OSR Skills with Special Mechanics - Social, Lore, Perception

[Quickleaf]

For me, one of the least satisfying areas of modern D&D and adjacent games are the treatment of Social skills, Lore skills, and Perception-type skills using the same mechanics as other action-oriented skills. I've found these approaches can open a door to lazy player habits that might not otherwise get opened (e.g. "Can I make a Perception check to search for traps", "What do I know about trolls? (hint hint)", or the ambiguity between a long dialogue and the group expectation of a Persuasion roll).

I've often wondered how others playing OSR view these three "skill" types and why they're one of the fundamental differences between OSR and modern D&D, and if there's some way of bridging that or if they're fundamentally different paradigms.

These 3 "skill" types specifically are given a different treatment in AD&D and earlier editions, even when non-weapon proficiencies enter the picture.

Social Skills are subsumed by two mechanics: the Reaction Roll (to determine a NPC's initial attitude towards the party when it is uncertain to the GM, adjusted by Charisma) and the Morale Check (to determine when a monster flees or gives up, determined entirely by the monster's stat entry). The Reaction Roll seems to imply some level of skill or perhaps reputation or first impressions, and its closest analogue is something like a very specific use of Persuasion. Whereas the Morale Check is akin to Intimidation but there's no skill involved, rather there are certain benchmarks the PCs must make in order to trigger it. And any kind of Deception mechanic is not present.

Lore Skills do start to enter the picture in 1.5e/2e with non-weapon proficiencies; though even then they have other functions in addition to their "lore dump" function. Before Oriental Adventures, however, lore skills are exclusively relegated as a special class feature given to bards (and even then it's more like magic item lore only). There is no equivalent to a monster knowledge check - it's based on what the players have gleaned through play. Because of this, there is a special class of NPC called Sages who PCs can turn to (once the PCs are swimming in gold) to get specific information they desire.

Perception-type skills (including things like Investigation or Insight or any "what do I notice?" skills) in OSR are divided into two groups both using d6. The Find Secret/Concealed Doors roll is a d6 and is determined by race, with elves getting a bonus. Dwarves might get a clue from the GM based on their knowledge of stonework, but that's left ambiguous and up to the GM. Otherwise, secret doors are left to the devices of the players to locate and figure out. The other d6 roll is the Surprise Roll which sort of assumes a constant Stealth attempt and how alert the group is. Certain classes/races get improved chances here, and a high Dexterity mitigates how long a PC remains surprised for (high enough effectively makes you immune to being surprised). In other words, OSR assumes a base level of competence in sneaking and perceiving across all PCs with very minimal differentiation.

Anyhow, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how/why these 3 skill types are so different between OSR and modern D&D, and maybe creative approaches to handling them, or ways you've house ruled them.

 

[Malmuria]

I really do think this is a fundamental difference between OSR and trad playstyles. In fact I think the biggest "houserule" to make a 5e game more OSR-ish is entirely on the DM's side, and that's to stop calling for so many rolls. Rather, players have to manipulate the fiction of the world to get what they want. If they want to intimidate an NPC, they have to use what they know about the NPC and the context and say something that would be intimidating. Same for finding traps, secret doors, etc--they have to engage with the fictional space.

In terms of bridging this gap, however, questing beast has a recent interesting video about the blank spaces in both 5e and OSR games


Edit: the Sean McCoy tweet the video talks about is here

x.com

x.com

 

[Quickleaf]

I really do think this is a fundamental difference between OSR and trad playstyles. In fact I think the biggest "houserule" to make a 5e game more OSR-ish is entirely on the DM's side, and that's to stop calling for so many rolls. Rather, players have to manipulate the fiction of the world to get what they want. If they want to intimidate an NPC, they have to use what they know about the NPC and the context and say something that would be intimidating. Same for finding traps, secret doors, etc--they have to engage with the fictional space.

