked well for me and others in my groups.

@Skald: Four years away from the site and I still love ya Skald! (I used to lurk a a lot and you and BBR always made me smile with your posts.) Problem I get with accents is they only work written down if you know what they are, but I still sometimes get the problem where my line of dialogue sounds the same in my head as the one you wrote.Getting the subtle differences you get in real life is difficult to convey, but I'll accept there are ways to do it here.

Hmm.. Ignoring dice rolls...

I am generally not in favor of it.  From what I can see - the crux of this conversation comes down to "should one side (Dice Roll vs. Acting) be able to eliminate/discard the other."

I am sure folks will hate the above generalization, but, that's how it feels to me.

As mentioned a moment ago - some people have identified the problem with rewarding the "Actor" of the group (Players - not the PCs) - it tends to result in shy players ONLY having access to the dice.  Now, some systems require it: such as White Wolf's Stunting, to get any sort of bonus.

However, part of role-playing is asking yourself "What would my strategic-minded character do?" If the answer is to cold-heartedly throw the torch-bearer at the mob while the remainder of the party get into flanking position: let the dice rolls happen, it's a strategy in the fog of war - not a chess game: there are dice, this means chance happens.

Also, there is a significant problem when it comes to knowledge checks -- *I* am only so smart, but my character has a 24 INT? (D&D terms here) - he's a Supra-Genius.  I like to think I am of reasonable intelligence, but really - I am barely qualified to read a book.  Therefore, how do I 'roleplay' intelligence in such a way to get a bonus?  Remember, in T.V. shows (especially Sequential Crime shows), you have characters that succeed because the writers wrote-in exactly what the character is supposed to notice; and they do.  In an RPG, the DM may swear high-n-low to themselves that the player will pick-up on a pertinent detail, but it doesn't happen.  This is just a difference in time and perspective.  The player isn't dumb, just not looking for that EXACT detail.  Therefore, letting rolls take over is a perfectly logical answer: because heck - I SPENT THE POINTS to get those skills and bonuses, I should get the benefits.

I know this conversation usually comes down to diplomacy more than anything... The Bluff Check, the Disguise Roll, the Diplomacy Skill, etc...

1) Actor Player walks-up, with a no-charisma, no-skill character and gives a grand description of how he tries to convince the guard to let him through the door...

2) The Shy Player plays the High-Charisma, High-Skill, Charming Bard - and gives a logical, quick but thought reason/excuse to the guard for entering...

do you really give the greater bonus to the Actor?  Why not just give an XP bonus at the end of talking/staying in character?  Let the shy player have his dice roll - don't discount it.

I have this bonus to the Actor situation only really works if using a Skill XP system (similar to the elder scrolls games), in which success grants experience towards your skills. As GammerHandle mentioned, the shy player is stuck at his base bonus, while a good actor gains all the benefits.

Not saying this is the only way that ruling works, its just a homebrew rule that I have an obsession with. It also requires allot more book keeping from the GM, but I've had success with it in tabletop games. Never really tried it in this format before.

In reply to willvr (msg # 26):

The flip-side of that, as some have mentioned already, is that the shy, withdrawn, or indecisive players can learn to expand their scope of play.  They may not be as proficient at it, no...but I am, personally, a product of what can happen when a shy player sees good role-playing rewarded with bonuses.  And I have a lot of friends who've been down that same road.

Maybe I've just been particularly blessed with awesome GMs, but every game I've been in where the GM gave bonuses for role-playing before rolling (ie, conditional modifiers on the rolls) has used a kind of sliding scale.  In the case of the Star Wars group that I referenced earlier, I would have to do something a lot more impressive to get a 1D bonus than the GM's 14-year-old son.  Yeah, that means there's no codified rules for what makes for a good bonus...but even ingames where something like that is part of the RAW, my experience has been that it still comes down to GM discretion as to whether a bonus is applicable or how much of a modifier to apply.  I trust my GMs to not hose me (or my fellow players) in those situations...I wouldn't stay in a game where I didn't have that kind of faith in my GM.

For me if the shy player said 'My character walks up and bluffs the guard', then yeah they relies on their roll - but are missing a chance to tell more of the story and entertain everyone (which is a big part of roleplaying for me, not the mechanics of it all). Let's say 18 Charisma, 4 ranks of skill, making the roll 1d20+8... not too shabby even without any RP bonus and rewards the character build nicely.

Then if the guy with 10 Cha and no ranks attempts the same but with a good description or idea, I'd happily give that person a bonus. They'd go in at 1d20+2... not as good as the proficient character, but an incentive to keep people focused on the storytelling aspect of the game.

It doesn't work for everyone I'll agree but it's a mechanic that has helped our group bring shy players out of their shell and told some wonderful stories - especially when someone who does nothing but straight rolls for months on end suddenly comes up with  a bit of genius and lets you all know they were planning for this situation for weeks to try and get a bonus on their roll. Very satisfying.

Well, I have two responses to that - firstly, XP bonuses is different from bonuses to die rolls, which is what was being mentioned. And secondly, yeah, but I reward effort more than how 'good' it is. Someone who is -fantastic- at RPing, and I've met a few, could earn enough XP for a level or two easily. But if I reward for effort, then the person who is trying, can get just as much as the person for whom it comes naturally. But if it is -only- on skill, they're not going to get better, because they get discouraged because they get say 20; and the guy who does larping gets 500.

Which is similar to what facemaker comments on, except it's for XP rather than bonuses.

I think both approaches, used together, get the best results...depending on how often/rarely XP is awarded, using that as an incentive for RP can be too remote from the event to work well as an incentive.  Bonus modifiers to a situation happen on the spot...that kind of immediacy makes for really effective reinforcement.

H'mmm ... willvr - I find it helps if a) the bonus XP for roleplaying isn't a huge award (so progression isn't massively faster) and b) players only know their own XP, not what everyone else is getting (so the only way you know the difference is by noting higher level abilities being used or, I suppose, studying visible rolls in the dice roller for improvements in adjustments).

In my games, I award up to +200XP for roleplaying per "segment" (whatever I decide constitutes a chapter, if you will), and maybe another +50-100XP for a really good idea (rewards clever thinking, not just roleplay).  Not scaled by level.

Compare to 4 1st level characters who kill a single Ogre (CR2) and divide 600XP between them getting 150XP each for their pains, and the same 4 as 7th level characters who triumph over a Spectre (CR7) and split 2100XP for 525XP each.  And so on up.

On the other hand, my Storytelling XP awards for completing an arc can be quite high and are scaled by level.

In reply to Skald (msg # 35):

Hmm. Put it this way - I'd prefer the guy who's learning, but tries his everything to improve, than the one who's been gaming for years, and can write superb posts without really trying - if he doesn't try.

For example, I think Terry Pratchett is one of the best writers, for my personal tastes. But there was a period (I won't specify this period so it doesn't side-trek the thread too much), where to me, he didn't seem to be putting his all in. Sure, they were still better than a lot of other fantasy books out there - but I might choose one of those to buy instead, because I felt like they were giving their all. The same could be said of a lot of musicians and actors - once they get to the top, they stop trying. Not all do by any means, but I'd prefer to devote time to helping one who is trying to improve, rather than one just phoning it in as it were.

In reply to willvr (msg # 36):

We will never get better if we don't constantly challenge ourselves, to become complacent is the path of destruction. Not a direct quote from Miyamoto Mushashi but it applies even to gaming.
This message was last edited by the user at 14:33, Wed 21 Jan 2015.