D&D General Skilled Play, or Role Play: How Do You Approach Playing D&D?

[tetrasodium]

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?

I'm going to go with option 4. I like options 1&2 but 3 is missing the critical "collaborative exercise in emergent narrative" from number 2. Back in 2nd edition & earlier it was pretty much guaranteed to be there from time to time because there were so many pieces that were pretty much ask your gm & maybe invent something together. 3.5 had +2/-2 & this to give structure to ask your gm & invent something together for both sides to work from as a starting point.

Spoiler: bonus types

of course d&d skipped straight from 3.5 to 5e but without either the huge holes of the early editions that forced it or the framework for enabling it from 3.5 you have 5e being especially bad if you want to do any amount of point 2 without resorting to calvinball which isn't helped by the fact that so many of of the damaging "streamlining" & "simplifications" that were done to enable exactly that by binding the GMs hands with a lack of designspace to leverage.

 

[Charlaquin]

of course d&d skipped straight from 3.5 to 5e but without either the huge holes of the early editions that forced it or the framework for enabling it from 3.5 you have 5e being especially bad if you want to do any amount of point 2 without resorting to calvinball which isn't helped by the fact that so many of of the damaging "streamlining" & "simplifications" that were done to enable exactly that by binding the GMs hands with a lack of designspace to leverage.

could you not with the tongue-in-cheek edition warring, please? You don’t have to like 4e, but refusing to acknowledge it is just rude.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Unlike that new-fangled Greyhawk Supplement where instead of using skill and interacting you can just succeed on a die roll to disarm a trap. Real (fighting-)men had to think through the traps.

 

[overgeeked]

I think this is all in how you run NPC interactions. If you just act out the conversation and call for checks only occasionally when something seems to particularly warrant it, then yeah, Charisma won’t be particularly important for social interaction. On the other hand, if all you do is call for checks, then player skill becomes meaningless. The best approach, in my opinion, is to either act out the conversation or have players state their characters’ general intent, but either way, pay attention not just to wha the player is saying, but when they’re trying to influence the NPC in some way. Then treat that attempt to influence as you would any other action - evaluate the goal and the approach for chance of success, chance of failure, and consequences, calling for a check if it has all three.

Right. Mechanics can be used, if and when they’re needed. But roleplaying is, at its core, the interaction between the player and the DM. The player inhabiting a character in a fantasy world the DM describes to the player. To bypass that interaction with a roll, to circumvent the conversation between DM and player, is to avoid the roleplaying in roleplaying games.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. Mechanics can be used, if and when they’re needed. But roleplaying is, at its core, the interaction between the player and the DM. The player inhabiting a character in a fantasy world the DM describes to the player. To bypass that interaction with a roll, to circumvent the conversation between DM and player, is to avoid the roleplaying in roleplaying games.

And to be fair, I don’t demand acting. At my table, “I try to convince him to help us by stressing the importance of our mission” is just as good as “please, the fate of the world is at stake!” or whatever. As long as your goal (what you want out of the NPC) and your approach (how you try to get it out of them) are clear, I have no preference for first person or third person narration. I just don’t like out of context dice rolls.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Unlike that new-fangled Greyhawk Supplement where instead of using skill and interacting you can just succeed on a die roll to disarm a trap. Real (fighting-)men had to think through the traps.

Tell me about it!

Once you start down that slippery slope of giving thieves skills, pretty soon you're going to be making everything defined by a skill you have to use, instead of just saying what you want to do.

I tell ya, giving thieves skills is just the first step to making characters nothing more than a collection of buttons to push. Now, I need to find me some clouds to yell at.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Add me to the list disagreeing here.

While descriptive traps are more conducive to skilled play, I would not say DCs are more conducive to role play. Mechanically succeeding or failing is different than inhabiting your character's perspective.

DC mechanics are more conducive to roleplaying in a second person perspective ("I attempt to solve it" then rolls) or third person perspective roleplaying ("my character attempts to solve it" then rolls) versus first person roleplaying ("Indubitably Watson, the solution is X/I don't know"). The player can then choose to go from 2nd or 3rd person to first person perspective roleplaying after getting the results ("Indubitably Watson, the solution is X/I don't know"), but it requires a shift in roleplaying stance and ignoring any roleplay and just playing it as a mechanical element of the game is an option.

At most DCs are more conducive to the character's actions being consistent with the stats on the sheet.

Some see the stats on the sheet as the character to be roleplayed, but I always think of the character concept in the player's head or that emerges through actual play as a better basis for roleplaying.

 

[Monayuris]

It’s the age-old problem of a charismatic player sweet talking the NPCs when the character has 3 CHA.

I look at that in the light of "even the most repulsive personality can sometimes make a point that is uncontestable." A character with a 3 Charisma is going to have enough mechanical penalties, I don't see a need to also penalize the player for wanting to roleplay.

If I had to choose between roleplaying the interaction with the NPCs or environment and making a call based on that vs the players just declaring a skill check, I’d pick immersion in the world via roleplaying every time.

I think the 5E DMG rules for interacting with NPCs is a fairly good blend. Roleplay to possibly shift disposition, then roll when you get to the request or demand. Applying that more broadly to other areas could be useful in the player skill vs character stats debate.

Agree with handling it with role-playing.

Although, I don't require the player to act out in character. All the player needs to do is state what they want from the interaction and how they approach the NPC. We can imagine what the PC actually says to the NPC through the filter of the PC's Charisma. To me, it is player skill to determine how their PC approaches the NPC. Do they use flattery?, intimidation?, deception? to achieve their intent... this is not something I just handle with a roll.


I approach Charisma checks backwards (it may be my experience running older edition games*). I have a Charisma roll at the start to set a baseline disposition (if it is not clear already) and then have role-playing determine the outcome of the interaction.

*This comes from the concept of the Reaction Roll, where if you don't know ahead of time the reaction of an npc/monster, you roll to determine their initial reaction. Which then determines how close to hostility the npc/monster is.

 

[overgeeked]

And to be fair, I don’t demand acting. At my table, “I try to convince him to help us by stressing the importance of our mission” is just as good as “please, the fate of the world is at stake!” or whatever. As long as your goal (what you want out of the NPC) and your approach (how you try to get it out of them) are clear, I have no preference for first person or third person narration. I just don’t like out of context dice rolls.

Exactly. Roleplaying is required, acting is optional.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It’s weird, I‘m not sure I agree that having DCs for puzzles helps roleplaying. Quite the opposite, I think. They prevent roleplaying.

I'd go even further. I don't think players solving puzzles is roleplaying. At all. I don't think it's skilled play, either, because puzzles aren't really about the mechanics of D&D.

Puzzles are orthogonal to the rest of the game entirely. You walk up to a magic door that says "speak friend and enter" and you're just trying to solve it given the scenario. That's not testing your ability to pretend to be a character in the game world. It's just testing your ability to solve a puzzle. It's not something you can plan for, either. Most puzzles can only be solved by solving the puzzle. It's neither a game skill nor a roleplaying skill.