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

[pemerton]

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 don't think this formulation is precise enough to establish parameters for classic D&D-style "skilled play".

We need to also identify what counts as a permissible action declaration - I poke the door with my pole, relying on my knowledge of doors and poles to put maximum stress on the door's hinges while minimising the tension in my pole sounds to me like it could be (and a Dungeoneering skill check might determine if the PC can actually do what the player wants to do, and have a chance of forcing the door or triggering some other interesting feature the player suspects is there rather than just snapping the pole).

Whereas I use my knowledge of dungeons and their architecture to travel to the 9th level where I believe the prisoners to be chained up clearly is not permissible in any sort of "skilled play" game. But obviously may be a perfectly legitimate action declaration in many other RPGs, including some approaches to D&D (eg action declarations not too different from that were components of the skill challenge I used to resolve the PCs invasion of Torog's lair; and of various skill challenges I used to resolve overland travel).

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.

<snip>'

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.

I think that most RPGs that aren't 3E D&D or 3E-derived will under your example, and hence - if it really is exemplary - will satisfy your definition. So I think your definition might be overinclusive.

For instance, Burning Wheel requires any action declaration to include both a task (what is the PC doing?) and an intent (what to the PC, and the player, hope to achieve by way of that task?). An intent - we want to persuade the Queen - without a task ("I say such-and-such" or maybe "I say words to the effect of such-and-such") is an incomplete declaration.

There is a recurrent problem in RPG design of rules stipulating this sort of thing but not giving it teeth. BW uses two techniques to give the intent-and-task requirement teeth. One is that it has quite an intricate skill system, and until the task is described we can't tell what skill actually has to be tested. The other is that consequence narration for failure must focus primarily on the failure of intent, and so until the intent is known the GM can't let the dice be rolled because s/he can't form a conception of what failure would look like.

But I don't think any of the above supports a conclusion that BW is a skilled play game.

Other games where basically the same analysis could be given, and the same failure to support the conclusion would hold, include Prince Valiant and 4e D&D when a skill challenge is being resolved, Apocalypse World doesn't use intent in quite the same way but also needs task and at least some elements of intent to be specified before action resolution can take place.

 

[pemerton]

I mean D&D is not exactly well suited for Conan. I mean Conan goes on many adventures, but it is still pretty much the same Conan throughout. There's no zero to hero journey or escalation of stakes. He does not start out threatened by goblins and eventually treat dragons like routine pests. Rather when dealing with the supernatural it is almost always cunning and grit that wins the day rather than swording everything to death as we are want to do in D&D.

I agree with this.

But my point isn't about level-acquisition. It's about toughness. Conan is clearly very tough, and if we used D&D character build rules while bracketing D&D character advancement rules (for an example, look at the heroes in DDG) he would have many hit points. More, for instance, than the pirates he kills in Queen of the Black Coast.

And given this, I think its weird and counter-intuitive to use a mechanics for tracking toughness (like an Exhaustion mechanic) that just ignores that difference of hit points. To me it basically feels like cheating - exploiting a rules loophole that is not consistent with the general tenor of the fiction.

 

[Imaro]

We don't know how long he can hold his breath. Nor do we know exactly how quickly he can scale Mt Everest. But I'm very confident the answers are longer and shorter, respectively, than just about any other character in the Hyborean Age. Which is why I find the idea of level-independent measures of grit, determination and survival quite counterintuitive.

But he can still drown... unlike Beowulf who holds his breath for days (or is it weeks??). Your original assertion was...

I just don't what sort of genre I'm meant to be thinking myself into where a character is tough enough to fight a balrog in melee but drowning is a serious risk.

The thing is unlike Beowulf, drowning is still a serious risk for Conan.

 

[Fenris-77]

I agree with this.

But my point isn't about level-acquisition. It's about toughness. Conan is clearly very tough, and if we used D&D character build rules while bracketing D&D character advancement rules (for an example, look at the heroes in DDG) he would have many hit points. More, for instance, than the pirates he kills in Queen of the Black Coast.

And given this, I think its weird and counter-intuitive to use a mechanics for tracking toughness (like an Exhaustion mechanic) that just ignores that difference of hit points. To me it basically feels like cheating - exploiting a rules loophole that is not consistent with the general tenor of the fiction.

