One vexing problem that presents itself when designing an old school system now is the question of how to use skills. This is a design problem because the earliest D&D systems used an implicit skill system instead of an explicit system. That has lead to a lot of people thinking that the old school rules don’t have skills built into them, a mistaken position.

I’ll leave it to those who’ve spoken of it before me to lay out how skills in old D&D appear (see Lucy Blumire’s blogpost about old school skills) and simply assume that the skill system is present as fact. That skill system is implicit in the text, with instances of it only showing when specifics are needed; at no point are the skills presented as being a subsystem in the rules. One way in which this characteristic affects the mechanics directly is in the realm of PC abilities.

At no point in describing PC abilities is a general skill system laid out or referred to. Even when the thief class showed up in a supplement with its personal skill set described, there was no discussion of a general skill subsystem in the rules. The thief skills also differed from the general skill usage by requiring percentile dice rolls instead of an X-in-6 approach. It wasn’t until the appearance of expansion books for AD&D that an explicit presentation of a skill system debuted.

This all means that designers of systems taking an old school approach these days have to decide how to involve skills in the systems. Do we design implicit skills that only get described as a discrete dice roll used in a specific situation here and there, or do we lay out skills as an explicit part of the system? Are skills to be a one-size-fits-all measure of X-in-6 chances called out discretely for everybody or will PC competence vary by class and/or experience?

I’ve decided I want to take a hybrid approach to skills. PC skills will be described as best as possible as discrete instances of what a specific class can do, instead of a list of skills that can be learned and developed by any PC. I also. however, will describe how PCs of other classes use those skills, without them being able to develop any greater competence (much the same as with the X-in-6 approach). This is the same basic tack as thieves being able to develop their ability to climb sheer surfaces while non-thief PCs have just a general chance to climb and never develop that skill further, so it’s not without precedent. An example from my projects would be that of fighters being able to employ stunts in melee (and the development of those locked in through level advancement) and non-fighters being able to attempt the same with much worse chances of success (and no improvement possible).

This approach involves no setting up an explicit skills system that covers learning new skills and generating ratings, then rules on how to develop those skills over the course of play, and how players can go about choosing how many skills and what skills their PCs possess. It stays with “at this level, PCs of this class can do X and all other classes can only wish they could do that as well” approach of AD&D and avoids the explicit approach of Traveller or Runequest or GURPS. I just won’t be shy about calling out the skills.