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

[EzekielRaiden]

The more mechanical buttons you add, and the less room the system in question leaves for player ingenuity, the less skilled play is an appropriate moniker for the game in question.

[Citation needed]

Prove it. Show that a crunchy system causes players to have less ingenuity or "less room for skilled play." And if you can't do that, consider whether that is part of why this topic tends to be controversial.

I mean yeah, it's a skilled play tourney module, but it's not a good stick it into your campaign and see what happens module, because it wasn't designed to be that.

Yeah, didn't Gygax create ToH because his players were getting overly smug?
And Gygax strongly recommended that players not use their regular characters because of the deliberate design toward high lethality.

It was definitely created as a tournament module and then made available as a one off for interested groups who wanted to try their luck. And don't a lot of the player decisions come down to random chance, making it an example of a skilled play module dubious? I read it but never actually ran it or played through it, so I'm a bit hazy on the details.

Caveat: despite most of this being true and allegedly made explicitly known, many, MANY groups did exactly the opposite. Many groups treated it as something to be dropped into an ordinary campaign with their "main" characters rather than intentionally throwaway ones.

And it's not like that attitude is unprecedented. Never forget that Melf, of acid arrow fame, was called that because his player never bothered to add more than "M elf" to the top of his sheet. That is, "Melf" isn't a name; it's just treating "M[ale] elf" as though it were one.

Did all characters--or even most of them--work that way? Probably not. Was this ultra-meatgrinder module a valid application of the intended process of play? Maybe, maybe not: Gygax is somewhat notorious for doing or saying seemingly conflicting things depending on source cited. As noted, Tomb of Horrors was explicitly NOT meant to represent ordinary play...but was then USED as ordinary play by a lot of people, very proudly. Likewise, proponents of the old-school "skilled play" style often cite that challenges should have the potential to be overcome even at first blush (e.g. the ultra-common "a prepared party should have a chance of taking down an ogre" line), but dangers like cursed items and ear seekers seem to directly contradict that, demonstrating challenges that are literally designed NOT to be overcome until the PCs have already fallen victim to them at least once. As with the above aside on 10' poles, the lines of demarcation are so arbitrary and (often) only loosely linked with concrete, grounded consequences (ear seekers are almost blatantly an anti-natural, "made solely to mess with players" hazard; slamming things with 10' poles never alerts monsters, etc.), it feels very much like real and enduring failures to live up to the alleged standard of "skilled play" are brushed under the rug and ignored.

That's part of what makes this so thorny; it's basically impossible to separate the "rightly done" versions of old-school skilled play from the "obviously degenerate" cases in any way that doesn't come across as as-hoc (or, worse, "no true Scotsman"). Doubly so if the speaker wants to write off all new-school play in the process, since it's quite easy to argue that the oft-cited problems of "not thinking beyond the sheet" and "roll-playing" etc. are just as much undesirable degeneracies as "killer DM" and "throwaway characters" etc., rather than demonstrative cases of the "true" nature of the approach.

A couple of reviews should catch you up. But yeah, that's the gist, for sure. When one of the entrances is a carved head with a sphere of annihilation in its mouth you know the module isn't for casual consumption.

Except that, as I said above, people pretty demonstrably FAILED to know that the module wasn't for casual consumption. That's pretty bloody important here.

Unsurprisingly, I enjoy skilled play in a logical setting. I can't stand it in an illogical gotcha setting. And flagrantly mixing-and-matching the two is IMO very bad DMing, because then your players never know what to expect. Such a game devolves into a bait-and-switch.

So where does this leave us? Gygax is often upheld as providing just what you describe as a "logical" setting, yet he's the one who invented ear seekers and cloakers etc., which come across as pretty bald "illogical gotcha" setting elements. If even the most beloved, central exemplar was engaging in what you call "very bad DMing," what CAN we say about "good" DMing in this style? And if this somehow isn't what you'd call "very bad DMing," how do you justify such actions without ad-hoc readjusting your position?

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.

