/osr/ - Old School Renaissance

I should thank you! OC is always welcome! :D

I think there's something to be said for the desire to unify die-rolls under the d20 "core mechanic". I've been trying out the LotFP d6 skill rolls recently and think they work well enough, but in my view there isn't anything wrong with the new-school "roll d20+modifier versus a DC" method that grognards seem to hate.

More generally, I think the issue people have with skill systems is the way that people end up using them rather than the mechanics used to resolve them. The "move a heavy object" or "bend iron bars" scenario is a classic. Personally I think it's kind of silly to have the player roll a skill check to see if he's strong enough to perform some arbitrary feat of strength; this leads to situations where the fighter with strength 17 might flub his roll and can't move the boulder an inch, but the strength 9 wizard who rolls up his sleeves and gives it a try right after might roll a 20 and push it aside no problem.

It should be obvious whether the boulder can be moved at all. The part where skill comes into play, in my view, is how quickly the boulder can be moved. In a case where a boulder or some other obstacle that requires strength to clear blocks the party's path, for example, I might have whoever tries to move it out of the way roll strength to see how long it takes; if they succeed then they can roll the boulder out of the way no problem, but if they fail it will take up potentially valuable time.

I apply this principle to other skill checks as well, and would sum it up with the following principle; skill checks, when they are used at all, should act as shortcuts that have the potential to save the party time and resources. They should never decide whether a certain action is possible. That's just how I like it though.

I just think the idea behind having a comprehensive skill system linked to ability scores is stupid and sucks the life out of the game by detracting from player skill and creativity, adding to the benefits of mathematical optimization

>dumb skill system instead of roll-under ability checks
baka

>More generally, I think the issue people have with skill systems is the way that people end up using them rather than the mechanics used to resolve them.

I agree completely. Half of what makes OSR a thing is its mechanics (or lack thereof). The other half is how existing mechanics are employed--the general tone of the game. This explains why 2nd ed D&D is so often considered not old-school when mechanically it's not too much different from 1st ed. As I'm writing things like that task section and the like I'm going out of my way to not just explain mechanics but to emphasize how they should and should not be used. OSR play is a mindset that has to be taught as well as one supported by appropriate rules.

>The "move a heavy object" or "bend iron bars" scenario is a classic. Personally I think it's kind of silly to have the player roll a skill check to see if he's strong enough to perform some arbitrary feat of strength; this leads to situations where the fighter with strength 17 might flub his roll and can't move the boulder an inch, but the strength 9 wizard who rolls up his sleeves and gives it a try right after might roll a 20 and push it aside no problem.

I agree. I think between your statement and the silliness the other user wisely pointed out that I'm just going to reinforce the already-existing statement that the difficulty of any task is based on the one making it. This allows a GM to rapidly just say "look, if Grognar the Smasher can't do it, there's no way you can" instead of having a constant bend bars/lift gates conga line.

>I might have whoever tries to move it out of the way roll strength to see how long it takes; if they succeed then they can roll the boulder out of the way no problem, but if they fail it will take up potentially valuable time.

I like this: a sort of potential success even in failure. Since time is a resource in the dungeon, it's not consequentless.

Speaking of which, thanks for your time.

I'm trying to make a five room dungeon and that, and I'm really bad at thinking puzzles (room #2). Which are some cool ideas for non-combat challenges? possibly some that are not a simple roll, but have actual challenge/choices for the players?
Which is the best you've actually seen or used in a game?

Posting stuff about challenge-focused AW for this guy from last thread.

The basic idea is that AW-derived games offer the same kind of challenge as a game like Diplomacy or Mafia/Werewolf/The Resistance. This is because the main way players can use their personal skill to influence what happens is a result of the Move system.

The worst thing you can do is to say you do something that will obviously fail and has no corresponding Move, because then the GM just narrates your failure. The next best thing is to trigger a Move (preferably with a good bonus). That lets you control what could possibly happen (Moves specify what can happen), but doesn't let you control what will definitely happen because you are rolling dice and can't control that outcome.

