D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Minigiant]

Genuine question here.

What is "player skill"?

Like...what is it, what is the thing that is happening when one is displaying it? What is the thing one acquires by attempting it and failing to display it? What is gained through it?

Because every time I've asked someone to explain the difference to me, every time I've tried to dig past the frankly tedious nondescriptive rhetoric, it either goes nowhere, or seems to end up being really not very much different from the other kinds of things that other games do.

Player skill is when the majority of the solution is derived from elements not intrinsic of the character's elements nor the standard usage of those elements.

Pilot vs plane.

The OSR mostly relies on players solving problems or dealing with obstacles via elements outside their characters or using their character abilities and equipment in unexpected ways.

That's why I say it's lower power and low customization as core elements. Because once you can brute force problems away with magic, it stops feeling like OSR.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Player skill is when the majority of the solution is derived from elements not intrinsic of the character's elements nor the standard usage of those elements.

Okay. Why does equipment count as "not intrinsic of the character's elements"?

Is the non-standard usage the primary component here, and the foregoing portion less so?

Why are magic-user spells acceptable, but other kinds of character elements aren't?

Pilot vs plane.

Not going to lie, this doesn't really help, because...a pilot without a plane isn't flying. Nothing is getting solved by a pilot standing on the ground and making wooshing noises. A grounded pilot can still be a smart person, but they are going to do zero flying.

The OSR mostly relies on players solving problems or dealing with obstacles via elements outside their characters or using their character abilities and equipment in unexpected ways.

Okay. I expect players to do that in...any game. Creativity is extremely important in literally any game. I genuinely don't understand what is different about this vs just...actually playing any game. Even literal board games!

That's why I say it's lower power and low customization as core elements. Because once you can brute force problems away with magic, it stops feeling like OSR.

My main problem with this is that a lot of my (limited) experience with actual OSR games.....was in a game where an experienced magic-user used only a fairly modest amount of personal creativity, and mostly relied on spells, like invisibility. (This was specifically Labyrinth Lord.)

 

[Reynard]

I think the "player skill" argument is used too often as too simplistic an explanation for how OSR and Modern D&D differ. First of all, even from the beginning of the hobby some folks leveraged what was on their character sheet. And even now lots of people try creative solutions to problems even in modern rulesets. The degree to which "player skill" matters is almost entirely dependent on a GM that runs the game ina way that enables that style and doesn't stymie player creativity or force them to play GM-may-I. And on top of all of that, in a complex system, using the rules IS a form of player skill.

As it relates to a theoretical 6E, building in non-binary resolution results can go a long way toward enabling this style of play in the moderns sense, as could a balance between hard rules and GM adjudication (a balance that I think 5E 2014 actually hit pretty well overall, that 5E 2024 then muddled).

 

[Remathilis]

Priest spheres were so handy. Now a days (and for a 6th E) I would just say normal list is from the PH, any other "sphere" like spells you have to learn.

That way you could introduce a whole slew of shadow spells for the god of shadows, and all the other clerics of the world would not automagically get them.

The issue of course was that the spells were often not placed correctly in relation to class access, creating things like druids losing access to reincarnate while clerics gained it. In fact, you could design specialty priests who lacked many of the fundamental spells to even do their job. Players Options spells and magic attempted to fix this by moving spells around and filling in major gaps in spell levels, but being an Option book late in 2es life meant most people ignored those fixes.

I actually think something closer to 3e (pick two domains that add extra spells to your list) was a far better solution then spheres, but ymmv

 

[Remathilis]

Player skill is when the majority of the solution is derived from elements not intrinsic of the character's elements nor the standard usage of those elements.

Pilot vs plane.

The OSR mostly relies on players solving problems or dealing with obstacles via elements outside their characters or using their character abilities and equipment in unexpected ways.

That's why I say it's lower power and low customization as core elements. Because once you can brute force problems away with magic, it stops feeling like OSR.

I find this notion of OS players needing to be creative and clever while modern players just spam widgets to be a bunch of grognards getting high off their own farts. Modern D&D can be creative and encourage clever play while old school players can stand around lost in a room trying to find a secret door but until they find the correct sequence of words the DM is looking for, aren't able to discover it.

I want to thoroughly disabuse the notion that OS play is inherently more clever. Clever play isn't tied to an edition or ruleset.

 

[payn]

Genuine question here.

What is "player skill"?

Not minigiant but someone who finds "skill play" a helpful indicator of the type of game being played. Particularly one of old school pre-Hickman revolution style.

Like...what is it, what is the thing that is happening when one is displaying it?

