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

[pemerton]

Prove it. Show that a crunchy system causes players to have less ingenuity or "less room for skilled play."

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?

Is that a well-formed action declaration for the "crunchy system"? In Burning Wheel it's not. In a 4e skill challenge I think it's not. I gather in most approaches to 3E D&D it is. But it would be a mistake to equate "crunchy system' with 3E D&D.

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").

<snip>

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?

A couple of things.

(1) What you say here reinforces my comments, upthread, about the "ecological" aspect of skilled play, and the oddity of just dropping elements invented in that context into a different context which has not lived through the same "evolutionary" history. I personally think this is a big problem for generalising material intended for skilled play.

(2) It seems to me a mistake to argue that there was never such a thing as "skilled play". We have the evidence of it - equipment lists with 10' poles and iron spikes, Monster Manuals with ear seekers and lurkers above, etc. We have instructions on how to engage in it as a player (Gygax's PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures which comes just before the Appendices). We have examples of modules written for it (eg KotB, Castle Amber, White Plume Mountain, Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, Ghost Tower of Inverness, the Alice modules, and ToH). It seems pointless to look at these as if they're meant to provide the same sort of experience as (say) the DL modules or the OA modules or any of the 4e modules.

It's true that there are borderline cases. The early Hickman modules (I'm thinking Pharoah based on my reading of it, and Ravenloft based on reputation) mix skilled play meatgrinding with an overlay of "story" that is richer than Castle Amber and that is utterly absent in the other modules I mentioned in the previous paragraph. But we shouldn't let these transitional forms blind us to the underlying contrast.

The reaction of, "Oh, you boast? Well, try this!" implies a contest going on.

I don't think so. It implies that the designer of the new challenge thinks that the boasters don't have what it takes to justify their boasting. This implies standards, and perhaps egos, but not a contest between designer and player.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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).

This rests on an assumption about how the "crunchy system" works.

There are crunchy systems which don't allow using ingenuity to avoid checks. Some examples:

• Rolemaster: the checks "model" ingame processes, and if the process is undertaken the check is required;
• Burning Wheel: if the situation has genuine stakes, then a check is required ("say 'yes' [if nothing significant is at stake] or roll the dice");
• Apocalypse World and its derivatives: if a move is made in the fiction, then the dice have to be rolled at the table ("If you do it, you do it!").

Each of these games requires skill to play well, but none of them is about "skilled play" in the OP or Gygaxian sense.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm not sure that, "It's a really crappy game." is a good argument for crunch not stifling ingenuity. If a game has a lot of mechanics, those mechanics still need to be primarily really good if it wants to succeed. People aren't going to play a crappy game just because they can be creative and make it fun despite the mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

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!

I value threads like yours because they give us the chance to really talk about games as games. Being responsive to the OP is a matter of directly addressing the questions raised.

You've expressed vexation about point that I'm really not making. It is clear to me that you are introducing a jargon term in the OP, and that "skilled" in that label is not identical to being skilled. So (responsive also to @Fanaelialae) in my posts addressing that, I am not conflating the two, I'm unpacking the distinction. Really just expanding on what you said in your follow up post on the first page. My fault might have been reiterating the point unnecessarily.

However, on "fundamental confusion" I am being sincere. Here I am challenging the very idea of "skilled play". If "skilled play" separates player skill at navigating the game world out from other skills such as in using game materiel, then it is founded on something that I don't think can happen in a game. From your poker example - and in many of the posts above - there is the concept of making materiel as inconsequential as possible, right? We don't want this is to be a matter of shifting skill to second-guessing your DM, so if it is not that then I think it raises the natural question - can game world, game rules, metagame knowledge, and game materiel really be separated!?

I have no fear that the intent of this thread is one-true-way-ism, and I do not misunderstand that "skilled play" doesn't address those other skills, rather I moot it is fundamentally mistaken to suppose that there can be the separation required by the construct. EDIT And in saying that, I question what claims are implied by the construct? This thread's raison d'etre, right?!

 

[Fanaelialae]

This rests on an assumption about how the "crunchy system" works.