If the exhaustion system based (somehow) on CON ability checks it's less of a loophole even if it's not tired to HP. CON isn't strictly the exact same thing as HP anyway, related though they obviously are.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I think that where this goes wrong, and where I think @pemerton follows you, is that adjudication of some action, like @pemerton's ten foot pole example, is considered "outside the system" is some way. This utterly ignores that RPGs often do codify the mechanics of this situation, they just dump it into the fuzzy bucket of "GM decides." This is still within the system. Some systems, like 5e, leave this adjudication wide open for the GM, and this means that it's up to the individual GM to establish how they will do this and if there will be discernable principles in their adjudication that players can better leverage. In these systems, the skilled part of play is very much up to the individual table. I, and others like @Manbearcat, have spoken to just how much 5e design encourages use of GM Force, which I've noted obviates skilled play. And this is true -- 5e does lend itself to GM Force -- but it is not required, and individual GMs can establish play principles that work to enable skilled play by avoiding GM Force. The issue here isn't that 5e disallows skilled play, it's that 5e allows, and even encourages, use of Force, and that disallows skilled play.

There's nothing special or unique about OSR play that enables or disables skilled play except that system is expected to be rigorously applied. But, what this effectively does is limit the opportunity for Force. It doesn't eliminate it, though, as the 10' pole example @pemerton provided is still up to the GM to determine outcomes. Granted, there's an expectation of neutral adjudication, which is a principled approach and serves to limit Force, but even Gary offers advice that this is really up to the GM in a given situation, so Force can still be, and expected to be, applied.

I'm also concerned that @clearstream, and perhaps others, are reading "skilled" in skilled play as having something to do with PC skills. This is an incorrect reading -- it has nothing to do with PC skill ranks or ratings. This is because skilled play can apply to many systems, and many of these don't feature skills or even similar concepts at all.

Leveraging the system means leveraging all parts of the system, when they apply. There's nothing about this that prevents you from leveraging metagame aspects into play. And here I don't mean the D&D narrow version of "using player knowledge," although that certainly applies as well. What I mean here is the literal meaning -- the game above and about the game rules. CharOp is meta. Playing your GM's tastes is meta (and can be skilled in some contexts). To evaluate skilled play in a given game, you need to look at how well the players use all aspects of the game, including the meta, to "win," however that may be defined in that game.

 

[pemerton]

If the exhaustion system based (somehow) on CON ability checks it's less of a loophole even if it's not tired to HP. CON isn't strictly the exact same thing as HP anyway, related though they obviously are.

I would agree with that. And moreso if it's a CON save.

I'm not that familiar with the details of 5e's exhaustion mechanic. I was just responding to it being suggested, earlier in the thread, as a way of making sure that consequences are level-independent.

 

[FrogReaver]

But he can still drown... unlike Beowulf who holds his breath for days (or is it weeks??). Your original assertion was...


The thing is unlike Beowulf, drowning is still a serious risk for Conan.

Conan Drowns. End of story.

I’m kind of with permeton here. Conan wouldn’t be Conan if he drowned in the same conditions as other men. Instead Of drowning Conan is going swim to safety through overwhelming odds.

he can still technically drown. He just isn’t going to. at least not easily. There should be some plot armor in an rpg for that.

 

[pemerton]

I think that where this goes wrong, and where I think @pemerton follows you

I've got no dissent from your usage of system, which is broader than @clearstream (who uses it, I think, as a synonym for mechanics). My posts 136 and 141 try to set out what I see as distinctive of classic D&D/Gygaxian skilled play. Including the role of (what I call) extrapolation by the GM, and what I think the limits of that are.

The recent "fair trap" thread provided an interesting study in how those limits can be bumped into even in the confines of a dungeon adventure.

 

[pemerton]

Conan Drowns. End of story.

I’m kind of with permeton here. Conan wouldn’t be Conan if he drowned in the same conditions as other men. Instead Of drowning Conan is going swim to safety through overwhelming odds.

he can still technically drown. He just isn’t going to. at least not easily. There should be some plot armor in an rpg for that.

Right! And in D&D, the default plot armour for physical prowess is hit points!

 

[Fenris-77]

I would agree with that. And moreso if it's a CON save.

I'm not that familiar with the details of 5e's exhaustion mechanic. I was just responding to it being suggested, earlier in the thread, as a way of making sure that consequences are level-independent.

I said ability check because that's the term in Black Hack, which is a roll under system. SO yeah, CON save in the case of 5E. The exhaustion mechanic I use is the one from Into the Wyrd and Wild. That's for an OSR game though. I don't actually recall when I last looked at the 5E exhaustion rules. I don't remember them being great though...