D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[Fanaelialae]

That's interesting. I would have given the example from the players perspective as that's the detail level we need to actually determine skilled play IMO. There's no right or wrong there - but that seems to be where a good chunk of miscommunication is occurring.


IMO, that wasn't clear either. It's also jargon that I think complicates the discussion. And maybe jargon is too forgiving of a term because no one can actually define what skilled play actually means in relation to OSR. Instead for every person we get a new vague notion of what counts for it and what doesn't.

IMO the crux of understanding skilled play in OSR terms is understanding how early D&D play worked and then understanding the techniques players could use to more efficiently navigate the obstacles. But all that ultimately entails is applying the regular term 'skilled play' to a D&D or OSR game.

Yeah, I think there are plenty of different ways to play the game with skill that have nothing to do with the OSR concept of skilled play. Certainly, mechanical mastery is one of those, as are many other things that SP excludes from its definition.

What I've been discussing in this thread however has been exclusively the OSR concept of skilled play. I never intended to suggest that suboptimal play is a badge of skill, lol.

 

[pemerton]

Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and Gray mouser all can fight off and kill eldritch creatures and yet drowning is a serious risk to them...

In Conan's case this isn't true. He survived being crucified under a desert sun!

EDIT: Also, I don't think Conan ever fought a balrog. The demon he fights in Phoenix on the Sword seems maybe more like a Type III or IV demon - which he defeated by having been granted a magical sword of demon-slaying.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, I think there are plenty of different ways to play the game with skill that have nothing to do with the OSR concept of skilled play. Certainly, mechanical mastery is one of those, as are many other things that SP excludes from its definition.

What I'm trying to say is that games that don't have OSR mechanics are incompatible with OSR skilled play - because those mechanics are what opens the space for SP to actually be skilled play.

What I've been discussing in this thread however has been exclusively the OSR concept of skilled play. I never intended to suggest that suboptimal play is a badge of skill, lol.

What I'm trying to say is that at some point we've got to step back and realize that the OSR concept of skilled play only makes sense in relation to an OSR game. That talking about SP outside of those games as some kind of playstyle that can exist on it's own apart from an OSR game system isn't actually true.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What I'm trying to say is that games that don't have OSR mechanics are incompatible with OSR skilled play - because those mechanics are what opens the space for SP to actually be skilled play.


What I'm trying to say is that at some point we've got to step back and realize that the OSR concept of skilled play only makes sense in relation to an OSR game. That talking about SP outside of those games as some kind of playstyle that can exist on it's own apart from an OSR game system isn't actually true.

I disagree. Some games may encourage SP more than others, but you can certainly have SP in non-OSR games.

Heck, 5e isn't an OSR game and it supports SP perfectly fine IMO. You might want to throw out the encounter guidelines to give your game more of an OSR vibe, but it's really how the players engage with the game that determines whether or not they're playing in an SP style.

If they're just rolling checks and asking for the result, then sure, that's not SP.

On the other hand, if they narrate what their character is doing and try to avoid rolling, then that could very well be SP. 5e even supports this in that it tells the DM to only ask for a roll if success is in question. If there's an envelope stuck to the bottom of a drawer, and I say that I pull out the drawer and flip it over, there's not really any doubt as to whether I succeed in finding the envelope, and therefore a check isn't necessary. I'd say that's SP in 5e.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. Some games may encourage SP more than others, but you can certainly have SP in non-OSR games.

Heck, 5e isn't an OSR game and it supports SP perfectly fine IMO. You might want to throw out the encounter guidelines to give your game more of an OSR vibe, but it's really how the players engage with the game that determines whether or not they're playing in an SP style.

If they're just rolling checks and asking for the result, then sure, that's not SP.

On the other hand, if they narrate what their character is doing and try to avoid rolling, then that could very well be SP. 5e even supports this in that it tells the DM to only ask for a roll if success is in question. If there's an envelope stuck to the bottom of a drawer, and I say that I pull out the drawer and flip it over, there's not really any doubt as to whether I succeed in finding the envelope, and therefore a check isn't necessary. I'd say that's SP in 5e.

5e is really more of a play however you like. So yes, if your group plays 5e with OSR mechanics it plays like an OSR game and you can have skilled play. So I think that is really a distinction without a difference. If 5e is being played without those OSR style mechanics adopted then you really can't have OSR SP in it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

5e is really more of a play however you like. So yes, if your group plays 5e with OSR mechanics it plays like an OSR game and you can have skilled play. So I think that is really a distinction without a difference. If 5e is being played without those OSR style mechanics adopted then you really can't have OSR SP in it.

5e isn't an OSR game.

What OSR mechanics? Tossing out the encounter guidelines? I wouldn't consider disregarding a guideline to be an implemention of mechanics.

