D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lyxen]

Where on Earth did you get that "skilled play" means competitive play in RPGs?

And I find it significant, when I'm speaking specifically of D&D (which has a particular history of competitiveness and its effects on the game), that you take an example from a completely different RPG with completely different principles.

Your example of BitD play reminds me of 4e skill challenge play - leveraging the fiction (both situation, and character) to open up action declarations that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

Why do you need a formal skill challenge to open possibilities of actions declaration ? On the contrary, the basic principle of the Skill Challenge is that ou identify the skills that can apply, thereby RESTRICTING the actions to these, whereas, without that cumbersome structure, all that matters is the narrative/fiction ?

 

[pemerton]

Why do you need a formal skill challenge to open possibilities of actions declaration ?

I don't know. I didn't say that you did. I said that @Ovinomancer's example of BitD play reminds me of 4e skill challenge play - leveraging the fiction (both situation, and character) to open up action declarations that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

the basic principle of the Skill Challenge is that ou identify the skills that can apply, thereby RESTRICTING the actions to these, whereas, without that cumbersome structure, all that matters is the narrative/fiction ?

From the 4e DMG, p 75:

Thinking players are engaged players. In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn't expect to play a role. Try not to say no.​

From the 4e PHB, p 179:

A skill challenge is an encounter in which your skills, rather than your combat abilities, take center stage. . . . It's up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.​

One aspect of that thinking is to come up with ideas for changing or leveraging the fiction to open up action declarations that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

 

[Lyxen]

In general I'm not a fan of heavy "testing player skill". The bar is lower IMO for skilled play, which I think most people can develop to some degree and enhances the game.

And I'm even less a fan, including "skilled play", we have not "entry bar" into our games, all are welcome and the principle is to have fun. And, in particular, if someone chooses an action which is clearly "not skilled" or even goes against the chances of success of whatever the party is trying, it is welcome as long as it is fun (and not a player deliberately sabotaging the others, which is something that never happens at our tables).

One of our best players (in the sense of contributing to the fun at the table) often technically undermines his technical play by taking actions which are logical in the world but which may not be technically the best in terms of mechanics. It makes the game much more rich and varied, generates more diverse and visual situations, to the enjoyment of all.

So no, for me, "skilled play" does not necessarily enhance the game, and there is no requirement to develop it.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't know. I didn't say that you did. I said that @Ovinomancer's example of BitD play reminds me of 4e skill challenge play - leveraging the fiction (both situation, and character) to open up action declarations that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

From the 4e DMG, p 75:

Thinking players are engaged players. In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn't expect to play a role. Try not to say no.​

And then it's still the use of skills. You know what, this is actually railroading, forcing to think in terms of skills, because in the end the only thing that matters for success is the rolls made against those skills.

From the 4e PHB, p 179:

A skill challenge is an encounter in which your skills, rather than your combat abilities, take center stage. . . . It's up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.​

Yes, using the technical skills of the game.

One aspect of that thinking is to come up with ideas for changing or leveraging the fiction to open up action declarations that otherwise wouldn't be possible.

And my point is that you don't need skills and a skill challenge for that, you just need a situation described and your imagination. Thinking in terms of skills and results of the rolls is actually channeling your creativity along narrower paths, both for the players and the DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And I find it significant, when I'm speaking specifically of D&D (which has a particular history of competitiveness and its effects on the game), that you take an example from a completely different RPG with completely different principles.

Oh, how interesting! It's not usual for me to deploy an example of play from another game and be told that it's unfair because that game clearly does this kind of thing better than 5e because 5e is more susceptible to the bad thing being claimed. I mean, I think you're wrong -- 5e does this the same way -- but very interesting to defend your argument by just straight up saying D&D is worse off in this regard. It would be refreshing if not so badly wrong.

So, ahem, a 5e story of skilled play, from a recent session of the game I am playing in. We (the party) were exploring a duergar stronghold we discovered, and had fought through a few defenders already. We were exploring a room that had a clear chokepoint, where the room narrowed (like an hourglass) to funnel attackers. A lever was described on a wall past the narrowing next to a doorway. The clerics, a PC of another player, approached the narrowing first and went through. As he did, a duergar hiding under invisibility appeared next to the lever and pulled it down, triggering a trap we had not detected (or really looked for) of a series of spikes plunging up from the floor and down from the ceiling in the narrowing! The cleric was trapped and took damage due to a fail saving throw and was now restrained in the spikes. Meanwhile, the spikes effectively created a 5' deep portcullis barring passage through the narrowing. The duergar moved from next to the lever up to the cleric with the clear intent to attack the nearly helpless cleric. My PC's action was next (my PC is a warlock). Noting the situation, I cast mage hand and reversed the now unattended lever (it was within range, which I could verify prior to casting because we were using a battlemap with tokens). The trap was released and the advantage the duergar was removed.

In another instance later in the same session, a duergar had gone invisible and successfully hidden and evaded us. Wanting to mount immediate pursuit but recognizing that we were at a disadvantage (using your action to search while the quarry could dash meant the quarry could rapidly escape us while we were looking), I used my grey bag of tricks and pulled out an animal. Many of the results on the random table for the animal you could get have keen smell abilities, so it was a reasonable gamble that I could get an animal that would be very useful in tracking down the fleeing duergar. Indeed, I was lucky, and the resultant badger was very helpful in tracking down and capturing the duergar.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And I'm even less a fan, including "skilled play", we have not "entry bar" into our games, all are welcome and the principle is to have fun. And, in particular, if someone chooses an action which is clearly "not skilled" or even goes against the chances of success of whatever the party is trying, it is welcome as long as it is fun (and not a player deliberately sabotaging the others, which is something that never happens at our tables).

One of our best players (in the sense of contributing to the fun at the table) often technically undermines his technical play by taking actions which are logical in the world but which may not be technically the best in terms of mechanics. It makes the game much more rich and varied, generates more diverse and visual situations, to the enjoyment of all.

So no, for me, "skilled play" does not necessarily enhance the game, and there is no requirement to develop it.

Ah. Your argument is that if the player were to engage in skilled play and recognize that the game thwarts normal logic with it's mechanics and choose to engage the mechanics instead, this would make your games less fun because you find having logical outcomes be thwarted by game mechanics to be the more enjoyable outcome.

Sure, more power to you. If I enjoyed that, I'd find skilled play to be less fun as well. I am, however, glad we've moved past the claim that skilled play is all about being competitive.

 

[Campbell]

So the principle is to have fun, but some things that are fun for some players are not included? Any way we can unpack this to get a more detailed set of principles/standards/whatever?

 

[prabe]

So the principle is to have fun, but some things that are fun for some players are not included? Any way we can unpack this to get a more detailed set of principles/standards/whatever?

It could be "my fun is more important than yours," (ew) or it could be "I won't let you optimize the fun out of the game," (maybe kinda better, I guess) or it could be ... something else, I suppose.

 

[Campbell]

It could be "my fun is more important than yours," (ew) or it could be "I won't let you optimize the fun out of the game," (maybe kinda better, I guess) or it could be ... something else, I suppose.

Something more specific than "fun" is obviously meant. I would like the conversation to include those specifics. In part because a lot of the things I find to be fun seem to not be on the table here.

 

[prabe]

Something more specific than "fun" is obviously meant. I would like the conversation to include those specifics. In part because a lot of the things I find to be fun seem to not be on the table here.

Yeah. I don't think we're disagreeing here.