I lost my last topic, so I am taking a brief detour into a topic that has lurked in the background in quite a few recent threads (especially given the number of topics we've had regarding D&D & OSR). A few threads have discussed how difficult D&D should be, and what consequences there should be in the game (such as death, level drains, etc.). Underlying a number of these topics is the shared concept of skilled play.
NECESSARY DISCLAIMER (PLEASE READ): By using the term "skilled play," I am using it in a certain "jargon-y" way that differentiates between player skill and character skill. This is not meant to say that people that do not prefer "skilled play" as a style are "unskilled," nor does it mean anything pejorative about any other style of game. I am only using this term because it has a common currency. As a general rule, I prefer to avoid jargon.
Dave Arneson was prepared for Wesley's Braunstein game. It was a simple scenario ... a banana republic in the throws of revolution. Arneson would receive his points for distributing leaflets. But Arneson convinced other players, using his fake CIA badge, that he was an undercover agent and easily "won" the scenario by stealing all of the money of the country, boarding a helicopter, and casually throwing down all the leaflets on the riots and burning embers below.
1. What is Skilled Play? D&D as a Game.
I don't even have any good skills. You know, like nunchuck skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills.
I wrote above that the usual use of "skilled play" is what differentiates player skill from character skill. To use an easy example of this, think of the reliance in old-school modules on puzzles. My avatar is from the Pharoah series- both Pharoah and Martek were known for their puzzles, and even have a Sphinx with riddles. These types of things were common tests of player knowledge and ability. To think of the difference, and make it simplified and clear:
The Sphinx asks the party, "I disappear when you say my name. What am I?"
Skilled Play: Does anyone playing (the players) know the answer?
Otherwise ... : Do you have something on your character sheet that would let you know the answer? Intelligence check?
The assumed model of play for early D&D was skilled play.
Although he was a storyteller, there was no effort to thread a plot through his dungeon. Keep in mind that this was the dawn of role-playing and some concepts of 2020 gaming weren't known then. It was entirely find the monsters, fight the monster, and take his treasure. Some of the dungeon chambers were filled with surprises. There were creatures hiding above the doors, there were creatures looking like tables and chests, and there were surprises in plain sight that would attack as we moved in the rooms. It got so that I would say upon entering any new area, “Gary, I look up, and down, and all around the area before I walk in. That stopped a lot of ugly surprises from happening.
We learned to be very cautious in Gary's dungeon. We started tossing torches and then lanterns into dark rooms. It wasn't too many burnt scrolls and broken potion bottles to have us change our ways. Soon, we were tossing in coins with Continual Light tossed on them. This caution had consequences as wandering creatures would be attracted to the magical light.
-James Ward
The reasoning behind this was, well, fairly simple. D&D was a game. Like any game, you could play it well (or poorly!). While there was definitely roleplaying, it was rarely the full-on RPing we sometimes see today. To put it in terms of acting; some people prefer to think of RPing like Daniel Day Lewis- to fully inhabit a character. But early RPing was more like being a movie star, like Tom Cruise. Sure, he's playing a role, but he's also, always, Tom Cruise.
2. Cool cool. But ... what about Metagaming?
I think it's wrong that only Hasbro makes Monopoly.
"Metagame, in Dungeons & Dragons, refers to the use of information by a player whose character would not have that information or perspective. Using metagame knowledge is referred to as metagame thinking or metagaming, and is often discouraged."
So now we get into the more contentious area of skilled play; the issue of metagaming. If you look above to what James Ward wrote (and what others say), you will see that there is an evolution in play. Bob I might get killed by traps below him, so Bob II looks down, but gets killed by traps above him. Bob III looks above and below, but gets hit by traps to the side. By the time Bob IV is rolling through the dungeon, he's looking up, down, and all around.
But wait- why is Bob IV doing that? Because that's how Bob I-III died! And how does Bob IV know that? Because the player knows that. Sure, you can retcon some sort of reason ("And the news of the deaths of all adventurers shall be read out in the Ye Ancient and Hallowed Halls of Bob...."), but in reality it's the acquisition of player skill- when Bob IV dies and Legolas I is created, Legolas I will also be looking out. This is similar to the age-old "troll debate." When a character see a troll regenerating, does the character know what to do to end the regeneration?
Well, back when the game was still new, it was just assumed that players would know these things, such as information about monsters, and use them. In 1977, Dragon Magazine published an article in Dragon #10 about how to generate random monsters, because "the players always know too much. ... The answer is to occasionally throw a monster at the party that keeps them on their toes, one that they have never seen before because it is unique. No rules cover it, so they have to find out the hard way what it’s like."
