D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lyxen]

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.

Please learn to read, this is not what I said, and in particular did not use the word "unfair". On the other hand, this unfair twisting of my words hardly puts me in a mood for a fair discussion.

And yes, D&D in general is more subject than most RPGs to being played competitively, since it was the stated intent of 3e and 4e. although it is clearly no longer the case in 5e). In particular, people playing CaS and insisting on RAW have a tendency to require skilled play, including using it as a kind of entry barrier into their game, and looking down on "unskilled" people (because it hampers the efficiency of their party). I've seen that many times, in particular on other forums, but also experienced it directly at some tables.

Ane even without that, there is a second negative phenomenon, which again we've experienced a lot at our tables until we took steps about it, which is the "uncertainty paralysis" of a player who is not sure that he is picking the "most skilled" option when taking his decision, and who is afraid that he will either be made fun of, or even scolded for not taking the optimal action. Not only does it make these people stressed about playing the game, but it also creates a bad ambiance when allowed to fester. And it also leads to many discussions and suggestions when these people turn come, leading to very long turns, with a lot of arguing.

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.

It's actually easy, see above.

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.

Great, and I once worked in coordination with a warrior to recover an enemy's weapon knocked from his grasp by a disarm attack using a mage hand. Does this mean that I do Skilled Play too ? That I'm worthy of being recognised as "skilled" ? Do I get a pass from you all "skilled players" ? In addition to the competitive aspect above, the arrogance of considering one "skilled" compared to probably all the "unskilled" people out there bugs me.

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.

And I once used a Detect Gold spell to track a dwarf, assuming that he had gold on him because dwarves are greedy.

What is exactly the point of these examples ? We all have tons of anecdotes like this and I'm not saying that they are not nice to have, but I fail to see exactly where the particular "skill" is. Yes, it makes you feel good, and it probably makes you feel even better to brag about this here in great detail. And it probably made you have fun during the game. But beyond that ?

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.

I said nothing of the kind. Once more, read what I wrote rather than writing your own version.

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.

No, we have not, see above. In my experience, it's mostly about being competitive, and in the end a lot about bragging (and possibly discriminating and looking down on "less skilled" people). Neither of which is what I'm specifically looking for in the game as, again, the objective is just to have fun with friends.

 

[Lyxen]

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?

Nope, the standards are those of the table and what makes it fun for them in general, with obviously the "don't be a wangrod" principle at the core. If it's your fun to have "skilled play" (yes, you are certainly extremely skilled), then good for you, but the arrogance of saying "it's important to be skilled, let's train these newbies to be more skilled because it's going to be more fun" is not something that I like.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I would describe "skilled play" as a matter of utilizing a game's system to achieve a desired outcome. For better and for worse, D&D's primary system is combat mechanics and character builds, and utilizing those mechanics typically clashes with the roleplaying elements of the game (at least from the perspective of many players). In that sense, there are two opposed desired outcomes: maximizing character power (desired outcome: winning combat, survival) and fiction-first theatrical roleplaying (desired outcome: embodying a character within the game and acting according to his persona).

This likewise assumes the characters within D&D are unaware of the actual mechanics. Does the sorcerer know he can swear himself to a patron entity and gain the benefits of being a warlock that empower his spellcasting abilities? Does the fighter know his Strength maxes out at 20, that his Intelligence is mostly perfunctory, and that he ought to spend his ASI on a feat?

There is assumption that D&D characters are blind to the mechanics of the game in the same way that humans are blind to the "mechanics" of real life. We know that guns are dangerous, but we don't know if they do 1d8 + Dexterity damage. We know that bears are big and strong, but we don't know if they have 4 HD and a 19 Strength. Yet expecting the players to play a game--one where there is a clear win and lose state--with the knowledge of the mechanics while demanding they deliberately ignore those mechanics seems unfair.

 

[Lyxen]

I would describe "skilled play" as a matter of utilizing a game's system to achieve a desired outcome. For better and for worse, D&D's primary system is combat mechanics and character builds

Nope. Where is that written ? On the contrary, the rules themselves say: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

Because combat is more complex than the other activities, it's natural, as in a lot of TTRPG, that it takes more of the space within the books. But actually, in 5e, the combat chapter is not that long.

and utilizing those mechanics typically clashes with the roleplaying elements of the game (at least from the perspective of many players). In that sense, there are two opposed desired outcomes: maximizing character power (desired outcome: winning combat, survival) and fiction-first theatrical roleplaying (desired outcome: embodying a character within the game and acting according to his persona).

They are not really opposite (Stormwind Fallacy), but it's certain that, in the end, the game will not be the same if it's 75% combat / 25% non-combat or the reverse, it's s question of focus for each individual table.