Why not? That seems like exactly the kind of reason that would make it not about "skilled play" as you have described it.

 

[Maxperson]

[Citation needed]

Prove it. Show that a crunchy system causes players to have less ingenuity or "less room for skilled play." And if you can't do that, consider whether that is part of why this topic tends to be controversial.

Anecdotally, I saw less ingenuity and skilled play during 3e than I saw in 1e or 2e. It dropped off and players started looking for the rules for everything. Whether that was true overall, I have no idea, but in the multiple groups I played with covering dozens of players, that's what I witnessed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Anecdotally, I saw less ingenuity and skilled play during 3e than I saw in 1e or 2e. It dropped off and players started looking for the rules for everything. Whether that was true overall, I have no idea, but in the multiple groups I played with covering dozens of players, that's what I witnessed.

Okay. What might have caused that? Was it essential to the rules themselves, or was it fear about using the rules badly? Because my experience has shown that very creative, dynamic players almost always become very cautious, by-the-book ones when faced with a distinctly new system they don't fully understand yet. Especially if that system has enough transparency to let you know just how much you don't know yet.

And that's, like I said, part of why this topic is controversial. I do not deny that some players in newer-school games don't display a lot of creativity. I even said it was a notable concern before. But correlation is not causation, and "well I saw it more with X than with Y" is not even correlation. Because if I had to speak of my own experience with OSR play, which I admit is limited? The correlation would run exactly the opposite way. People were much more creative and willing to try things in the 3.5e games I was in than the OSR sessions I've played, and the most successful characters in the latter were the ones who applied pretty basic, listed-on-the-sheet abilities (mostly spells) while the one really dynamic and proactive player lost his character very early on purely because he kept trying creative solutions rather than safe ones. (And this was with a DM I like and respect!)

Crunchy rules don't cause players to stop thinking. Fear, training, and bad incentives do. Light rules don't, strictly, cause players to start thinking either. IME, the things that get players to be creative and spontaneous are comfort with a ruleset (the more comfortable you are with it, the better-equipped you feel to push boundaries), being taught to see the game world as full of tools and opportunities (rather than proverbial hurdles and ladders), and DMs making a constant and concerted effort to reward and support the behaviors they want players to engage in.

To use a completely different example, the oft-discussed problem of "murderhobo" characters. I specifically wanted to avoid such a party in the DW game I run. I told my players as much in the lead-up to Session 0. I also told them that, as part of wanting to avoid that, I would support them when they take actions that are potentially imprudent but clearly merciful or selfless. Now, if they do something really really boneheaded, that might have consequences. But showing mercy to a defeated enemy is NOT going to automatically mean that enemy betrays them, nor that the enemy's forces will be consistently bolstered by opponents they allow to flee.

I do these and other things because I don't want players who have been taught that the only intelligent solution is scorched-earth tactics, that the only safe enemy has been double-tapped just to be sure it's dead, and that mercy is a weakness and restraint an error that can and will be ruthlessly exploited. This doesn't mean the party lacks for dangerous, even ruthless enemies. It just means that this is a world where heroism is permitted to actually work some of the time. (There are exceptions, mostly for ultra-fanatic cultists who would not reasonably abandon their twisted faith solely because they got bested in a fight. But I keep those exceptions, well, exceptional, and warn my players about it whenever it comes up.) The greater threat, as my players have seen fairly recently, is from being manipulated by others into doing what they want you to do. Second-guessing the motives of "friendly allies" is rarely a bad plan unless they've let you in on their deep secrets, the kind that could actually hurt them if revealed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why not? That seems like exactly the kind of reason that would make it not about "skilled play" as you have described it.

