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

[Thomas Shey]

That is fair if people don't like it, or even find it objectionable. But it is part of the kind of skill play you see in OSR circles (and I find I can enjoy it, just as I can enjoy games oriented around system mastery; it is a style of play that can be fun). People considering it not a virtue in RPG context, doesn't make it not a thing in the OSR, and doesn't make it not skilled to do.

I won't argue against either, but I have to say if "manipulating the GM is good" is considered okay by part of the OSR, that doesn't speak well of that part of the OSR from where I sit, and I suspect I am far, far from alone.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I won't argue against either, but I have to say if "manipulating the GM is good" is considered okay by part of the OSR, that doesn't speak well of that part of the OSR from where I sit, and I suspect I am far, far from alone.

I think that is a incredibly uncharitable characterization of what I described. It isn't manipulation. First off, I clearly stated, that I didn't think the premise was the case. My point was 'even if this 100% true' it is still a skill. But being able to read the GM, to interpret the NPC that the GM is conveying through dialogue, tone of voice, etc, and then being able to say the things that the GM believes would convince that character, that takes skill and it isn't manipulation. Saying that is manipulation seems quite a stretch to me. Look if you don't like the OSR, you don' like it. But skilled social interaction isn't some kind of nefarious manipulation (particularly when it is taking place in the context of a game).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that is a incredibly uncharitable characterization of what I described. It isn't manipulation. First off, I clearly stated, that I didn't think the premise was the case. My point was 'even if this 100% true' it is still a skill. But being able to read the GM, to interpret the NPC that the GM is conveying through dialogue, tone of voice, etc, and then being able to say the things that the GM believes would convince that character, that takes skill and it isn't manipulation. Saying that is manipulation seems quite a stretch to me. Look if you don't like the OSR, you don' like it. But skilled social interaction isn't some kind of nefarious manipulation (particularly when it is taking place in the context of a game).

If you can point out any way to distinguish "saying the things you know the GM will buy" from "saying the things that are appropriate to influence the NPC" I'll change my opinion. Otherwise, I pretty much stand by the opinion that pure narrative resolution adds up to gaming the GM. At the best, you can have the situation a poster listed earlier where the player and the GM are on the same page--but at that point, any skill involved was getting to that state in the first place, not in the exchange itself.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, this isn't how it works in OSR. In a typical OSR campaign you aren't going to roll the bluff, you are going to say what you have to say to the guard and the skill part of skilled play is persuading the NPC with your words, not with a roll. You may have a CHR reaction adjustment before words are exchanged, which could alter the guard's disposition to you. It isn't the decision to bluff that is the skilled part (though that is to a degree a part of it), it is the decision about what he says. That isn't say what you are describing isn't taking skill (it just isn't what people mean in the OSR when they talk about skilled play typically). The difference is are you pitting the players mind against the NPCs mind in the bluff exchange or are pitting the character's skill roll against the Sense Motive of the NPC. That is the key difference. I am not saying you aren't being skillful, you are still making tactical choices about what mechanics to use to get around the challenge. But you can see the distinction here is a real line. Again, this isn't true for every and all OSR. It does depend on what system is being used, and how that system is being deployed at the table. Tables do vary, but generally speaking I think stuff like Bluff has been contentious among many OSR players and GMs for this reason.

I don't have a ton of experience with OSR games but Stars without Numbers tends to get classified as an OSR game and I do have some experience with it. It has the following skill check advice.

Skill checks should only be called for challenges that fall outside the PC’s background and common experience. A PC with the background of a starship pilot should not be rolling skill checks to land a ship or navigate to an in-system destination. As a general rule of thumb, if failure at a particular task would make the PC seem notably incompetent at their role in life, then they shouldn’t have to roll a skill check for it. In addition, if failure or success at a check really doesn’t matter in the game, if it won’t produce some interesting result either way, then a check shouldn’t be made.

It also has the following skill (I would use it for bluffing the guard).

Talk: Convince other people of the facts you want them to believe. What they do with that conviction may not be completely predictable. Roll it to persuade, charm, or deceive others in conversation

If all this is true, it seems large swaths of many popular OSR games don't actually adhere to OSR skilled play. This also would be the case with 1e and 2e D&D - where bluffing the guard could easily result in a skill check. Are all these games full of non-OSR-skilled-play? If so, what does that say about your conception/definition of OSR skilled play? How can these games be the basis for OSR-skilled-play and have so much of the game not be about OSR skilled play?