The best thing is to do something that has no corresponding Move but that would obviously succeed, because then the GM will just narrate your success. This is where the player's skill comes in. You need to do something that doesn't trigger a Move, yet is still something that does what you want and that you can convince everyone else would work. AW is like social/political board games because the main player skill is in convincing the other players to let you win by using your interpersonal skills, storytelling and reasoning ability, and life experience.

Two examples: combat & searching a room. If you say you are slashing a foe in plate armor you just fail and the GM hits you, but if you say you are half-swording to try to get a gap in their armor you have a chance of success. Similarly, saying "I look under the bed" means you definitely find what's under it, whereas saying "I search the room" and rolling dice doesn't guarantee that.

There's a little more to it than that, but that's the gist of it. Last time there was a debate on exactly how similar this is or isn't to the emphasis in OSR on resolving actions based on what characters are actually doing rather than rolling dice to resolve skills.

Has anyone used yoon-suin? What system did you use?

>Personally I think it's kind of silly to have the player roll a skill check to see if he's strong enough to perform some arbitrary feat of strength

I like your idea for this. I have some related things I do that might be relevant, too.

I like asking players to justify their chance of success when they want to undertake an action first. That way you can calibrate your rulings based on player expectations. If the best they can do is say "well I have 9 strength and no tools" you can respond with "well I don't think that's very likely to succeed then, do you?" Contrarily, if they say "I have 17 strength and a crowbar" you can be like "well damn you move it in about two minutes then."

If their success seems possible but not highly likely you can always give them a die roll to represent their character's skill possibly coming through for them, but I find it helpful to anchor the die roll to the player's justification. For example, "OK, I'll give you a 2 in 6 chance to move it, but whether you succeed or not it's going to take about 40 minutes because you only have 9 strength and no suitable tools." By describing why your ruling is the way it is, and what happens on success as well as what happens on failure, that gives the player a sense of fair play and enough information to evaluate whether they really want to undertake that action or not in the first place that prevents that kind of Pathfinder player shtick where they just interrupt you and roll a d20 and go "I roll sense motive!" or whatever.

Ayyy it's a mee! Gorgetas pizza rolls! Ayyyyy

Man, I miss this comic. Although the last few strips were looking like it was starting to jump the shark a bit, so maybe it's a good thing it stopped being updated.

I've never managed to find a group or convince my regular group to ever do any OSR games. My regular group seems to love whatever the hot new kickstarter is or game that uses proprietary dice and shit. Finding a game on roll20 that fits my schedule seems impossible and the game finder thread here is a joke.

I just lurk here and read up on systems I'll never play and write up adventure ideas on my own.

>What's the best OSR hexcrawl?
>The one randomly generated using DMG 1e
This but not just DMG 1e. Everything. Every damn system, every table, every blog post and splat book. Mix 'em all together.
Heh.
I think that's a lot of words for a very simple concept, but it's very well presented and very thorough, so good on ya.
>unify die-rolls under the d20 "core mechanic"
*desire to GLOGpost intensifies*

>Which are some cool ideas for non-combat challenges?
goblinpunch.blogspot.ca/2016/03/1d135-osr-style-challenges.html

>I just lurk here and read up on systems I'll never play and write up adventure ideas on my own.
Have you tried converting normies?
>55608096
Not the world's most odious request. You can definitely consider it and say "nah."

Yeah, I think that's how Ryuutama
You can just use Ryuutama, you know. There's a GM... toolkit? It's basically a GM character type that's designed for being more challenging and mean to players. The game /is/ OSR, in my opinion, but in a really weird oblique way.

Anyway, here's a table of 1d100 Barbarian Delicacies.

Or just use it for weird stuff the PCs are served on their travels. Or their fond memories of home. Or the local specialty. Or stuff they can blow their money on to appear really fancy.

coinsandscrolls.blogspot.ca/2017/09/osr-1d100-barbarian-delicacies.html

>"core mechanic"
>GLOG

Like clockwork!
How you doin' these days?

>in before Skerples is GLOG fire guy and he bamboozled us all

>There's a GM... toolkit?
Do you mean the black dragon/ryujin?

