D&D General "Player Skill" versus DM Ingenuity as a playstyle.

[Reynard]

I was looking at Eldritch Wizardry in response to another thread, but this description caught my eye:

The book you now hold in your hand represents new dimensions to an already fascinating game system. This is the third supplement to DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, and was produced as a result of an ever increasing demand for new material.

This book also represents a new trend in the fine art of Dungeon Mastering. As originally conceived, D & D was limited in scope only by the imagination and devotion of Dungeon Masters everywhere. The supplements have fulfilled the need for fresh ideas and additional stimulation. But somewhere along the line, D & D lost some of its flavor, and began to become predictable. This came about as a result of the proliferation of rule sets; while this was great for us as a company, it was tough on the DM. When all the players had all of the rules in front of them, it became next to impossible to beguile them into danger or mischief. The new concept pioneered within these pages should go a long way towards putting back in some of the mystery, uncertainty and danger that make D & D the un-paralleled challenge it was meant to be. Legend Lore once again becomes the invaluable spell it was meant to be. No more will some foolhardy adventurer run down into a dungeon, find something and immediately know how it works, or even what it does, By the same token, no longer will players be able to send some unfortunate hireling to an early demise by forcing him to experiment on his master's goodies. The introduction of psionic combat is bound to enliven games grown stagnant. It opens up untold possibilities for both the players and the DM, and in so doing recognizes one of the favorite topics of science fiction and fantasy writers: the unknown powers of the mind.

Obviously this is from the early days of the hobby, and it predates my experience by a decade (I was 10 in 1985 when we discovered BECMI). It strong suggests that the point of play back then was essentially puzzle based: challenges presented to the players by the DM, with it considered a normal and acceptable part of the game for players to learn the rules and tricks in the books and the DM having to continuously discover or invent (or, with supplements, purchase) new ways to challenge them.

It is interesting. it is nota style of play I have ever really engaged with for anything more than an adventure at a time, usually as an aside. But it sounds like this si what some (or many?) campaigns were like back then: an ongoing "battle of wits" competition between players and DM.

I know there are lots of old hands here in EN World and I would be really curious to read about this stytle of play from the people who lived it. Does the above introduction actually track with your experiences c. 1976? Did you play this way? Even if you came in later, were you introduced to the game this way?

Obviously, some portion of the OSR is an attempt to recapture this. If you like OSR games, how does it land with you?

Thanks.

 

[overgeeked]

I started in 1984 with B/X and the group quickly switched to AD&D. We played that up to 4E, and have been "current" with the editions until recently. We switched to DCC RPG and are running a campaign of that. We've always played in the player-skill style. I started later, but I've always played in that style and I'm a big fan of the non-racist aspects of the OSR.

The thing people who don't play in this style seem to always get wrong is that it's not player vs referee. There's no antagonistic relationship between the two. It's like Justin Alexander has said at times, the referee presents situations, challenges, and obstacles for the players to overcome. The referee does not prep plots or scripts to be followed, nor does the referee in any way "try to win."

It's nonsensical to think the referee is out to win because, if they were, they could simply declare victory. They could bust out the old "rocks fall, everyone dies" or present the PCs with infinite dragons or drop in a riddle with no solution. The referee has the power to do whatever they want. So an antagonistic referee is a pointless waste of time. The game ends the moment the referee decides it will. The referee "wins" the moment they want to.

It's not about winning. It's about challenging the players and to a much lesser extent, the PCs. The referee in this style thinks about what would be fun. What would make for an interesting encounter. Maybe even what makes sense in the world. This is all in service of fun, challenges, drama, and conflict.

If the players simply and easily win all the time, that's boring. There's no conflict or drama. No fun. For there to be any fun at all, there has to be challenges and obstacles. Those generate conflict and drama. It's very much in the mode of action-adventure stories. Indiana Jones without the obstacles and challenges isn't an interesting story. He walks into that South American temple, walks down the hall, grabs the golden idol, and nonchalantly walks back to the waiting sea plane. Yawn.

