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

[pemerton]

I hate to disappoint you, but lacrosse isn't a hybrid of anything. It is literally a Native American game which was adopted by European settlers. It is pretty popular in New England (at least in Vermont, I think also other nearby states) where there are regular high school and even college-level leagues. Field Hockey is similar to lacrosse, but derived from an entirely different source, which just goes to show you that the 'phylogeny' of various sports is not easy to discern. I suspect that several of these 'field games' have heavily borrowed rules concepts. I mean, basketball, football, hockey (all types), lacrosse, etc. all share similar concepts of goals, goal keepers, offensive 'center' and 'wing' players, out of bounds handling rules, etc. Games like rugby and American football have diverged heavily from that model, but if you go back far enough they look more and more similar too.

Thanks for the correction re lacrosse. To what extent does its systematisation reflect parallel developments in other field sports in the nineteenth century?

On @EzekielRaiden's point more generally, I think he is comparing RPGs at a state similar to the early to mid nineteenth century re modern field sports, with those sports in their present ultra-codified and technicalised state. If you go back to the period when various forms of football were still emerging, with different rules about permissible kicks, handling, passing, etc, and different approaches to goal design and scoring rules, you might see more of the fluidity that still tends to be characteristic of RPGing. I think you see some of that same fluidity in games that haven't been technicalised (ie mostly ones played by children where there is no commercial interest in promoting technicalisation).

 

[prabe]

Something like that, yes. (See also my post just upthread.)

Now if progress in a RPG turned upon producing technically proficient verse, or painting, we'd be in a different - non-engineering - domain of skilled play! There are boardgames that are a bit more like this, too (eg Codenames), where I wouldn't expect my spreadsheet optimising friend to do as well as he typically does.

But I don't see the non-technical recognition or following of aesthetic/thematic imperatives as "skill" in the gameplaying sense.

I'm not trying to insert myself into an argument (much) but I will say this: I am in a TRPGing group where the majority of people have advanced degrees in science/engineering, and I am in at least one TRPGing group where the majority of people don't, and while the play in the groups is IMO roughly equally-skilled, there are qualitative differences in what "skilled" means between them. It's not so much that the science/engineering people don't or can't understand story-stuff, or that the English majors don't or can't do math; it's more a matter of emphases and strengths, I think.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

?!?

Are you making an argument that skill is gauged by its resemblance to science over art?

Theyre making an argument, if im feeling them correctly, and if I'm right I agree with them, that skilled play isn't related to the quality of storytelling.

We dont discuss one's skill with baseball based off how good a sport one is, or how gracefully they run the bases.

Instead its how well they achieve victory in the actual object of the game, which in this case isn't so much 'storytelling' as it is 'dragon killing' and 'treasure hunting.'

This has a lot to do with where different cultures within TTRPGs understand story to come from. For some its playacted and shaped directly, for others its more about trying to complete an inuniverse objective and having it emerge from that.

Like, when I play Sea of Thieves (the video game) i am playing the role of a pirate trying to get treasure, but i dont invent a character with specific flaws and then create additional problems for my buddies by prioritizing them over our shared object. The stories being told are more about other crews trying to take our treasure (or us trying to take theirs) and succeeding or failing.

The idea of 'i cant step away from ranger tactically because emotionally my character would x y or z, or it would say a b and c' is in essence, a distraction to the object of the game in the SP context because its a consideration that restricts the player from making metagame value judgements, rather than embracing them. Character personality can create all kinds of obligations

I know DW probably codifies that, which is what makes it such a weird addition, it (if i'm right about it codifying it) basically short circuits it by adding mechanics that center on these bonds and such that they figure into the metagame of "beating the dragon or whatever." Whereas a game that doesnt do that, is more like a strategy game in your approach to your characters actions.

 

[darkbard]

Theyre making an argument, if im feeling them correctly, and if I'm right I agree with them, that skilled play isn't related to the quality of storytelling.

Well, that's good, because I'm not discussing quality of storytelling either! I'm talking about deftly (or not) navigating the decision points involved between advocating for your character on the one hand and holding on loosely enough to not try to impose story but let it develop through the engagement of the fiction by all participants and mechanical outputs on the other. To know when to leverage mechanical component x to influence story in a certain way and when not. (This in addition to the more classically identifiable SP elements like resource management, character build, and so on.) There may be more art to this than science, but to say that the term skill can be applied in gaming context only to the latter.... One can be a skillful artist or an unskilled engineer or vice versa.