This doesn't mean that certain activities were not considered beyond the pale; for example, I am hard-pressed to think of anytime when (for example) a player buying a module and reading through it prior to playing it wouldn't be considered poor form, if not outright cheating. But while roleplaying was always part of the game, a key differentiating component, there wasn't the same issue with metagaming because with the skilled play paradigm, it was assumed that you were playing a game and act accordingly.
3. Who Cares? What Does Skilled Play Have to do with the Price of Licorice in Scandinavia, Anyway?
All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
D&D relies on dice, and a certain amount of randomness, in order to allow for unexpected and emergent stories through play. Skilled play is an attempt to stack the odds in your favor. To use an analogy, which, while not perfect, may be illuminating-
Poker is a random game, and you cannot choose what you will be dealt (just as you cannot choose if you will roll a 1 or a 20). It is possible for someone who has just learned the rules to win a single hand of poker. Or even to win multiple hands of poker. Over time, however, a person who is skilled at poker, who understands the rules of the game, the odds, the statistics, and how to read people and bet will win more often.
And an important part of poker, for many people, is the risk and the reward. Yes, sometimes people get together and play "penny poker" or they can practice no-stakes poker against a computer opponent; but there is something fundamentally different about playing poker when there are actual stakes involved.
Fundamentally, this is in many ways similar to certain models of "old school" play. Because of the nature of the game and the randomness, even skilled play cannot reduce your risk to zero. You can prepare, you can research, you can load up on protection, and you might just have that one unlucky day, that one bad beat. But the enjoyment of the game and of skilled play comes from the success despite the risks. Even moreso when the success is not merely due to your character (your cards), but due to your play.
So when there is a conversation various issues in D&D revolving around risk, whether it's death, or level drains, or traps, or "save v. death" or any number of other ways that some people have to increase the stakes and consequences in the game, it's not about bringing back a rule that is unfun any more than someone would say, "I like playing poker with money because I find it fun when I go all-in and lose everything."
Instead, it's a desire to have stakes and consequences that matter to skilled play; not just narrative consequences that matter to roleplay.
Anyway, those are some thoughts after reading through some threads. I want to emphasize that I am not advocating for any style of play, but I found the topic itself to be interesting, and I am sure other people will have more interesting things to say in the remainder of the thread!
NECESSARY DISCLAIMER (PLEASE READ): By using the term "skilled play," I am using it in a certain "jargon-y" way that differentiates between player skill and character skill. This is not meant to say that people that do not prefer "skilled play" as a style are "unskilled," nor does it mean anything pejorative about any other style of game. I am only using this term because it has a common currency. As a general rule, I prefer to avoid jargon.
Dave Arneson was prepared for Wesley's Braunstein game. It was a simple scenario ... a banana republic in the throws of revolution. Arneson would receive his points for distributing leaflets. But Arneson convinced other players, using his fake CIA badge, that he was an undercover agent and easily "won" the scenario by stealing all of the money of the country, boarding a helicopter, and casually throwing down all the leaflets on the riots and burning embers below.
1. What is Skilled Play? D&D as a Game.
I don't even have any good skills. You know, like nunchuck skills, bow hunting skills, computer hacking skills.
I wrote above that the usual use of "skilled play" is what differentiates player skill from character skill. To use an easy example of this, think of the reliance in old-school modules on puzzles. My avatar is from the Pharoah series- both Pharoah and Martek were known for their puzzles, and even have a Sphinx with riddles. These types of things were common tests of player knowledge and ability. To think of the difference, and make it simplified and clear:
The Sphinx asks the party, "I disappear when you say my name. What am I?"
Skilled Play: Does anyone playing (the players) know the answer?
Otherwise ... : Do you have something on your character sheet that would let you know the answer? Intelligence check?
The assumed model of play for early D&D was skilled play.
Although he was a storyteller, there was no effort to thread a plot through his dungeon. Keep in mind that this was the dawn of role-playing and some concepts of 2020 gaming weren't known then. It was entirely find the monsters, fight the monster, and take his treasure. Some of the dungeon chambers were filled with surprises. There were creatures hiding above the doors, there were creatures looking like tables and chests, and there were surprises in plain sight that would attack as we moved in the rooms. It got so that I would say upon entering any new area, “Gary, I look up, and down, and all around the area before I walk in. That stopped a lot of ugly surprises from happening.
