D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Lyxen]

Wait, what? 3e and 4e have a stated intent to be played competitively?

Yes. 3e's intents were rendered public a few weeks ago, see here.

Once more, you don't have to play any edition the way it's designed, but it was palpable all along, and 5e, which has a different design intent also feels very different in the way the rules and play are laid out. As for 4e, it's even more obvious when you consider that the DM's role is mostly a referee.

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?

Not at all, see above.

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.

It all depends what you mean by "skilled play", which is something that I've much more seen applied to combat than anything else.

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.

It goes away by disclaiming skilled play as an intent, as it removes the stress from the player.

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.

As I've said, if you enjoy skilled play and it causes no problem at your table, it's fine, I'm not badwrongfunning it. I'm saying that, just like powergaming, it's a mindset that permeates a table and causes trouble if everyone is not aligned about the objectives of the game.

In particular, I've seen people literally chew up other players for making a "mistake". That is not acceptable behaviour and it only occurs because these people believe that skilled play is critical to the game.

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

You know, I'm all for peaceful discussion, but unneeded needling will not keep us in the comfort zone.

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.

And yet, you take any single opportunity here to brag about your instances of "skilled play".

[Unneeded needling] On second thought, I kinda see the issue and why you'd be confused about the point of the examples.

Good.

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 never said "thwarted", I just mentioned "less technically optimal". For example trying to disarm / bull rush a monster rather than making significant damage, because it looks cool in the environment, or it's the character's way of fighting, his signature move or whatever.

[cutting the rest as it's an irrelevant tangent based on the incorrect "translation" of what I wrote]

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.

And again I'm not badwrongfunning you, if it's what you like at your table, it's perfect. HOWEVER, I've seen a lot of instances where that expectation of "skilled play" was actually the way to deny fun to people and tables, which is why I don't agree that it's such an universal aim of the game and always making the game better, that's all.

 

[Lyxen]

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

The only thing I'm saying is that "Skilled Play" is not the universal goal of the game some people here seem to make it.

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).

And this is because you assume that this development and this use of the game rules is the aim of the game. It's not, the designers tell you so: "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."

A player can perfectly play a fantastic game without reading the most part of the rules, without reading ANY rule actually. He does not need "skilled play".

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?

Yes, even with the inherent implications that there are "skilled players" and "unskilled players". Which one is derogatory ? Which category would you like to prefer ?

Because I can make exactly the same comparison the other way between "good player" and "technical rules nitpicker". Which category would you rather be in ? Which is why I'm not making it except as an example of using derogatory language.

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.

Actually there is, "skilled play", which is actually a technical aim of the game whether it's in combat or not, does not have to be an objective of the game. The only objective that I recognise is "having fun since it's a game", if that involves "skilled play" for some that's good for them but not necessarily for others, and I'd rather that proponents of that kind of game use something less arrogant and derogatory for people who do not partake in this.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

The point of 4e Skill Challenges is that it is a non-arbitrary, multiple action resolution system.

I don't think it limits creativity in "action" much. The 4e skill system outside of combat is very broad and can accomodate all kinds of creative actions.

The resolution is limited by design as the impact of the action will be most likely resolved with a skill check (although there is advice in incorpoating powers, rituals, and auto successes for certain actions) and by design that action can't reach the goal unless it's the last success needed as the fiction will change to explain why there is some other obstacle in the way.

It's true that this is perhaps "narrower" than free form resolution where the DM just declares success at whatever point they feel warrants it. But IMO, with a group that is all on board you trade a slight decrease in creative freedom for a quantifiable challenge to the characters.

If you don't like requiring skilled play, 4e Skill Challenges are great because they reduce the need for "testing player skill" including "playing the DM", and to some extent "skilled play". Skilled play makes for a more fun game at my table, because skilled players can think of more interesting actions during the skill challenge and might occasionally be able to use a "better skill" but non skilled players are not really penalized much since in the end the resolution is through the character abilities.

 

[Lyxen]

The point of 4e Skill Challenges is that it is a non-arbitrary, multiple action resolution system.

It is actually fairly arbitrary, as it starts by defining the challenge and which skills can be used and how many success and failures are needed/allowed.

I don't think it limits creativity in "action" much. The 4e skill system outside of combat is very broad and can accomodate all kinds of creative actions.

Is there such a thing ? It cannot accomodate most of the powers of the characters (which are mostly combat orientated anyway), rituals are nice but take much too long (and resources to use). So creativity is very much limited to (mostly mundane) skill use.

The resolution is limited by design as the impact of the action will be most likely resolved with a skill check (although there is advice in incorpoating powers, rituals, and auto successes for certain actions) and by design that action can't reach the goal unless it's the last success needed as the fiction will change to explain why there is some other obstacle in the way.

And therefore it railroads you into using skills as it's the only way to gain points.

It's true that this is perhaps "narrower" than free form resolution where the DM just declares success at whatever point they feel warrants it. But IMO, with a group that is all on board you trade a slight decrease in creative freedom for a quantifiable challenge to the characters.