 

[Cadence]

We dont discuss one's skill with baseball based off how good a sport one is, or how gracefully they run the bases.

In base running and batting, it feels like the descriptions often follow the statistics (classical or modern) quite well. And while not "graceful" one player in particular might have earned their nickname and some of their early fame for their hustle on the base path (and would be happily in the hall if they hadn't been running a side hustle of a sort). In football, it also seems like the nicknames and poetic descriptions often correlate well with the performance - Doomsday Defense, Steel Curtain, Galloping Ghost, etc...

In fielding at shortstop though, where the statistics until relatively recently were garbage, it feels like some of the gold gloves (Derek Jeter) might have been awarded based on appearance in the field ... but maybe the adjectives were used for those players based on a poor statistic (fielding percentage). You still get some arguments about players (like Vizquel) where the fielding percentage is off the charts (and the appearance was magical) but some modern methods of evaluating have him pretty darn high but others have him not nearly that good.

 

[pemerton]

I'm talking about deftly (or not) navigating the decision points involved between advocating for your character on the one hand and holding on loosely enough to not try to impose story but let it develop through the engagement of the fiction by all participants and mechanical outputs on the other. To know when to leverage mechanical component x to influence story in a certain way and when not. (This in addition to the more classically identifiable SP elements like resource management, character build, and so on.) There may be more art to this than science, but to say that the term skill can be applied in gaming context only to the latter.... One can be a skillful artist or an unskilled engineer or vice versa.

On this measure I don't see that there is much RPGing (other than maybe pretty railroad-y play) that doesn't permit of skilled play.

But then "skilled play" uses loses its utility as a label for a particular agenda and approach. And I at least want a label for that agenda and approach so I can keep clear of it! ("Gamism" won't do the job because (i) on ENworld that word is normally used quite differently from its Forge usage and (ii) gamism in the Forge sense includes gambling as well skilled play.)

EDIT: My typing is suffering with older age.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, that's good, because I'm not discussing quality of storytelling either! I'm talking about deftly (or not) navigating the decision points involved between advocating for your character on the one hand and holding on loosely enough to not try to impose story but let it develop through the engagement of the fiction by all participants and mechanical outputs on the other. To know when to leverage mechanical component x to influence story in a certain way and when not. (This in addition to the more classically identifiable SP elements like resource management, character build, and so on.) There may be more art to this than science, but to say that the term skill can be applied in gaming context only to the latter.... One can be a skillful artist or an unskilled engineer or vice versa.

My comments were made with full understanding of what you meant.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is a quick thought/offering:

Gygaxian Skilled Play rejects the idea of a necessary Thematic rider (a genre/archetype/premise-coherent credibility test for the introduction of a move/content into the shared imagined space) constraining the Tactical and/or Strategic move-space for PCs and Team PC that creates the paradigm of Skilled Play.

Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark requires a Thematic rider as a necessary precondition to even engage with the Tactical and/or Strategic move-space that creates the paradigm of Skilled Play.

---

Put another way, in only one of these offerings will you see (the actual or the equivalent of) Spec Ops SOPs with levitating PCs with 10 ft poles and bags of marbles (et al) and dungeon denizen drowning plans while everyone else actively doesn't do stuff to maximize effect and minimize exposure.

 

[clearstream]

?!?

Are you making an argument that skill is gauged by its resemblance to science over art?

I'd note we're discussing "skilled play" and not skill.

 

[clearstream]

Something like that, yes. (See also my post just upthread.)

Now if progress in a RPG turned upon producing technically proficient verse, or painting, we'd be in a different - non-engineering - domain of skilled play! There are boardgames that are a bit more like this, too (eg Codenames), where I wouldn't expect my spreadsheet optimising friend to do as well as he typically does.

But I don't see the non-technical recognition or following of aesthetic/thematic imperatives as "skill" in the gameplaying sense.

I feel like this is an example of the label confounding us. One could skillfully follow thematic imperatives in RPG. That wouldn't automatically count as "skilled play". These are not the "skills" you are looking for.