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

[Ovinomancer]

But what I am implying, and my experience is that this is true, is that the whole 'fixed challenge/fixed reward' model you were labeling above as 'Skilled Play' doesn't hold up in situations where the environment (IE the challenges) are not fairly limited and finite in their dimensions and can be handled in a fairly predictable manner. I do not think that the 'braunstein' type of game that was Arneson's impetus for exploring RP in TT wargames, which led to D&D, is a type of Skilled Play game at all! Not in anything close to the sense you outlined above, certainly.

I don't think I'm implying that NO FORM of Skilled Play can happen outside of a highly constrained environment, but more that fixed prepared scenarios might not be as critical as some people have historically maintained. I think that I agree with @Ovinomancer that Skilled Play exists in BitD (though I'm not really much of an expert on that game). I think it also exists in TB2, for example, though that is a game where prep seems to be expected (but I think it is possible to 'wing it' and not have the whole thing break). I think some Skilled Play can also exist in games like Dungeon World, I'm pretty sure @Manbearcat has taken that position in other discussions.

It absolutely can and does. You can leverage the system and PC resources in PbtA. The nature of play actually pairs up so that this kind of play is assumed and supported by the system -- it's not a case where skilled play is at odds with the concept and intention of the system. It's not a seperate playstyle like it can be with many D&D editions, where it stands against some other common play agendas.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But what I am implying, and my experience is that this is true, is that the whole 'fixed challenge/fixed reward' model you were labeling above as 'Skilled Play' doesn't hold up in situations where the environment (IE the challenges) are not fairly limited and finite in their dimensions and can be handled in a fairly predictable manner. I do not think that the 'braunstein' type of game that was Arneson's impetus for exploring RP in TT wargames, which led to D&D, is a type of Skilled Play game at all! Not in anything close to the sense you outlined above, certainly.

I would 100% disagree with you on that, and could not disagree more.

The Braunstein revelation (specifically, the Banana Republic) was that Arneson, being a skilled player, went outside the bounds of the character sheet to inhabit the world in order to "win" (under different win conditions).

He played the world, not the rules. Sound familiar?

I don't think I'm implying that NO FORM of Skilled Play can happen outside of a highly constrained environment, but more that fixed prepared scenarios might not be as critical as some people have historically maintained.

To be 100% clear, I think the defining aspect is the division of authority. I don't think you can have an SP game without that.

The "prep" can either be explicit (the DM who laboriously creates maps and wandering monster tables) or implicit (a DM who is considered an expert in a genre, world, or field), but is required for the adjudication of player actions if you're looking for "SP."

 

[Ovinomancer]

But what I am implying, and my experience is that this is true, is that the whole 'fixed challenge/fixed reward' model you were labeling above as 'Skilled Play' doesn't hold up in situations where the environment (IE the challenges) are not fairly limited and finite in their dimensions and can be handled in a fairly predictable manner. I do not think that the 'braunstein' type of game that was Arneson's impetus for exploring RP in TT wargames, which led to D&D, is a type of Skilled Play game at all! Not in anything close to the sense you outlined above, certainly.

I don't think I'm implying that NO FORM of Skilled Play can happen outside of a highly constrained environment, but more that fixed prepared scenarios might not be as critical as some people have historically maintained. I think that I agree with @Ovinomancer that Skilled Play exists in BitD (though I'm not really much of an expert on that game). I think it also exists in TB2, for example, though that is a game where prep seems to be expected (but I think it is possible to 'wing it' and not have the whole thing break). I think some Skilled Play can also exist in games like Dungeon World, I'm pretty sure @Manbearcat has taken that position in other discussions.

Whomever you're responding to is either blocked by me or has me blocked, so they haven't seen my posts on the matter.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would 100% disagree with you on that, and could not disagree more.

The Braunstein revelation (specifically, the Banana Republic) was that Arneson, being a skilled player, went outside the bounds of the character sheet to inhabit the world in order to "win" (under different win conditions).

He played the world, not the rules. Sound familiar?

I think we probably will continue to disagree, lol.

To be 100% clear, I think the defining aspect is the division of authority. I don't think you can have an SP game without that.

The "prep" can either be explicit (the DM who laboriously creates maps and wandering monster tables) or implicit (a DM who is considered an expert in a genre, world, or field), but is required for the adjudication of player actions if you're looking for "SP."

Well, I certainly see skill in the play of games where this division doesn't exist. It is simply a matter of what kind of skills you believe are valid candidates to test!

I'd point out that the description I've seen of Arneson's 'win' of the Banana Republic scenario seems as much "hacking the GM" as anything else, and that it is a key question in OSR as to what is being tested, the player's mastery of the GAME or the GAME MASTER.

I think my ultimate point here is that you can't talk about skilled play until you define what you consider valid play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think we probably will continue to disagree, lol.

Well, I certainly see skill in the play of games where this division doesn't exist. It is simply a matter of what kind of skills you believe are valid candidates to test!

