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

[Umbran]

Not really.

First, make the pole square instead of round.
Second, chop it into four 2.5' lengths.
Third, take the hinges off your small treasure chest and attach them to the four pieces of pole such that it folds into two stacked Zs.

Bingo. Collapsible pole.

FLOPPY collapsible pole, as nothing keeps those segments straight when it is extended. You need at least one latch per joint to hold it open.

 

[Minigiant]

How about replace strength, dexterity and constitution with mental state to like toughness, guile, and will

You don’t have to be buff like a body builder, maybe they do the extra damage because they are tough as nails like Clint Eastwood and just have that extra edge to do damage.

maybe they are not an Olympic athlete, and they have that guile to know where not to be when an attack starts coming their way.

maybe they don’t have a superior immune system for extra hp, just the will to live and keep fighting.

The idea is that in the original skilled play, the mental aspects are purely roleplayed as the players and player skill is used in that realm.

So only physical and spiritual/magic ability scores are the only ones handled by the game. Strength Dexterity Toughness Lore Piety Willpower.

This way you can roll in order and not affect your PC's personality and mind.

 

[Dr Magister]

Both, but in my experience there's a sharp divide within a game session, and it's usually when combat starts.

There'll be plenty of roleplay and acting in character and getting into the mindset of the character and chatting to NPCs a d e gaging with the setting. Then initiative is rolled, the battlemap is brought out, and everyone switches to Tactical Wargame Mode. Decisions might be made based to some extent on 'what my character would do', but mostly it's about tacical expediency.

Then the last baddie hits the deck, and it's back into Roleplay Mode.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, and, when done right, narrative play and skilled play in D&D 5e need not look so different in practice at the table in many circumstances. Only the DM is aware of the exact answer to a puzzle or if the answer is not fixed or if there is a fixed range of answers. I believe it should not be obvious to the players at the table that it is one way or another. It's really always the illusion of a single fixed answer or small possible number of alternative ways around the puzzle. I guess what I'm saying is that, to me, the '3rd type of play' you describe is more like a tool in the DM's toolbelt rather than a way to run an entire campaign. Otherwise, if most anything can succeed at all times, challenges such as puzzles become, well, unchallenging - in D&D anyway.

Well, games like Dungeon World really do basically run this way 'all the time', the agenda and principles of play are simply different from the other paradigms. It is certainly possible for the players to be surprised in DW by a twist. It is of course trivial for the PCs to be in the dark about things. So, a genuine puzzle is possible in DW, it wouldn't be played so much to test the puzzle-solving skills of the player, nor of the PC actually, but it COULD do so, and if that is enjoyable then it is certainly 'correct play'.

In DW the GM is a 'fan of the PCs' and the idea is to give them chances to be awesome, but that also involves chances to fail. Mostly in DW or similar games 'failure' (or some shade of grey where you succeeded with complications) isn't tightly coupled to the action being taken, but more to the intent. It would be perfectly normal in DW to have a failed attempt to pick the lock on a door end with a surprise guard patrol showing up just as the lock clicks open. The intent, to pass beyond the door without raising an alarm, has not been achieved, though technically the awesome lock-picking Thief overcame the tumblers of the lock...

With puzzles specifically DW would allow for something like making 'Defy Danger' checks to not make the wrong puzzle move, with failures either creating a more difficult position or some such. Of course it is also perfectly feasible to simply do it the old-fashioned way too!

 

[overgeeked]

OK, I guess there is RP that doesn't involve a 'player and DM' interaction. Beyond that I don't think that one single participant must be describing the world to the other. There are a lot of configurations of who can say what and I think the people practicing those different techniques are still RPing.

I don't think your definition is BAD, as far as it goes. It just strikes me more as a description of the classic D&D paradigm, not 'role play in general' or 'role playing games in general'. That's all.

That’s not an example, really. Except for solo play, there’s no RPG I can think of that doesn’t involve one person describing the scene and one or more people describing their characters reacting as if they were in that scene. Even story games like Fiasco are still RPGs by that definition. Whether that involves a set role of DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee/Facilitator/Etc or not. All RPGs involve one person describing something and another describing their character’s reaction to that description. I mean that’s literally playing a role. naughty word. That description is so broad it might even include proper acting and improv. So I’m not sure why you think it excludes some RPGs. If you could give me an example of a game you think doesn’t fit my definition that would be a great start.

 

[Maxperson]

Meanwhile, in D&D world: your potion of vitality will be delivered at the nearest teleportation circle within a week. Subscribe to Nyanzon Prime to get your goods delivered at your door step within 24 hours!

