Explicit vs Implicit Skills

Pictured: Me asking a player why they should know what a contraption does.

One of the things I adore about the Rules Light OSR is the comfortable inclusion of implied abilities of characters that can be used at an improvisational level. Such implied abilities are often merely gaps in the code in OSR systems, or an overt detail that lacks any kind of explicit mechanical scripting.

Perhaps the easiest way to represent this is through the B/X Class structure.  The system tells us directly how good a class is at attacking, what weapons they can use, what armors they can use, how spells work if they have them, how thief skills work, et cetera.  These are explicit abilities.  But it should be painfully obvious that this does not run the entire gamut of what adventurers will be doing throughout their careers.  So what happens when we approach these gaps?

Put simply, we interact with the fiction of the world.  We have to ask ourselves, "what is a Fighter, where do they come from, what should they be capable of?"  We approach this in the vague sense of a Fighter, then we deepen our concept with the individual character.

Let's say that the characters in the party are in dire need of something to cure a poison that kills gradually.  Unless you have a Cleric in the party that has the Cure Poison spell, there are a few typical ways to look at it:

1. The party is fucked.  The game doesn't say you can do it, so you can't do it.

2. One of the players argues by virtue of their class, they should be able to solve the problem.  The referee agrees and either calls for a roll or forgoes it depending on how plausible the solution is.

3. One of the players argues by virtue of their character's history, they should be able to solve the problem.  The referee agrees and either calls for a roll or forgoes it depending on how plausible the solution is.

4. The fact that the players come up with a solution to begin with is sufficient.

5. The referee has one of the players roll to see if they succeed without consideration of class or predetermined character history.

#1 covers a literal, closed interpretation of the rules as written.  This kind of interpretation tends to be more favorable with systems with more complex rules that offer enough options to the players that they have less of a need to improvise.

#2 is implicitly interpreted from an overt detail in the game rules.  For instance, an Elf that spent their long lives among the woods would likely have a strong knowledge of medicinal plants, and assuming such a plant could be found in time, may have the opportunity to apply this knowledge in a way that can solve problems.

#3 is implicitly interpreted by a backstory detail that has been predetermined OR is a permitted allowance of players utilizing narrative agency to fulfill a desired means.  Due to the fact that I dislike players having this kind of narrative agency in D&D, as I approach D&D as a collaborative exercise in problem solving and overcoming risks to yield rewards; I find that if we give too much rope to the players, the feeling of accomplishment hangs itself.

#4 is an approach that pays no heed to character backstory or knowledge, but instead opts for player creativity.  While I hold a lot of respect for approaches that include player creativity, I feel that this can be too easily abused and is too anemic to be enjoyed when you're pulling from skills that are more technical or knowledge that is more esoteric.  I'll even make allowances for such things that may be obscure if players are otherwise forced to "pretend not to know" and subject themselves to forcibly playing their character poorly for the sake of accurate portrayal.  For instance, I have no qualms with characters knowing what the players know regarding monster abilities and weaknesses, or tactical planning.

#5 is an approach that attempts to simulate a character history or ability that is irrespective of predetermined qualities.  An example of this is the Languages skill from Lamentations of the Flame Princess, where characters roll to see if they understand a language when they encounter it in the first time, and they only get one shot at it.  From that point on, it's something they either know or they don't.

I often use a combination of these approaches in layers.  First, I use the rules as they're written. Then, I determine how the rules as they're written can be interpreted in the world.  Finally, I either use random tables to provide additional predetermined traits that the characters may have to give me more of an idea of what their capabilities should be (outside of class/race), OR I elicit those details from the players themselves prior to playing.  The more "old school" of a game I'm running, the more I make use of random tables.  After all, the characters aren't expected to live long.  There's no sense in the player spending a large amount of time curating more specific details on their character's history unless they wish to.

When I speak with those who object to these kinds of implicit determinations, the objection is commonly that the GM has too much room to determine what goes and what doesn't go, and that this is an issue for a few reasons (probably several more than I'm listing):

1. Inconsistency in application causes players to not be sure what to expect when going from game to game.

2. GM rulings over explicit rules gives GMs too much power over the players that can be easily abused or cause players to feel a lack of agency.

Both of these complaints are technically true.  I'm not going to attempt to dismantle these arguments as they're essentially categorically correct.  What I will ask is this: is this a problem for you?  If it is, that's fine, but that doesn't mean there's anything necessarily wrong with running a game with more rulings than rules.  The very points that count as deficiencies in the eyes of some are benefits in the eyes of others.  We'll take them in order.

1. Inconsistency in application allows GMs to provide an experience where the fiction of the customized game world rarely (if ever) conflicts with the rules of the system.  It allows GMs to easily develop things that they think are important or beneficial to the game, minimize or omit things that are harmful, and introduce new things entirely with very little overlap.

2. The GM is bound by plausibility within the fiction of the game world to adjudicate, and within those bounds, anything that players want to try is absolutely possible.  This allows for maximum player agency within the structure of the world that's being presented.

If you'll notice, the problems presented STILL aren't addressed by these benefits.  The players STILL will not know exactly what to expect if they're going from table to table.  The GM will STILL have an incredible amount of authority over the narrative within the game world.  But that's how we (as players and GMs who play this way) like it.  When I play an RPG, I don't want to have narrative control.  I want to be my character, inhabit their consciousness, and portray them to the best of my ability.  When the GM tells me that I can't do something, I try to think of another recourse that makes sense within the world being presented.  If the GM seems to be unreasonable about it, I tell the GM about it after the game and we have a dialogue about the nature of our disagreement.  Maybe it isn't the game for me.  So far, I've never wanted to leave a game because I was being restricted by the DM.  I've only ever wanted to leave because I felt the DM was not giving me enough of a challenge and that they were providing too much leniency.

This is why I love implicit mechanics as a means to fill in the gaps for explicit mechanics.