From the masses of posts in this and other threads, it seems like "skilled play" is more about success navigating the game-world, than character stories or themes. I'm absolutely not saying one is more skillful than the other, only that one doesn't seem like part of "skilled play" so to claim skill in that area might not affect the argument at hand.
has reiterated examples in an attempt to express why DW is skilled. One might see though, that this doesn't help see why it is not "skilled": posters end up talking past one another. Or at least, that's how some of the above exchanges read to me.
I agree that Gygaxian skilled play doesn't care about theme/genre, beyond the most superficial level of tropes. That's why I really think paladins don't make sense in AD&D! (And probably not druids or monks either.)
My comparison to engineering is meant to be more than superficial. To use language borrowed from Max Weber, "skilled play" abandons all sentiment, and rests upon a ruthless technical efficiency in the application of the resources available. Switching gears to Mark Twain, it's the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
Ok, my present course is clearly not moving any units, so I'm going to try a different tack (building upon my most recent post).
In any game you have a conceptual maximum permissible number of moves that are constrained by the ruleset. Taxonomically speaking, this is the "top of the food chain" (this would be Kingdom in Biology). In some games, the opening move and any subsequent move thereafter will encompass a staggering number of possible moves. in other games, the opener and any subsequent move thereafter is winnowed due to opening gamestate conditions and evolving gamestate conditions.
At its most primordial level, playing skillfully is sorting through possible permutations of the move-space (whether its the opening move or a subsequent move) such that the outputs of your decision-point (your "move made") yield a gamestate that places you closer to a Win Condition than the inverse. Further still, you can play more or less skillfully here. To just put numbers to it for illustration, you have a Win Condition at value 30 and you have the following "move values"; -2, 4, 13. It will absolutely be clear upon honest and informed reflection of the play that the move equaling 13 units would have been profoundly better move than the move equaling 4 units and both would have been considerably better than the -2 gaffe (which moved you closer to a Loss Condition).
So, before I go any further, I'd like to ask a question (and get an answer) and make a proposition (and get an answer):
1) Do we at least agree with the above conception of skilled play? If not, can I get some clarification on disagreement?
2) Further, there is a well-known phenomena in games called "handicapping." Handicapping (for those who don't know) is when you do the "I'll fight you with one arm tied behind my back" phenomena. This is done for one of two purposes (though in the end, both are borne out...I'm merely speaking about why
the impetus for handicapping exists):
a) To level the playing field in a situation where one competitor is clearly more capable than another.
b) To allow a competitor to express their extreme competency/capability/skillfulness in an endeavor because (i) artificially contracting a participant's move-space makes play more demanding for them and (ii) ,resultantly, it artificially (or actually depending upon how the handicapping is done) moves them closer to their Loss Con and farther from their Win Con than they would be without the handicapping.
So can I get an answer about these two things please?
Agree? If there is disagreement, please clarify.
<anyone else who wants to chime in on this is more than welcome>
Please and thank you!
, I'll address your real or hypothetical play excerpt above after you review what I've written above and have responded (there are issues with your understanding of how Dungeon World would resolve such a conflict both as a player and as a GM...but I don't want to do a hypothetical post-mortem until we're on the same page on the above).