D&D General On Skilled Play: D&D as a Game

[Neonchameleon]

Tomb of Horrors, dude. From the original skilled-play GM.

Tomb of Horrors was not the work of a killer DM. It was, as I understand it, the work of a failed killer DM because his players had good too good at the actual fundamental skill of so called "skilled play"; mastering how the DM thinks and does things. And they were boasting loudly of how easy it was,

On its first outing, if the stories I've heard are accurate, it killed neither of the challengers (who I believe were Ernie Gygax and @Rob Kuntz ) and they got all the loot. This is because they knew how Gygax thought - and indeed Tomb of Horrors is pretty easy once you know the secret. However like most such "know your GM" challenges it massacred people who didn't know the GM. So it was later adapted as a tournament module.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The OP presents a fundamental confusion in how that may be understood.

There was no confusion; this is why I choose not to answer your posts. But you have been repeatedly using me (aka, the OP) as some sort of stalking horse for your own positions. I do not appreciate that. So to ensure a more perfect understanding-

Imagine that someone on the internet says, "That's defamation,"* and someone else replies, "Well, it's a public figure, so it requires actual malice." Here's the thing- "actual malice" is jargon. It's a technical term. It doesn't mean malice.

*Because they always do on the internet.

Imagine that you go to the doctor. The doctor says you have fracture. You reply, "Oh no, I thought it was just a break!" The doctor replies, "Um, for your purposes, it's the same thing." Again, technical terms. Jargon.

A friend is discussing art nouveau. You look at the work being discussed and say, "That's not new. That's from the 1800s." Jargon.

I purposefully put a disclaimer at the the top of the OP, and I bolded it, and I wrote, NECESSARY DISCLAIMER (PLEASE READ) to make sure that any possible confusion would be addressed. To make sure that anyone who read this would know that I was discussing a term other people use as jargon (a term of art, technical term, defined term) and is not the same as just the word "skilled."

To ensure that there was no confusion, I also ended the post by saying (with underlining) "I want to emphasize that I am not advocating for any style of play."

Further, I wrote a followup (which you have quoted) that says, "First, please remember that in writing the OP, I was being descriptive, not normative. I am not advocating for any particular play style. Instead, I was looking at the origins of 'skilled play' because I think that the assumptions inherent in it underlie a few conversations I see that keep popping up here. Second, 'skilled play' is jargon- a term of art. It is describing a certain approach to TTRPGs, and does not mean that other ways of playing are not skilled."

Theoretically, I could have invented my own term (Snarfian Player-Based Play? Actual Malice Aforethought Dice-Independent Meta Gaming?), but given that I have seen this term repeatedly used and understood, I thought it would be easiest to simply use it.

Of course, I assumed that there might be a person, here or there, who would latch on to the skilled part of the term and assume that this was some sort of argument about “Quien Es Mas Macho?”** which is why I went through the effort to state all of that and put in all of those disclaimers. Because that's not the point of the thread; the point was that I thought it was interesting that (IMO) this modality of play tends to exist in the background of conversations that people still have. And I thought it would be fascinating to explore that angle in a thread.

**Richard Simmons.

To the extent you feel it is necessary to assert that the way that you are playing is actually the One True Way to have fun and be skilled, I am not going to argue with you. Have fun! But if you just want to argue with a term of art that I didn't invent, and/or use this as an opportunity to rubbish the way that other people like to play (by calling it second-guessing the DM), I'd ask that you start your own thread to fully develop those ideas, instead of referring to my OP in a way that doesn't quite match what I said. Thanks!

 

[Umbran]

Tomb of Horrors was not the work of a killer DM.

I didn't say it was. I specifically said it was from the original SKILLED-PLAY GM.

It was, as I understand it, the work of a failed killer DM because his players had good too good at the actual fundamental skill of so called "skilled play"; mastering how the DM thinks and does things. And they were boasting loudly of how easy it was,

You seem to have failed to note what I was responding to - the assertion that there is no contest between GM and Player in skilled play.

If there is no such contest, then the boasting was valid, and Gygax should have been proud of his players for mastering play. There should have been no call to create the ToH as a demonstration.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I didn't say it was. I specifically said it was from the original SKILLED-PLAY GM.

Wasn't Arneson the original skilled play DM?

If there is no such contest, then the boasting was valid, and Gygax should have been proud of his players for mastering play. There should have been no call to create the ToH as a demonstration.

Gygax was surprised and pleased that Rob Kuntz (Robilar) solo'd it.

It was never about Gygax's players.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If there is no such contest, then the boasting was valid, and Gygax should have been proud of his players for mastering play. There should have been no call to create the ToH as a demonstration.

Not necessarily true.

