The play was a great success, but the audience was a disaster.
A topic that recently came up in conversation is the change, over time, in the manner and expectations of playing style when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons. I will be painting this with a broad and generalist brush, but I would categorize the predominant manner of play in early D&D as "skilled play" and say that this has gradually shifted to more of a "role play" over time.
In order to understand this distinction, it might help to understand what I would say are the differences between these two modes of play.
1. Skilled Play. I don't even have any good skills. You know like nunchuck skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills!
D&D is a game. While there wasn't a "win condition" in D&D, per se, there were certainly ways to "lose" (like dying), and OD&D and TSR-era AD&D provided numerous easy ways to die. Because D&D was a game, there were ways to play it "better" or "worse," or, in effect, to be more skilled at it. To know the rules. To use a 10' pole to check for traps. To know how to use flaming oil.
Yes, oil. Later generations would look upon the "oil" restriction in the 1e PHB and say, "What?" but this was a component of the skilled gamer's arsenal.
Dungeons (and they were usually dungeons) were challenges to be overcome. Puzzles and traps would often invoke some element of the player's knowledge- not the PC's. Competitions that required skilled play were a focus at conventions, and some of the best competition adventures were later released as TSR-era modules (the "C" series).
2. Role Play. There used to be a real me, but I had it surgically removed.
D&D is a collaborative exercise in emergent narrative, wherein the players inhabit roles in a world mediated by the Dungeon Master. Um, or something like that- I may have some jargon misplaced! But the role play emphasis is less about the mechanics of the game in terms of playing it 'better', and more about the players inhabiting the personalities of their player characters and making decisions in accord with what their player characters would do, not necessarily what the player would do. Put more simply, this is emphasizing that the real you and your game persona are different, and playing in accord with your game persona.
The increasing emphasis on Role Play can be seen in D&D in some of the mechanics that, no, explicitly support Role Play. For example, the chargen minigame that calls for a background, or flaws, or ideals, etc.; the campaign settings such as Ravnica that require or encourage a more detailed character, and so on.
3. Why Not Both? I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks.
I doubt that there are many people who would think that they don't play D&D in a "skilled" manner (quick- raise your hands if you think you play something poorly!), nor are there many people who would say that they make no attempt to role play whatsoever. So why posit that there is any distinction?
Because I would say that there is a continuum. For example, attempting to play a character at their PC level of intelligence definitely is on the RP, not SP side of the ledger. Or choosing a course of action that you, as the player, know is dumb but that the PC would choose to do (you know that certain death awaits you, but your PC would go all Leeroy Jenkins).
In some ways, this is also reflected in the design of adventures; traps and puzzles that are solved by DCs are definitely more conducive to RP, while traps and puzzles that are solved by the player's knowledge tend to be more conducive to the SP scenario.
So those are some tentative thoughts; I was wondering what other people might think? How do you play now? What do you prefer? Do you think it makes a difference, or is this an arbitrary distinction without a difference?
A topic that recently came up in conversation is the change, over time, in the manner and expectations of playing style when it comes to Dungeons & Dragons. I will be painting this with a broad and generalist brush, but I would categorize the predominant manner of play in early D&D as "skilled play" and say that this has gradually shifted to more of a "role play" over time.
In order to understand this distinction, it might help to understand what I would say are the differences between these two modes of play.
1. Skilled Play. I don't even have any good skills. You know like nunchuck skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills!
D&D is a game. While there wasn't a "win condition" in D&D, per se, there were certainly ways to "lose" (like dying), and OD&D and TSR-era AD&D provided numerous easy ways to die. Because D&D was a game, there were ways to play it "better" or "worse," or, in effect, to be more skilled at it. To know the rules. To use a 10' pole to check for traps. To know how to use flaming oil.
Yes, oil. Later generations would look upon the "oil" restriction in the 1e PHB and say, "What?" but this was a component of the skilled gamer's arsenal.
Dungeons (and they were usually dungeons) were challenges to be overcome. Puzzles and traps would often invoke some element of the player's knowledge- not the PC's. Competitions that required skilled play were a focus at conventions, and some of the best competition adventures were later released as TSR-era modules (the "C" series).
2. Role Play. There used to be a real me, but I had it surgically removed.
D&D is a collaborative exercise in emergent narrative, wherein the players inhabit roles in a world mediated by the Dungeon Master. Um, or something like that- I may have some jargon misplaced! But the role play emphasis is less about the mechanics of the game in terms of playing it 'better', and more about the players inhabiting the personalities of their player characters and making decisions in accord with what their player characters would do, not necessarily what the player would do. Put more simply, this is emphasizing that the real you and your game persona are different, and playing in accord with your game persona.
The increasing emphasis on Role Play can be seen in D&D in some of the mechanics that, no, explicitly support Role Play. For example, the chargen minigame that calls for a background, or flaws, or ideals, etc.; the campaign settings such as Ravnica that require or encourage a more detailed character, and so on.
3. Why Not Both? I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks.
I doubt that there are many people who would think that they don't play D&D in a "skilled" manner (quick- raise your hands if you think you play something poorly!), nor are there many people who would say that they make no attempt to role play whatsoever. So why posit that there is any distinction?
Because I would say that there is a continuum. For example, attempting to play a character at their PC level of intelligence definitely is on the RP, not SP side of the ledger. Or choosing a course of action that you, as the player, know is dumb but that the PC would choose to do (you know that certain death awaits you, but your PC would go all Leeroy Jenkins).
In some ways, this is also reflected in the design of adventures; traps and puzzles that are solved by DCs are definitely more conducive to RP, while traps and puzzles that are solved by the player's knowledge tend to be more conducive to the SP scenario.
So those are some tentative thoughts; I was wondering what other people might think? How do you play now? What do you prefer? Do you think it makes a difference, or is this an arbitrary distinction without a difference?
)