>The game /is/ OSR
If Torchbear is OSR, so is Ryuutama

Nobody's got time for that.
>Do you mean the black dragon/ryujin?
That's the one. Was trying to explain it without having to explain the entire concept and look like a raving lunatic.
>If Torchbear is OSR, so is Ryuutama
Sure? I don't know much about Torchbearer, but if you say so . I mean, I'm very open to a broader definition that most people seem to be (which is fine, because life goes on anyway).

>it's a "Skerp shitposts" episode

Switching gears, what's your favorite non-chromatic, non-metallic dragon?

I love gem dragons

>Switching gears, what's your favorite non-chromatic, non-metallic dragon?

This guy.

I'd have to say these ones. They're pretty cool.
rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/reskinning-dragons/

Also the dragon rulers in Immortals sounded pretty neat. And, heresy as it might be, I also liked the psionic dragons from 3E.

Something I've always wondered. Why is Against the Dark Yogi in the OSR trove? It's been there since the beginning and I'm not saying we should take it out, but it doesn't even use dice and it's about demigod-level shit in Mythic India. Godbound at least is from an OSR creator and is compatible with old D&D modules with very little conversion necessary.

Can I get a link for a common encumbrance rule set I can use for ACKs?

Players have inventory slots = their Strength.
Small things are 3/slot (or more, for arrows or sticks)
Medium weapons are 1/slot
Heavy weapons are 2 slots
Leather armour/quilted armour/regular clothes are 0 slots
Chainmail is 2 slots, Plate is 4

Cold, obesity, dampness, and compulsive poverty all take up inventory slots too.

Write a list from 1-Strength on the back of your character sheet and list stuff as needed.

isn't it directly inspired by the Immortals rules?

...

So I need to stock something like 60 rooms for a game saturday night. I have ideas for something like ten of those rooms. How do you guys stock rooms? How many rooms have enemies, or just loot, or just traps, or a mix? I guess just stocking inspiration would be helpful. Looking at he list of rooms to stock is daunting.

...

>Have you tried converting normies?

They all just want to play Munchkin

Oh fuck, I remember this comic. The thing I remember about it the most though is the illusion thing that had them making a new contract that had to be signed by all parties. God, that was a great gag rolled up into a really weird and shitty comic.

Is there more of this?

Go more normie. Like "there are dice with more than 6 sides!?" normie.
These might help.

Scrap Princess also recommended just picking 2 monsters from the monster manual or whatever and fusing them into a new thing.

agc.deskslave.org/

I've got three general factions (Frogmen, Mantipedes, and totally-not-protoss). I feel like I should include some proper beasts/automatons/something, it just feels like this dungeon is too... densely occupied? civilised? for something wild to be there. The whole theme is that miners bumped into a pre-existing underground complex and now the three factions are fighting to use it as a permenant settlement/base.

I've heard it's something like half the rooms are supposed to be empty, and then the rest are either treasure, monster, or monster+treasure. Not sure if that's the only way though.

I'd probably first figure out where each faction has their base of operations (so to speak) and what territory they've each claimed. Not specifically what's in them yet, just what rooms they have. If you have rooms left over after that you can have other encounters if you want. But if the theme is the factions fighting, then you don't want to have too much else.

>totally-not-protoss
Well the answer is obvious.youtube.com/watch?v=C5e6eG6bXAQ

And also add guardian robots.

Really? I like Torchbearer/Burning Wheel's system but I understand it's more contemporary than OSR like.

Just slap DCC's dice chain and classic d20 resolution badda bing badda boom

I've gotten a general, few word idea what I want to put in each room (or at least who it belongs to). Now I just need to go through and make it into something playable.

There's a not-protoss weapons lab in the bottom of the dungeon where they defenitly won't find psy powered rifles. Because even filthy savages should have mind bullets.

How do you go about using the dungeon maps during play? Do you draw them on a grid map beforehand and obscure it, or do you describe it and let the players draw it up as you go? Do you use minis or no?

Goodie! The beta version of my excel dungeon generator can get field-tested. Good luck, report back, and don't look at anything except the first two tabs because the rest is an incomprehensible and incomplete mess.