In terms of bridging this gap, however, questing beast has a recent interesting video about the blank spaces in both 5e and OSR games


Edit: the Sean McCoy tweet the video talks about is here

x.com

x.com

I enjoy Ben's videos and his thought process in this video is interesting. But there are no conclusions I can draw from it, beyond what's pretty obvious at a high level (i.e. OSR requires engaging with fiction in ways modern D&D does not).

For instance, Ben mentions Brendan Mulligan's "D&D 5e has rules for combat and abstract social stuff so he can focus on the social stuff that is his expertise."

And then Ben goes on to state that "I think D&D 4e is all about combat because of its combat rules."

So then what's the distinction – why is D&D 4e definitely about combat (for Ben) but D&D 5e is about social stuff (for Brendan)? It just seems like he's attaching interesting language/thought to ultimately describe what is a subjective personal view.

To circle back to my original question about bridging: It sounds like you're capturing really well the view point that OSR and modern D&D are two fundamentally different approaches to Social interaction, Lore, and Perception, and never shall the twain meet?

 

[Malmuria]

I enjoy Ben's videos and his thought process in this video is interesting. But there are no conclusions I can draw from it, beyond what's pretty obvious at a high level (i.e. OSR requires engaging with fiction in ways modern D&D does not).

For instance, Ben mentions Brendan Mulligan's "D&D 5e has rules for combat and abstract social stuff so he can focus on the social stuff that is his expertise."

And then Ben goes on to state that "I think D&D 4e is all about combat because of its combat rules."

So then what's the distinction – why is D&D 4e definitely about combat (for Ben) but D&D 5e is about social stuff (for Brendan)? It just seems like he's attaching interesting language/thought to ultimately describe what is a subjective personal view.

I noticed that part too...that didn't make sense to me for his argument. But maybe it's just that saying a game is "about" something is a misleading simplification. 5e, for example, can be said to be "about" combat in that so much is invested in the combat mini game. Yet 5e combat still abstracts away details (e.g. there is nothing to be gained from describing your attack in detail, it's still just an attack roll unless you have a special feature as an exception). So it's more about where and at what level abstraction is ok.

To circle back to my original question about bridging: It sounds like you're capturing really well the view point that OSR and modern D&D are two fundamentally different approaches to Social interaction, Lore, and Perception, and never shall the twain meet?

To the above point, maybe it's more of a spectrum of how much abstraction you require and where. HP is an abstraction, hence the debates about what it represents, and OS games have HP. That is, to the extent that you have mechanics you have some types and level of abstraction. You can keep removing types of abstraction, however.

 

[cbwjm]

I can understand players wanting to have a set mechanic to resolve something, I also agree that some DMs call for rolls nowadays that if I was in the seat I'd just say "Yep, you find that". Like if a player searches a desk looking for some evidence they might just find it without needing an investigation check. If they instead say they're searching the desk and specificially looking for secret compartments, then I'd call for a roll.

It's the same with social checks, if a player wants to convince the guard to let them pass, they need to come up with some reason before rolling otherwise, no roll, they just won't let you pass. This doesn't require roleplay either, I'm not one of those DMs that wants all their players to be aspiring actors, they just need a reason for the roll. If they have some reason I think is an autopass, they get in without a roll.

 

[Voadam]

OSR games also had listen checks for all players as active PC initiated mechanics checks. On a d6 in B/X and I believe off a d20 for AD&D.

B/X also had everyone able to check for traps on a d6 roll, dwarves were better at it and thieves had their separate percentage chance.

 

[Voadam]

Anyhow, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how/why these 3 skill types are so different between OSR and modern D&D, and maybe creative approaches to handling them, or ways you've house ruled them.

I started with B/X and AD&D with no use of reaction rolls that I remember so a lot of just roleplaying through social stuff.

I DM 5e now and it provides for a huge latitude RAW on how you handle that kind of stuff so I focus a lot on just 1st person roleplaying stuff out and resolving as feels appropriate and using rolls for more second person down time off screen type of stuff when we take a less focused in role. So no rolls when directly talking in character, rolls for doing a 4e skill challenge or "I spend two weeks spreading rumors about the political opposition", although sometimes that latter is just a non roll resolution.

