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

[EzekielRaiden]

Is the typical "actor" RPGer so insistent on playing in that fashion that nothing else is possible for him/her?

I don't know that I can really answer that, not having the data needed.

Is the typical SP game so insistent on expecting skill carried across characters? The question runs both ways, that was a big part of my point.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't know that I can really answer that, not having the data needed.

Is the typical SP game so insistent on expecting skill carried across characters? The question runs both ways, that was a big part of my point.

Which runs into my point. Without knowing the particulars that are individual to the group and actor involved, you don't actually know whether there will be an issue or not. The best that these generalizations can do is to make you aware that it's something you should keep an eye on.

The actor might be willing to forgo their preferred playstyle for this game. Or create a character in line with the playstyle.

The group might be willing to accept the actor doing his thing, despite that (or possibly even because) it will create additional complications for them.

I've played in groups where the actor frequently ended up wreaking havoc with our perfectly laid plans, and it was some of the most fun I've ever had. (This was not an SP game per se, fwiw.) But we established that he was going to do that in advance and we were all on board. I've also played in non-SP games where the actor did the same, but players took serious issue with it because they hadn't agreed to it.

 

[clearstream]

I don't know that I can really answer that, not having the data needed.

Is the typical SP game so insistent on expecting skill carried across characters? The question runs both ways, that was a big part of my point.

SP evolved early, when much lay ahead - still to be discovered. Such questions were subliminal in that epoch.

Thinking of my own ToA campaign, which has run about 40 sessions. We chose to play this campaign in an old school mode, and we can feel the limits of that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The actor might be willing to forgo their preferred playstyle for this game. Or create a character in line with the playstyle.

The group might be willing to accept the actor doing his thing, despite that (or possibly even because) it will create additional complications for them.

Okay. But that's literally what I was saying: we can predict, with quite reasonable confidence, that at least one side will need to make concessions. That's information we can do something with in advance. Given that the example was a singular Actor (potentially) participating in a game run by and for people looking for SP, the rather strong implication is that the concessions are mostly going to be on the Actor's side--but even if they aren't, going into it forewarned is useful, to use your word. It is not detrimental to know that a friend's tastes are (very) likely to run counter to the experience you're offering, unless one or both of you makes an effort at compromise.

 

[Garthanos]

Is the typical "actor" RPGer so insistent on playing in that fashion that nothing else is possible for him/her?

Not sure how extreme is typical. My experience has been are rather persistent with it sometimes even when faced with severe sp game paradigm (they can get rejected sometimes by other players over it --> see the reaction of at least one poster previously to the idea let alone actually seeing it in action - but it sometimes just gets laughed off I think)

Unearned is a reference to player experience overall, not necessarily the play of a particular character. Once you've done it once you don't have to do it again, as pp 110-11 explain:

Not consistent with the your wizard "earning" being overly powerful at higher level needs to experience the weakness of that class/character at low levels balance paradigm is that.

That's not really true. There's Appendix P in Gygax's DMG.

That's not really true either. This is discussed in Gygax's DMG (in multiple places, of course!). He is against new players starting with non-1st level PCs because they won't have the skill to match the PC level. But he gives guidelines for starting experienced players with higher-level PCs.

I managed to miss appendix P entirely ... should have known with all the random tables for things that would be where it would end up.

 

[Garthanos]

To me it feels as if there are some other premises underpinning this discussion - for instance, that the "skilled play" game is the only one going, or is going to be a campaign lasting months, or similar

Some people have a lot of roleplaying available others get stuck with what they find and roleplaying seems like it could be more flexible than card games, but may not be.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Okay. But that's literally what I was saying: we can predict, with quite reasonable confidence, that at least one side will need to make concessions. That's information we can do something with in advance. Given that the example was a singular Actor (potentially) participating in a game run by and for people looking for SP, the rather strong implication is that the concessions are mostly going to be on the Actor's side--but even if they aren't, going into it forewarned is useful, to use your word. It is not detrimental to know that a friend's tastes are (very) likely to run counter to the experience you're offering, unless one or both of you makes an effort at compromise.