There are crunchy systems which don't allow using ingenuity to avoid checks. Some examples:

• Rolemaster: the checks "model" ingame processes, and if the process is undertaken the check is required;
• Burning Wheel: if the situation has genuine stakes, then a check is required ("say 'yes' [if nothing significant is at stake] or roll the dice");
• Apocalypse World and its derivatives: if a move is made in the fiction, then the dice have to be rolled at the table ("If you do it, you do it!").

Each of these games requires skill to play well, but none of them is about "skilled play" in the OP or Gygaxian sense.

Right, I wasn't suggesting that all crunchy systems promote skilled play over mechanics. I was saying that you can have a crunchy game that still promotes skilled play, because in that system ingenuity produces better results more reliably. That crunch and skilled play are not two opposite ends of a range, but rather have a more complex relationship.

I'm not sure that, "It's a really crappy game." is a good argument for crunch not stifling ingenuity. If a game has a lot of mechanics, those mechanics still need to be primarily really good if it wants to succeed. People aren't going to play a crappy game just because they can be creative and make it fun despite the mechanics.

Whether the game is good or crappy is entirely tangential to the discussion. I firmly believe that you can have a good, crunchy game that favors skilled play over mechanics.

For example, let's imagine a game with a fun system that doesn't allow retries once the dice are rolled. Rolling the dice represents your character's best effort, so once that is exhausted you can't try again (or can't try again until you meet x criteria).

IMO, no retries doesn't make a game crappy (though your opinion might differ).

However, in this system you could first try to approach the problem without rolling. This way you don't lock yourself out with a bad roll. If you roll a search check then your character looked everywhere they could think of. But you can say where your character looks before rolling dice, and then do a once over with a rolled check after you've exhausted all the hidden nooks you can think of.

Under this system, you could engage purely with the mechanical system but that would be ignoring an obvious tool at your disposal. You have an edge if you engage in skilled play before utilizing the mechanical system, therefore it makes sense to do so. As such, the mechanical system becomes a kind of safety net for those instances where you can't come up with an ingenious solution on your own.

Another possible system is one where failure results in a worsening of circumstances. We actually have this in D&D, in several editions, with climb checks. If you roll low enough on a climb check you don't just fail to climb, but also fall. Lo and behold, this is an area of the game where I have gone to great lengths to ensure my character's safety, using tethers and whatnot, because if I can only flub a climb check on a natural 1, there's about an 80% chance that I will flub that check. I've had countless characters saved from death by simply securing a tether first. Not the most ingenious thing, I'll grant, but I think it still constitutes skilled play as put forth in the OP. Is this a crappy system?

The point being, your recontextualization of my previous post is off point. Just because a game has a crunchy skill system that promotes skilled play over that skill system, doesn't make it crappy. It could be crappy, but that depends entirely on the implementation of the skill system, and not on whether or not it promotes skilled play.

 

[Krachek]

Does the 10 feet pole is the symbol of skilled play?
IMO it seem smart, but in Reality check those smart ideas are often completely inefficient and dangerous, Don’t worry guy we can cross the land mine field I have a 10 feet pole!

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure, sometimes the mechanics can provide a safety net, but they can also have a negative impact on skilled play. The more mechanics that are available, especially for things like searching, the more likely the GM is to lean on those without a lot of consideration. That can make it more difficult to to engage in the kind of action declaration and adjudication that really makes skilled play hum. In effect, the players can be constrained by the mechanics as easily as supported by them. Obviously this isn't always the case as we're indexing GM style and table expectations, but it's certainly an issue, one I know I've seen in many games over the years.

Also, I never said crunchy systems were crappy, they aren't. However they do mitigate for a different game experience and perhaps style of play from everyone at the table.

An example that works to illustrate this, if we want to step back from searching for a moment, is classic swashbuckling action like swinging from a chandelier. The more crunch you have, the more discrete and defined rolls and whatnot, the more obstacles can be placed in front of a character who decides to declare that action. It can become less about what the GM thinks is reasonable and more about just applying mechanics A and B (or whatever) as stated by the rules. The extent to which this is a problem is a function of how the specific rules set in question was designed. Some systems are really poor at mechanizing complex physical actions in combat that escape the mechanization provided by the rules. In many cases game systems mechanize at the level of individual actions, so one roll to jump, one roll to swing, and perhaps another to attack the guard (just as an example). Once you have to roll three separate checks there it's almost a certainty that it isn't worth doing based on expected chances of success, even if the GM sets easier DC or what have you. Again, this isn't to say a GM can't rule differently, or make a better choice, of course they can, but they're often working against the rules to do so, which makes it a less common response than perhaps we might like.