 

[GMMichael]

Anyhow, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how/why these 3 skill types are so different between OSR and modern D&D, and maybe creative approaches to handling them, or ways you've house ruled them.

I can't get behind the idea of having multiple subsystems for these activities. That's a D&D 3rd ed. finer point: adding some uniformity to the rules. But then 3e fills all that cleaned up rules-space with new rules and new books.

My system is one step simpler than 3e's treatment. I unified the rules (the Contest), but didn't go on to add tables or subsystems afterward:

PC: What do I know about trolls?
GM: Good question. They're big, green, and mean.
PC: No, I mean, are they vulnerable to fire?
GM: Roll a Mental contest.
PC: 17, and I added my Lore skill.
GM: That's a Pro, so you've heard that they are, but you think it's just a rumor.

PC: OH, no. Are those the headhunters ahead?
GM: Yes, and they're hefting their axes as they approach you.
PC: So they're hostile? Can I soften their spirits a bit with some song and dance?
GM: Ever the bard, Yngwie. Sure, roll a metaphysical contest. Since there are four of them, your difficulty is Arduous.
PC: It's 13. We're in trouble.
GM: Yes, that's a Con. What went wrong?
PC: How about . . . the song I started reminded them of their favorite war chant?
GM: Sounds good. They get oddly evil grins as you almost start their own war chant for them. So they'll get a morale boost for a bit, and you get a free hero point.

 

[Cruentus]

Anyhow, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how/why these 3 skill types are so different between OSR and modern D&D, and maybe creative approaches to handling them, or ways you've house ruled them.

In my B/X and OSE games, they're fairly fluid. OSE (I'll use that as my shorthand for OSR in this response) uses reaction charts for social encounters. I use that chart for random encounters and as a fall back in social situations, and maybe a minor bonus or penalty depending on the situation, what is said, how it is said, etc. Players are free to either RP their encounter, or tell me what they want to accomplish "I try to intimidate the bartender by lowering my voice and threatening him." My players allow some pretty wide leeway for the DM (me) to respond without having to worry about complaints of being adversarial.

For Lore, players will know the common elements of the world, remember myths and common elements of religions (more so if they're a cleric), etc. So if they ask "Have I ever heard about the wizard Xamanderous or his rituals?" I give would give some "known" rumors or myths, but if they wanted something specific, it would likely be an ability check (roll equal or under Int, or Wis, or whatever) for the asking character. They are also free to talk to NPCs, consult Sages, research things in large cities in libraries or churches, etc. If players spend time and resources, they're likely to be more successful overall.

For Perception, players find things if they search. Period. If they say "I search the room", and agree to spend 1 Turn (B/X, OSE measure of time), ie. 10 minutes or so, looking, they find everything there is to find in the room unless its hidden by magic. Secret doors, traps, the floorboard, etc. No rolls. If they are in the middle of combat, or rushing through the room being pursued, or don't want to spend the time to search, then I fall back on the "find traps" "find secret doors" and similar rules that are already in the game. Basically, if players can spend the time, and risk the random encounter roll, then they'll succeed. For perceiving things in social situations, I'll clue players in that they notice the way someone is standing, or looking at them, or they appear to be dodging the question, etc, usually without a roll. The players can then act on that info or ignore it. And for a trickier situation, we fall back on the Ability Score check.

I also extend these elements to characters and their classes - wizards can feel the presence of strong magics (but it doesn't replace detect magic or identify), thieves can climb any wall without roll unless it is described as particularly sheer or slick, particularly if there is no time pressure. Same thing with hiding in shadows or moving silently, etc. Its only when under pressure that I have people roll, or where there is a consequence for failure - slipping into a shadow before initiative, for example. We sometimes go through entire sessions with no dice being rolled.

