I want my actions to matter

[Maxperson]

What exactly is a D&D expert?

Most of us old timers. It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in a field. I have more than that in D&D and so do a lot of us here.

And why is such a thing even important?

People who don't know any better often listen to an expert without listening to multiple experts and getting different expert opinions. Then they jump in thinking that the expert they heard is doing it the "right" way, not necessarily understanding that there are multiple right ways and one of the others might fit them better.

It sounds to me, and correct if I'm wrong, that you are viewing your own game world with a level of seriousness/importance that doesn't line up with the concept of playing a social game with others. You also seem to look down on the rest of the people at the table... again, not generally a recommended approach when getting together with others socially.

This seems correct to me.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Most of us old timers. It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert in a field. I have more than that in D&D and so do a lot of us here.

I first discovered this game in 1982! I would never call myself an 'expert D&D player'. To me, that's weird... like calling yourself an 'expert Monopoly player'. I could see someone being referred to as an expert bridge player, or tennis player. There's a level of skill there that actually affects how the play develops with those games. D&D, you just play it.

People who don't know any better often listen to an expert without listening to multiple experts and getting different expert opinions. Then they jump in thinking that the expert they heard is doing it the "right" way, not necessarily understanding that there are multiple right ways and one of the others might fit them better.

All that is true. The point I was trying to make though was that this is a game. The idea that you need to achieve a level of expertise in order to be allowed to play, or at least to have your actions in game be deemed acceptable by those who have been playing longer than you... not cool.

 

[pointofyou]

I think a lack of experience with playing is often a significant problem. When you only GM you start to build up strange biases.

I agree but there are sometimes circumstances that leave someone without the opportunity to play. It's the ones who aren't interested in playing that I think are more likely to be problems.

 

[niklinna]

I first discovered this game in 1982! I would never call myself an 'expert D&D player'. To me, that's weird... like calling yourself an 'expert Monopoly player'. I could see someone being referred to as an expert bridge player, or tennis player. There's a level of skill there that actually affects how the play develops with those games. D&D, you just play it.

All that is true. The point I was trying to make though was that this is a game. The idea that you need to achieve a level of expertise in order to be allowed to play, or at least to have your actions in game be deemed acceptable by those who have been playing longer than you... not cool.

I was in line at Gen Con in the mid-80s and this guy there told me you had to know all the details of all the spells including their exact material components by heart to get into a particular game, consulting the books was not allowed.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I was in line at Gen Con in the mid-80s and this guy there told me you had to know all the details of all the spells including their exact material components by heart to get into a particular game, consulting the books was not allowed.

Well, that's super creepy. I would have been 'hard pass on that game, sir' while backing away slowly. What would possess someone to put that restriction on a game? They want serious players I suppose, for whatever reason. I'm sure there are better ways of achieving that goal though.

 

[Maxperson]

I first discovered this game in 1982! I would never call myself an 'expert D&D player'. To me, that's weird... like calling yourself an 'expert Monopoly player'. I could see someone being referred to as an expert bridge player, or tennis player. There's a level of skill there that actually affects how the play develops with those games. D&D, you just play it.

With D&D you still get better over time as you encounter new things or make mistakes and learn. I'm still learning. You can be an expert at D&D just like with anything else.

The idea that you need to achieve a level of expertise in order to be allowed to play, or at least to have your actions in game be deemed acceptable by those who have been playing longer than you... not cool.

I agree.

 

[Maxperson]

I was in line at Gen Con in the mid-80s and this guy there told me you had to know all the details of all the spells including their exact material components by heart to get into a particular game, consulting the books was not allowed.

One of the DMs I played with did a one shot campaign where all of us players were transported to D&D. We had to pick the class closest to what we thought we should be, and all the players voted on our stats. Then we got to choose skills that we would know. After I handed him my character sheet he looked at me and said, "Spellcraft? This is you transported to D&D, not a D&D character from the world." I responded, "Describe to me someone casting a spell and what components are being used, and I will tell you what spell it is." He paused for about 1 second and said, "Okay, spellcraft you have." He knew I could do it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree but there are sometimes circumstances that leave someone without the opportunity to play. It's the ones who aren't interested in playing that I think are more likely to be problems.

Yeah, this is true. There are also players who never have the opportunity to GM.

I think the lack of willingness is a bit of a red flag. Then combine it with a seemingly total lack of empathy, and there you go!

 

[MNblockhead]

There are a couple serious foundational logic problems with all of this strawmanning...

Verisimilitude is only being thrown around by people defending the 5e skills... In that light it's weird to talk about anyone "seeking" it rather than any of the reasons actually given for moving away from 5e's excessively condensed skill selection.

The 2014 skill system has 18 highly condensed generalist catchall skills. Why would you present a case warning of pitfalls that assumes the next logical step is "thousands" of skills as if there were no middle ground between minimum 1/3 dozen from 1.5 dozen generalist catchall skillsand "thousands"?

Fair enough. I personally find that Warhammer Fantasy hits my sweet spot for handling attributes, skills, and talents. But I can't say that I've had much of an issue with D&D skills.

 

[Lanefan]

I was in line at Gen Con in the mid-80s and this guy there told me you had to know all the details of all the spells including their exact material components by heart to get into a particular game, consulting the books was not allowed.

And how many players did he have?