D&D General GMing and "Player Skill"

[zakael19]

My take, having read a bunch of stuff around OSR ethos + participated in a fair bit of discussions on the side of some NSR games + run a couple myself:

"Skilled play" within this context is a combination of a) knowing the tropes and concepts that surround classic dungeoneering to avoid chancy procedures being triggered; b) being adept at PC adventure game style "combine items in your inventory in an unexpected way that suddenly bypasses a challenge;" and c) knowing how to convince the DM that something can plausibly work.

In short, it's figuring out ways to avoid playing a game (in that games have rules, and you want to avoid activating the rules because those lead to rolls and uncertainty). You want to stay at the conversational level, getting the DM to rule "yeah that happens" as much as possible. As @Charlaquin points out Social situations are probably the most obvious markers of this, but so many other conditions are as well.

It's like the polar opposite of PBTA design, which is from the ground up intended to forcibly inject the unwanted into play.

Now there's other sorts of "skilled play" because just like in computer games, every sort of ruleset/play has its own expectations. Lancer skilled play is about understanding abilities and combos and tactical skirmishes; PBTA skilled play is about manipulating fictional position to trigger the most optimal moves that have the least downside; etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Avoiding the combat would be avoiding the check in the first place, it would be avoiding the social interaction. The outcome of the combat or social interaction shouldn't be decided by GM fiat, IMHO. Would "player skill" folks be okay with the outcome of a combat encounter being decided soley by GM fiat.

Player: "I attack the guard!"
GM: "The guard is quite skilled, your PC gets skewered by the guard, make a new PC."

Is the same as...

Player: "I try to convince the guard by saying [whatever].
GM: "The guard ain't bying it, you shall not pass!"

Well, except the stakes are a bit higher in the combat example.

 

[Reynard]

But the player knowing the process when the PC has no reason to can decrease setting logic.

Immersion -- which is what I think you mean here -- is not a major thing for me. D&D (and other TTRPGs) is a game first, and the story we build is in response to the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Immersion -- which is what I think you mean here -- is not a major thing for me. D&D (and other TTRPGs) is a game first, and the story we build is in response to the game.

Well, I get immersion from setting logic, but it's a thing on its own.

 

[Reynard]

Well, it can at least increase the players’ confidence in knowing what their character is capable of. And, certainly it’s difficult to express agency if you lack any confidence in such knowledge. On the other hand, strictly defined parameters of what your character can do tends to create implications of what they can’t do, which is limiting on agency. So, IMO the best way to insure maximum player agency is to support player confidence in knowledge of their capabilities within a minimally-prescribed system. This is, in my experience, best achieved by giving the player ample information relevant to their decision making process.

I'm not sure how much I buy the "the last likits" argument. I can only speak for myself, but as a GM that list gives me a solid foundation on which to make judgements for actions that aren't listed. If the last intimidates the players, the GM isn't doing their job.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Well, except the stakes are a bit higher in the combat example.

Which is totally superfluous to whether or not social or combat encounters be decided by GM fiat. No matter the stakes, GM fiat deciding the outcome of an encounter, is GM fiat deciding the outcome of an encounter.

For me it's a side effect of playing TTRPGs with people I either don't know well, or at all. I don't have a regular group, haven't since the late 90s. Generally I see folks who are in favor of social encounters being decided soley by GM fiat most often play in a longstanding group. So everyone is familiar with each other making it far more likely that players will say "the right thing" and convince the NPC(GM) to accept their argument. That phenomenon doesn't work nearly as well when folks lack familiarity with each other.

 

[Steampunkette]

So... the idea of "Skilled Play" is ultimately a false canard. There's no such thing as being 'skilled' at playing D&D of any edition.

You can get skilled at making characters. More knowledge, better at learning how to use the system and recognize interactions...

But also you can just learn that from others on forums and the like, online. Reddit Posts. Discord conversations. Ultimately it's not a skill, just knowledge.

The closest things to actual skill with D&D games are Pattern Recognition and Genre Saavy.

Okay. And a little bit of empathy and emotional intelligence... but skilled play?

I don't think it exists.

 

[Charlaquin]

My take, having read a bunch of stuff around OSR ethos + participated in a fair bit of discussions on the side of some NSR games + run a couple myself:

"Skilled play" within this context is a combination of a) knowing the tropes and concepts that surround classic dungeoneering to avoid chancy procedures being triggered; b) being adept at PC adventure game style "combine items in your inventory in an unexpected way that suddenly bypasses a challenge;" and c) knowing how to convince the DM that something can plausibly work.

In short, it's figuring out ways to avoid playing a game (in that games have rules, and you want to avoid activating the rules because those lead to rolls and uncertainty). You want to stay at the conversational level, getting the DM to rule "yeah that happens" as much as possible. As @Charlaquin points out Social situations are probably the most obvious markers of this, but so many other conditions are as well.

It's like the polar opposite of PBTA design, which is from the ground up intended to forcibly inject the unwanted into play.

Now there's other sorts of "skilled play" because just like in computer games, every sort of ruleset/play has its own expectations. Lancer skilled play is about understanding abilities and combos and tactical skirmishes; PBTA skilled play is about manipulating fictional position to trigger the most optimal moves that have the least downside; etc.

This strikes me as a pretty uncharitable interpretation. Skilled play is not about trying to “avoid playing a game”; indeed, it is tied so strongly to dungeoneering precisely because dungeoneering is where D&D is at its most gamified. Rather, it is about using tactics (that is to say, moment-to-moment decision-making) to mitigate the influence of chance on the outcomes.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So... the idea of "Skilled Play" is ultimately a false canard. There's no such thing as being 'skilled' at playing D&D of any edition.

You can get skilled at making characters. More knowledge, better at learning how to use the system and recognize interactions...

But also you can just learn that from others on forums and the like, online. Reddit Posts. Discord conversations. Ultimately it's not a skill, just knowledge.

The closest things to actual skill with D&D games are Pattern Recognition and Genre Saavy.

Okay. And a little bit of empathy and emotional intelligence... but skilled play?

I don't think it exists.

I think "skilled play" is just the players understanding the idiosyncrasies of the GM.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think "skilled play" is just the players understanding the idiosyncrasies of the GM.

Or which Anime/Movie/Show they most recently watched/Book they read/Philosophical Treatise they're interested in?