Can't post direct link because board thinks it's spam so here's pastebin link pastebin.com/6LVeDM7J

>but in my view there isn't anything wrong with the new-school "roll d20+modifier versus a DC" method that grognards seem to hate.
I'm not a grognard, I'm actually a completely new school gamer who has tripped over OSR and has come to love it's philosophies. I'm just here to weigh in why I abhor skill systems and now take the stance that If I have to play outside of OSR, I completely remove and strip out the skill system of any game I touch.

Skill systems are outright flawed. I didn't realize this until recently, but the way they are designed to be used on their basis is a flawed mechanic that should have died out ages ago. I'm not even talking about the 'flaws' with the skill system that so many others try to 'fix' by adding in bell curves and making slight changes. Even when you engage in a skill system at it's best, it only serves to completely diminish roleplay and experience. You're taking what could normally be a pretty decent puzzle or challenge to the players, and you're giving it a random chance for the player to completely bypass the challenge provided they roll well enough.

Even looking at the alternatives, of "what happens when they all fail", most DMs will have a back up plan, like "There's a key elsewhere in the dungeon carried by a goblin" that is actually more interesting to interact with than just rolling a dice and getting in. It's not really THAT interesting for a player to just succeed without much fanfare and ignore parts of your dungeon that would otherwise be interesting to interact with. Even when the content isn't plot critical, thus failure not as important, a player failing just means that they don't get to interact with what could be an interesting element for them to interact with.

Why EVER use a skill check when even in the BEST of circumstances, you're just robbing yourselves of play experience?

is there an OSR adaptation of nWoD? the game is designed around lots of exploding dice, and it gets out of hand sometimes. i wonder what a pared down version would play like.

Thx dude !
Do you use this in your games ? Do you have a rule set that support it ?
(I know there is DW, but I think it's the worst mix between AW and D&D)

>Even when you engage in a skill system at it's best, it only serves to completely diminish roleplay and experience.

I don't agree: it depends on how the mechanics work, how encompassing the system is, and how the system's use is written up.

I think your argument, as stated here at least, is based on players using a skill to pass what otherwise would have been a plot point. But if you're not keying your skill usage to plot but just want to let the players do a few reasonable things in a measurable fashion, I'm not seeing a problem.

I think as long as you limit the list of potential skills allowed via strong GM and player guidance (i.e. Rule #1: No social skills; Rule 2: No "I do the thing" skills like Gather Information). and make sure everyone understands that skills can't replace RP when that's appropriate instead, that skills can be very beneficial in terms of adding flavour and providing some guidelines to common actions.

>you're giving it a random chance for the player to completely bypass the challenge provided they roll well enough.

In particular I find this a bit odd, since D&D already has several subsystems of this exact type in the game. Need food? Roll a D6. Need to find a secret door? Roll a D6. Want to start a fire? Roll a D6. Need to do a thief thing? Roll your thief skill. And so on.

The trick is for the rules to intrinsically tie these mechanical things to roleplaying parts whenever possible. D&D already does this with things like the Reaction Table--yeah it's a roll, and yeah there's a table, but the rules also say you only roll on it in addition to roleplaying out what you're doing, not as a replacement for roleplaying it out.

Overall I'm not seeing any concrete objections here. Can you clarify?

Roll on this.
Remember - empty rooms aren't necessarily completely devoid of content! They just don't contain anything massively valuable or weird.

I draw them in whiteboard marker on laminated paper.
I used to use jenga blocks which was really superior, but I run at a pub so I eventually went to whiteboard marker to save on backpack weight.

>What's the best OSR hexcrawl?
Hot Springs Island

Planescape is a huge riff on WoD. If you're asking about fitting the creature/type dichotomy then it fits as race and class (Vampire Lasombra, Werewolf Glass Walker, etc.)

What do you think of the Field Guide?