And yet there is that decrease, which for me is not slight, with a much more open-ended system like 5e, who uses Theater of the Mind (in full 3D), with scores of powers and spells usable outside of combat and no specific guidelines for resolution.

If you don't like requiring skilled play, 4e Skill Challenges are great because they reduce the need for "testing player skill" including "playing the DM", and to some extent "skilled play". Skilled play makes for a more fun game at my table, because skilled players can think of more interesting actions during the skill challenge and might occasionally be able to use a "better skill" but non skilled players are not really penalized much since in the end the resolution is through the character abilities.

And I agree that this is a worthwhile goal, but one that is just as easily accomplished in 5e without the "decrease" above just by requiring character actions and judging them according to the character, not the player. In particular, the use of passives (everything that goes with "ignoring the Dice") allows for extremely quick resolution that still preserves the "you can play whatever you want even if you are not skilled as a player" objective (whereas this is a direct problem with "skilled play").

 

[jmartkdr2]

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?

That could possibly work if "fun" only meant one thing, but there are many kinds of fun, all of which DnD is capable of providing (though not al at once), and different people want different kinds at different times.

An article with further explanation: Gaming for Fun (Part 1): Eight Kinds of Fun - if you can deal with Angry DM's writing style it's a pretty good rundown.

If you can get a table to agree on which kinds of fun they will prioritize and how much, you can start diving in to how to best achieve that.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

@Lyxen, I'm not going to do the point-by-point rebuttal thing because it fails to address the broader argument, and frankly, it often results in the petty, hostile nitpicking demonstrated by the back-and-forths in this thread. The thrust of your post is that my interpretation of the game is wrong because the people who wrote the game have stated so, and I'm saying simply:

They're wrong.

The writers can say "as long as everyone had fun, you win the game." For one, "fun" is a useless quantifier, and thus, for two, that "win" condition is so nebulous as to be useless. Ask the average D&D group if a TPK is "winning," and I guarantee that you'll be met with "No!" They would describe themselves as losing the combat (because they lost) and losing the game (because they lost their characters and lost the opportunity to achieve their goals). All the fluffy text to the contrary cannot change that.

The game's mechanics and systems are geared toward combat, a style of combat privileging attrition and resource management. The game speaks highly of storytelling but provides no tools to for players and GMs to tell a story. The story elements of D&D orbit the game of D&D. Most D&D games involve story elements, yet the game provides little to facilitate these story elements.

Example mechanics to facilitate story elements:

• Compels in Fate.
• Flashbacks in Blades in the Dark.
• Hx in Apocalypse World.
• Traits and checks in Mouseguard.

D&D 5e totters toward the inclusion of storytelling mechanics with Backgrounds, Inspiration, and BIFTs, but these are all underdeveloped compared to the combat system.

 

[Lyxen]

@Lyxen, I'm not going to do the point-by-point rebuttal thing because it fails to address the broader argument, and frankly, it often results in the petty, hostile nitpicking demonstrated by the back-and-forths in this thread. The thrust of your post is that my interpretation of the game is wrong because the people who wrote the game have stated so, and I'm saying simply:

They're wrong.

And you expect any fruitful conversation after this ? Basically, you are badwrongfunning everyone who plays the game as designed. I'm sorry but games do not need mechanics to work well especially in the roleplaying area, the best example I have is Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game (or Nobilis, I have not played it as much), characters have four attributes and the one with the highest wins, as there are no dice rolled. And we ran multi-year campaigns having a lot of fun.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

And you expect any fruitful conversation after this ? Basically, you are badwrongfunning everyone who plays the game as designed. I'm sorry but games do not need mechanics to work well especially in the roleplaying area, the best example I have is Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game (or Nobilis, I have not played it as much), characters have four attributes and the one with the highest wins, as there are no dice rolled. And we ran multi-year campaigns having a lot of fun.

Have a nice evening.

Badwrongfunning? Where did I once imply that people who play D&D in a certain way are somehow playing the game badly? I said that skillful play in 5e utilizes the mechanics to achieve a desired outcome. Not using these mechanics to achieve an outcome isn't "badwrong," it just isn't skillful. When I play 5e, I play unskillfully because number crunching isn't my jam. I could play more skillfully by multiclassing and (prior to Tasha's change) picking an optimal race to suit a particular class, but I have little interest in doing so.

 

[Campbell]

Everyone here understands each group should customize games to fit the needs of the play experience they are after. That's basic stuff. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about play techniques by obscuring the process and the aims. There's no meaningful way to tease out commonalities and differences.

Imagine you are looking for a new game to play in. You talk to a GM and ask what you can expect from play? "Fun".

This happens three times with three different GMs. How do you choose which game to play in?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And that too takes a certain degree of player skill to pull off without disrupting what others are trying to do in the game.

It makes the game much more rich and varied, generates more diverse and visual situations, to the enjoyment of all.

Agreed.

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

Disagreed.

To me "skilled play" includes, if not complete system mastery, at least enough knowledge of how the game mechanically works so as to be able to play without instruction a vast majority of the time. And this does enhance the game.