Quite the opposite. It was dependent on player skill, which was not necessarily rules-dependent.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So where does this leave us? Gygax is often upheld as providing just what you describe as a "logical" setting, yet he's the one who invented ear seekers and cloakers etc., which come across as pretty bald "illogical gotcha" setting elements. If even the most beloved, central exemplar was engaging in what you call "very bad DMing," what CAN we say about "good" DMing in this style? And if this somehow isn't what you'd call "very bad DMing," how do you justify such actions without ad-hoc readjusting your position?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't see Gygax as a paragon of this play style. An early innovator, certainly. His game is one that, based on what I know, I would consider somewhat meta. Aiming to challenge the players, expecting them to use whatever knowledge was available to them, not just their characters. As far as I'm aware his players were on board with his play style. As I said, it's only bad if you're inconsistent or you players aren't on board, which to my knowledge, doesn't describe Gygax's style.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay. What might have caused that? Was it essential to the rules themselves, or was it fear about using the rules badly? Because my experience has shown that very creative, dynamic players almost always become very cautious, by-the-book ones when faced with a distinctly new system they don't fully understand yet. Especially if that system has enough transparency to let you know just how much you don't know yet.

What I saw, and again this is anecdotal, is that players in 1e and 2e didn't have rules for "everything" and so they had to get creative to get around traps and whatnot. When 3e came out, there were rules for picking your nose(okay, exaggeration, but you get the point. ). The abundance of rules caused the players to cease thinking outside of the box as much, instead looking for all the little boxes(rules) that might apply to the situation.

And that's, like I said, part of why this topic is controversial. I do not deny that some players in newer-school games don't display a lot of creativity. I even said it was a notable concern before. But correlation is not causation, and "well I saw it more with X than with Y" is not even correlation. Because if I had to speak of my own experience with OSR play, which I admit is limited? The correlation would run exactly the opposite way. People were much more creative and willing to try things in the 3.5e games I was in than the OSR sessions I've played, and the most successful characters in the latter were the ones who applied pretty basic, listed-on-the-sheet abilities (mostly spells) while the one really dynamic and proactive player lost his character very early on purely because he kept trying creative solutions rather than safe ones. (And this was with a DM I like and respect!)

Oh, for sure creativity was still present in 3e. I just didn't see it as often as I did in AD&D. AD&D sort of made everyone have to think outside of the box sometimes. When there are a lot of holes in the rules, players have to get creative a lot more often when they encounter said holes. With 3e it was more player dependent. A very creative player would still do out of the box thinking(I kept my DMs on their toes), but there were far fewer holes in the rules where players had to get creative to get around the hole.

I think it's @doctorbadwolf who currently has a thread where he is trying to come up with a rule for grabbing an enemy and moving him into the way of an oncoming attack. That's the kind of creativity I saw a lot more in AD&D. When 3e came out, rather than players attempting to do something like that in combat, they just sort of used the various boxes(disarm, sunder, overrun, grapple, etc.).

To use a completely different example, the oft-discussed problem of "murderhobo" characters. I specifically wanted to avoid such a party in the DW game I run. I told my players as much in the lead-up to Session 0. I also told them that, as part of wanting to avoid that, I would support them when they take actions that are potentially imprudent but clearly merciful or selfless. Now, if they do something really really boneheaded, that might have consequences. But showing mercy to a defeated enemy is NOT going to automatically mean that enemy betrays them, nor that the enemy's forces will be consistently bolstered by opponents they allow to flee.

I do these and other things because I don't want players who have been taught that the only intelligent solution is scorched-earth tactics, that the only safe enemy has been double-tapped just to be sure it's dead, and that mercy is a weakness and restraint an error that can and will be ruthlessly exploited. This doesn't mean the party lacks for dangerous, even ruthless enemies. It just means that this is a world where heroism is permitted to actually work some of the time. (There are exceptions, mostly for ultra-fanatic cultists who would not reasonably abandon their twisted faith solely because they got bested in a fight. But I keep those exceptions, well, exceptional, and warn my players about it whenever it comes up.) The greater threat, as my players have seen fairly recently, is from being manipulated by others into doing what they want you to do. Second-guessing the motives of "friendly allies" is rarely a bad plan unless they've let you in on their deep secrets, the kind that could actually hurt them if revealed.