Likewise, simply having numbers on a character sheet you can use to overcome all those obstacles is boring as it reduces during-the-game play to an exercise in pressing the right button at the right time and rolling well. The player becomes effectively meaningless. Putting all the important decisions before play happens, i.e. character building. You're pre-solving the puzzles and the game becomes pressing the right button at the right time and hoping the dice fall your way. It also reduces the entire game to a math problem that can be solved. That's a video game. And incredibly boring at the table.

In my experience, what's far more engaging for everyone involved is if the players themselves have to think in the moment to solve the puzzle. Puzzle here being all the various styles of challenges, whether they're literally puzzles or traps, or obstacles or whatever. From the outside this can very much look like a battle of wits between the players and the referee where the referee is trying to win. But that's absolutely not the case. The referee is simply trying to provide a fun and interesting game experience by creating obstacles for the players to overcome with an eye towards actually challenging the players.

 

[Reynard]

I started in 1984 with B/X and the group quickly switched to AD&D. We played that up to 4E, and have been "current" with the editions until recently. We switched to DCC RPG and are running a campaign of that. We've always played in the player-skill style. I started later, but I've always played in that style and I'm a big fan of the non-racist aspects of the OSR.

The thing people who don't play in this style seem to always get wrong is that it's not player vs referee. There's no antagonistic relationship between the two. It's like Justin Alexander has said at times, the referee presents situations, challenges, and obstacles for the players to overcome. The referee does not prep plots or scripts to be followed, nor does the referee in any way "try to win."

It's nonsensical to think the referee is out to win because, if they were, they could simply declare victory. They could bust out the old "rocks fall, everyone dies" or present the PCs with infinite dragons or drop in a riddle with no solution. The referee has the power to do whatever they want. So an antagonistic referee is a pointless waste of time. The game ends the moment the referee decides it will. The referee "wins" they moment the want to.

It's not about winning. It's about challenging the players and to a much lesser extent, the PCs. The referee in this style thinks about what would be fun. What would make for an interesting encounter. Maybe even what makes sense in the world. This is all in service of fun, challenges, drama, and conflict.

If the players simply and easily win all the time, that's boring. There's no conflict or drama. No fun. For there to be any fun at all, there has to be challenges and obstacles. Those generate conflict and drama. It's very much in the mode of action-adventure stories. Indiana Jones without the obstacles and challenges isn't an interesting story. He walks into that South American temple, walks down the hall, grabs the golden idol, and nonchalantly walks back to the waiting sea plane. Yawn.

Likewise, simply having numbers on a character sheet you can use to overcome all those obstacles is boring as it reduces during-the-game play to an exercise in pressing the right button at the right time and rolling well. The player becomes effectively meaningless. Putting all the important decisions before play happens, i.e. character building. You're pre-solving the puzzles and the game becomes pressing the right button at the right time and hoping the dice fall your way. It also reduces the entire game to a math problem that can be solved. That's a video game. And incredibly boring at the table.

In my experience, what's far more engaging for everyone involved is if the players themselves have to think in the moment to solve the puzzle. Puzzle here being all the various styles of challenges, whether they're literally puzzles or traps, or obstacles or whatever. From the outside this can very much look like a battle of wits between the players and the referee where the referee is trying to win. But that's absolutely not the case. The referee is simply trying to provide a fun and interesting game experience by creating obstacles for the players to overcome with an eye towards actually challenging the players.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Can you remember a time or adventure where the EW quote in the OP was relevant? Specifically that the GM had to find or invent come completely new things because the players already knew all the tricks (mimics, troll regeneration, etc)? That is what drew me to the quote, that it suggested there was something of a arms race between player knowledge and GM ingenuity. Also, importantly, "player/character knowledge" separation wasn't a thing?

 

[overgeeked]

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Can you remember a time or adventure where the EW quote in the OP was relevant? Specifically that the GM had to find or invent come completely new things because the players already knew all the tricks (mimics, troll regeneration, etc)? That is what drew me to the quote, that it suggested there was something of a arms race between player knowledge and GM ingenuity.

I can't remember a time when it wasn't relevant. It's permanently relevant after about six months of regular play. Once the players have encountered some puzzle once, they now know about it and know how to overcome it easily. The first time they encounter a regenerating troll, they're freaked out and challenged. The first time they solve the puzzle, i.e. figure out that fire stops the troll from regenerating, they're elated and feel great. The second time they encounter a regenerating troll, they're nonchalant and not challenged in the slightest because they've already solved that puzzle. The referee is presenting them with an already-solved puzzle. That's boring. So the referee has to constantly come up with new stuff to keep challenging the players.

