At the Intersection of Skilled Play, System Intricacy, Prep, and Story Now

[AbdulAlhazred]

At a certain point, I don't think that the discussion of a playing style is very valuable if you ... don't enjoy that playing style. I don't mean that pejoratively, but honestly.

Based on prior conversations my recollection is that you have strong a priori preferences regarding styles of play- which is a good thing! Enjoy that! But I don't think that a conversation that involves a "discussion" (using the term advisedly) in which you are taking the position that Skilled Play is about "hacking the GM," is really going to be valuable to me, or to other people who enjoy playing that style occasionally.

So I will leave my original post for the OP, and hope it provides some insight as to my thoughts.

Eh, I actually don't have anything against OSR style play, nor would I even particularly avoid it. I mean, its one of many valid styles of RPG, and having started back in the mid-70's myself one that I've been well steeped in . I was also a wargamer, though honestly I haven't really kept up with that hobby much in many years. I do tend to think there's a lot of assumptions or 'mythology' that has built up around different play styles though, which is often not all that accurate or helpful. Though I look somewhat askance at some of the attitudes that came with 'Indie Games' and I think its worth being as cautious about their own conception of RPGs as what is put forth by a lot of 'OSR People', that analysis at least is worthy of some consideration. Anyway, I think we can have Skilled Play that is not built on absolute GM authority, it is just not deploying skill in exactly the same way.

And to add in view of the whole debate about nomenclature... I can sympathize with the POV that 'Skilled Play' was perhaps specifically meant by whomever used it first in a certain way. I don't know that anyone 'owns' terminology. Its purpose is to clarify. So, if we were to use 'Classic Skilled Play' or something for that one specific type, OK. I'm not sure why 'Gygaxian' is a dis to anyone though. Arneson certainly invented a lot of the core concepts of D&D, or at least brought them together, but Gary certainly, at least, heavily promoted that style of play. Honestly, not having gamed with either of them I don't know exactly how their preferred styles varied. Nobody is forgetting about Dave in any case.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think @Manbearcat's observation about advancement being an incentive to NOT go the 'good idea' route, but to engage with the mechanics to deal with challenges is a good one. I think using a Good Idea could be pretty clever though in some cases, like when ticking a box off the grind is preferable to risking another condition after you're already rather beat up. I expect most adventurer's demise basically consists of making that one last check too many (though being ground to death with conditions could be a bad end too).

 

[Ovinomancer]

On Skilled Play and the difference for Gygaxian vs other modes -- there is no conflict here. Skilled Play is about leveraging the system and resources to achieve the goals of play. In Gygaxian games, this has a specific look and feel because of the system and resources involved. In another game, it looks different because the system and resources change. This is before we even consider different goals of play! There's no valid claim to Skilled Play as a uniquely Gygaxian construct, only a description of what Skilled Play looks like in a Gygaxian game.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

From where I stand Story Now isn't about character development or dramatic arcs. It's about immediacy, putting the characters through the crucible, and seeing what comes out. That level of tension pretty much requires fiction first mechanics. Mechanics first play promotes a sort emotional distance or safety valve that helps remove the sense of immediacy and tension.

That being said of course not all fiction first games are Story Now games. Every successful Story Now game that I have ever come across is Fiction First though. The Vampire hack my group plays for instance is very much about character development, is fiction first, but is not a Story Now game. It's specifically designed for lengthy lingering consequences and slow burn character development.

 

[clearstream]

I think @Manbearcat's observation about advancement being an incentive to NOT go the 'good idea' route, but to engage with the mechanics to deal with challenges is a good one. I think using a Good Idea could be pretty clever though in some cases, like when ticking a box off the grind is preferable to risking another condition after you're already rather beat up. I expect most adventurer's demise basically consists of making that one last check too many (though being ground to death with conditions could be a bad end too).

I feel like the way we've been playing it - following the rule on SG 216 - is effective. Good Ideas do not advance the grind. That is a powerful payoff. It opens TB2 up to the possibility of an OSR skilled play path.

Regarding minor hazards and minutae, I believe it is the designer's intent that Good Ideas do often mitigate the Grind. Regarding major hazards and conflicts, my sense is that Good Ideas have come up at least once and possibly a few times per session, but it's not clear to me how often the designers intended. Perhaps it will vary widely by group?

 

[clearstream]

From where I stand Story Now isn't about character development or dramatic arcs. It's about immediacy, putting the characters through the crucible, and seeing what comes out. That level of tension pretty much requires fiction first mechanics. Mechanics first play promotes a sort emotional distance or safety valve that helps remove the sense of immediacy and tension.

Perhaps I could fairly cast your words - "putting the characters through the crucible" / "seeing what comes out" - as means and outcome.

So the outcome is what I've called dramatic character development, and one means (effective and powerful) of delivering that outcome is the crucible. I believe the outcome is always intended in Story Now, and that we should prefer more effective means over less effective, hence the crucible. But the crucible is not our only option, notwithstanding that it leads to lively, satisfying play and change.

That noted, elsewhere I've suggested that I can see TB2 as Story Now; and that is because it has the architecture/mechanics for delivering Story Now and it offers the crucible. So yes, I am agreeing with you while also, of course, disagreeing.

