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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I guess I don't understand what entirely rules-independent "player skill" means then, other than moving into some degenerate cases ("mother-may-I" or "learn to second-guess your DM," each of which has been implicitly or explicitly rejected in this thread.)

I think the absolute easiest example is the Sphinx riddle, in my OP. The reason I like it as an example is it's relatively "clean."

If you think that riddles and puzzles (such as that one) should be tests of the player, then that falls into the "skilled play" divide. If, on the other hand, you think that those should be dealt with in other ways (whether RPing, or skills on a character sheet, or through shared authorship of the fiction, or whatever), then it doesn't.

I think that the problem a lot of people have when thinking about these issues is that we have gone so far away from this particular model, for the most part, that we don't often see it in pure terms. Instead, we see echoes of it in other conversations (inclusion of meta-game knowledge, RPing a low intelligence character, lethality as consequence, etc.).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can only go off what impressions I've gotten from others. As for the "players on board" thing, I find that that is quite a bit more slippery than a simple binary. It's entirely possible to actually dislike the system you use, but be completely oblivious to that fact because you don't know about alternative methods. (I should know. That's what happened to me with 3e.)

Sure, but I see that as being more a matter of the player not knowing their preferences, rather than being an issue with any particular play style. It's equally an issue with every play style until the player figures out what the like and don't like, since until they figure it out no one can know. Ultimately, the only way for them to find out what they like is to try a variety of styles and see what jives.

For players who do understand what they like, I think being on board is quite reasonable. For those players who don't yet know whether they're on board or not it's a learning experience, so I think it's still fine as long as everyone is acting in good faith.

 

[Fenris-77]

In B/X (unlike in AD&D) any character has a 1 in 6 chance to detect a trap. Thieves have their own (higher? I'd have to pull out my copy) chance. There is also the chance to hear things at doors; this is also part of AD&D.

The fact that B/X and AD&D have "search/perception" checks for doors and traps but not for strange markings at the base of the statue isn't deliberate design. It's an oddity of the evolution of the subsystems.

I think that's perhaps an unfair assessment of the game in some ways. The old editions of D&D were IMO given the most rigorous playtesting of any editions by the in-house staff. So the fact that B/X doesn't have a mechanic to govern I search the room isn't really an accident, it's something that the designers didn't feel the need for. It's not as though we're discussing an edge case here either, searching rooms is a fundamental part of the intended game experience, and one that none of the designers felt needed a mechanic to govern it.

Admittedly, I can't read the designers minds or intentions, and I'm not pretending to, I just think that something that fundamental doesn't just get missed by accident. Call it what I feel likely rather than what I know to be true. Personally, I've never felt the need for search rolls in general, although in the case of BX I'd probably use the secret door mechanic to govern searching for hidden compartments. I wasn't talking specifically about hidden compartments though, just searching in general.

 

[clearstream]

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

Is it right that all mechanics must be eschewed, in order for play to be purely "skilled play"? So for instance, using unseen servant ingeniously to penetrate the ToH would not be skilled play, because it is a mechanical rather than purely narrative device?

 

[Voadam]

In a degenerate usage-case, sure. But the degenerate usage-case for the less-crunchy system is that the IRL shy players (raises hand) defer to the IRL charismatic players, becoming disengaged from play because they know they'll never be as eloquent or dynamic as that player is.

I have no idea what you mean by a degenerate use case.

But yes, absolutely. In any actual conversation scenario someone who does not want to engage in having a conversation and talking to someone because they are IRL shy can become disengaged from the play when the play involves talking to someone.

Abstracting a social situation out to mechanics is a way for someone to engage with the play of a social situation without having an actual conversation. Other forms would be free form abstraction for skilled play (OK, what is your bard's tactical plan for countering the Cardinal's influence with the King before the Council meeting in two weeks? What assets, contacts, or favors will you leverage?)

 

[Maxperson]

Is it right that all mechanics must be eschewed, in order for play to be purely "skilled play"? So for instance, using unseen servant ingeniously to penetrate the ToH would not be skilled play, because it is a mechanical rather than purely narrative device?

I think there is a little crossover, but not a lot. If the use is so outside the box that it is not at all part of how the spell is intended to be used, that crosses over into skilled play.

With the unseen servant, the intent behind the spell is to allow to to walk around and interact with things. That would be ingenious use of the intended function of the spell.

However, imagine if there were a spell that caused the earth to shoot up under someone dealing 6d6 damage and then threw him 20 feet into the air causing another 2d6 when he falls to the ground. That's the intended function of the spell. If the party were to find something attached to a sheer wall 20 feet up and had no way to fly or climb, it's possible to stand someone directly beneath the item and cast that spell, allowing the PC a chance to grab the item before he falls back to the ground. That's a use that is outside of the intended function of the spell and would in my opinion be skilled play. It's the player using his skill to achieve the goal.

 

[Fenris-77]

Is it right that all mechanics must be eschewed, in order for play to be purely "skilled play"? So for instance, using unseen servant ingeniously to penetrate the ToH would not be skilled play, because it is a mechanical rather than purely narrative device?

I'd say certainly not. One of the reasons this conversation gets sticky sometimes, IMO, is that skilled play is as much a priority that is worked regardless of system by the GM and players. Issues creep in when not everyone at the table has the same expectations vis a vis adjudication and action declaration.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Is it right that all mechanics must be eschewed, in order for play to be purely "skilled play"? So for instance, using unseen servant ingeniously to penetrate the ToH would not be skilled play, because it is a mechanical rather than purely narrative device?

No. As I've stated, I don't think that mechanics and "skilled play" are necessarily in opposition.

The unseen servant is both a mechanical and narrative device. Whether it falls under "skilled play" all depends on how you use it. If you just cast it and let it expire, then that's probably not. If you use it to steal a gem without getting nailed by the trap that protects the gem, it probably is.

 

[Maxperson]

No. As I've stated, I don't think that mechanics and "skilled play" are necessarily in opposition.

The unseen servant is both a mechanical and narrative device. Whether it falls under "skilled play" all depends on how you use it. If you just cast it and let it expire, then that's probably not. If you use it to steal a gem without getting nailed by the trap that protects the gem, it probably is.

I don't think using it to steal the gem is skilled play, either. See my example above.

 

[clearstream]

No. As I've stated, I don't think that mechanics and "skilled play" are necessarily in opposition.

The unseen servant is both a mechanical and narrative device. Whether it falls under "skilled play" all depends on how you use it. If you just cast it and let it expire, then that's probably not. If you use it to steal a gem without getting nailed by the trap that protects the gem, it probably is.

That is parallels my thought. However, it seems to me to introduce a challenge to the construct. We (may have) wanted to exclude materiel from "skilled play", but it turns out that we cannot exclude materiel from "skilled play". This shows, as you have said, that they are not in opposition.

One then asks, could a mechanic like a Strength (Athletics) check also be used in "skilled play"? What do you think?