Heck, if you keep the encounter guidelines, my example of searching the bottom of the drawer still works. They just have less motivation to engage in SP in combat encounters if they know they'll be balanced. But even then, they can.

If all you're saying is that a game that only supports a narrow play style (like Dungeon World) won't really work for SP, then I agree. However, you don't need an OSR game to engage in SP. You just need a game that gives you a reasonable amount of flex when it comes to choice of play style.

 

[Nefermandias]

5e might not be a full fledged OSR game, but if you read the text box on page 178 of the Player's Handbook, you will notice that the designers at least tried to hint at SP as a mode of play:

"In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."

I would say that 5e is the most SP oriented out of the three WoTC editions.
In 3e, it was expected of players to solve every problem by means of skill checks (look at the number of skills and the rank system). In 4e, we had Skill Challenges.
The way skills work on 5e is purposely loose so they can take a back seat and work just as an emergency tool for the DM to adjucate actions when he's uncertain of the outcome.

 

[Fanaelialae]

5e might not be a full fledged OSR game, but if you read the text box on page 178 of the Player's Handbook, you will notice that the designers at least tried to hint at SP as a mode of play:

"In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."

I would say that 5e is the most SP oriented out of the three WoTC editions.
In 3e, it was expected of players to solve every problem by means of skill checks (look at the number of skills and the rank system). In 4e, we had Skill Challenges.
The way skills work on 5e is purposely loose so they can take a back seat and work just as an emergency tool for the DM to adjucate actions when he's uncertain of the outcome.

I agree that not all games support SP to the same degree. Some, like Dungeon World, don't really allow for it at all. In others, like 3e or 4e, it could work but you'd need to monkey around a bit with the assumptions. That said, it doesn't need to be an OSR-style game to support SP. 5e can certainly support SP, and I've never heard anyone claim that 5e is an OSR game (I'm reasonably certain that the OSR would reject such a notion outright). 5e is simply a big tent game.

 

[clearstream]

5e might not be a full fledged OSR game, but if you read the text box on page 178 of the Player's Handbook, you will notice that the designers at least tried to hint at SP as a mode of play:

"In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."

I would say that 5e is the most SP oriented out of the three WoTC editions.
In 3e, it was expected of players to solve every problem by means of skill checks (look at the number of skills and the rank system). In 4e, we had Skill Challenges.
The way skills work on 5e is purposely loose so they can take a back seat and work just as an emergency tool for the DM to adjucate actions when he's uncertain of the outcome.

The view I'm drawn to is

• partly to acknowledge @FrogReaver's point that there was something labelled "skilled play" that makes most sense within its original context;
• partly to acknowledge that for many posters a modern take on "skilled play" results in thinking about skilled play (no quotes), and of course what that is varies by context;
• and partly to suggest based on my own reading and intuitions, that a take on "skilled play" (modern and original) that may span contexts is to use it as a label for play that while emphasising skill inclusively, is also interested in skill outside the game system.

So what I mean by that last - skill outside the game system - is that a group who aims to perform "skilled play" (quotes) is going to desire challenges that can't be solved (or can't be solved most efficiently and powerfully) using only the game mechanics.

A simple and incomplete example might be that they would look for players to tell them something about how they approach "persuading the Queen by rolling against Charisma (Persuasion)" that makes them believe she will set aside her trait of "will not listen to persuasive words." The group can't just make the check, they must describe an approach to overcoming an obstacle that has no representation in the game mechanics.

Were this how we saw "skilled play" then for me it would be a useful label, disambiguated from simply skilled play (no quotes). It would refer to a kind of play that I enjoy. More importantly, I can derive consequences from it, such as

• rules that frame process, i.e. that bracket "skilled play" and can translate it into ongoing consequences (time taken, resources used) might be valuable
• the 5e skills system is perfectly capable of responding to "skilled play" moves, such as in my example allowing the check at all, allowing help with the check, apply advantage or disadvantage, raising or lowering the stakes (promises made, resources consumed, leverage spent), deciding how much time it takes, and so on
• referring to my OP, for me it makes a neat exit from tension with CRPG because for sure CRPG cannot resolve things outside of the programmed game mechanics... albeit those are becoming increasingly extensive and are opening up (and will continue to open up) space for ingenuity and some classes of skill

If modern "skilled play" (quotes) is simply skilled play (no quotes) then I do not feel a need for the label: I would find it more straightforward to simply say our context and discuss what we mean by skill.

 

[Imaro]

In Conan's case this isn't true. He survived being crucified under a desert sun!

EDIT: Also, I don't think Conan ever fought a balrog. The demon he fights in Phoenix on the Sword seems maybe more like a Type III or IV demon - which he defeated by having been granted a magical sword of demon-slaying.

I think you're being nitpicky here... Conan has never swam for hours without breathing... he can drown. He has also fought demons and monsters that the average man would have no chance against. And yes he used a magic sword... isn't this the same as in D&D?