 

[Fenris-77]

The group I play in has been playing "good ideas don't advance the grind" and it's worked pretty well so far. The spread of what this actually looks like tends to be that good ideas are advanced and adjudicated for some medium and many small level obstacles (if you'll forgive the generalization). Large or important conflicts always involve a test and thus advance the grind and also provide opportunities for advancement. The balance for those smaller obstacles seems to be not advancing the grind on the one hand or working for checks and/or advancement on the other, which I see as a legitimate decision point for the players (and GM) in TB2 and thus as part of what is being described as skilled play in terms of TB2.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@clearstream

From where I stand Story Now isn't about character development or dramatic arcs. It's about immediacy, putting the characters through the crucible, and seeing what comes out. That level of tension pretty much requires fiction first mechanics. Mechanics first play promotes a sort emotional distance or safety valve that helps remove the sense of immediacy and tension.

That being said of course not all fiction first games are Story Now games. Every successful Story Now game that I have ever come across is Fiction First though. The Vampire hack my group plays for instance is very much about character development, is fiction first, but is not a Story Now game. It's specifically designed for lengthy lingering consequences and slow burn character development.

So, you see Story Now as always involving immediate consequences and a tight loop of feedback and increasing tension? I'm not so sure... So, for instance, here's a scenario drawn from past experience: The Space Station is doomed. There is NO way off, everyone on board will perish at the conclusion of the campaign. Now, clearly the main driver of tension is FAR OFF (in relative terms of scale, far off in that it is many many scene frames down the road, IMHO it isn't relevant as to how many hours/days/whatever this represents in fiction).

Now, obviously this game can ALSO feature as tight a loop of ongoing action and feedback/consequences/immediately generated tension. It can also include other medium term considerations, perhaps. The point is, I think the PREMISE ALONE made it a type of Story Now scenario. Everything the PCs did or experienced was always fully in the light of "and now I will die." It colored the whole experience, heavily.

So I would propose that things like DW's fronts/dooms likewise are an element of Story Now. I don't think they necessarily MUST exist, definitionally for it to be Story Now, but I think they may be sufficient to at least imbue a game with a significant element of Story Now character. I think that might play a role in higher level TB2 perhaps going in the SN direction as well, the PCs claw their way towards real success, they reach 7th+ level where they are clearly going to be movers and shakers (albeit perhaps also outsiders). At that point IMHO the most natural path for the game to follow is that the Final Doom of civilization, TB2's 'Ragnarok' (or at least an overwhelming disaster) raises its ugly head over everything. While the ultimately doomed nature of civilization is pretty much backgrounded in normal play, and thus not a big factor, it seems like it is always a tool the GM can turn to in order to really dial up the pressure at a certain point. This also jibes with the observation about the high level BitD game where eventually things inevitably turn to existential threats to Duskvol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The group I play in has been playing "good ideas don't advance the grind" and it's worked pretty well so far. The spread of what this actually looks like tends to be that good ideas are advanced and adjudicated for some medium and many small level obstacles (if you'll forgive the generalization). Large or important conflicts always involve a test and thus advance the grind and also provide opportunities for advancement. The balance for those smaller obstacles seems to be not advancing the grind on the one hand or working for checks and/or advancement on the other, which I see as a legitimate decision point for the players (and GM) in TB2 and thus as part of what is being described as skilled play in terms of TB2.

Yeah, I do think there's the DANGER that you could end up 'Playing the GM', though again the notion that this would kill advancement means it is disincentivized. Its easy to see how this is really the key break point between say B/X and TB2. B/X obviously doesn't provide any other approach, but it actively promotes the PCs of players who have these 'good ideas', while usually killing the ones that go hack-n-slash. TB2 is thus a game about skillfully using the mechanics, ALWAYS, and the Good Idea rule IMHO is more just bowing to the reality of the game as a fairly open world RPG.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, you see Story Now as always involving immediate consequences and a tight loop of feedback and increasing tension? I'm not so sure... So, for instance, here's a scenario drawn from past experience: The Space Station is doomed. There is NO way off, everyone on board will perish at the conclusion of the campaign. Now, clearly the main driver of tension is FAR OFF (in relative terms of scale, far off in that it is many many scene frames down the road, IMHO it isn't relevant as to how many hours/days/whatever this represents in fiction).

Now, obviously this game can ALSO feature as tight a loop of ongoing action and feedback/consequences/immediately generated tension. It can also include other medium term considerations, perhaps. The point is, I think the PREMISE ALONE made it a type of Story Now scenario. Everything the PCs did or experienced was always fully in the light of "and now I will die." It colored the whole experience, heavily.

So I would propose that things like DW's fronts/dooms likewise are an element of Story Now. I don't think they necessarily MUST exist, definitionally for it to be Story Now, but I think they may be sufficient to at least imbue a game with a significant element of Story Now character. I think that might play a role in higher level TB2 perhaps going in the SN direction as well, the PCs claw their way towards real success, they reach 7th+ level where they are clearly going to be movers and shakers (albeit perhaps also outsiders). At that point IMHO the most natural path for the game to follow is that the Final Doom of civilization, TB2's 'Ragnarok' (or at least an overwhelming disaster) raises its ugly head over everything. While the ultimately doomed nature of civilization is pretty much backgrounded in normal play, and thus not a big factor, it seems like it is always a tool the GM can turn to in order to really dial up the pressure at a certain point. This also jibes with the observation about the high level BitD game where eventually things inevitably turn to existential threats to Duskvol.

If there's a pre-planned outcome to play, really hard to call that story now. You've already violated a core tenet here -- play to find out. At least on one major axis, you are no longer doing this. So here, at keast, you've already stepped away, even if the rest of the play is fairly well aligned. I mean, there's no outcome of play that results in a different final end, so the GM is absolutely weilding Force at some junctures of play.