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

[Umbran]

One more time, before bowing out.

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

Yes, I am aware of that.

But I happen to think our language use tends to limit how we think sometimes, and restricting "Skilled Play" to mean only "Gygaxian Skilled Play" tends to limit our consideration of how games work - games have come a long, long way since Gygax, after all, and we should want to broaden out the concept to find the analogs in games with different dynamics, no? Given the topic here - a juncture of this Skilled Play with Story Now - I'd figure being open to the analogs would be kind of important.

But maybe I'm wrong in that, in which case, you can feel free to pay no attention.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, I am aware of that.

But I happen to think our language use tends to limit how we think sometimes, and restricting "Skilled Play" to mean only "Gygaxian Skilled Play" tends to limit our consideration of how games work - games have come a long, long way since Gygax, after all, and we should want to broaden out the concept to find the analogs in games with different dynamics, no? Given the topic here, I'd figure being open to the analogs would be kind of important.

But maybe I'm wrong in that, in which case, you can feel free to pay no attention to the question.

Well, I have always been open to changing terms- except, of course, that this term is incredibly well-known already. It would be kind of like someone saying, "Hey, other RPGs have story elements ... so let's stop using Story Now to refer to certain types of games."

And, by the way, the insertion of "Gygaxian" for Skilled Play is fairly novel- it was never even referred to that until recently, and even that term (while understood) does a serious disservice to other people (like Arneson) and other games.

But if you want to come up with a new term, please do so and popularize it! That would be great.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I have always been open to changing terms- except, of course, that this term is incredibly well-known already. It would be kind of like someone saying, "Hey, other RPGs have story elements ... so let's stop using Story Now to refer to certain types of games."

Fair. But then again, as understanding of game dyamics changes, shoud not jargon change to encapsulate the new understanding? And, well, don't users of the old jargon always give pushback when changes are suggested?

And, by the way, the insertion of "Gygaxian" for Skilled Play is fairly novel- it was never even referred to that until recently, and even that term (while understood) does a serious disservice to other people (like Arneson) and other games.

So, as to the disservice - none is intended. My acceptance of it is based on how, from what I have been given as description of their personal styles, Gygax as a GM expected and intended Skilled Play more than Arneson did, so it seemed fitting. If I'm incorrect on that, fine. I might offer "Classic" Skilled Play, or the like as an alternative.

But if you want to come up with a new term, please do so and popularize it! That would be great.

Also, I could also simply ask - what would folks think is a good term for the concept of Skilled Play generalized to other play dynamics? I always felt the more natural language term is best for the generalized concept, with specific alterations (like "Gygaxian" here) to be better for more specific considerations. But that's just me.

 

[clearstream]

So, the below statement (though it requires a certain level of rigor within the scrutiny) may very well be true:

System x is not a Story Now experience because the demands of Skilled Play are far too intensive, the IIEE + OODA relationship foregrounds challenge-based content far too much, and the system is intricate to such a degree that participants invariably are preoccupied by system architecture/mechanical interaction rather than engaging with and addressing premise/thematic conflict duress and the nature of its fallout on PC.

Yup, I feel that is a fair statement. What I don't know yet is how practice effect will impact this. Implicit in the idea of "skilled play" is the possibility of learning, especially where system architecture/mechanical interaction is at issue. So that at some point - perhaps after 10-20 sessions - our learned skill might obviate preoccupation with those things.

Were that the case (if that learning transpires) would you then say that TB2 is - at least on those grounds - not ruled out as a Story Now experience?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

.

Also, I could also simply ask - what would folks think is a good term for the concept of Skilled Play generalized to other play dynamics?

Either skilled play (not capitalized) or Skillful Play seems fine to me.

But Expert Play. Proficient Play. Masterful Play.

Dunno. I'm sure a thesaurus would work!

 

[Campbell]

I am sympathetic to the argument that we should be as precise as possible. However, using a lack of precision as rhetorical pretense to change the subject of discussion is something I find intellectually dishonest. If you can reasonably infer what someone means I think you should try to approach their points directly instead of trying to use a lack of precision as a means to disrupt discussion.

 

[clearstream]

* where does Story Now end and Fiction First begin? Much of this debate revolves around the relative complexity of system mechanics and whether they impede/enable the playing of a PC inhabiting the fiction rather than focusing on the mechanics.

I see SN and FF as sympathetic, but separate modes. SN desires dramatic character development. FF desires beginning and ending in the fiction.

These aren't identical nor welded together.

*are Skilled Play and System Mastery the same thing? Does one necessitate the other?

SP doesn't necessitate SM, nor vice versa. Consider the differences between OSR and neo-Trad.

*is there a necessary tension between Story Now principles, like "play your PC like driving a stolen car" and Skilled Play, which might seem to seek prioritizing the best move (whatever that means!) in any given situation rather than making moves chosen for excitement, danger, intrigue, risk (even without expectation of concomitant reward)? Or do we need a more expansive definition of Skilled Play? Or perhaps separate definitions, depending on system?

