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

[Voadam]

I am really not worried about the fighter taking the 15/15/15/8/8/8 stat array gaining an advantage over a SAD wizard with a different stat array.

I have no problem with character concept being divorced from stat mechanics. I want fighters in my games to be able to play a characterization concept of Face from the A-Team or Cyrano Debergerac or Sherlock Holmes without sacrificing fighter stats. I could care less what the Charisma or Intelligence stat on their sheet is.

I want the balance to be combat balance between characters, I do not want individual characters to sacrifice combat balance for desired characterization.

 

[overgeeked]

Put me down solidly in the "skilled play" camp.

I was having this discussion elsewhere not too long ago, and I think I can make my feelings on the matter clear enough by simply quoting myself.



This isn't to say that improv acting can't be fun—if the players are actually good at it. But it's far likelier IME to be a source of pure cringe.

And that's not even scratching the surface of the infamous "BuT iT's WhAt My ChArAcTeR wOuLd Do!" problem.



The thing is, even though I'm firmly on the "skilled play" side of the continuum, I don't have a problem with dice at all. I play OD&D, but I don't buy into the whole OSR, "rulings-not-rules" thing or the idea that skilled play (in the sense of searching for traps with 10' poles and finding secret doors by knocking on walls) means that there isn't also a place in the game for skill checks.

After all, even in Basic/Expert D&D, you find a trap or a secret door by rolling a 1 or 2 on 1d6.

Right. And I lean heavily into B/X with some BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia on the side. I'm fine with mechanics. I just think the mechanics are for the DM, not the player. The DM describes the scene and the player decides and describes what their character would do in the fantasy world of the game...and then the DM brings in the rules if, and only if, the DM cannot decide for themselves what should happen next. What I'm arguing against is the style of play where the player skips over interacting with the environment (i.e. the DM), and starts talking about the roll they want to make to do something in the fantasy world. That's skipping over the roleplaying. That 1-2 on a d6 roll to find a secret door is for the DM's use, not the player's. The DM decides when the rules are brought in, not the player. To a lesser extent I'm also arguing against the style of DMing where the DM doesn't bother describing anything until after making the player roll a d20. "I look down the hall." "Roll perception." "Can't I just see what's down the hall?" Come on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Yeah, I don't see these as being, in any way, opposed. I think D&D has had 3 'phases' in its history. Classic D&D (OD&D, B/X, 1e AD&D) are designed for what you call skilled play, and I agree with your definition of that paradigm pretty much. However, this didn't at all preclude Role Play, although players might feel conflicted about the potentially opposed goals of maximum skill exemplification and consistent playing of a PC role. Usually this was resolved by having simple characters who's main personality trait was basically greed.

This lead to the 2nd phase, the 'storyteller' phase, which was ushered in by 2e AD&D, in which the DM was no longer a referee and trap/puzzle author, but became a 'teller of tales' where inconvenient die rolls were to be ignored or fudged, etc. 2e lacks most of the exploration and related rules of 1e, but adds a bunch of rules for skills, different combat maneuvers, etc. as well as a lot more character customization options in general.

3.0 and 3.5 are really just extensions of 2e in this context, they continue the same basic paradigm, though there is an increasing emphasis on elaborate rules, detailed combat procedures, and whatnot which kind of get in the way. It wasn't a very coherent design (not that 2e is either, but I'm not sure the designers of 3.x really knew what they were getting into).

4e ushers in a new phase, 'game as narrative engine'. Now the role of the GM is to propel the story forward by framing the PCs into conflict and moving to the exciting parts of the story. SCs, Powers, and a thorough structuring of the rules governing how things worked, coupled with keywords and exception based rules, can allow a GM to run a game in a way that is almost reminiscent of a PbtA game or FATE-based game.

5e backed off of the main innovations of 4e, which were little appreciated anyway at the time by most D&Ders (WotC either got cold feet or just didn't know how to explain what they had written). Anyway, you can do a bit of all three paradigms in 5e, though it is pretty weak on the 'narrative play' one, and doesn't really explicitly include all the skilled play exploration rules (maybe some of the supplements help here, I'm not sure).

