A Not-Skill System for "Skills" or "Ability Checks"

Some Ideas Based on Alternative Mechanics

Jul 12, 2023

This morning I had some thoughts about how to handle tasks like picking locks, sneaking, etc in the Shadow Over Sojenka Campaign, based around the Lost Dungeon of Tonisborg, and trying to use an “authentic” Old School approach to the rules.

I posted a comment on the campaign discord:

…y'all had some interesting thoughts on replacing thief skills and skills in general last night before we signed off.
I think I got the gist of it but if you have anything you'd like to promote from your own POV regarding how to handle these in the campaign please hit me with a DM today

Then I shared a video from Daniel at Bandit’s Keep about using something like the Cleric’s Turning ability to handle other tasks.

I like the idea of the PC level and the dungeon level affecting the possibility of success. I had toyed with the concept of an Ability Score check, with the target number to roll under being (your ability score) + (your level) - (dungeon level).

I dislike this as it creates wild variations in success rates for characters with high ability scores vs average ability scores. Also, the difference in Level is only a 5% difference in the result.

One of my players responded with a comment that gave me something else to chew on:

Are you finding that you're having trouble adjudicating things that aren't covered by the rules, like tracking or sneaking or something?
Sound logic for using what's already there. I just would not want the game to turn into a series of skill checks. It's hard to avoid that ime because it streamlines something you're doing 1000 times a session, particularly in regards to traditionally "thief" type activities, like searching for traps.
Do classes with a proclivity towards an activity get a bonus? does the bugman have a better chance to harvest a plant? Does the halfling have a better chance to track?

Hmmm. That really got the old grey matter buzzing. What is it I’m trying to adjudicate, and why?

There is a lot happening, and I'm thinking about:

Reducing cognitive load
Fairness
Consistency
Getting away from Ability Score checks
Making a foundation for Players to DM their own Downtime things sometimes
Being faithful to Holmes page 10

All of these activities are resolved by a simple d6 roll, with 16-33% chance of success. As mentioned last night, I really only want to roll where failure is important. But, I think it should get a modifier based on PC Level vs Dungeon/Difficulty Level. For example, a 4th level PC trying to disarm a trap on the first level should be pretty easy. On the 5th level it should be pretty tricky.

What I don't want is Proficiencies, or "I can't do X because I don't have that Skill".

So I played around for a while with a chart, trying many different ways of dividing up the PC levels and what might be a base number for success on a die. I needed to use 2d6 in order to stretch out the table enough to make it meaningful.

The odds for any given result are shown on the right.

This led to another intriguing exchange:

A PC could get modifiers for "I bought some lock picks and locks to practice on, 3 days a month"
Or
"I spend a few days each month helping a Barber/Surgeon collect wild herbs for poultices"
Or
You see the trip wire going into the wall and the mechanism for releasing the trap, you have to take your gloves off to get in there, and it’s 30 degrees out here.
A player responded with questions for further clarification:
Do classes with a proclivity towards an activity get a bonus? does the bugman have a better chance to harvest a plant? Does the halfling have a better chance to track?
Some of these ideas could be made into "Class/Race Abilities" to help get away from “Humans in a rubber suit”.

So, this is the skeleton of a not-skill-system.

Modifiers

What are some things that could modify this roll?

For starters, Holmes (the rule set we are approximating with Blueholme) doesn’t do much with ability scores, especially in terms of modifiers. I think that any ability score modifier should be small, and only for the most unusual scores.

There is a less than 10% chance of rolling a 15, and a less than 2% chance of rolling a 17. Therefore, I would say that if a PC can explain how or why a particular ability score might influence a particular activity, then +1 for a 15-16 and +2 for a 17-18 sounds reasonable.

As described above, I would also be amenable to giving bonuses or penalties due to circumstances, background, or other creative explanations.

In addition, there are tasks you obviously don’t need to roll for. If your character grew up on a dairy farm, they certainly wouldn’t need to make a roll for success at milking a cow or a goat. They probably need to make one for trying to milk an antelope or a tiger.

Making a Foundation for Players to DM their Own Downtime Actions

In a Campaign that uses 1:1 Downtime Pace-setting it can get hectic. As I told my players last night, there are a LOT of moving parts right now. I am going to need some help, especially in managing some of the downtime tasks that are relatively mundane.

Even some of the “mundane” downtime activities might need to be resolved with the assistance of a die roll. If there is a tool that any and all players (or DMs) can use to adjudicate unusual activities in a fair and consistent manner, players will have more fun and trust that they are getting results consistent with what other players might get.

The next question then, for Players determining the results of their own activities, is “Doe they need a tool for interpreting the result?”

Should there be something like a Reaction Roll table with some prompts for the level of success or failure? Again, this would be used for consistency and fairness.

Have a comment or suggestion? Please share your thoughts in the Comments below!
Keep on Gaming!