I think the answer is that what caused the concept of OSR skilled play to connect with so many was because at some point one notable thing from RPG gameplay had been removed to a large degree from current games and people wanted to put a name to what was missing. OSR skilled play can then be viewed as a term that's about that singular missing aspect. That would mean OSR gaming is about bringing that aspect back into the gameplay but not necessarily having the gameplay be only about that aspect - as early D&D and Stars without Number all attest to.

Thanks, as this has helped my understanding of the term significantly.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you can point out any way to distinguish "saying the things you know the GM will buy" from "saying the things that are appropriate to influence the NPC" I'll change my opinion. Otherwise, I pretty much stand by the opinion that pure narrative resolution adds up to gaming the GM. At the best, you can have the situation a poster listed earlier where the player and the GM are on the same page--but at that point, any skill involved was getting to that state in the first place, not in the exchange itself.

Manipulation has a rather negative connotation. For example, by replying to you, am I trying to manipulate you into responding to me? Or influence you to do so? IMO, there's a fine line in what we tend to call manipulation and interaction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Most of the ones I've hit seem singularly allergic to any detail on character abilities outside of combat (and sometimes even there); they want a rough framework and to have the rest of it handled by description.

OSR play is based on early D&D play. Early D&D didn't really play that way. So I wouldn't say that's a necessary component of OSR gaming. Just one some games are trying to push the envelope on. Personally, I think pushing to far in that direction is probably going to be detrimental to OSR. The DM cannot have intimate knowledge of how every NPC will react to everything the players do as many NPC's just aren't that developed. So deciding on the fly without fictional basis or mechanical basis becomes the DM providing the illusion that his world is more detailed than it actually is, that this NPC is more detailed than he actually is. But as with all illusions, they are prone to breaking and when they do they tend to lead to very unsatisfying results.

IMO. For this reason, there's always going to be a place for rolling skill checks to determine certain NPC behavior.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't have a ton of experience with OSR games but Stars without Numbers tends to get classified as an OSR game and I do have some experience with it. It has the following skill check advice.



It also has the following skill (I would use it for bluffing the guard).



If all this is true, it seems large swaths of many popular OSR games don't actually adhere to OSR skilled play. This also would be the case with 1e and 2e D&D - where bluffing the guard could easily result in a skill check. Are all these games full of non-OSR-skilled-play? If so, what does that say about your conception/definition of OSR skilled play? How can these games be the basis for OSR-skilled-play and have so much of the game not be about OSR skilled play?

I think the answer is that what caused the concept of OSR skilled play to connect with so many was because at some point one notable thing from RPG gameplay had been removed to a large degree from current games and people wanted to put a name to what was missing. OSR skilled play can then be viewed as a term that's about that singular missing aspect. That would mean OSR gaming is about bringing that aspect back into the gameplay but not necessarily having the gameplay be only about that aspect - as early D&D and Stars without Number all attest to.

Thanks, as this has helped my understanding of the term significantly.

If you're just discovering that there's a rather wide range of things covered by the term "OSR", there absolutely is. Just considering how hardcore someone is on the "rulings not rules" business there's considerable division there.

 

[Umbran]

A story that you're currently writing can go anywhere you want. Literally.

For the moment, let us consider tactical play. The party walks into a room. There's an ogre sitting on a chest, from which spill gold coins and jewels. The ogre is playing dice with four orcs, sees the party enter, stands up, grabs his giant iron maul, and says to his companions, "Hey, guys, looks like some tasty-human meat just walked in. Let's eat!" The GM says, "Roll initiative."

There are nearly an infinite number of things Flexor The Mighty could do in this situation. He could sit down on the floor and twiddle his thumbs. He could start reciting a soliloquy from Hamlet in Elvish. Or, he could bring out his +3 Axe of Ogre slaying. All of these are valid actions within the rules. Only one of them is likely to be tactically sound play.

