D&D General On Skilled Play: D&D as a Game

[billd91]

The thing is.

If D&D is a game, then there must be a win state.

Many D&D fans do not like the concept that you can win at D&D.

You can't say you hate builds and optimization if D&D is a game.

Not being able to hate builds and optimization doesn't follow from any of the preceding statements. You can have a game, even with win conditions, and still not like how it's played by some people.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure how apt it is to be honest with you.

When you're running a dungeon (or any game to be honest), here is what the GM has to work with:

* What the point of play is.

* How play is structured.

* How well-developed the GM's skillset is.

* What resources the players can bring to bear against the obstacle.

* The GM's movespace.

* How much force the GM can bring to bear.


Now, hopefully, all of the stuff below the first bullet point is well-designed and integrated such that merely playing with integrity will result in the game feeding back naturally into that first bullet point.

If the game has some design issues (the GM's movespace isn't sufficiently focused or constrained, or the force they can bring to bear is unlimited, or the resources the players can marshal is insufficient to the task, or the structure of play easily unravels or just doesn't work, or the GM isn't particularly skillful or the players aren't particularly skillful, etc)...well, then you're going to have a problem.

But if all of that stuff is functional in the opposite direction, then GMs should be able to play aggressively because the system/rules/movespace gives the game purpose, shape, clarity, and constraint. The problem lies when it fails to do one/some/all of those things and I feel like the "wrestling with your child" analogy is an outgrowth of that presumption; "well you're the GM without any focused agenda, without any constraint on movespace or force that can brought to bear...if you're not letting loose the magical Kraken of Flying with a Demonic Rider on the level 1 seafarers then you're coddling them!"

That feels like an AD&D perspective mapped onto all games ever.

Yeah, I totally agree. OTOH I was kind of told the remit of this thread was talking ABOUT Skilled Play, and my commentary on its shortcomings were kind of attached to a frowny face. So, I'm not going to talk about "we can do better, just write a good game, classic D&D is not it." That may be MY opinion on the topic, and I haven't played AD&D since the mid 90's and barely even 3.x or 5e since then. So, that was me voting on that subject.

But within the bounds of talking ABOUT Skilled Play, I can say that GM skill is heavily required. We have to assume the GM knows how to structure play and deploy his skillset, and how much 'force' to use in order to exactly elicit and reward Skilled Play. We have to accept that THE agenda is to enjoy this type of play. Well, I think we can accept that "people are playing at this table, that must be the case", so the agenda part I basically ignore.

Now, in terms of that trap thread: Clearly we see from it that the content and nature of the fiction is not really going to be perfectly fixed in most/many cases. So, that's certainly where one big part of GM skill has to come in is in terms of writing things up in a way that works to start with, and then running it in a way that leads to player satisfaction that the 'play with skill' agenda was upheld. It is certainly possible, to a degree. I think a big issue is perceived nature of reality.

In that other thread if a player simply discounts the possibility of a particular type of trap from working, he's going to assume that it doesn't work that way, and come to incorrect conclusions about it. Maybe you can say "well, characters make mistakes." OTOH is it skill when you fail because of a misperception? Or is fixing misperceptions a major PART of the skill? I think it is!

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, I totally agree. OTOH I was kind of told the remit of this thread was talking ABOUT Skilled Play, and my commentary on its shortcomings were kind of attached to a frowny face. So, I'm not going to talk about "we can do better, just write a good game, classic D&D is not it." That may be MY opinion on the topic, and I haven't played AD&D since the mid 90's and barely even 3.x or 5e since then. So, that was me voting on that subject.

But within the bounds of talking ABOUT Skilled Play, I can say that GM skill is heavily required. We have to assume the GM knows how to structure play and deploy his skillset, and how much 'force' to use in order to exactly elicit and reward Skilled Play. We have to accept that THE agenda is to enjoy this type of play. Well, I think we can accept that "people are playing at this table, that must be the case", so the agenda part I basically ignore.

Now, in terms of that trap thread: Clearly we see from it that the content and nature of the fiction is not really going to be perfectly fixed in most/many cases. So, that's certainly where one big part of GM skill has to come in is in terms of writing things up in a way that works to start with, and then running it in a way that leads to player satisfaction that the 'play with skill' agenda was upheld. It is certainly possible, to a degree. I think a big issue is perceived nature of reality.

In that other thread if a player simply discounts the possibility of a particular type of trap from working, he's going to assume that it doesn't work that way, and come to incorrect conclusions about it. Maybe you can say "well, characters make mistakes." OTOH is it skill when you fail because of a misperception? Or is fixing misperceptions a major PART of the skill? I think it is!

Agreed with everything here!

Even in AD&D and B/X and RC there is constraint of the GM’s movespace and force they can bring to bear. A lot of the skill of GMing Skilled Play is (a) understanding those constraints/focus and (b) developing your conception and communication skills (which feeds back into (a) ). I think, for whatever reason, those two extremely important properties of GMing get elided in these conversations.

GMing Skilled Play isn’t all mapping/keying/stocking/theming dungeons. That is barely the starting point. Once you’ve developed your entire skill set (which includes understanding when a player is getting hung up on process vs genre logic and helpfully disentangling that for them), you’re not a parent wrestling with a child. You’re refereeing as close to neutral as it gets. Play can absolutely get there (which I’m sure you know).

