D&D General GMing and "Player Skill"

[Reynard]

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

Beware the GM that suddenly discovered Grimtooth's.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I normally don’t like to poke fun at typos, but I love “the last likits” because it sounds like the title of a particularly strange 80s movie or something.

Anyway, to your actual point, I think it’s easy to convince one’s self that having a list of options actually helps one come up with more things outside the list rather than making them feel limited to the options on the list. But, in practice, the more you define positive space in a rules system, the more stark the negative space becomes. I’ve seen this through years of experience with various game systems, players are less inclined to come up with out-of-the-box solutions to problems the more stuff the box contains. I like crunchy systems, but I think it’s undeniable that crunchy systems discourage players from improvising beyond the prescribed options.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

View attachment 416147

“Skilled play” is a poor term for the play patterns it’s trying to describe, yes, and for a lot more reasons than this. But, there is a lot to be appreciated about play patterns that emphasize in-the-moment player decision-making over random chance and build-planning.

 

[Steampunkette]

I normally don’t like to poke fun at typos, but I love “the last likits” because it sounds like the title of a particularly strange 80s movie or something.

.... I mean I'd watch it. Sounds like a Dark Crystal style story.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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

I think genre conventions, setting knowledge, and the like, does play a part. Social conflict in particular, however, seems to rely almost exclusively on how well a player knows the GM. If the player knows what the GM "wants to hear" then they will be able to portray a socially adept PC. If they don't, then they will be prone to say things the GM "doesn't find convincing" thus barring them from portraying a socially adept PC no matter how eloquent or charismatic the player is IRL.

 

[Reynard]

.... I mean I'd watch it. Sounds like a Dark Crystal style story.

Something something TootsiePop

 

[zakael19]

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.

Maybe a little bit, but honestly isn't the sheer statement of "skilled play" and all the context around it pretty uncharitable as well? The implication (and straight up statements) is that play outside of the OSR is unskilled. Which I think we all know quite well is a load of horse crap. What OSR calls "skilled play" is simply player-mastery of a specific style and ethos of gameplay. It doesnt translate at all to say, playing Lancer well; or playing 5e tactical combat well; or engaging in compelling gameplay in FITD.

Reading all the dialogue around it reminds me a lot of the "git gud" stuff surrounding Soulslike games. That has absolutely no bearing on your ability to play Call of Duty, or Street Fighter, or XCOM. Each style of game requires a different sort of mastery to play well within the expectations and design.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe a little bit, but honestly isn't the sheer statement of "skilled play" and all the context around it pretty uncharitable as well? The implication (and straight up statements) is that play outside of the OSR is unskilled. Which I think we all know quite well is a load of horse crap. What OSR calls "skilled play" is simply player-mastery of a specific style and ethos of gameplay. It doesnt translate at all to say, playing Lancer well; or playing 5e tactical combat well; or engaging in compelling gameplay in FITD.

“Skilled play” is a terrible name for it, for many reasons, this among them. Though, I don’t think the intent is to imply that other ways of playing don’t involve skill. The emphasis is meant to be on player, and the term is kind of a response to the adventure-writing advice from the 3e area to “challenge the character, not the player.” The intent behind the so-called player skill focused play patterns is to lean into challenging the player.

It’s also not exclusive to OSR, though it certainly is a major part of the OSR ethos. I myself am not an OSR girl, though I find a lot of the ideas in that space interesting and sometimes useful.

Reading all the dialogue around it reminds me a lot of the "git gud" stuff surrounding Soulslike games. That has absolutely no bearing on your ability to play Call of Duty, or Street Fighter, or XCOM. Each style of game requires a different sort of mastery to play well within the expectations and design.

I don’t see the connection. “Git Gud” isn’t really a Soulslike specific thing, it’s a pretty general toxic gamer culture thing, meant to condescend to people based on skill level at whatever game might be getting discussed. If there’s any particular association with Soulslikes, it’s due to the bizarre aversion that particular fandom has to the idea of multiple difficulty modes. In either case, it seems unrelated to “skilled play” because “skilled play” isn’t meant to demean people for being bad at D&D. It’s meant to hilight a preference for challenges that are based on the players’ knowledge of the genre conventions, DM’s habits, attention to descriptive detail, record keeping, lateral thinking, and ability to apply all of that knowledge in their decision-making during dungeon exploration as the primary skills being tested, as opposed to system mastery, build planning, miniatures tactics, and knack for push-your-luck games.

 

[zakael19]

“Skilled play” is a terrible name for it, for many reasons, this among them. Though, I don’t think the intent is to imply that other ways of playing don’t involve skill. The emphasis is meant to be on player, and the term is kind of a response to the adventure-writing advice from the 3e area to “challenge the character, not the player.” The intent behind the so-called player skill focused play patterns is to lean into challenging the player.

It’s also not exclusive to OSR, though it certainly is a major part of the OSR ethos. I myself am not an OSR girl, though I find a lot of the ideas in that space interesting and sometimes useful.

I don’t see the connection. “Git Gud” isn’t really a Soulslike specific thing, it’s a pretty general toxic gamer culture thing, meant to condescend to people based on skill level at whatever game might be getting discussed. If there’s any particular association with Soulslikes, it’s due to the bizarre aversion that particular fandom has to the idea of multiple difficulty modes. In either case, it seems unrelated to “skilled play” because “skilled play” isn’t meant to demean people for being bad at D&D. It’s meant to hilight a preference for challenges that are based on the players’ knowledge of the genre conventions, DM’s habits, attention to descriptive detail, record keeping, lateral thinking, and ability to apply all of that knowledge in their decision-making during dungeon exploration as the primary skills being tested, as opposed to system mastery, build planning, miniatures tactics, and knack for push-your-luck games.

Ok but a lot of the context I see it discussed in is absolutely looking at 3e+ D&D play in a very pejorative sense. "Oh you just look at stuff on your character sheet and click it, haha very skilled." Is all of it meant in an uncharitable way? No, but like the emphasis on "orthogonal thinking" and avoidance of challenge can also be said to just be "get really good at convincing the GM your idea has a good chance of working so it autosuceeds." Again, if there wasn't an undercurrent of "the other D&D sucks" I don't think they'd draw this line between skilled/unskilled play.

(now I do see some people use it to specifically mean "a player who actively engages with and learns the rules and conventions of that specific game regardless of play culture" and for that I think that "system mastery" is probably a better term?)

When I played through some His Majesty the Worm we did a bunch of "creative problem solving" and poking at corners of the dungeon and going through landmark-hidden-secret stuff per procedure and player judgement. It was, for me, some of the least interesting play I've engaged in. All we did is talk about stuff and then the GM went "yeah that works" with a little bit of resource expenditure. Nowhere did I see any interesting skill besides reading the rule book and looking at quick references coming into play.

 

[Deekin]

There's also the element I find most troubling as a dm.

What's the difference between "Skilled Play” and "Metagaming"?

Because in my experience there's a lot of overlap between the two.