After you've worked through the Monster Manual once, those are all solved puzzles (if they are puzzle monsters, like regenerating trolls' vulnerability to fire). So the trick becomes using them in new and interesting ways, new and different combinations, reskinning, home-brewing monsters, swapping powers, giving wholly new powers, etc. Another way to think about it is chasing novelty. Once the novelty wears off, it's done.

It is very much an arms race of creativity between the players and referee. But not in an antagonistic sense. I think this is one of the core reasons why the stuff in the OSR is so wildly creative and the DIY spirit permeates the scene. Every player is constantly tasked with creatively solving puzzles and the referee is constantly tasked with introducing new creative puzzles. Again, puzzles here standing in for all the stuff whether literal puzzles, unique monsters, traps, etc.

Also, importantly, "player/character knowledge" separation wasn't a thing?

There are a lot of ways to explain the PCs having the knowledge that players do. The simplest is playing in pawn stance. The PC is a gaming piece. The style is all about challenging the player, not having the player pretend to be challenged by something they already know exactly how to beat. If you have a continuing campaign with rotating characters due to PC death, players coming and going, etc you can explain it by the PCs talking to each other and passing on the knowledge they gained. One PC died to a mimic, so now the rest of the party knows to be careful of random chests. When the player makes a new character who joins the party, the survivors tell the new character about the PC dying to a mimic. Multiply that across generations of PC parties who survive and pass their knowledge along. Oral traditions, adventurer's guilds, writing things down, folk tales, etc. Did anyone survive a given encounter? Chances are that knowledge is out there somewhere, even if there's a price tag attached.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not about winning. It's about challenging the players and to a much lesser extent, the PCs.

I agree with what you're saying here but I'd flip this bit around: it's about challenging the PCs first and foremost, and the challenge for the players then becomes how to overcome the challenges faced by said PCs. And that sometimes means the players - thinking as their characters - have to use their brain muscles.

 

[Reynard]

I agree with what you're saying here but I'd flip this bit around: it's about challenging the PCs first and foremost, and the challenge for the players then becomes how to overcome the challenges faced by said PCs. And that sometimes means the players - thinking as their characters - have to use their brain muscles.

In your experience and/or preference, should players separate player and character knowledge when using their brain muscles?

 

[overgeeked]

I agree with what you're saying here but I'd flip this bit around: it's about challenging the PCs first and foremost, and the challenge for the players then becomes how to overcome the challenges faced by said PCs. And that sometimes means the players - thinking as their characters - have to use their brain muscles.

Sure. The distinction I'm making is in how the problem is solved. Does the player think through the solution? That's challenging the player. Does the PC make a roll using some stat or ability on their character sheet? That's challenging the PC.

 

[Wolfpack48]

The easiest way to come to understand this style of play is to look at the 1e tournament modules, Tomb of Horrors being the most infamous. It usually came in the form of puzzles, traps or monster tactics meant to challenge the players as well as their characters. The players need to use the tools at their characters' disposal as well as their own noggins to overcome various challenges. There may even be an element of piecing together clues ala Call of Cthulhu to solve some larger mystery or plot point. I always enjoyed and still enjoy this style of play.

 

[Lanefan]

In your experience and/or preference, should players separate player and character knowledge when using their brain muscles?

Ideally yes; they should as far as possible think as their characters would think. This shouldn't impact things like puzzle-solving in that the PCs can, on average, solve puzzles just as well as the players can.

That said, for things like language-based riddles in English I just assume that a similar riddle is being presented to the PCs in a language they know, and that use of English as a substitute is merely an abstraction.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. The distinction I'm making is in how the problem is solved. Does the player think through the solution? That's challenging the player.

By means of challenging the PC in the fiction. The challenge to the player is corollary to that.

Does the PC make a roll using some stat or ability on their character sheet? That's challenging the PC.

That's just an alternate means of resolving the same challenge (and it ain't the PC making the roll... )