If I'm a designer of obstacle courses this doesn't mean I'm in competition with the people that run them. Indeed I want to push them rather than to beat them. Nevertheless if a few people are finding my obstacle courses too easy I'll want to build harder ones to suit them. This doesn't make it a direct competition in any way.

 

[Umbran]

Wasn't Arneson the original skilled play DM?

From what I have seen written, it seems more like Gygax was more about the skill, and Arneson was the originator of it being about the role. Your interpretation may vary.

It was never about Gygax's players.

That does not match what I have seen written about it in the past, but that is neither here nor there - it does not matter exactly whose players' boasting spurred it on. The reaction of, "Oh, you boast? Well, try this!" implies a contest going on.

And, with all respect to everyone here - the idea that, in skilled play, the GM is the thing you have to play against and beat (because most of the contest is not in the rules), but somehow the GM does not get personally invested in this contest lays out skilled play GMs as not having some very, very common human qualities. It is like saying that discussion on the internet is all logically given points, and nobody ever gets emotionally invested in their positions.

In theory, perhaps. But the practice is then dominated by things outside the theory, so... maybe that needs to be acknowledged.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

"Picture it, Hommlet, 591 CY..."

THE OLD SCHOOL ....

DM: You've entered a 30'x30' room. There is an unopened chest in the middle of the room.

Players: Um ... there's no monsters? Just a chest?

DM: Yup! Just, you know, a chest. Sitting there. Unopened.

Players: Oh no .... RUN AWAY! WE RUN AWAY!

DM: ...you run away?

Players: QUICKLY! WE RUN AWAY .... QUICKLY!

DM: TOO LATE!

Players: NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

From what I have seen written, it seems more like Gygax was more about the skill, and Arneson was the originator of it being about the role. Your interpretation may vary.

There was a reason I led with the particular quote I did- that was Arneson as player, but it was the same for him as DM; just because his rules were more ... ad hoc ... doesn't mean he wasn't engaging in skilled play.

That does not match what I have seen written about it in the past, but that is neither here nor there - it does not matter exactly whose players' boasting spurred it on. The reaction of, "Oh, you boast? Well, try this!" implies a contest going on.

No. If you read the introduction to ToH, you see it spelled out quite clearly:

THIS IS A THINKING PERSON'S MODULE, AND IF YOUR GROUP IS A HACK AND SLAY GATHERING, THEY WILL BE UNHAPPY. In the latter case, it is better to skip the whole thing than come out and tell them that there are few monsters.

Or, perhaps, we can use what Gygax said here at enworld:

The Tomb of Horrors was inspired by material sent to me by Alan Lucien, and I believe I have credited him in this regard, but it has been so many years I can not recall where and how. Anyway...

The place was designed to test the mettle of the best players, stretch their ability to the maximum. That it did, while nor a few PCs belonging to very capable players bit the proverbial dust. Those players with real cran came back and kept trying until their PCs suceeded or else the DM grew weary of running the module. As I have mentioned, in my group only Rob Kuntz managed to get to the end of the advbenture, Robilar losing all of his orc flunkies at the onset, in the initial passage. When he found the tomb of the demi-lich Robilar scooped all the magical treasures he could into his bag of holding and ran off leaving the demi-lich hanginf, as it were. Tenser retreated from the perilous place, as did Terik.

Of course Mordenkainen never entered the place, but had he, the wily wizard would surely have come with his most potent associates, and brought plenty of powerful magic along. As with most other dedicated players, I too am averse to losing my favirite and long-luved PC.

Or ... maybe his thoughts on his own players ...

It (a TPK) never happened with my regular group, but running tournaments and special games I have racked up a few TPKs. Let me rephrase that: The players have managed to get all their PCs killed

In the ToH those of my players who dared enter did it mainly with their PCs being alone save for hirelings. Robilar's use of his orcs is pretty well known, with all slain in the initial entrance, and he then going on alone to find the demi-lich's lair, grab the treasure and run away without any combat.

With regards to being adversarial as you claim:
BTW, when I am DMing AD&D, I tend to ignore rules that get in the wat of the flow of the game. When I have said so before an audience, there have always been some audience members who expressed shock, not to say horror and disbelief. I aon't a rules lawyer, and I believe my own advice--ignore and change as the DM sees fit to make the players' involvement intense and the game be a compelling experience.

 

[the Jester]

ToH is a tournament module and was designed as such. It's not a great example of a module designed for skilled play generally.

Hard disagree. ToH is the quintessential example of an adventure where skilled play is literally life or death for your characters.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hard disagree. ToH is the quintessential example of an adventure where skilled play is literally life or death for your characters.

That doesn't make it a good example, IMO, which was my point. The life or death part is too arbitrary for my taste, which would sort of run counter to your argument. It's a matter of opinion for both of us though, so I'm not going waste a lot of mental energy on the nuances.