The problem lies when there is a systemic breakdown somewhere and it’s not actively fixed (like a player bringing extreme process sim priorities into a dungeon crawl that is governed overwhelmingly by genre logic and no one understands/acknowledges/fixes what’s happening...now you have different people playing different games and a table filled with insecurities/built-in failure points).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed with everything here!

Even in AD&D and B/X and RC there is constraint of the GM’s movespace and force they can bring to bear. A lot of the skill of GMing Skilled Play is (a) understanding those constraints/focus and (b) developing your conception and communication skills (which feeds back into (a) ). I think, for whatever reason, those two extremely important properties of GMing get elided in these conversations.

GMing Skilled Play isn’t all mapping/keying/stocking/theming dungeons. That is barely the starting point. Once you’ve developed your entire skill set (which includes understanding when a player is getting hung up on process vs genre logic and helpfully disentangling that for them), you’re not a parent wrestling with a child. You’re refereeing as close to neutral as it gets. Play can absolutely get there (which I’m sure you know).

The problem lies when there is a systemic breakdown somewhere and it’s not actively fixed (like a player bringing extreme process sim priorities into a dungeon crawl that is governed overwhelmingly by genre logic and no one understands/acknowledges/fixes what’s happening...now you have different people playing different games and a table filled with insecurities/built-in failure points).

Yup, so that last bit there is interesting in that we can ask a question about that. Which is "just how far in different directions CAN you go with this basic paradigm?" I mean, you could run a very 'sim' kind of game where the GM is super concerned with realism (at least out of combat, combat is definitely abstract if you are sticking with D&D rules). Actually, I suppose even with combat 'abstract' and 'unrealistic' are not necessarily opposed, but still, D&D has hit points... lol.

Another GM might be super concerned with genre logic. Another might love injecting 'drama' into play. I don't think any of those things NECESSARILY oppose Skilled Play as Snarf has defined it. OTOH there may be some limits. Clearly the players and the GM have to be able to 'get on the same page' when interpreting the fiction. The trap again. In that other thread I proposed that, although the physics are a bit uncertain, the genre logic is pretty solid, so it should be OK. Even if a player is a bit dubious that the trap would actually work IRL, they should be sufficiently informed by the fiction of what the trap is fictionally to interact with it appropriately. Now if the trap was REALLY outre, so it worked in a very surprising way, that would be a problem.

Of course, other dimensions of the game are different. Social situations, who can really say what the 'rules' are for how a human being can act? I've seen some pretty crazy stuff in my time! Surely if you have someone point a gun at you, you've instantly learned a lesson in just how little you can really be sure of! So, how does that play out in terms of 'movespace and force' as you put it?

Finally, in light of these considerations, can Skilled Play, in substantially the classic D&D sense, exist in a game with different process? So could you use some of the tools that indie games use to 'put guardrails' of some sort onto a game where player skill is predominant? I wonder what that would look like? Or has it been done?

 

[Garthanos]

Different D&D flavors have expressed/espoused or encouraged different concepts of skilled play that was elaborated earlier rather well but what about player approaches and motivations? The actor, the power gamer, the storyteller and others were discussed in my favorite DMGs to me the idea of skilled play may be fundamentally flawed because the players have different personal goals

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

My view on the all powerful GM is that the reason its like that is because the GM is, by necessity, a Game Designer, rather than an adversary. They're responsible for running and tuning the challenges rather than trying to win AS the challenge.

In this context, the GMs power is a moot point because they only have that power in the context of building the game-- they can certainly make challenges easier or harder, but it doesnt change the validity of a well tuned challenge being a good test of skill.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Different D&D flavors have expressed/espoused or encouraged different concepts of skilled play that was elaborated earlier rather well but what about player approaches and motivations? The actor, the power gamer, the storyteller and others were discussed in my favorite DMGs to me the idea of skilled play may be fundamentally flawed because the players have different personal goals

Maybe I missed that part? I don't remember.

Anyway, it is an interesting question. I am not sure it invalidates the idea of Skilled Play. I mean, Skilled Play is viable, for at least certain groups, and probably 'mostly works' for considerable percentage I would say. So it is more IMHO a question of whether every player agenda can be addressed by it. Actors seem like they might be SOL in the more typical dungeon crawls. If you can create 'Skilled Social Play' that might be good for them!

 

[Garthanos]

Maybe I missed that part? I don't remember.

Anyway, it is an interesting question. I am not sure it invalidates the idea of Skilled Play. I mean, Skilled Play is viable, for at least certain groups, and probably 'mostly works' for considerable percentage I would say. So it is more IMHO a question of whether every player agenda can be addressed by it. Actors seem like they might be SOL in the more typical dungeon crawls. If you can create 'Skilled Social Play' that might be good for them!

Point being if my motivation is getting a good story to happen then my character dying at the peak of a climactic fight after delivering a telling payload sounds like an utter win AND there is going to be several others at the same table in full disagreement. The judgmentalism of "skilled play" always kind of annoyed me.

 

[Campbell]

I would not buy too much into player types outside of traditional (or more accurately middle school) play. It's an analysis rooted in the types of behaviors and play preferences seen in a very particular (and popular) approach to RPGs. They do not really carry much weight in other types of play.

 

[Nefermandias]

Point being if my motivation is getting a good story to happen then my character dying at the peak of a climactic fight after delivering a telling payload sounds like an utter win AND there is going to be several others at the same table in full disagreement. The judgmentalism of "skilled play" always kind of annoyed me.

That's why session zero is a thing.
The players and the DM should at least agree to play the same game. I would never bring an actor or storyteller type into my ToH game.