This likewise assumes the characters within D&D are unaware of the actual mechanics. Does the sorcerer know he can swear himself to a patron entity and gain the benefits of being a warlock that empower his spellcasting abilities? Does the fighter know his Strength maxes out at 20, that his Intelligence is mostly perfunctory, and that he ought to spend his ASI on a feat?

Why would he ? Do you really know, in our world, what your actual stats are as a person ? I certainly don't.

There is assumption that D&D characters are blind to the mechanics of the game in the same way that humans are blind to the "mechanics" of real life. We know that guns are dangerous, but we don't know if they do 1d8 + Dexterity damage. We know that bears are big and strong, but we don't know if they have 4 HD and a 19 Strength. Yet expecting the players to play a game--one where there is a clear win and lose state--with the knowledge of the mechanics yet deliberately ignore those mechanics seems unfair.

Some of the mechanics are seen by the characters. Just like in Jack Vance, a Wizard knows exactly how many spells he can memorise. He knows the range of his spells, their area of effect, etc. The same with a Battlemaster, he knows what his expertise can get him as advantages in combat. So they are certainly not ignored. And he knows which tricks he has learned and which he still has to learn from training or other masters.

So it's not unfair at all, it's actually not that bad when you think about it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Fun is very subjective, so what you find fun, I might not find fun, and vice versa. That's why I say in most of these threads that it's very important to find players(if you are a DM) or a DM(if you are a player) that has a similar playstyle to you. That way you're all on the same page when it comes to fun. If you end up in a group that differs from you, usually someone ends up unhappy with something.

 

[Lyxen]

Fun is very subjective, so what you find fun, I might not find fun, and vice versa. That's why I say in most of these threads that it's very important to find players(if you are a DM) or a DM(if you are a player) that has a similar playstyle to you. That way you're all on the same page when it comes to fun. If you end up in a group that differs from you, usually someone ends up unhappy with something.

Exactly, this is why I'm speaking about collective fun at the table, which can only happen if the means to have fun are at least somewhat aligned. Otherwise, if someone has fun, it probably means that others don't, and this is where it's much more complicated to run the game. A lot of the difficulties encountered by DMs and Players on forums are due to this, mismatched expectations. Session zero is a great help, as well as respecting the maxim "no D&D is better than bad D&D", although it requires a bit of thought. If a table plays in a manner that is not fun for you, then it's bad D&D for you, which does not mean that it's badwrongfun or anything, just not the type of game that you enjoy. The best thing for everyone is to realise this and to take the appropriate decisions. Sometimes, leaving the table is the best decision...

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

@Lyxen, I disagree with your assessment on skillful D&D play, regardless of what the D&D books have to say on the matter. As anyone who has played D&D knows, the game described by the rules and the game that is played at the table are two entirely different beasts.

D&D has a win/lose state: winning is a victory in battle (and leveling up), losing is death (and creating a new character). There can be other elements to this, but the game's predominant mechanics zero in on this. Hit points, attacks/damage, saving throws, XP for killing monsters, individual class mechanics all prioritize combat and surviving combat. You'd be hard-pressed to describe skillful play as not achieving win conditions in a game; it seems self-evident that skillful play and winning go hand-in-hand, and I think divorcing the two is disingenuous.

Roleplaying is a skill, but there is nothing within the rules of D&D that requires roleplaying. The game doesn't require roleplaying in the way it requires tracking spell slots and hit points. The game requires building a competent character who can defeat his enemies in combat to gain experience to level up to get better combat abilities to defeat his enemies in combat to level up. That's the core of the game. That people use D&D for other avenues of gameplay is immaterial to the game itself.

I think that's the trouble herein: the game of D&D and the play of D&D. It so happens that playing D&D involves us talking with funny accents to NPCs who respond with funny accents, yet that is introduced entirely outside of the game of D&D. We might as well have our chess pieces talk to each other. "Off with 'is 'ead!" shouts the white queen as she moves to take the black knight, and then the black bishop replies, "Your majesty has run afoul of the gods!" as he removes her from the game board.

The play of D&D is far more enjoyable than the game of D&D for many players (myself included) because of those elements we bring to the table, and I would hardly suggest excising them from the game, yet they're peripheral to the game's mechanics.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

Nope, the standards are those of the table and what makes it fun for them in general, with obviously the "don't be a wangrod" principle at the core. If it's your fun to have "skilled play" (yes, you are certainly extremely skilled), then good for you, but the arrogance of saying "it's important to be skilled, let's train these newbies to be more skilled because it's going to be more fun" is not something that I like.

I'm having trouble figuring out if you are putting forth a position for discussion other than "my preferences are X"?

