"I'm good at D&D"
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Kwalish Kid
Explorer
One way of thinkin g about it is if we take Gary Fine seriously that RPG playing reates idioculture (small, local cultures) then one is good at D&D to the extent that one is good at participating in the particular idioculture created through play.
twilsemail
First Post
I won D&D just last week. I got a trophy. Also a minion. I have a minion!
To answer the question at hand... I don't know that "Good at D&D" is a viable phrase. I think the important phrase is "Fun to game with."
To answer the question at hand... I don't know that "Good at D&D" is a viable phrase. I think the important phrase is "Fun to game with."
Storminator
First Post
I'm having a hard time imagining anything you can do without being able to do it well. So I must conclude you can be good at D&D.
I can't imagine an endeavor as broad and varied as playing D&D having a unified metric for measuring how good you are, however. Except, perhaps, for twilsemail's "Fun to game with."
PS
I can't imagine an endeavor as broad and varied as playing D&D having a unified metric for measuring how good you are, however. Except, perhaps, for twilsemail's "Fun to game with."
PS
LostSoul
Adventurer
Yep, you can be "good at D&D". Here are some ways:
-Recognizing when it's time to fight and when it's time to run
-Knowing what abilities monsters have and what "level" they are
-Knowing when to check for traps and disarm them
-Knowing how to check for traps and disarm them
-Mapping well
-Working as a team in combat
-Avoiding combat if possible (pre-3E)
-Knowing when the risk is worth the reward
-Being able to solve riddles and puzzles
-Building a powerful character (more for 3E and on)
-Knowing when to rest
-Knowing what spells to memorize and when to cast them
-Recognizing when it's time to fight and when it's time to run
-Knowing what abilities monsters have and what "level" they are
-Knowing when to check for traps and disarm them
-Knowing how to check for traps and disarm them
-Mapping well
-Working as a team in combat
-Avoiding combat if possible (pre-3E)
-Knowing when the risk is worth the reward
-Being able to solve riddles and puzzles
-Building a powerful character (more for 3E and on)
-Knowing when to rest
-Knowing what spells to memorize and when to cast them
In old-style play, there was definitely an element of skill. Some campaigns could be exceptionally easy ("monty haul") or hard due to the DM. With a common basis there, one could take character advancement as a general indication of a player's ability. When it was not so, that tended quickly to become evident in play. High-level "stats" were no substitute -- and, especially for spell-casters, more rules in play meant more chances to display ineptitude.
That's the main reason the Tomb of Horrors was recommended for high levels. Players undertaking the challenge ought to have at least a couple of years of "learning the ropes" behind them.
The basic skills to acquire at low levels included:
* Teamwork, planning and time (and other resource) management.
* Alertness, observation and investigation.
* Assessing risk and reward, balancing caution and boldness.
* Creative problem-solving.
There were also bodies of knowledge to acquire. The most important was the D&D equivalent of "common sense", which in general character resembled the rules of thumb front-line soldiers learn in modern warfare. The accumulation of data about particular kinds of monsters and magic was also helpful.
So was lore peculiar to a campaign (geography, history, social structures and customs, current events and powerful figures, etc.). However, a player who had developed skills for navigating the environment was likely to do better in any context than one whose familiarity with a particular context was due simply to long exposure.
Getting a character to second level for the first time tended to be a key rite of passage. Luck played a significant role, but mainly a negative one; the odds were stacked against survival. The number of characters one lost before attaining that first milestone had a strong correlation with how quickly one "got" the game.
That's the main reason the Tomb of Horrors was recommended for high levels. Players undertaking the challenge ought to have at least a couple of years of "learning the ropes" behind them.
The basic skills to acquire at low levels included:
* Teamwork, planning and time (and other resource) management.
* Alertness, observation and investigation.
* Assessing risk and reward, balancing caution and boldness.
* Creative problem-solving.
There were also bodies of knowledge to acquire. The most important was the D&D equivalent of "common sense", which in general character resembled the rules of thumb front-line soldiers learn in modern warfare. The accumulation of data about particular kinds of monsters and magic was also helpful.
So was lore peculiar to a campaign (geography, history, social structures and customs, current events and powerful figures, etc.). However, a player who had developed skills for navigating the environment was likely to do better in any context than one whose familiarity with a particular context was due simply to long exposure.
Getting a character to second level for the first time tended to be a key rite of passage. Luck played a significant role, but mainly a negative one; the odds were stacked against survival. The number of characters one lost before attaining that first milestone had a strong correlation with how quickly one "got" the game.
Last edited:
Doug McCrae
Legend
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2XGp5ix8HE"]How to win at D&D[/ame]
aboyd
Explorer
I would love to play with people who are "good" at D&D. A few years ago I was in a D&D 3.5 group with a guy named Brad Willer. He was very fun. He came to have a good time. He made jokes and laughed at other people's jokes. He smiled. When combat started, he would get into the action and dish out damage. He didn't know the rules so well that he could rules-lawyer it, but he knew the rules well enough to make an effective character. So, he contributed to the team.
He bathed. He was fit. He was normal and well-adjusted. He showed up on time. He had a good story to tell if there was down-time. He was relaxed and never got pissy if people did unexpected things (like talking about a TV show for 20 minutes). He tried not to metagame. He tried not to steal the spotlight or otherwise micro-manage other people's characters.
He never undermined/berated/argued with the DM, but if he felt the urge to second-guess the DM, he did it pretty damn nicely. He'd accept house rules, even temporary on-the-spot made up ones that conflicted with the books. When it was his turn, he knew what he was going to do -- nobody ever set a timer on him, which is way more than I can say for myself. I get timer'd a lot, as I hem & haw and try to figure out which of 30 spells I want to cast. But not him.
Lastly, he gave his characters personality. We never LARP'd, and even thought just speaking in character voices was weird. But even with those limitations, he managed to have a hilariously over-the-top warrior who was certifiably dangerous, arrogant, and endearing all at the same time. The other players rooted for him.
So, yeah. I think you can be good at D&D. I wish more people were. Hell, I wish I was as good as Brad.
He bathed. He was fit. He was normal and well-adjusted. He showed up on time. He had a good story to tell if there was down-time. He was relaxed and never got pissy if people did unexpected things (like talking about a TV show for 20 minutes). He tried not to metagame. He tried not to steal the spotlight or otherwise micro-manage other people's characters.
He never undermined/berated/argued with the DM, but if he felt the urge to second-guess the DM, he did it pretty damn nicely. He'd accept house rules, even temporary on-the-spot made up ones that conflicted with the books. When it was his turn, he knew what he was going to do -- nobody ever set a timer on him, which is way more than I can say for myself. I get timer'd a lot, as I hem & haw and try to figure out which of 30 spells I want to cast. But not him.
Lastly, he gave his characters personality. We never LARP'd, and even thought just speaking in character voices was weird. But even with those limitations, he managed to have a hilariously over-the-top warrior who was certifiably dangerous, arrogant, and endearing all at the same time. The other players rooted for him.
So, yeah. I think you can be good at D&D. I wish more people were. Hell, I wish I was as good as Brad.
Similar Threads