Viewing the game as a survival sim. You must track every morsel of food, every drop of water, every single piece of ammo, etc.. You also know that everything in the world is a potential challenge to hurt, maim, or kill your avatar character. You display the skill by surviving this onslaught of deadly challenges. Ten foot pole poking, sacks of flour, paranoid levels of inspection, etc...

What is the thing one acquires by attempting it and failing to display it? What is gained through it?

This is how one succeeds at the game. By surviving, you acquire experience and thus earn the right to level up your PC to do it all again facing even greater challenges.

Because every time I've asked someone to explain the difference to me, every time I've tried to dig past the frankly tedious nondescriptive rhetoric, it either goes nowhere, or seems to end up being really not very much different from the other kinds of things that other games do.

I think the differences are pretty stark. A non-skill play focus isnt overly concerned with every single task being a potentially deadly one. It actually finds constant character death to be a distraction from continuity in play experience. The main concerns are on plots and character development through playing the game instead of sole power acquirement.

Now, one of the biggest hangups ive seen, is folks who do not like skill play assuming that means their style doesnt require skill. However, that is not what the indication is meant. What is meant by skill play is that it is the center focus of the experience above all else.

 

[Reynard]

Not minigiant but someone who finds "skill play" a helpful indicator of the type of game being played. Particularly one of old school pre-Hickman revolution style.

Viewing the game as a survival sim. You must track every morsel of food, every drop of water, every single piece of ammo, etc.. You also know that everything in the world is a potential challenge to hurt, maim, or kill your avatar character. You display the skill by surviving this onslaught of deadly challenges. Ten foot pole poking, sacks of flour, paranoid levels of inspection, etc...

This is how one succeeds at the game. By surviving, you acquire experience and thus earn the right to level up your PC to do it all again facing even greater challenges.

I think the differences are pretty stark. A non-skill play focus isnt overly concerned with every single task being a potentially deadly one. It actually finds constant character death to be a distraction from continuity in play experience. The main concerns are on plots and character development through playing the game instead of sole power acquirement.

Now, one of the biggest hangups ive seen, is folks who do not like skill play assuming that means their style doesnt require skill. However, that is not what the indication is meant. What is meant by skill play is that it is the center focus of the experience above all else.

I don't think of "player skill" being particularly focused around paranoia (although that can be a feature). It is more about using your noggin rather than what is on your character sheet, if OSR folks are to be believed. I don't actually buy that -- those iron spikes and sacks of frogs are on your character sheet, after all.

 

[payn]

I don't think of "player skill" being particularly focused around paranoia (although that can be a feature). It is more about using your noggin rather than what is on your character sheet, if OSR folks are to be believed. I don't actually buy that -- those iron spikes and sacks of frogs are on your character sheet, after all.

I think error is worrying about the particulars. I use it in a general sense. I do not believe every old schooler or even every OSR game is intended to be skill play, I think thats an interest of the person. Now, some games provide a better experience for folks of a skill play mindset, like OSR games often do, but its not a line in the sand by design.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Okay. I expect players to do that in...any game. Creativity is extremely important in literally any game. I genuinely don't understand what is different about this vs just...actually playing any game. Even literal board games!

There is a different sense of accomplishment when the player solves the riddle, discovers the secret door or negotiates a tricky social encounter than just button mashing the Intelligence ability, and Investigation and Persuasion skills.

In 1e-2e the idea was players pay attention to the GM as they describe the location/situation and from clues within the description given, or the players' own ingenuity (which includes creative use of an ability/spell or item) the players solve or discover abc.
In later editions the game moved further way from this style of roleplaying.
EDIT: It also dealt with the conservation of resources.

This older style of play focuses on one's own skill (and knowledge), where it is viewed that the player is tested rather than the character. Some have affectionately labelled part of this style, especially when searching a room, as pixel-bi###ing.

But to be fair, some GMs have found a nice mid-point between the two styles of play, thus getting the best of both.

 

[Reynard]

There is a different sense of accomplishment when the player solves the riddle, discovers the secret door or negotiates a tricky social encounter than just button mashing the Intelligence ability, and Investigation and Persuasion skills.

In 1e-2e the idea was players pay attention to the GM as they describe the location/situation and from clues within the description given, or the players' own ingenuity (which includes creative use of an ability/spell or item) the players solve or discover abc.
In later editions the game moved further way from this style of roleplaying.
EDIT: It also dealt with a conservation of resources.

This older style of play focuses on one's own skill (and knowledge), where it is viewed that the player is tested rather than the character. Some have affectionately labelled part of this style, especially when searching a room, as pixel-bi###ing.

But to be fair, some GMs have found a nice mid-point between the two styles of play, thus getting the best of both.

I think it is almost always overstated.

I mean, you could detect a secret door by simply walking past it in 1E if you were an elf.