 

[clearstream]

Right, I wasn't suggesting that all crunchy systems promote skilled play over mechanics. I was saying that you can have a crunchy game that still promotes skilled play, because in that system ingenuity produces better results more reliably. That crunch and skilled play are not two opposite ends of a range, but rather have a more complex relationship.

Where would you say ingeniously using the mechanics falls? Is it in the skilled play construct, or outside it?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Where would you say ingeniously using the mechanics falls? Is it in the skilled play construct, or outside it?

Ingenious use of mechanics is play that is skilled, but it falls outside of "skilled play" (as defined in the OP).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I value threads like yours because they give us the chance to really talk about games as games. Being responsive to the OP is a matter of directly addressing the questions raised.

You've expressed vexation about point that I'm really not making. It is clear to me that you are introducing a jargon term in the OP, and that "skilled" in that label is not identical to being skilled. So (responsive also to @Fanaelialae) in my posts addressing that, I am not conflating the two, I'm unpacking the distinction. Really just expanding on what you said in your follow up post on the first page. My fault might have been reiterating the point unnecessarily.

However, on "fundamental confusion" I am being sincere. Here I am challenging the very idea of "skilled play". If "skilled play" separates player skill at navigating the game world out from other skills such as in using game materiel, then it is founded on something that I don't think can happen in a game. From your poker example - and in many of the posts above - there is the concept of making materiel as inconsequential as possible, right? We don't want this is to be a matter of shifting skill to second-guessing your DM, so if it is not that then I think it raises the natural question - can game world, game rules, metagame knowledge, and game materiel really be separated!?

I have no fear that the intent of this thread is one-true-way-ism, and I do not misunderstand that "skilled play" doesn't address those other skills, rather I moot it is fundamentally mistaken to suppose that there can be the separation required by the construct. EDIT And in saying that, I question what claims are implied by the construct? This thread's raison d'etre, right?!

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

I will address try to address your various points, but not necessarily in the order you raise them, just how I am thinking about them in reading your post.

1. With regard to poker, it's an analogy. Which means that it is imperfect. I was using it only because there are those that do not understand the appeal of certain "old school" consequences in terms of "skilled play." In other words- no one likes or enjoys bad consequences, just as no one enjoys a "bad beat" in poker. But the joy that (some) people derive from poker is, in part, that there are stakes involved. The reason I was specifically using poker as the analogy is because it is generally acknowledged that in skilled play, it is still possible to have that "bad roll" or event that is beyond your control- skilled play is about stacking the odds in your favor.

That said, other people could use the analogy regarding other modes of play. It was for illustrative purposes only regarding that point, not to say that poker is a TTRPG. It has nothing to do with making material inconsequential, or second-guessing the DM, or anything else.

2. Yes, I do think that there are different modalities of play that engage the material in different ways. To ask the question, "can game world, game rules, metagame knowledge, and game materiel really be separated!?" is to answer it- yes, you just separated them! In fact, a number of different conversations are being had, constantly, about the ways that people can (and/or should) interact with a TTRPG and each other. Whether it's the age-old division of authority between players (and/or the DM), or issues dealing with lore and crunch, or the meta/character divide, or conversations about roleplaying/optimization, or the age-old, "Do defined abilities hinder or help a player choose actions," they are all fascinating conversations we have about the way that we are choosing to engage with the rules and with each other.* Put more simply, when you ask the question (assumedly rhetorically, and your answer would be no), you are stating a certain position regarding your preferred modality of play and how you would choose to interact with a TTRPG; essentially a design preference.

Finally, I would end this already overly-long response by noting that the raison d'etre of my post was because I had noticed that this particular modality of play ("skilled play") was still an assumption that was being used behind a number of threads and conversations here, which is why I thought it would be interesting to have a specific thread about it for purposes of discussion.



*Although presented as binaries here, most things are continuums.