I didn't say it wasn't useful. I said that one shouldn't extrapolate from it the assumption that it won't work, since it certainly can. Whether or not it will work is entirely up to the individuals involved.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It seems to me that at least at some tables alignment was an aspect of skilled play. The impression I get from Lewis Pulsipher's articles (and a bit, but less clearly, from Gygax) is that being Lawful/Good opens the door to healing and resurrection but imposes limits on permissible declared actions; whereas being Chaotic/Evil opens the door to a wider range of action declarations but makes it harder to get healing/resurrection and (at least in AD&D) also penalises reaction rolls.

I suppose there could be some minor advantages to being lawful good, sure. I suspect most of them would be in terms of RP "Hey, this lawful good guy said X, it must be true" which puts it pretty much in the DM fiat sort of realm. Honestly, we never played a game so consistently deadly that most players bothered with resurrection, at least not ones that I GMed. So, yeah, I guess if your DM was big on alignment stuff it might become sort of a 'skill thing', but alignment is such a swamp, if it is nothing but a power player min/maxing kind of thing that is amusing at best.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To me it feels as if there are some other premises underpinning this discussion - for instance, that the "skilled play" game is the only one going, or is going to be a campaign lasting months, or similar.

Because normally I would expect the logic of a RPG to be pretty clear from the start, or emerge pretty soon in play, similar to a board game or card game. And then I'd assume that any player of the game would play the game more-or-less in the spirit that is appropriate. That's not to say any sort of heads-up or pre-game discussion would be inappropriate; but it doesn't seem to me to be any more necessary for "actor" players in the "skilled play" context than for any other player being invited to take part in a new game (RPG or otherwise).

EDIT: To put it another way, I prefer whist-type card games to rummy-type card games, but can play both; and can also play wargame-y games like MtG if invited to. If I turn up to card-playing-group and find that it's MtG today that's not ideal for me, but I can happily join in, recoginsing that my preference for auctions and trick-taking is going to go unsatisfied for the moment.

Is the typical "actor" RPGer so insistent on playing in that fashion that nothing else is possible for him/her?

I think this is the 'down side' of such categorizations, that it is often (usually in discussions like this) taken as some sort of inviolable absolute. I, for instance, play in a wide variety of different styles of RPG games/tables at different times. When it comes to deciding when and where to play or not play, I don't say to myself "Oh, this is rule set X, forget it." I might say, "Why bother playing rule set X with several people whom I don't know at all when that rule set isn't one I really enjoy and there are other games I can play." If my good friends invite me to a gaming session, I come. If they decide to play 1e AD&D and run B2, that isn't going to be my favorite idea usually, but I can just make Dorf the Dwarf fighter and play to win, and amuse myself by making jokes or whatever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which runs into my point. Without knowing the particulars that are individual to the group and actor involved, you don't actually know whether there will be an issue or not. The best that these generalizations can do is to make you aware that it's something you should keep an eye on.

The actor might be willing to forgo their preferred playstyle for this game. Or create a character in line with the playstyle.

The group might be willing to accept the actor doing his thing, despite that (or possibly even because) it will create additional complications for them.

I've played in groups where the actor frequently ended up wreaking havoc with our perfectly laid plans, and it was some of the most fun I've ever had. (This was not an SP game per se, fwiw.) But we established that he was going to do that in advance and we were all on board. I've also played in non-SP games where the actor did the same, but players took serious issue with it because they hadn't agreed to it.

All undoubtedly true, and as I posted previously I am really rather flexible in terms of what I will play, depending on who's involved, etc.

HOWEVER, this has not stopped various styles of RPGs from evolving which offer considerably different play experiences, and which are consistently valued by significant segments of the RPG player community. Lots of people have preferences.