 

[loverdrive]

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

In my experience, players don’t roleplay when they know they can just roll dice to resolve an obstacle. See combat devolving to blandly repeating endless variations of “I swing, I hit, I do 3 damage”. The players immersing themselves in the fantasy world by describing what their characters actually do in that fantasy world is roleplaying.

I can't see why, honestly.

The fact that one character would try to break down the classic "door with the riddle" with good ol' brute force and another would try to solve that riddle already says enough about said characters, whether the players just roll ability checks or describe what their character is doing in details.

And boring combat wouldn't be less boring if everyone would describe how exactly they swing an axe. Boring combat would be less boring if the players would be forced to make important decisions -- "Should I go after the baddie or should I help my dying ally?". This is role-playing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me, there are actually three elements, not just two.

1. Skilled play. Learning to make good judgments, more or less. What "good judgment" means will vary, not just from one situation to another, but one game to another. This is good and healthy. Early D&D tends to lean into very logistical and "strategic-level" play, where good judgments are often in the form of Being Crazy Prepared or Having SOP For This, with hirelings, 10' poles, reaction rolls, etc. 4e-style D&D tends toward very tactical play--you have a set of options and the benefits of teamwork, figure out a strategy that gets you safely to the other side without paying too much to get there. I tend to find the logistical stuff a bit tedious, but I totally get why it has value to others and that it is an excellent prompt for making judgment calls.

2. Roleplay. I love the narrative of D&D, and I especially love when mechanics are themselves flavorful, narrative things. E.g. the 4e Paladin's Lay on Hands power doesn't just give the Paladin a pool of HP to spend on allies; instead, the Paladin sacrifices her own vitality, to replenish others. That's cool as hell, incredibly thematic, and yet arising from the rules themselves. Anytime a game can do that, it's a good thing in my book. Exploring a character's story, going through the triumphs and tribulations, having an open mind for where things might go while still pursuing goals, that's the good stuff. I can practice "skilled play" anywhere; I can't get both skilled play and open-ended roleplay anywhere else.

3. Discovery. I love finding out about fictional worlds. I love exploring them, digging into their nooks and crannies, unearthing lost secrets or changing the world for the better. It's like reading an awesome new book or getting into a critically-acclaimed TV show, except it's personal, just for the people at that specific table. Wandering through a place like that, needing to keep a keen eye out because there's always something new to learn or discover...that's awesome. This, like skilled play, can still be had elsewhere (it's a major part of the appeal of CRPGs), but it is uniquely potent and special in the TTRPG context.

So yeah. I'm there for all three parts of the above: actually playing a game and getting good at it, playing a character and telling a story, and slowly unveiling a new and unknown world full of mystery and wonder.

 

[Minigiant]

Yes, I understood that. What I’m telling you is that Snarf called that approach “Role Playing” in the opening post of this thread.

Perhaps I read it wrong.

Then What I'd prefer is neither. I'd prefer a 4th option.
Because to me, I'd prefer PCs doing what their stats lean them too and not their PC's personalities and having their sheets heavily lean on their decision making and success rate.

 

[Jack Daniel]

So don't dump Int around me. Or I'll say "Yall too dumb to think of that plan. Make another. A dumber plan."*

*I've done this many times.

Nah. I firmly cap roleplaying with PC stats. How brutal the cap is based on how tired I am. The final step is always stats, not acting.

If you split the party and put the idiots with low Int together, they will be idiots.

I belong to a school of thought that would oppose this rather dramatically. Making plans and solving puzzles is the purview of the players; how clever the plan or how quickly the puzzle gets solved is up to the players' cleverness.

In Classic D&D (other than Holmes or the white box post-Greyhawk), Intelligence has precisely two mechanical effects on the game: it impacts the number of languages a character speaks, and it adjusts earned experience points for magic-users. (And if you do count Greyhawk, Holmes, or AD&D, everything else that Intelligence does solely impacts how magic-users learn spells, nothing else.) So it's reasonable to interpret the Intelligence ability score not as describing the sum and total of the character's intellectual capacity, but rather, their linguistic and magical aptitude, nothing more or less than that. "Intelligence" just becomes an unfortunate shorthand for the character's "talky mageyness" stat.