I won't give it to my players, they don't speak English.
As a book for the GM it provides nice details on the beasts and plants of the island.
It's only useful as a book for the players if you plan to bypass the low-level exploration to skip directly to the diplomatic and intrigue part of the setting. If you wish to play the lower levels, you are better off giving piecemeal excerpts of the book to the PCs as they explore, so as to avoid spoiling too much.

thedicemustroll.blogspot.ca/?m=1

Juuuuuust poppin' in to shill my ACKS replay Vlog

As a new GM I'm struggling with this as well. I like how pretty maps are. Seems like a waste not to let PC's see it. So I'm toying with the idea of drawing dungeon rooms on index cards and revealing them in play during exploration. No idea if this will work in practice.

Question which OSR game has the biggest amount of content and supplements?

Who cares? It's all compatible anyway.

Just a question that popped out of my mind just for the sake of asking myself questions, when I saw all the content dedicated to D&D 5e and Pathfinder I just came to wonder if any OSR game came as close as this amount (in the scale of small indie OSR rpg of course).

I think LotFP is constantly supported.

Probably AD&D.

thedicemustroll.blogspot.ca/2017/09/adventurer-conqueror-king-system-3a.html?m=1

AAAAAND new post. Player rolled a thief and got im killed five minutes later.

Dungeon Crawl Classics has some...40-ish modules, two setting box sets(third on the way), an expansion(mutant crawl classics) amd soon an Annual mechanics expansion. So!

>Annual mechanics expansion
What's this? I run DCC and I haven't heard of this at all.

I typically describe the rooms and hallways and let the players fail at mapping it out if they would like.

I had a 3.5-compatible version of WoD in the making at one point. Honestly though it would be pretty difficult to use OSR considering the power system of the WoD games.

DCC annual. The original intent morphed into gen con guide. But its comimg back

AD&D, specifically 2e

>it depends on how the mechanics work, how encompassing the system is, and how the system's use is written up.
It really doesn't though. It's how the skill system functions in practice in ALL games. There's an item to interact with in room -> Roll Skill check -> Bypass any real and tangible interaction with the item. Or even worse, Roll Skill Check -> Fail -> Never get to really interact with the item again and miss out on potentially interesting design. This goes for both plot point and nonplot point items. The difference here is that for plot points, a good DM will have backup plans in case everyone fails a skill check, and more often than not the backup plan will be more interesting than the actual skill check is, such as "Go find book that translates the text you failed to read"

>I think as long as you limit the list of potential skills allowed via strong GM and player guidance
The problem with this is you're now no longer engaging the skills on their own system. You're actually encouraging me to IGNORE the skill system's intended use for specific situations because it's not interesting. Why half-ass it? Just get rid of it.

>D&D already has several subsystems of this exact type in the game
"Several"? You mean "A handful". And 90% of those are thief skills, which I actually also disagree with for various reasons. The other 'skills', which I also don't agree with, are very few and far between, meaning the overall game encourages you to actually engage with the game.

cont

cont

>The trick is for the rules to intrinsically tie these mechanical things to roleplaying parts whenever possible
This is actually pretty much covered by the intrinsic flaws of the skill system which I glossed over because it's been covered so often, but again, you're not engaging the skill system on it's level.

Say you have a guy who rolls up to a scene and says "I want to talk to the goblins". The way you engage this on the skill system level is you have him roll persuasion. No talking, just a die drop. Now, obviously, nobody actually runs their games like this, but this is what most skill system games are getting at in the most basic levels. Yes, that includes your indie game that has a rule later on that says "Don't engage the skill system on it's level".

Then you have the case of the good roleplay being tied into the mechanical roleplaying parts. Your player talking to the goblins gives a FANTASTIC speech that's really heartfelt and would move any listener regardless of race or class. So, using the skill system, you as DM would say "Wow, that was really beautiful...okay, I'll give you a +2 to your next roll. Oh, you rolled a 3? Well, shit, tough luck for you. The goblins are enraged now and attack you". You might say "Well if the speech is that good, then I just don't ask for the skill check!" which, again, you're not actually using the system, you're understanding that it's flawed and would only serve to ruin the scene and are choosing to bypass the system.