The "entry bar" wasn't refering to inviting people to the game, but rather whether someone could develop "skilled play" if they wanted to. From my experience, there are more people that can figure out how to use the game rules somewhat effectively or even use fictional positioning to open up options (my definition of skilled play) than people that can solve complex word puzzles quickly or act charismatic (testing player skill).

The fact that your table doesn't value skilled play and that it doesn't contribute to fun at your table is fine. And? Is anyone really putting down tables that don't highly value skilled play? There seems to be an argument that "skilled play" should not be tightly linked to "competative play" in the negative sense you seem to be using it in, which I agree. There is analagous position of "skilled play makes my games more fun". Which again, fine but not much to discuss there either.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Please learn to read, this is not what I said, and in particular did not use the word "unfair". On the other hand, this unfair twisting of my words hardly puts me in a mood for a fair discussion.

Sure. You were upset because you felt the comparison wasn't even due to inherent issues with 5e over the other game. My bad for characterizing that as "unfair" in shorthand.

And yes, D&D in general is more subject than most RPGs to being played competitively, since it was the stated intent of 3e and 4e. although it is clearly no longer the case in 5e). In particular, people playing CaS and insisting on RAW have a tendency to require skilled play, including using it as a kind of entry barrier into their game, and looking down on "unskilled" people (because it hampers the efficiency of their party). I've seen that many times, in particular on other forums, but also experienced it directly at some tables.

Wait, what? 3e and 4e have a stated intent to be played competitively? Oh, I will need a cite for that, as I played both editions and don't recall any such statement of intent that they be competitively played. If so, I'd like to know, because that would mean everyone I know played wrong. Surely you aren't suggesting I played wrong?

Oh, and Combat as War is far more reliant on skilled play to function over Combat as Sport. In fact, the latter intentionally reduces the amount of skilled play necessary by lowering stakes.

Ane even without that, there is a second negative phenomenon, which again we've experienced a lot at our tables until we took steps about it, which is the "uncertainty paralysis" of a player who is not sure that he is picking the "most skilled" option when taking his decision, and who is afraid that he will either be made fun of, or even scolded for not taking the optimal action. Not only does it make these people stressed about playing the game, but it also creates a bad ambiance when allowed to fester. And it also leads to many discussions and suggestions when these people turn come, leading to very long turns, with a lot of arguing.

Decision paralysis is not a problem with skilled play. That's just a thing that happens. You don't get rid of it by disclaiming skilled play. If a player already has a want to pick the optimum option, that doesn't go away because you banish the words skilled play -- it's a playerside issue. The second half of this is that enjoying skilled play is not synonymous with being a dick and mocking people for not being optimal. This is, again, a people problem and, if that's your issue with skilled play, find better people to play with. This is really a version of the heckler's veto, which is just saying "hey, other people might be jerks, so you have to do everything to avoid the thing they might be jerks about!" I don't agree this is a thing that means skilled play is bad just like I don't think that the possibility of someone heckling a comedian means the comedy is something that should be avoided.

It's actually easy, see above.

To be wrong? I mean, okay, that's also an interesting take you have there.

Great, and I once worked in coordination with a warrior to recover an enemy's weapon knocked from his grasp by a disarm attack using a mage hand. Does this mean that I do Skilled Play too ? That I'm worthy of being recognised as "skilled" ? Do I get a pass from you all "skilled players" ? In addition to the competitive aspect above, the arrogance of considering one "skilled" compared to probably all the "unskilled" people out there bugs me.

Yep, you seem to have the gist of it. As for recognition, I mean, if that's important to you then I'd check with your fellow players and ask them if they could acknowledge that for you. There's not a formal committee or anything. There is one for unskilled players, though, and a process where you can submit their follies to committee and they'll issue official permits for mockery. Just write off to DoesNotExist@WeirdIdea.com and you can request that process.

Wait, do you think skilled play is about getting kudos? I didn't get any from my play (well, the cleric's player cheered), nor was I seeking any.

And I once used a Detect Gold spell to track a dwarf, assuming that he had gold on him because dwarves are greedy.

Well, ugly stereotype, but if that's how you roll that's groovy play, man.

What is exactly the point of these examples ? We all have tons of anecdotes like this and I'm not saying that they are not nice to have, but I fail to see exactly where the particular "skill" is. Yes, it makes you feel good, and it probably makes you feel even better to brag about this here in great detail. And it probably made you have fun during the game. But beyond that ?

No, the point is to refute your statement that skilled play is only about competition. Keep track of your own arguments, man. I recognize that can be hard when you move around the goalposts so much, and have strange ideas about how other people that aren't you play (and that they play in universally bad ways to you), and when you have so many weird ideas about the editions. On second thought, I kinda see the issue and why you'd be confused about the point of the examples.