We learned to be very cautious in Gary's dungeon. We started tossing torches and then lanterns into dark rooms. It wasn't too many burnt scrolls and broken potion bottles to have us change our ways. Soon, we were tossing in coins with Continual Light tossed on them. This caution had consequences as wandering creatures would be attracted to the magical light.
-James Ward
The reasoning behind this was, well, fairly simple. D&D was a game. Like any game, you could play it well (or poorly!). While there was definitely roleplaying, it was rarely the full-on RPing we sometimes see today. To put it in terms of acting; some people prefer to think of RPing like Daniel Day Lewis- to fully inhabit a character. But early RPing was more like being a movie star, like Tom Cruise. Sure, he's playing a role, but he's also, always, Tom Cruise.
2. Cool cool. But ... what about Metagaming?
I think it's wrong that only Hasbro makes Monopoly.
"Metagame, in Dungeons & Dragons, refers to the use of information by a player whose character would not have that information or perspective. Using metagame knowledge is referred to as metagame thinking or metagaming, and is often discouraged."
So now we get into the more contentious area of skilled play; the issue of metagaming. If you look above to what James Ward wrote (and what others say), you will see that there is an evolution in play. Bob I might get killed by traps below him, so Bob II looks down, but gets killed by traps above him. Bob III looks above and below, but gets hit by traps to the side. By the time Bob IV is rolling through the dungeon, he's looking up, down, and all around.
But wait- why is Bob IV doing that? Because that's how Bob I-III died! And how does Bob IV know that? Because the player knows that. Sure, you can retcon some sort of reason ("And the news of the deaths of all adventurers shall be read out in the Ye Ancient and Hallowed Halls of Bob...."), but in reality it's the acquisition of player skill- when Bob IV dies and Legolas I is created, Legolas I will also be looking out. This is similar to the age-old "troll debate." When a character see a troll regenerating, does the character know what to do to end the regeneration?
Well, back when the game was still new, it was just assumed that players would know these things, such as information about monsters, and use them. In 1977, Dragon Magazine published an article in Dragon #10 about how to generate random monsters, because "the players always know too much. ... The answer is to occasionally throw a monster at the party that keeps them on their toes, one that they have never seen before because it is unique. No rules cover it, so they have to find out the hard way what it’s like."
This doesn't mean that certain activities were not considered beyond the pale; for example, I am hard-pressed to think of anytime when (for example) a player buying a module and reading through it prior to playing it wouldn't be considered poor form, if not outright cheating. But while roleplaying was always part of the game, a key differentiating component, there wasn't the same issue with metagaming because with the skilled play paradigm, it was assumed that you were playing a game and act accordingly.
3. Who Cares? What Does Skilled Play Have to do with the Price of Licorice in Scandinavia, Anyway?
All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
D&D relies on dice, and a certain amount of randomness, in order to allow for unexpected and emergent stories through play. Skilled play is an attempt to stack the odds in your favor. To use an analogy, which, while not perfect, may be illuminating-
Poker is a random game, and you cannot choose what you will be dealt (just as you cannot choose if you will roll a 1 or a 20). It is possible for someone who has just learned the rules to win a single hand of poker. Or even to win multiple hands of poker. Over time, however, a person who is skilled at poker, who understands the rules of the game, the odds, the statistics, and how to read people and bet will win more often.
And an important part of poker, for many people, is the risk and the reward. Yes, sometimes people get together and play "penny poker" or they can practice no-stakes poker against a computer opponent; but there is something fundamentally different about playing poker when there are actual stakes involved.
Fundamentally, this is in many ways similar to certain models of "old school" play. Because of the nature of the game and the randomness, even skilled play cannot reduce your risk to zero. You can prepare, you can research, you can load up on protection, and you might just have that one unlucky day, that one bad beat. But the enjoyment of the game and of skilled play comes from the success despite the risks. Even moreso when the success is not merely due to your character (your cards), but due to your play.
So when there is a conversation various issues in D&D revolving around risk, whether it's death, or level drains, or traps, or "save v. death" or any number of other ways that some people have to increase the stakes and consequences in the game, it's not about bringing back a rule that is unfun any more than someone would say, "I like playing poker with money because I find it fun when I go all-in and lose everything."
Instead, it's a desire to have stakes and consequences that matter to skilled play; not just narrative consequences that matter to roleplay.
Anyway, those are some thoughts after reading through some threads. I want to emphasize that I am not advocating for any style of play, but I found the topic itself to be interesting, and I am sure other people will have more interesting things to say in the remainder of the thread!