We gave up on 5e due to things like "Perception" rolls, and how, to us, it felt like it reduced things to buttons and levers on a character sheet. If you wanted to deviate from the sheet and skills or abilities, it caused things to slow down, or defaulted to "Roll Perception or Roll Stealth or Roll from whatever limited set of skills seemed to fit the situation." We felt it lessened our engagement in the actual game.

But YMMV.

 

[Quickleaf]

I can understand players wanting to have a set mechanic to resolve something, I also agree that some DMs call for rolls nowadays that if I was in the seat I'd just say "Yep, you find that". Like if a player searches a desk looking for some evidence they might just find it without needing an investigation check. If they instead say they're searching the desk and specificially looking for secret compartments, then I'd call for a roll.

It's the same with social checks, if a player wants to convince the guard to let them pass, they need to come up with some reason before rolling otherwise, no roll, they just won't let you pass. This doesn't require roleplay either, I'm not one of those DMs that wants all their players to be aspiring actors, they just need a reason for the roll. If they have some reason I think is an autopass, they get in without a roll.

I want to use your Convince the Guard situation as an example...

I've noticed this come up more with the Perception-ish scenarios in modern D&D (including Investigation & Insight), than with Social scenarios... but I still see it come up on rare occasion with Social scenarios too... It's the player being at a loss for what to do. "I'm not sure." "I don't know what my character would do." Any variety of that. When that moment happens in modern D&D games, I've often seen players default to "Can I make a X roll to figure it out?"

...so getting back to your example, which I think you're using a modern D&D paradigm for, you describe 3 possible outcomes:
1) The player doesn't come up with a reason (or it's flat out bad) for the guard to let them pass. No roll. The guard doesn't let them pass.
2) The player comes up with a reason that the guard might let them pass. You set a DC and they roll against it, succeed or fail.
3) The player comes up with a compelling reason for the guard to let them pass. Automatically succeeds with no roll. The guard lets them pass.

The interaction revolves exclusively around the player's intent and the outcome is binary.

The OSR approach would look very similar for #1 and #3, but in the "might let them pass" it looks different. First, you might use a reaction roll to gauge the guard's attitude toward the party (which is moving beyond just the player's intent); for example a negative reaction might lead with a "Oh, I've heard of you. You're the ones that lit the docks on fire, aren't you?" Second, the "might let them pass" probably plays out as a give/take to the conversation in OSR; this breaks away from binary outcomes to mixed (negotiated) outcomes. For instance, the guard might want them to surrender any rods, staves, wands, or fire-starting materials to the city guard for safekeeping while the PCs are in the city.

I'm still formulating my ideas, but...

One of the problematic patterns I've seen in modern D&D's social interactions is two-fold: (1) player describes cool approach, GM asks for roll, it fails, player gets a let down moment, and as this happens throughout session player describes less and less in social scenes. (2) player describes cool approach as they reach for dice, GM says it's automatically successful, player gets a let down moment that they didn't get to roll and use the high numbers on their character sheet that they built their PC to be good at, so throughout the session the player describes less realizing that less description means more rolls.

Whereas one of the problematic patterns I've seen in OSR social interactions is that when there is uncertainty (i.e. "might let them pass"), players have less control over pacing of social interactions. There's no easy-out check. I've noticed this in "is this guy being duplicitous" situations the most because in OSR the player has no recourse even when it feels like their character should. The Persuasion check (or whatever), even if it's the GM calling for it, gives a bounding box of when the scene ends, more or less. What I've seen this lead to is certain players going radio silent in many social interactions, with one or two players dominating... sometimes this is fine for the group, but other times it's not... and yet it's the same sort of subtle effect as I described above – a sense of disconnect between the player's words/description/desires and the outcome.

I apologize for the length of my post as I'm still working these ideas out, but this is why I used the word bridging before. I'm noticing issues in both OSR and Modern D&D that seem (to me) to have similar underlying mechanisms.