I approve of this. I try to encourage other than murdertransient(more accurate ) tactics myself.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

Harder disagree. ToH is basically "use magic to divine the answer". There's no real rhyme or reason to a lot of the challenges. Why would you use gems as a weapon against the demi-lich skull? Or limit hitting it to epic loot not found in the adventure? The blood "puzzle" is basically "lol random" in design. Create water destroys the blood, purify water turns it into poison gas? That's some Calvinball level BS.

Mud Sorcerer's Tomb is leagues better IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it's @doctorbadwolf who currently has a thread where he is trying to come up with a rule for grabbing an enemy and moving him into the way of an oncoming attack. That's the kind of creativity I saw a lot more in AD&D. When 3e came out, rather than players attempting to do something like that in combat, they just sort of used the various boxes(disarm, sunder, overrun, grapple, etc.).

Yeah the danger with stuff like what I proposed in that thread is always that anyone who doesn’t have the option will think they aren’t allowed to do the thing, and in turn that means that modern D&D “restricts” creative play by creating the false impression that players can’t just try to do whatever it is they want to do.

That’s a bit rambly, but hopefully it makes sense.

 

[Voadam]

Prove it. Show that a crunchy system causes players to have less ingenuity or "less room for skilled play." And if you can't do that, consider whether that is part of why this topic tends to be controversial.

DM: The room has a bookshelf, a bed, a bedside desk with drawers, and wall sconces with candle holders.

Player: I search the room.

DM in a system with a crunchy system: Make a search check.

DM in less crunchy system and no search mechanics: How? What specifically do you check out and how?

So the player could go skilled play from the start, but he has the option to say his mechanics do it instead and to avoid engaging in the skilled play arena at all. If the player has a great search check chance of success that might incentivize him to avoid engaging in skilled play.

It is probably clearer in a social interaction setting.

In less crunchy systems you generally roleplay out a social interaction giving your best shot in attempting to leverage what you know of the situation to get what you want, thinking through the situation and social dynamics for skilled play.

In a crunchy system you leverage your character's mechanics or defer to the character designed mechanically as a face if you want to get the best mechanical resolution you can. This is engaging the mechanics of your character sheet to the situation. You might or might not engage in skilled play, and if you do it still might come down to your mechanics and not your actual interaction. If your stats are not geared towards social interactions this can create a disincentive to engaging in skilled play social interactions where you are likely to fail despite coming at things well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

DM: The room has a bookshelf, a bed, a bedside desk with drawers, and wall sconces with candle holders.

Player: I search the room.

DM in a system with a crunchy system: Make a search check.

DM in less crunchy system and no search mechanics: How? What specifically do you check out and how?

So the player could go skilled play from the start, but he has the option to say his mechanics do it instead and to avoid engaging in the skilled play arena at all. If the player has a great search check chance of success that might incentivize him to avoid engaging in skilled play.

It is probably clearer in a social interaction setting.

In less crunchy systems you generally roleplay out a social interaction giving your best shot in attempting to leverage what you know of the situation to get what you want, thinking through the situation and social dynamics for skilled play.

In a crunchy system you leverage your character's mechanics or defer to the character designed mechanically as a face if you want to get the best mechanical resolution you can. This is engaging the mechanics of your character sheet to the situation. You might or might not engage in skilled play, and if you do it still might come down to your mechanics and not your actual interaction. If your stats are not geared towards social interactions this can create a disincentive to engaging in skilled play social interactions where you are likely to fail despite coming at things well.

I disagree. It's true that in a crunchy system, if leveraging the system is easier than using player skill, the crunch is likely to win out.

However, you could have a mechanical system that is the crunchiest thing you've ever seen and, if it produces poorer outcomes than ingenuity, then ingenuity is liable to be preferred. In this case, the mechanical system simply becomes a fallback option in case the players cannot find an ingenious way to resolve the problem.

Lacking a mechanical system is certainly a very direct way to encourage ingenuity, but not the only way. If ingenuity is more reliable or produces better outcomes, then it will remain the preferable option for players who seek success (which is likely to be a significant majority).