The difference between a skill system and a reaction table or a secret door check is the DM isn't sure how this monster is going to react, or is checking if the elf naturally finds a door just by being near it. They're mostly for the DM's purview alone to help him make decisions. A skill check, however, only serves to remove steps in investigation, roleplaying, or even undermine the player's attempts at describing a good scene.

What's a good OSR I could quickly prep for just two players? Bonus if I can find a grenade adventure to run. I was thinking of a DCC funnel but those are all designed for like 15+ characters and I don't want to make these two players have like 7 characters each.

I'm last minute running something for two friends. One doesn't have much experience with tabletop, mostly just stuff like Fate and Pathfinder.

Premade, not grenade.

How do monsters usually handle saves? Is it just 20-HD? Because it seems like a pain in the ass to keep track of saves otherwise.

Although a grenade adventure does sound pretty fun.

BFRPG. It's b/x but you don't have to explain race-as-class or descending AC

You can probably find a decent short dungeon here
campaignwiki.org/wiki/DungeonMaps/One_Page_Dungeon_Contest

I second this suggestion, its dirt cheap and feels very complete.
Can anyone recommend a good psionics supplement for BFRPG or LotFP?

Mostly I just use that method to run AW and DW by the book. Nothing like a full blown homebrew or anything. I agree Dungeon World is a little like oil and water - it can be fun for a little while if you don't pay too much attention, but if you look at the seams too long it stops making sense. So good luck with your AW-based version.

One really important thing to remember that I didn't mention is you absolutely have to connect your GMing to what the players do or don't do. Like, if they are climbing a cliff without a rope and you're playing DW for sake of example that'd probably be a Defy Danger move. So you'd need to say "That sounds like you're defying the danger of falling to your death by free climbing a cliff without any kind of safety device." But if they had a rope and pitons to use then you'd need to explicitly say "OK now it sounds like you're defying the danger of slipping ten or fifteen feet down the cliff face before being caught by the rope, which will probably dislodge some items from your pack and injure you a little bit."

In challenge-oriented AW games it's critical that players have a good idea of what will happen if they succeed, if they fail, and what action in the game fiction they have taken to move them towards or away from success or failure. Players need enough information to make and revise their plans.

Thanks, I'll give it a look over. This could be a good opportunity to convert these two friends into some more OSRs and maybe get a consistent group going.

I know, right? Now I've got an idea for a group trying to scour a dungeon that is really just a glorified grenade factory.

I just describe them if they are going at normal pace, I describe them without room dimensions if they are going at a fast pace, and if they slow down specifically to search or map an area for like ten minutes I'll sketch it for them (but they don't want to do that because that means wandering monster checks).

If it's really hard to describe verbally, or positioning is very important in a fight, I'll also roughly sketch it but generally not in the right orientation or to scale unless they stop and examine it and spend that extra time.

>Or even worse, Roll Skill Check -> Fail -> Never get to really interact with the item again and miss out on potentially interesting design.
I'm not that guy, but I like players trying to do the interesting in-universe action first, and only if they can't manage it should they fall back on rolling dice, rather than vice-versa.

Like, sure, the thief has a find and disable traps skill, but you should only be rolling that if you're out of ideas for how to block the holes in the wall the darts come out of or whatever.

You can keep dice from being a player's first port of call by making failed skill rolls mean something bad instead of just nothing-happens, too, and making sure the skill roll isn't very likely to succeed. Then I think you've got an alright situation going on with skills so that players can get some character-ability help, but it doesn't overshadow the more fun and interesting parts of the game where players make decisions.

I'd like to play Devil's Advocate here for a second. The best argument that I've ever heard for the inclusion of a skill system of some sort is that it codifies how the player interacts with the environment in a way which is fair and impartial. If you're advocating for having no mechanical method like a random skill roll for determining if the PC can lift a boulder or pick a lock or bluff his way past a guard or whatever, in effect you are arguing that these things should only ever be decided by DM fiat.

"What's the matter with deciding everything via DM fiat?" you might ask. Well, there is a certain part of the game where how the outcome of a challenge is decided by a set of highly codified rules using a series of random rolls: combat. You COULD run combat through DM fiat alone, but I'm willing to bet that you don't.

