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

[Voadam]

Obviously you could complain that its a pretty narrow game if it only really supports 'McGuyver' as a character concept (and to a degree classic D&D is a bit like that I suppose). Honestly, classic D&D, IMHO, is a VERY niche game anyhow.

Yes, if everything was death traps then only Macguyver, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes type concepts would be viable (whether using skilled play or a mechanics character design focus).

I think though in D&D you are generally supposed to be able to survive triggering traps the way you are supposed to be able to survive being hit by a sword. Usually a pit does 1d6 damage per 10 feet, not bottomless pit forever gone. Not overcoming them imposes a cost in hp and delay and resources, but usually they do not instantly kill when they trigger. So you can choose to be a kick in the door guy who wants to fight monsters and not think through macguyvering problems.

 

[Garthanos]

So you can choose to be a kick in the door guy who wants to fight monsters and not think through macguyvering problems.

Thinks about AD&D at low levels hmmm nyeh its not a supported personality not really that was NOT gygaxian skilled play.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

We've returned to the part of this I'm questioning the precriptivism of, where does this seperation between out of combat and in combat problem solving come from? They could easily involve the same actual skill set.

 

[Voadam]

Thinks about AD&D at low levels hmmm nyeh its not a supported personality not really that was NOT gygaxian skilled play.

It is not skilled play.

Skilled play is more effective for survival in some circumstances, particularly low level OSR D&D, than kick in the door style play is.

The books and some of the adventures encouraged skilled play approaches.

But you can engage in D&D though without engaging in skilled play.

Grab a mid level character and jump in to kick in a door is not really a rare personality type and is supported well in AD&D. There are lots of adventures that provide a pregen mid to high level character ready to go and dive in. The higher the character level the more mechanical buffer they have to survive not playing skilled.

 

[Garthanos]

The books and some of the adventures encouraged skilled play approaches.
But you can engage in D&D though without engaging in skilled play.

I can ignore lots of D&D text and jump over levels to build characters of higher level. And the game designer pushed his flavor of skilled play as THE paradigm and the ONE true way... with heaps of scoffing voice added.

Grab a mid level character and jump in to kick in a door is not really a rare personality type and is supported well in AD&D. There are lots of adventures that provide a pregen mid to high level character ready to go and dive in. The higher the character level the more mechanical buffer they have to survive not playing skilled.

They did not have rules for building higher levels characters unlike modern versions of D&D (honestly tbh I did not buy those adventures back in the day they did not fit my game world and so I do not know about pregens whether they were common or not I have to take your word).

Having my players start at higher levels had been guilt tripped seriously.

It felt like the games premise was you have to play like a coward (and still get very lucky) to earn the privilege of playing anything else and this was in keeping with Gygaxian ideas of mages earning their uber power by being mostly useless at lower level ... of course then years later I found out Gygax and Arneson both did not play the earliest levels in their home games Arneson started at level 4 if I recall.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, if everything was death traps then only Macguyver, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes type concepts would be viable (whether using skilled play or a mechanics character design focus).

I think though in D&D you are generally supposed to be able to survive triggering traps the way you are supposed to be able to survive being hit by a sword. Usually a pit does 1d6 damage per 10 feet, not bottomless pit forever gone. Not overcoming them imposes a cost in hp and delay and resources, but usually they do not instantly kill when they trigger. So you can choose to be a kick in the door guy who wants to fight monsters and not think through macguyvering problems.

Well, that REALLY depends on the DM! I mean, by default classic D&D poison is "you're dead". Sure, you get a save, but those are roughly 50/50.

Now, a nice game with the correct mechanics could designate a few character templates. You could be McGuyver, or Columbo, or etc. and have specific mechanics for your approach. I always thought that this was a bit what 4e should have been about. Like skills aren't just SKILL, they're 'approach', so each of the 12 4e skills defines a problem solving technique or style that you would typically use. Then everything would be built around those. I think it would be stronger in RP than the emphasis on class that D&D has.

 

[Voadam]

They did not have rules for building higher levels characters unlike modern versions of D&D (honestly tbh I did not buy those adventures back in the day they did not fit my game world and so I do not know about pregens whether they were common or not I have to take your word).

Pages 12, 110-111, and 225 of the 1e DMG has some (conflicting) discussion of starting at higher levels.

Not all modules had pregens.

The A series, the C series (at least some), the G series, Some of the D series, The I series (at least some), the L series, and some of the WG series of 1e modules did though.

Some of the B/X ones did too.

 

[Garthanos]

Pages 12, 110-111, and 225 of the 1e DMG has some (conflicting) discussion of starting at higher levels.

Can you hear the scoffing in this on page 12

"I do not personally favor granting unearned experience level(s)"

EXCEPT AT MY TABLE...

"except in extreme circumstances such as just mentioned, for it tends to rob the new player of the real enjoyment he or she would normally feel upon actually gaining levels of experience by dint of cleverness, risk, and hard fighting."

You have to EARN your fun dying over and over again easily is the real enjoyment ... you have to suffer (or act like a coward) to feel you truly accomplished it.

Sorry the scoffing is mine I guess

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Can you hear the scoffing in this on page 12

"I do not personally favor granting unearned experience level(s)"

EXCEPT AT MY TABLE...

"except in extreme circumstances such as just mentioned, for it tends to rob the new player of the real enjoyment he or she would normally feel upon actually gaining levels of experience by dint of cleverness, risk, and hard fighting."

You have to EARN your fun dying over and over again easily is the real enjoyment ... you have to suffer (or act like a coward) to feel you truly accomplished it.

Sorry the scoffing is mine I guess

I look at it this way. Its a game. Its a certain game. It isn't some other game. Since it was the first RPG there has always been some angst about the fact that you had to go write basically a whole other RPG to do stuff it wasn't good at. So, I think complaints about classic D&D don't really seem worthwhile at this late date. I mean, nobody is stuck playing it. Would it be nice if 5e was more like my favorite game? Yeah, but it is also not very close to being classic D&D either.

Anyway, now I'm thinking about whole other ways to finish reorganizing the rules of HoML 2.0, so whatever

 

[Garthanos]

Since it was the first RPG there has always been some angst about the fact that you had to go write basically a whole other RPG to do stuff it wasn't good at.

It spurred on a whole industry perhaps because of that ... The RQ game came out VERY quickly with rules designed to among other things perhaps better reflect someone from SCAs idea of that combat was like due to their dissatisfaction with D&D but that game also lacked larger than life heroism that the advancing hit point mechanic enables, and which at least higher level characters of D&D certainly seem intended to reflect. Rqs highest level characters could still very much die in one sword/dagger/arrow hit. D&Ds potential for representing larger than life seemed its virtue and I find D&D my favorite in spite of flaws.

I mean, nobody is stuck playing it. Would it be nice if 5e was more like my favorite game? Yeah, but it is also not very close to being classic D&D either.

One is more likely stuck playing 5e at this point in time, the entire "skilled play" from 1e era just felt irksome and included foibles like the (notepad of standard rote behaviors and DM reading as a skill) and I seem vulnerable to branching off into the issues around that, think I will just unfollow this thread.