Likewise, Strength isn't the character's totalized muscle and athletic prowess, it's their "door-bashy fighteryness." Wisdom is the character's "magic-resisty clerickyness" and nothing else. Charisma is "leadership and first impressions," not license to walk around acting like a living, breathing incarnation of a charm person spell. Etc.

This has the salubrious effect on gameplay of players not being able to use their stats to play a certain way—a low Int or Wis score isn't an excuse for the player to do something reckless or foolish, for example. That sort of thing is annoying anyhow and nothing but a detriment to a play-style that focuses on challenging the skill of the player, not the character.

 

[Minigiant]

I belong to a school of thought that would oppose this rather dramatically. Making plans and solving puzzles is the purview of the players; how clever the plan or how quickly the puzzle gets solved is up to the players' cleverness.

You might not want to be at be my table then.
According to my players, after "SUDDENLY.." my catchphrase is "hold on there a second, (Your Character) is...". (Then it's "okay if that what you wanna do")

To me when I DM, Strength is your character's raw Strength. Charisma is your Character's raw Charisma. Intelligince is your Character's raw Intelligence. What the game describes the ability score are is what ya get. I give players a bit more leeway on stats to build a character. But once we play...

It's your character in my world, not you. And the medium between us and the world is da stats.
You can make your character you if you want. However if you dump INT because your barbarian doesn't need it to fight, well Ragnar will be a big old idiot with a major case of the poopy brains.

If a player wants to play the clever wizard Prisma, then I will make their character be clever even if they had to do overtime the day before and are mentally exhausted. Roll the die and if you succeed,you geta slip of paper or text with ideas slipped to you. If Ragnar's player thinks of something same but rolls bad, Prisma's player can have Prisma say it.

I tend to run ability scores based on what the game says they mean and run them hard.

 

[Charlaquin]

I belong to a school of thought that would oppose this rather dramatically. Making plans and solving puzzles is the purview of the players; how clever the plan or how quickly the puzzle gets solved is up to the players' cleverness.

In Classic D&D (other than Holmes or the white box post-Greyhawk), Intelligence has precisely two mechanical effects on the game: it impacts the number of languages a character speaks, and it adjusts earned experience points for magic-users. (And if you do count Greyhawk, Holmes, or AD&D, everything else that Intelligence does solely impacts how magic-users learn spells, nothing else.) So it's reasonable to interpret the Intelligence ability score not as describing the sum and total of the character's intellectual capacity, but rather, their linguistic and magical aptitude, nothing more or less than that. "Intelligence" just becomes an unfortunate shorthand for the character's "talky mageyness" stat.

Likewise, Strength isn't the character's totalized muscle and athletic prowess, it's their "door-bashy fighteryness." Wisdom is the character's "magic-resisty clerickyness" and nothing else. Charisma is "leadership and first impressions," not license to walk around acting like a living, breathing incarnation of a charm person spell. Etc.

This has the salubrious effect on gameplay of players not being able to use their stats to play a certain way—a low Int or Wis score isn't an excuse for the player to do something reckless or foolish, for example. That sort of thing is annoying anyhow and nothing but a detriment to a play-style that focuses on challenging the skill of the player, not the character.

This is the school of the thought to which I belong as well, and I think it’s really the only way for the abilities to make even the tiniest bit of sense. But some folks are vehementky opposed to this notion and will start crying “dissociated mechanics” if the game statistic named strength represents anything other than the character’s totalized muscle and athletic prowess, let alone that it representing nothing at all beyond how likely the character is to succeed on checks that the statistic is applied to.

 

[Charlaquin]

I tend to run ability scores based on what the game says they mean and run them hard.

Well, no, actually you don’t, because the game doesn’t say Intelligence has anything to do with your character’s ability to come up with good ideas or plans. What the game says Intelligence does is:

Intelligence​

Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

Intelligence Checks​

An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion Skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence Checks.

What you’re doing is running ability scores hard based on your own ideas about what the words they’re named after mean. And that’s your prerogative, but it isn’t what the rules actually describe.