Personally, I'm not sure. Perhaps using a trait against yourself to gain a mechanical advantage is an example of the two working together.

 

[hawkeyefan]

*is there a necessary tension between Story Now principles, like "play your PC like driving a stolen car" and Skilled Play, which might seem to seek prioritizing the best move (whatever that means!) in any given situation rather than making moves chosen for excitement, danger, intrigue, risk (even without expectation of concomitant reward)? Or do we need a more expansive definition of Skilled Play? Or perhaps separate definitions, depending on system?

This is an interesting question, and I don't know if I have an answer for it, but I will offer a thought.

I think that in some games... the one I have most strongly in mind is Blades in the Dark (which prompted the stolen car quote, I believe)... the mechanics that you can use skillfully support playing dangerously. Blades empowers players to be bold and daring and to come through.

In our campaign that just ended, I played a Lurk and one of my first playbook abilities was the Daredevil ability. This means whenever the character takes a Desperate Action, he gets +1d on the roll. He also suffers a -1d to any Resistance rolls against consequences, but that also ramps up the danger. Plus, Desperate actions give you a point of XP as well, so I am rewarded with XP and an extra die when I take actions that are highly dangerous, and they actually become more so because my ability to Resist is lessened.

So I think that although there can be conflict between Skilled Play and other play goals.... and I've seen enough brave and hearty fighters in D&D go full turtle mode at the sign of a trap or when they're down to 7 HP to know this happens..... it doesn't need to be the case. It may or may not, depending on the game and the mechanics in question.

 

[clearstream]

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).

My group might be playing this incorrectly. Our reading of the SG makes it that the grind does not tick forward unless you make a test or conflict.

SG 40 A turn contains a test or a conflict

SG 216 It’s as if they passed a test without rolling dice or taking a turn

I see discussion on this on Reddit, and folk seem to feel that a Good Idea doesn't advance the Grind. In our play, we've been understanding that as the powerful reward for good ideas. Perhaps wrongly?

 

[Manbearcat]

My group might be playing this incorrectly. Our reading of the SG makes it that the grind does not tick forward unless you make a test or conflict.

SG 40 A turn contains a test or a conflict

SG 216 It’s as if they passed a test without rolling dice or taking a turn

I see discussion on this on Reddit, and folk seem to feel that a Good Idea doesn't advance the Grind. In our play, we've been understanding that as the powerful reward for good ideas. Perhaps wrongly?

TB1 has a myriad of ways to handle A Good Idea. The default effect is "obstacle obviated, turn not spent, resources intact."

However, there are other options (which don't involve a test) but which always involve A Good Idea changing the situation. This might be a Twist or Condition and then move on (obstacle resolved). A Turn spent is less than a Twist or Condition but its "a tax" for a Good Idea. I like that as a consistent, default middle ground for A Good Idea and I don't like a Twist or Condition as the tax.

So, consequently, I've always run TB1 with the Good Idea = Twist or Condition "tax" throttled back to a Turn. The cost (don't mark an advancement and spend a Turn) + payoff (resolve an obstacle) has consistently yielded the most agreeable (in terms of enjoyment and in terms of hewing to the aesthetic of TB play and in terms of consistency in handling) play.

I think TB2 has this exact same thing, but I don't have my books or PDFs on me. And again, its a pretty good edge case so managing it in your personal best way possible isn't going to perturb play to any noticeable degree.

EDIT TO RESOLVE OTHER THING

Yup, I feel that is a fair statement. What I don't know yet is how practice effect will impact this. Implicit in the idea of "skilled play" is the possibility of learning, especially where system architecture/mechanical interaction is at issue. So that at some point - perhaps after 10-20 sessions - our learned skill might obviate preoccupation with those things.

Were that the case (if that learning transpires) would you then say that TB2 is - at least on those grounds - not ruled out as a Story Now experience?

Yessir!

What you've put above here is one of the pillars of my position on TB2 as a functional Story Now vessel (along with comparisons to Mouse Guard, the engine it is based upon, which is clearly a Story Now vessel...Dogs in the Vineyard being a quintessential Story Now vessel yet having its own, mechanical-interaction-based learning curve...and various and sundry other things...but I'll get to that later in the conversation).

So yeah. Very fine point (one I very, very much agree with and have said in private conversations on this very subject!).

Torchbearer will never be a Story Now engine in the vein of something like My Life With Master or Dogs in the Vineyard (which is ALL PREMISE AND CHARACTER EXPLORATION...ALL THE TIME). But there is plenty of DNA/tech there (even if the DNA's accessibility requires the time and effort required to get your operating system up to speed).

All that being said, I'm still very sympathetic to that position I Steelmanned in the lead post. Until and if the participants at the table get both their operating systems and their handling time logistics up to speed, TB2's Story Now capacity will be either muted considerably or rendered obselete.