I'd point out that the description I've seen of Arneson's 'win' of the Banana Republic scenario seems as much "hacking the GM" as anything else, and that it is a key question in OSR as to what is being tested, the player's mastery of the GAME or the GAME MASTER.

I think my ultimate point here is that you can't talk about skilled play until you define what you consider valid play.

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.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

In an effort to be helpful, I would add these thoughts which intersect with your thoughtful post.

Skilled Play (traditional Gygaxian skilled play, as exemplified by so-called "dungeon crawls" of the 70s) is orthogonal to both System Mastery and to conceptions of Story Now, IMO and IME.

The two primary requisites (or prerequisites if you are adopting old school verbiage!) when looking at Skilled Play are (1) Division of Authority and (2) Preparation. Allow me to explain-

I have ran a few FKR/rules lite games recently in different genres, and a few attempts at capturing a 70s-vibe, Skilled Play "feel" using genre-specific norms. Mostly successful, and one unsuccessful. Doing so allowed me to see what, IMO, allowed for a successful Skilled Play game.

Simply put, it required preparation, and for the narrative control of the world to be within the DM's authority. In saying this, I am not saying that either of these are good things or bad things, simply that they appear to be requirements for this style of play. This is most obvious when looking at the "exploration" pillar of traditional Skilled Play (hereafter, "SP" because I'm tired of typing it) as I will detail further below.

In SP, the conception is that the challenge is not to the character, but to the player (it's a measure of player skill). That's why you see references to the DM as a "neutral referee" or a "neutral arbiter" (whether that can be completely true, is just an aspiration, or was just verbiage is an exercise for people to determine for themselves).

The DM, then, cannot ad hoc the area that is being explored, the DM cannot ad lib, and the DM should not be a fan of the players in SP. The DM is, for all practical purposes, the world that the players are interacting with through their characters. For this reason, the game cannot have mechanics for the players to seize narrative control of the world. The world exists independently of the player's conceptions and desires, and they are using their skilled to overcome the obstacles within it.

For that same reason, the DM must commit to preparation. This division of authority requires trust from the players to the DM that the DM is not changing the world or engaging in illusionism to help or hinder the players. If the players send their characters into a dungeon, there is a map of that dungeon already made. Going west or east will be meaningful choices- they both don't lead to the same ogre. For that matter, the chest is either trapped or not before the players decide to approach it; the pit is 10' deep with spikes or 30' deep with green slime- it's not a Heisenberg uncertainty pit, only to be revealed when an unfortunate soul falls into it.

I understand that when I type this, people will necessarily want to argue with some of what I have said- "What about a spell? Doesn't that, in some way, allow the player to take control of the narrative?" Or, "Hey, if the players are in a town, and a player decides to narrate that there is an inn to stop out, does that destroy SP?" And so on. Obviously, things are always on a continuum, and you can't account for every single use-case.

But IME SP absolutely requires the traditional TTRPG loop of-
1. DM Narrates Environment.
2. Player Declares Action.
3. DM Narrates Effect.

Finally, despite Gygax's 1987 Book (Role-Playing Mastery), neither System Mastery nor System Complexity are required for SP. SP is perfectly possible with either a reasonably complex system, or with a "black box" system similar to what Dave Arneson was originally running.

I know that this doesn't fully engage with some of your issues, but I thought it might be helpful. Good luck with the topic!

I dunno if this is helpful to the discussion at hand but I have found it very illuminating with respect to communication breakdowns in some other discussions involving similar topics.

 

[Umbran]

I think my ultimate point here is that you can't talk about skilled play until you define what you consider valid play.

I tend to agree. In addition, I am not sure the traditional RPG asymmetrical division of authority is actually necessary for skilled play.

I mean, after all, the majority of games in the world do not have a traditional D&D GM/Player division of authority, but certainly you can be skilled at them, yes? There is skilled play in chess, and Monopoly, and poker. Sometimes that skill is in interacting with the rules, sometimes it is in interacting with other players, even if their authority isn't asymmetrical.

We can also look at, say, improvisational theater, in which there's no necessary asymmetry in authority, but you can also be skilled in that - knowing the other players on the stage, and how they tend to operate, and setting each other up for good "Yes, and..." scenarios.

Combine those two, and you could easily wind up with an RPG that is symmetrical, but has skilled play, right?

Admittedly, this may stretch one's preferred vision of Skilled Play beyond where some of us are comfortable, but... then I ask what about it is uncomfortable?

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't have a ton of time to deep dive into anything here, but I want to just say two things about the conversation that @Snarf Zagyg and @AbdulAlhazred and @Ovinomancer are having and how it relates to what will later be (after we get the meat of/parameters of the discussion sorted through) under scrutiny (is Torchbearer 2 a capable Story Now vessel or even at all?):

Torchbearer 2 absolutely has elements of "Pictionary Play" in it ("playing the GM" parlance):

1) In Conflicts the GM is (a) "equipping a weapon" (although this won't be a weapon if its a wilderness expedition conflict or a social conflict etc) and (b) providing fiction for you as players to evaluate your move-space (and all the resources you can martial that integrate with that) + your present Disposition/Condition situation + the Attack/Defend/Feint/Maneuver matrix. This aspect of play has both a Pictionary element and a Rock/Paper/Scissors element to it. Therefore, there is absolutely a "playing the GM" component to it.