The point is that the mechanical structure used to play the game has to be more than just "player says what they want to do, DM decides exactly what happens"; we use dice precisely because they are a fair way of mediating the result of the player interacting with the environment that the DM creates.

Somebody at Hasbro snorts too much coke and it is announced that WotC will release an "old-school" inspired game as a new product line. What happens to the OSR?

I don't know about either of those specifically, but I've been using a variant of Courtney Campbell's. Which I think is basically the AD&D one but laid out differently. None of the characters in my game have had high enough stats to be psionic yet, though, so I don't know how well it works.

There's also the one in SWN if you prefer. I'm not crazy about that one personally, but you might like it.

Haha time to go to my FLGS for some Lamentations of the Flame Princess Adventure League

I'm currently working on a similar type of game. Occult weirdos in the shady criminal/esoteric underground, doing heists and dungeon crawls in a modern gothic setting.
LotFP/WP&WS skeleton, hacked up to work for 'a group of occult criminals and monsters go raid an ancient catacomb for magical treasures that THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want them to have'. Should be cool.

>If you're advocating for having no mechanical method like a random skill roll for determining if the PC can lift a boulder or pick a lock or bluff his way past a guard or whatever, in effect you are arguing that these things should only ever be decided by DM fiat.
Roll-under ability checks are not equivalent to a skill system, and neither is "you need a minimum strength of x to do this", even though they add some degree of mechanical consistency to many of the same situations. Picking locks is usually handled by thief skills in OSR stuff, since it is an expected recurring part of the gameplay for the thief class and thus worth making rules for.

Different user here.

At the same time, though, the amount of fairness rule systems provide doesn't seem like it ought to lead to the conclusion of 3e D&D. There's some amount of impartiality in the rules that is good, and some amount that is bad, and I think that's going to vary based on preference.

My personal preference for where to have rules instead of rulings are places where nobody at the table knows what would reasonably happen and that cannot be plausibly simulated by the players directly. Combat happens to include both of those things for most tables. But dialog doesn't, so I am not as convinced of the need for social type skills in a game as I am for combat type skills.

I'm a HEMA club member so one time we played Baron Munchausen using actual fencing gear to resolve the duels in the game instead of the suggested rock-paper-scissors and it worked great, but I know that won't be the case for most tables. Hence the need for certain kinds of rules and not others depending on the context.

What is the assumed hit die size for monsters in b/x and it's retroclones?

>The problem with this is you're now no longer engaging the skills on their own system. You're actually encouraging me to IGNORE the skill system's intended use for specific situations because it's not interesting.

No, for the sort of system I'm referring to (and use in my games) I'm talking about deliberately restricting the list of available skills to exclude troublesome ones altogether, rather than listing them and then saying don't use them (which would be weird). There's nothing mandating an all-inclusive skill system, any more than a magic system has to be able to be 100% open-ended because it's magic. You can have a list of skills that has absolutely no social skills, and forbids them to be taken.

The list I'm using is 20 skills, one of which is open-ended (Lore, so choose a specific subject). For most of them, players can already perform the actions the skill includes, either because they're universal or because as adventurers they're presumed to already know it. Having the skill just makes you really good at it. That way, no opportunities are closed off to players.

I'm curious to know what you do if you abolish thief skills, though. Many are universal so they're no big loss, but lockpicking in particular seems to me like something it's hard to say "oh, you can figure it out": it's specialized knowledge and specialized tools.

Your book didn't mention it? Usually, you use a fighter's saves and assume the level is equal to the HD. So a 8 HD monster makes the same saves as a Level 8 Fighter. If there's a difference in this, the monster stat will have an extra bit that says "Saves as".

I'm using LotFP, so it didn't feel the need to mention that. Thanks.

OSR as a whole has way more content than 5e, and I'd guess more than 3.pf. 'Cos you've got everything from 1974 to 3.0, and then the various retro games on top of that.
Seriously. We're drowning in content. 'S what comes with being an open tent of related systems rather than one system with a single body managing it.