Dang it! I subscribed to Primus and now I can only buy something if I also buy it for the rest of the class. That gets expensive.

 

[Lanefan]

FLOPPY collapsible pole, as nothing keeps those segments straight when it is extended. You need at least one latch per joint to hold it open.

Good point; or sliding metal sleeves or splints.

 

[Marc_C]

Skilled play is preferable, it's not new or modern, it's actually very old school.

We tried Role Play in 1980-81, because there was nothing else in the B/X rules, and quickly discovered it didn't work. A player can't role play 18 intelligence if he is only average Intelligence. Same goes for Wisdom and Charisma scores higher than the player's.

Thus, we decided to use roll equal or less than the ability scores in 1981 after trying out Call of Cthulhu. The players made a d20 roll to determine outcome of the action. Everyone was happy, me (DM) included.

Also, using player knowledge to resolve situations is called meta gaming. It lead to all kinds of long winded arguments on what should and should not be allowed. Like, for example, trying to jury-rig a WWII flamethrower-like device, using oil flasks, in the middle of a dungeon because the magic-user had no more spells.

 

[Minigiant]

Skilled play is preferable, it's not new or modern, it's actually very old school.

We tried Role Play in 1980-81, because there was nothing else in the B/X rules, and quickly discovered it didn't work. A player can't role play 18 intelligence if he is only average Intelligence. Same goes for Wisdom and Charisma scores higher than the player's.

Thus, we decided to use roll equal or less than the ability scores in 1981 after trying out Call of Cthulhu. The players made a d20 roll to determine outcome of the action. Everyone was happy, me (DM) included.

Also, using player knowledge to resolve situations is called meta gaming. It lead to all kinds of long winded arguments on what should and should not be allowed. Like, for example, trying to jury-rig a WWII flamethrower-like device, using oil flasks, in the middle of a dungeon because the magic-user had no more spells.

And not all metagaming is purpuseful. It's easy to forget what your scores are in the heat of the conversation unless you are a skilled actor and can fake it and keep in character for long periods.

Skilled Play and Role Play are hampered by

1. The spellcasters having genius levels of mental stats.
2. The warriors having no emphasis on mental stats for their roles and jobs.
3. The additional difficulty in playing PCs with normal stats
4. The low or lack of support in mechanics for playing physical spellcasters and mental warriors.

I miss the 4e Cha-Paladin. You only needed enough Str to make sense in the heavy armor and you could play a non-beefy person who can be a frontliner and a smooth talker without dirty hexblade shenanigans.

Shadowsword: You wanna smite people with your Charisma, right? So oil my hilt and think of Bahamut.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Well, games like Dungeon World really do basically run this way 'all the time', the agenda and principles of play are simply different from the other paradigms. It is certainly possible for the players to be surprised in DW by a twist. It is of course trivial for the PCs to be in the dark about things. So, a genuine puzzle is possible in DW, it wouldn't be played so much to test the puzzle-solving skills of the player, nor of the PC actually, but it COULD do so, and if that is enjoyable then it is certainly 'correct play'.

Haven't played Dungeon World, but sounds like a nice mechanic for that ruleset. Although, not having the context of having played DW, the description you provide here doesn't sound all that different from playing 5e.

In DW the GM is a 'fan of the PCs' and the idea is to give them chances to be awesome, but that also involves chances to fail. Mostly in DW or similar games 'failure' (or some shade of grey where you succeeded with complications) isn't tightly coupled to the action being taken, but more to the intent. It would be perfectly normal in DW to have a failed attempt to pick the lock on a door end with a surprise guard patrol showing up just as the lock clicks open. The intent, to pass beyond the door without raising an alarm, has not been achieved, though technically the awesome lock-picking Thief overcame the tumblers of the lock...

Very much the same as in D&D 5e, in my experience, with the key being the bolded part - and everything else follows.

With puzzles specifically DW would allow for something like making 'Defy Danger' checks to not make the wrong puzzle move, with failures either creating a more difficult position or some such. Of course it is also perfectly feasible to simply do it the old-fashioned way too!

Again, plays very much the same in 5e at our table. Most any action declaration to make the right puzzle move (or to not make the wrong puzzle move) might be met with a DM asking for an ability check - that is, if the action has the possibility of success or failure, and meaningful consequences for said failure.

Hmm... I guess one might say that the distinction between "skilled play" and "narrative play" needn't have a strongly defined border.