I said nothing of the kind. Once more, read what I wrote rather than writing your own version.

Ah, right, my bad. You said that the player makes choices for fun that are logical in the fiction but that are thwarted by the mechanics, not that any skilled play was involved. That still leaves the weirdness that this is something that happens in your games -- logical results from the fiction are thwarted by the game mechanics. I don't think this is a normal result -- unless you're using logical in an odd way, like maybe logical in a different context like real life but clearly not logical within the genre of the game and then enjoying play where a player is declaring actions according to real world logic or a different genre logic and how that creates fun play in the dissonance when the games genre logic is applied? I dunno, actually getting all of the assumptions behind your statements in the clear is not very easy.

No, we have not, see above. In my experience, it's mostly about being competitive, and in the end a lot about bragging (and possibly discriminating and looking down on "less skilled" people). Neither of which is what I'm specifically looking for in the game as, again, the objective is just to have fun with friends.

I've provided three examples to show that skilled play is not about being competitive. You just keep stating it is, and so far the only real support I see is that you think that skilled play being present means that the players mock each other for failing to achieve skilled play or that there's some award available to tables that use skilled play? I dunno, it's weird and I don't follow. I embraced skilled play in a number of different RPGs, from 5e to Blades in the Dark to others, and we all have a ton of fun and that's a priority of ours as well. I don't play games to not have fun. Fun is a baseline expectation, not an aspiration for games, and holding it out as an end destination is just wonky.

 

[Lyxen]

@Lyxen, I disagree with your assessment on skillful D&D play, regardless of what the D&D books have to say on the matter.

It's interesting that, right up front, you are disregarding what the books tell you, it's just plainly admitting that you want to bend the game to suit your tastes rather than following how the game is actually written.

As anyone who has played D&D knows, the game described by the rules and the game that is played at the table are two entirely different beasts.

Then maybe you are not playing the right edition for your tastes ?

D&D has a win/lose state

No, in general it does not. The designers tell you this themselves: "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

Now, YOU might not be playing the game that way, which is fine, I'm not badwrongfunnning you, but the above statement is factually untrue especially in 5e design.

winning is a victory in battle (and leveling up), losing is death (and creating a new character). There can be other elements to this, but the game's predominant mechanics zero in on this. Hit points, attacks/damage, saving throws, XP for killing monsters, individual class mechanics all prioritize combat and surviving combat. You'd be hard-pressed to describe skillful play as not achieving win conditions in a game; it seems self-evident that skillful play and winning go hand-in-hand, and I think divorcing the two is disingenuous.

And as you are obviously wrong about the presence of traditional "win conditions", the "skillfull play" is therefore just as untrue.

Roleplaying is a skill, but there is nothing within the rules of D&D that requires roleplaying. The game doesn't require roleplaying in the way it requires tracking spell slots and hit points. The game requires building a competent character who can defeat his enemies in combat to gain experience to level up to get better combat abilities to defeat his enemies in combat to level up. That's the core of the game. That people use D&D for other avenues of gameplay is immaterial to the game itself.

You should really question the game that you play, you know. This way of playing the game might have been the core of the game at some periods in its history, but I've never ever played it that way. And in 5e, it's clearly not the way the system is designed.

I think that's the trouble herein: the game of D&D and the play of D&D. It so happens that playing D&D involves us talking with funny accents to NPCs who respond with funny accents, yet that is introduced entirely outside of the game of D&D.

This is a ridiculous proposition. Once more, just read the rules beyond the combat rules that you need to play your way and you will actually find a large majority (count in another thread) of pages dedicated to a play that is certainly not hack and slash, and in particular the VERY FIRST sentence of the introduction to the PH: "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents."

Pray tell where combat is in there ? Nowhere to be seen...

You have a very biased reading, my friend.

We might as well have our chess pieces talk to each other. "Off with 'is 'ead!" shouts the white queen as she moves to take the black knight, and then the black bishop replies, "Your majesty has run afoul of the gods!" as he removes her from the game board.

Just because you are playing D&D in a certain way does not mean that everyone does, actually there are tons of people on these forums that will prove you wrong. You are skirting really close to OneTrueWayism, and not only is that inherently wrong, but your OneTrueWay is certainly not the design intent of 5e, demonstrably so.

The play of D&D is far more enjoyable than the game of D&D for many players (myself included) because of those elements we bring to the table, and I would hardly suggest excising them from the game, yet they're peripheral to the game's mechanics.

And I have demonstrated that your view of the game of D&D is factually wrong, both in the rulebooks themselves, the designer's intent, and the way it's played by actually most of the people I've ever played with. And obviously, the play of D&D follows suit.