Gaming Experience Does Not Equal Gaming Skill

[JoeGKushner]

A post talking about how the gamer had 'only' been playing for 10-12 years and seemed to be noting that it wasn't as long as some but long enough to play various editions. It almost seemed like the poster was down on himself for 'only' playing for a decade plus.

I've also seen some posts talking about the virtue of getting new blood into the game and some new GMs, like Gabe at Penny Arcade, do some great stuff with the game.

Now, while it's possible that gaming experience can lead to better gaming skill, I've found the opposite to be true as well. That gaming experience, especially over long periods of time, puts some people into a box and they just can't get out of it.

What about other people's personal experience with long term gamers, both as Game Master and players?

 

[ggroy]

Now, while it's possible that gaming experience can lead to better gaming skill, I've found the opposite to be true as well. That gaming experience, especially over long periods of time, puts some people into a box and they just can't get out of it.

What about other people's personal experience with long term gamers, both as Game Master and players?

I've found it varies significantly from person to person, regardless of experience and amount of time played.

I've played in some games with very experienced DMs with decades of experience, but who play in a really boring slow and time consuming manner.

On the other hand, I've played in games with very inexperienced DMs with very little to no previous experience, who played very interesting and exciting games.

 

[Umbran]

Well, of course experience does not equal skill in gaming - because the two are not equivalent anywhere else, either. I can hire an electrician that's been licensed and working for 20 years, and he can still do crappy work!

Experience is one route to skill - but you have to have made use of that time.

And, of course, "gaming skill" is a poorly defined thing to begin with. Considering the breadth of styles we enjoy, one person's highly skilled is another person's duffer.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Experience is certainly not skill, which requires experience but also intelligence and wisdom (strange how many D&D terms made it into that).

There's a commonly cited figure of needing ~10,000 hours of experience to become an "expert" at anything. Even long-time D&D players may not ever reach that.

And of course, D&D is such a heterogeneous game that skill at it is vaguely defined at best.

A post talking about how the gamer had 'only' been playing for 10-12 years and seemed to be noting that it wasn't as long as some but long enough to play various editions. It almost seemed like the poster was down on himself for 'only' playing for a decade plus.

I wonder if I'm the example; as this is about how long I've been playing and it does seem like a lot less than the average ENWorlder. Personally, I really qualify my observations about D&D less by the time I've been playing than by the number of situations I've played in. I've been in only one group-albeit one whose membership is so fluid that there's not an original member left. I know only my one style; I do that well but I don't know too much about other people's D&D. I was shocked, for instance, to find out how many people on these boards used miniatures regularly, or even when I originally learned that people do PbP games. Thus I would consider myself highly skilled but I would qualify that skill's applicability.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

What defines skill? Encyclopedic rules knowledge? Tony award winning roleplaying? Creating an incredibly detailed campaign setting?

My old group consisted of four "veteran" gamers including myself, two players who had played a few times, and three complete newbies to D&D. One of the new players took to the game like a fish to water - grasped the rules quickly, had a creative PC concept, and roleplayed well. One of the veteran players was a great powergamer, but could not roleplay to save his life.

For myself, although I already had 20 years of D&D experience, I was a lousy DM just before we started that group. I think I improved over time thanks mainly to people here on these forums as I heard examples both good and bad, and learned to recognize the different way people play and how to adapt to make the game fun for everyone, not just for myself.

 

[weem]

I've also seen some posts talking about the virtue of getting new blood into the game and some new GMs, like Gabe at Penny Arcade, do some great stuff with the game.

Yea, I mentioned that recently that sometimes it takes people (like Gabe) who are very new to the game to bring something to it that us more experienced games may not consider, or overlook.

I have played for 21+ years now (was 12 then, now 33) and as I mentioned in that same post there was a player in one of my games who came up with some great ideas for a game he ran after only playing D&D a few times! In fact, he had never played ANY tabletop game before those first few sessions.

Now, while it's possible that gaming experience can lead to better gaming skill, I've found the opposite to be true as well. That gaming experience, especially over long periods of time, puts some people into a box and they just can't get out of it.

What about other people's personal experience with long term gamers, both as Game Master and players?

In my experience this is true indeed. As an 'experienced gamer' (read as "aging", haha), I do find it hard sometimes to let go of various things, or pick up new methods, etc. I have gotten some things so ingrained in my DM-ing over these many years that it's hard to let some of them go - but I am trying to bust all of that up - shake things up and do some new things.

But I also feel my experience brings a lot to a game as well

 

[Mark]

Sometimes even vast experience can be exceeded by skill, particularly if it is also extensively varied experience, though it rarely surpasses ego. Just sayin'.

 

[Lhorgrim]

I agree with the idea that experience does not necessarily equal skill, and that skill in the context of gaming is open to interpretation.

When I tried 4E for the first time, one of the guys at the table was a very skilled 3.5E and Magic the Gathering player. He really ruined the game for me because he stole the newness and wonder of a new system and replaced them with mechanical "combos" and "rule exploits". He was very skilled at the part of the game that he liked, but that wasn't the part that I enjoyed. I didn't give up on 4E, but I haven't found another group that works for me yet.

Sometimes a game system gets a good or bad rap based on the people at the table when you play it. If your group isn't a good fit for your play style, then the best rule set in the world is going to seem sub par.

 

[BryonD]

I'd roughly guestimate that "skill" is somewhat related to time played for up to maybe a year or so, assuming fairly regular play and some variety of experience. And "somewhat" is a pretty generous word.

After that, I don't think you would find any statistically significant relationship between time played and some reasonably objective measure of "skill".

I'm reading skill to mean, capable of enhancing the fun for everyone at the table.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I recently had a couple of experiences with some clearly experienced gamers.

One was at a UK convention, and of the five players round the table one was clearly suffering with a heavy cold and actually dozed off at one point (she apologised), one was a good friend, one was an excellent player, one was me... and one guy interrupted the DM, slowed down scenes, chose to make his character obnoxious and worked against the basic assumptions of the plot on several occasions. He clearly considered himself to be an experienced and knowledgable player, to me he came off like an ass, frankly.

Second experience was in my brother's group. An old player had rejoined as we'd decided to give Savage Worlds a try. We ran a pulp game using a published adventure. Throughout the session he threatened to shoot pretty much every NPC we met, apart from the ones we were supposed to shoot, whined constantly about the strength of the bad guys, whined abou the pre-published module... eventually my brother lost his temper and threw him out of the house.

Now, I am by no means saying that all experienced or older gamers are like this but a word for everyone (including me!) - if you feel like you're the only one who can see how bad the game is and how poor the DM is, consider that it might be you that's the problem, or just politely leave. Especially at conventions.

Like everyone else, I agree that RPG-skill =/= experience. Pick your gaming friends carefully.