Taking out that axe and charging into melee is a valid play, and tactically sound. But it might be even better if Flexor waited two beats, so that his companion, Whizbang the Magnificent, could get an area of effect spell off on the enemy before Flexor made placing a fireball difficult by getting into melee with the ogre.

So, with the assumption of tactical play, there's an assumption that you're expecting to take on the tactical challenges. Given that, there's a great many choices that are technically valid, but nonsense in context, some that are decent choices, and some that may be awesome choices. You will never know what the absolute best choice would be. You only have relative measures between things you can think of in the moment, and your vague expectations of the future.

What you seem to be missing is that there's similar assumptions for story-oriented play!

If you are engaging in story-focused play there's an assumption that you're trying to make a coherent, interesting, and entertaining story out of the bits you have. Similar to the tactical scenario - of that vast infinite of story choices that are valid, whole swaths of them are nonsense that would turn your story into Calvinball: The Novella. Funny for about four seconds, but then it flounders into babbling. Some other choices will be decent, and some will turn out to be awesome.

There are no rules, not even the suggestion of rules

Oh, sure there are rules. Go to your local library. Section 801-809, as enumerated in the Dewey Decimal System includes literary critique and criticism. There's tons of stuff there about what makes for good and bad storytelling!

You have limited bits - a genre choice that lays down expectations of what's a valid approach to story. You have a number of characters, each with their own fictional positioning. The game rules lay out things you can and cannot do to manipulate the story.

Miss Marple, when she has all the suspects in the room and is about to announce whodunit, is not going to whip out a laser sword and announce, "Aliens did it! ATTACK!" even if the rules allow it, because that's a frelling stupid way to end an Agatha Christie mystery.

because that would be formulaic writing, and truly formulaic writing is almost always bad.

Well, there you go! There's a rule: "Don't be formulaic."

I could continue, but I think these are the constructive bits for the moment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Manipulation has a rather negative connotation. For example, by replying to you, am I trying to manipulate you into responding to me? Or influence you to do so? IMO, there's a fine line in what we tend to call manipulation and interaction.

It was more or less intended to. As I've said before, my perception of this approach has always been its as much about playing the GM as playing the game, and I consider that a process that very strongly favors people who are good at getting in the GM's good graces, and if I need to tell you why I consider that problematic, I suspect its not worth the trouble.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It also has the following skill (I would use it for bluffing the guard).



If all this is true, it seems large swaths of many popular OSR games don't actually adhere to OSR skilled play. This also would be the case with 1e and 2e D&D - where bluffing the guard could easily result in a skill check. Are all these games full of non-OSR-skilled-play? If so, what does that say about your conception/definition of OSR skilled play? How can these games be the basis for OSR-skilled-play and have so much of the game not be about OSR skilled play?

Like I said, it depends on the game. The use of social skills, especially in place of it being the weight of what the player says to the NPC, tends to be contentious in the OSR. Some people do use skills like that, many don't. Some use them in skillful ways to get around this issue.

In terms of 1E and 2E though, there isn't a bluff skill in those systems. You could have a CHR check for a reaction adjustment, and you may be able to find something in skills and options for it (which came late int he 90s and wasn't embraced by everyone). You may also find some optional NWP in one of the complete books. But the closest thing to a proper social skill I can think of in the 2E PHB (at least the 1989) one was Ettiquette, but that was basically a knowledge skill (you rolled and the GM told you what you new in terms of what might be expected in the social situation you were in). Maybe 1E has something, but I can't remember it if it did.

OSR skilled play has a lot of foundations: white box, variations of basic, AD&D, etc. And every OSR game is going to be a bit different. There is not reason you can't have an OSR game with Bluff in it. You certainly can. But when you look at general GM and play advice on skilled play, the norm in the OSR seems to be what I am talking about. But even if you think I am wrong on that front, it remains an important distinction. Even if it were say just a small portion of the OSR or the small portion of gamers overall, this is a type of skilled play you see talked about, and it puts the emphasis on the player pitting their mind against the setting, the player pitting their mind against the NPCs, with as much direct meaningful interaction with those things as possible. In all games you may need to resort to rolls, but the goal here is for the skill to be based on what the player is deciding to say, where they are deciding to look and examine, and how, etc. I would argue that type of skilled play is different from a type of skilled play where the emphasis is on skillful use of the mechanics.