2) You can defeat obstacles in TB2 without engaging the mechanics. Hell, sometimes you have to. But the TB reality is, if you are coming up with a sufficiently capable move that doesn't result in a Test, you're still (a) ticking the Grind forward and (b) you're working against your own Advancement interests for your PC (you don't Test, you don't get an Advancement Tick). So there is all 3 of an attrition inevitability, a requirement of ingenuity, and an advancement tension. Because of all of these 3 things, overwhelmingly, TB2 sees obstacles being addressed by players considering the present state of the PCs, their Goals/Beliefs/Instincts et al (and later Creed), the present gamestate (which includes a host of parameters), and end up skillfulling marshalling resources and making Tests. However, I've run heaps of TB1 Adventures (and 6 x TB2 Adventures including the one this present ENWorld group is in the thrall of) and there are enough cases where you don't go to the dice for obstacle resolution that they have to be an input into the conversation.


Finally, and unrelated to the above, @AbdulAlhazred is correct. You can (and I do regularly) procedurally generate the obstacle array (and their connections and integration to the theme of the Adventures and the Goals the PCs have set out) of Short and Medium Adventures in TB in-situ. Its particularly "easy" for Adventures that predominately or wholly take place in the wilderness. The GMing skill is in (a) creating coherent, stimulating, consequential choice within move-space, (b) integrating each instance of this (so the whole Adventure features coherence, stimulation, and consequence), (c) knowing where/what when it comes to potential Camp sites, and (d) faithfully staying within/hewing to the parameters of Adventure design (including Loot and threats > expectant # of Obs, value of Obs, Might, etc).

 

[Manbearcat]

I tend to agree. In addition, I am not sure the traditional RPG asymmetrical division of authority is actually necessary for skilled play.

I mean, after all, the majority of games in the world do not have a traditional D&D GM/Player division of authority, but certainly you can be skilled at them, yes? There is skilled play in chess, and Monopoly, and poker. Sometimes that skill is in interacting with the rules, sometimes it is in interacting with other players, even if their authority isn't asymmetrical.

We can also look at, say, improvisational theater, in which there's no necessary asymmetry in authority, but you can also be skilled in that - knowing the other players on the stage, and how they tend to operate, and setting each other up for good "Yes, and..." scenarios.

Combine those two, and you could easily wind up with an RPG that is symmetrical, but has skilled play, right?

Admittedly, this may stretch one's preferred vision of Skilled Play beyond where some of us are comfortable, but... then I ask what about it is uncomfortable?

This touches upon why I think the nomenclature is helpfully divided up into the specific Gygaxian Skilled Play (but not GSP because that is the 170 GOAT of MMA!) and the more generic Skilled Play (which is contingent upon the game being played).

The etymological roots of the term "Skilled Play" certainly appear to stem from proto-D&D and post-genesis D&D. Fair enough. But having Skilled Play forever taken from our lexicon because Gygaxian Skilled Play doesn't seem particularly helpful to advancing our interests of having (and sustaining) functional conversations!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I tend to agree. In addition, I am not sure the traditional RPG asymmetrical division of authority is actually necessary for skilled play.

I mean, after all, the majority of games in the world do not have a traditional D&D GM/Player division of authority, but certainly you can be skilled at them, yes? There is skilled play in chess, and Monopoly, and poker. Sometimes that skill is in interacting with the rules, sometimes it is in interacting with other players, even if their authority isn't asymmetrical.

We can also look at, say, improvisational theater, in which there's no necessary asymmetry in authority, but you can also be skilled in that - knowing the other players on the stage, and how they tend to operate, and setting each other up for good "Yes, and..." scenarios.

Combine those two, and you could easily wind up with an RPG that is symmetrical, but has skilled play, right?

Admittedly, this may stretch one's preferred vision of Skilled Play beyond where some of us are comfortable, but... then I ask what about it is uncomfortable?

Before bowing out.

I use "Skilled Play" as a term of art. As "jargon."

D&D General - On Skilled Play: D&D as a Game

I lost my last topic, so I am taking a brief detour into a topic that has lurked in the background in quite a few recent threads (especially given the number of topics we've had regarding D&D & OSR). A few threads have discussed how difficult D&D should be, and what consequences there should be...

www.enworld.org

Skilled Play (especially where, as here, the terms are capitalized, and/or the conversation is about a game that explicitly "calls back" to aspects of early TTRPGs) refers to a specific modality of play.

Not people playing games skillfully. Okay ... that's about it. To the extent you're talking about people playing games skillfully, I have nothing to add. To the extent you're talking about ... Skilled Play, I've got my original post and you can look at the other thread.