So, I don’t try to hide that I am a skill-based system kinda guy. I don’t really care for level/class systems (although soft classes, like what you see in the Chronicles of Darkness line are entirely fine by me) and thus I am definitionally not very interested in most OSR games. Nothing negative towards them, but they just don’t cater to my tastes, even though I agree with a lot of the sticking points they have with modern iterations of D&D and Pathfinder, etc. I like simple rules, making calls, potentially deadly combat, and sandbox style games (or at least theme-parks) far more than traditional written adventure style, for instance.

Get to the Point Already

Why am I talking about this? Well, there is one other thing I see mentioned a lot in discussions of OSR games that I really don’t understand. This concept of being anti-skills, as if having a skill system in the game somehow ruins it. For one thing, skill systems are nearly as old as the hobby, with Traveller and RuneQuest both debuting with a skill system within five years of the original release of D&D, so its obviously not less “old school” (or at least only marginally so).

But more importantly, one of the key ways that OSR games advocate to facilitate action adjudication is making attribute rolls. Now, before a bunch of folks jump in, I know that some older editions were just as likely to offer an arbitrary 1-in-6 roll (or some variation, referred to as x-in-6) to sort this out, and I also know that this was considered something that was generally only brought out in either case if the randomness of the situation was interesting. I also fully agree that rolls should only be made if the random outcome is interesting. Again, a lot of common head-space here. What I am getting at is that, in its essence, even attribute rolls are a form of a very limited skill system!

I know, some folks reading this right now are probably confused, or are busy typing up a comment to disagree. Just hear me out. What is a skill, really? Its a measure of how talented a particular character is at a certain task. What is an attribute? Also a measure of how talented a character is at a certain task! Its just that many systems combine the two things into a more complex system, but at its heart they are both accomplishing the same goal: showing how character x and character y differ from each other and what they are good at.

What is the Real Problem?

Instead of spending time and effort defending OSR games from the “intrusion” of skill systems, the real effort should be spent on why some skill systems seem more “OSR-friendly” than others. After all, I agree with the general concept of “the answer is not on your sheet!”

The problem as I see it is not the skills, abilities, feats, etc, in of themselves. It is the way that they are most often used as a crutch for players who cannot figure out what to do. And this problem can have its root in both the players and the GMs of a group.

Fixing It

All too often I see old-school GMs bemoan players who think about skills as “pressing the action button” in a video game, but very few seem to realize their power to curb that behavior and instill better habits. Honestly, I blame the GMs sections of most RPG books.

See, when players say “I want to roll Perception” or something like that, the GM should throw on the brakes. That is not what skills are for. The GM should, instead, ask them what they are looking for, or where are they looking, or anything, really, to get them to be more descriptive and actually think. Only if a player tells me what they are trying to accomplish and how do I tell them if they need to roll or not, and what to roll if its warranted.

By disallowing the player from using it as a “do the action” button, you remove most of the perceived issues, and after a few sessions the player will catch on. The satisfaction of actually interacting with the world and coming up with novel approaches to problems is one of the most addictive aspects of RPGs, and once players get a taste for it, most will latch on to the idea. They just have to be lead to it, because these things are not spelled out in most game books. The reason OSR seems to excel at this behavior is because it gives the players little choice, sink or swim, but just because it requires a little more work on the GM to train the players in a more modern style game does not mean its not possible!

The Other Side of the Screen

Which brings us to the idea of action adjudication. As GMs, its important to remember that not every action needs a roll. If the outcome of an action isn’t dramatic or interesting, it shouldn’t be rolled. Driving to the store? Making breakfast? Ordering a beer at the tavern? Not interesting. Why make a roll? It slows down the action and what does a failure mean? There are no stakes! Instead, focus on those moments in which the outcome really matters and in which the consequences for failure hold some interesting complications.

And this applies to actions that most people would assume would need a roll. For instance, picking a lock. Is there any chance that the thief is going to get spotted or otherwise be hindered? No? Then why roll? Its just giving the player more chances to fail and the players are going to pick up on the fact that there are no stakes to it, so they are going to want to just retry a failure anyway. By just assuming that they can open the door if they take their time (since they aren’t being rushed) the game can simply move on to something interesting.

This applies to other situations as well. The players wants to leap onto a chandelier? Well, failing that would be interesting, in that it could put the player at an interesting disadvantage, and that may be exactly what you want in a more gritty kind of world. But what if you are going for a more pulpy style? Just let them do it, and maybe even give them a bonus to their attack afterwards for panache! Rewarding these kinds of “thinking outside the box” moments can really drive players to start seeking them out which in turn drives their investment and weens them off of the “I don’t know, I roll Perception” mentality as well as build that feeling that you may be going for in those more high powered games like D&D 5e or Pathfinder.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a lot to learn from in the OSR movement as far as how to run games effectively and get player’s invested, but its important not to get bogged down in the presentation to the point that you miss the actual lesson. We have to embody the gameplay we want to see, after all. The problem isn’t skills, its the way they are used, both by GMs and players alike.

Thinking about what would be possible in the world presented and acting according to that information will help both broaden and deepen your enjoyment of roleplaying games, regardless of which side of the screen you find yourself on. The skills are just there to give you a guideline on how to facilitate those actions, not determine what is possible. To that end, whether you are playing Swords & Wizardry or RuneQuest, the answer still isn’t on your sheet. What on your sheet is merely the guidelines on how to achieve that once you have a plan of action.