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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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.

I have mixed feelings, in that the replacement, 2e's "its a story, but totally on the DM's shoulders to railroad it into working" was NOT an improvement, lol.

I mean, I agree with you, D&D's strongest suit is the leveling advancement system that promises you can become a really fantastically powerful character. RQ definitely doesn't have that, I don't recall that you can ever get physically tougher for instance in BRP. You gain skill, to the point where maybe that plus your gear will mostly let you make light of minor threats, but stronger opponents never really become minor threats. I have to laugh though about people thinking RQ promised 'more realistic' combat. There was a famous article I recall reading where a guy calculated what would happen if 100 RQ swordsmen fought each other. It turns out most deaths would be from critical misses (people killing themselves or their allies). It was a strange game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

I mean especially at low levels when in most editions your character's HP amount to the tensile strength of children's laughter and paladin reasonability, 20-30 feet will kill you pretty reliably. So again, actors aren't going to be happy only being cast as 'guy who is good at playing D&D'.

 

[Garthanos]

derp

 

[Garthanos]

I have mixed feelings, in that the replacement, 2e's "its a story, but totally on the DM's shoulders to railroad it into working" was NOT an improvement, lol.

I mean, I agree with you, D&D's strongest suit is the leveling advancement system that promises you can become a really fantastically powerful character. RQ definitely doesn't have that, I don't recall that you can ever get physically tougher for instance in BRP. You gain skill, to the point where maybe that plus your gear will mostly let you make light of minor threats, but stronger opponents never really become minor threats. I have to laugh though about people thinking RQ promised 'more realistic' combat. There was a famous article I recall reading where a guy calculated what would happen if 100 RQ swordsmen fought each other. It turns out most deaths would be from critical misses (people killing themselves or their allies). It was a strange game.

I find that slightly unlikely from what I recall most fumbles were mildly impairing rather than personally deadly but I do not doubt the fumble odds were probably over blown in early RQ because sca people are not nearly so good as people who spent 10 to 12 years training to do combat because their lives depended on it. The current RQ looks like a fumble is you dropped your weapon ;p but does happen 1 in 20 misses heh

If you have any nostalgia RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha Quickstart

 

[ClaytonCross]

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because of two things I eventually realized though reflecting on bad experiences.

#1. People usually play games to escape reality which often leads player having a character with superior traits to the the player that represent who they wish they could be.

#2. GMs meta sometimes too.

Example of #1.

• Many players come to the table with brave sword masters when the player is afraid of everything and couldn't wield a sword without hurting themselves.
• Many players who would be trapped outside with an open window two feet to there right while they call a lock smith because the key stuck half way on the glass pained door of their own house, play an observant acrobat thief who can pick locks with a flick of the wrist, climb walls, and spot any danger or path forward.
• Many unassertive players who freeze shake and sweat talking in front of a group of 6 people play negotiators who talk their way through every situation, bargain prices to a steel, and convince NPCs to abandon their gods or other core beliefs to follow a new path.
• Also using magic.

Example of #2
When a GM ask players to describe every detail of how they search you end up with "Gary, I look up, and down, and all around the area before I walk in. That stopped a lot of ugly surprises from happening." because the GM is training the player not using the character. It is not uncommon to have GMs ask the players to describe-roleplay exactly what where they search what they move and how they move it auto failing or succeeding without allowing character roles. The same with any charisma check where the GM judges players success or failure based on what the player said. In both cases without any involvement form the player character and in disregard/disrespect of the players investment into their character as a reflection of what they want to be in this world they visit to escaping reality. The GM is forcing the problems of reality back on them through meta gaming. The players develop meta game scripts to use with every character in order to counter dealing with the meta gaming of the GM and get back to enjoying there escape from their deficiencies in real life. Add to that players don't always get to see everything that is in the room inside the GMs head or pickup on the inflections of voice and reactions of other characters that even the player might notice if they were really there and certainly their more capable character would.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I find that slightly unlikely from what I recall most fumbles were mildly impairing rather than personally deadly but I do not doubt the fumble odds were probably over blown in early RQ because sca people are not nearly so good as people who spent 10 to 12 years training to do combat because their lives depended on it. The current RQ looks like a fumble is you dropped your weapon ;p but does happen 1 in 20 misses heh

If you have any nostalgia RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha Quickstart

Yeah, the more recent iterations of BRP have all the RQ-style combat rules, so I have seen it. Things are a good bit more cleaned up, or at least changed some from the early 80's vintage rules. Fumbles used to be able to do things like lop your head off (not very likely, but still pretty darn silly). Anyway, did plenty of SCA, was pretty decent buddies with a guy who was BETTER than the then-current King of the East, he was a damned good fighter. Nobody, no matter what sort of idiot, would ever inflict wounds on themselves, that was always preposterous (maybe with a flail, if you were really stupid I guess).

 

[Voadam]

I mean especially at low levels when in most editions your character's HP amount to the tensile strength of children's laughter and paladin reasonability, 20-30 feet will kill you pretty reliably. So again, actors aren't going to be happy only being cast as 'guy who is good at playing D&D'.

Yes falling off a three story building will kill most low level D&D characters, more likely in the older sets with fewer starting hp and going to zero is death while in 5e you have more hp and it knocking to zero means starting death saves with no death until three failed saves.

An actor focused player might not be happy being driven to playing careful characters designed to survive in a high lethality environment. Again this is more a comment about them being unhappy with high lethality consequences than skilled play player focus versus a character mechanics focus. A character not designed mechanically to deal with those lethal challenges (a tank fighter who dump statted dex is poorly set up mechanically for spotting pits and balance checks or acrobatics checks and reflex saves for instance) will make an actor just as unhappy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a topic near and dear to my heart because of two things I eventually realized though reflecting on bad experiences.

#1. People usually play games to escape reality which often leads player having a character with superior traits to the the player that represent who they wish they could be.

#2. GMs meta sometimes too.

Example of #1.

• Many players come to the table with brave sword masters when the player is afraid of everything and couldn't wield a sword without hurting themselves.
• Many players who would be trapped outside with an open window two feet to there right while they call a lock smith because the key stuck half way on the glass pained door of their own house, play an observant acrobat thief who can pick locks with a flick of the wrist, climb walls, and spot any danger or path forward.
• Many unassertive players who freeze shake and sweat talking in front of a group of 6 people play negotiators who talk their way through every situation, bargain prices to a steel, and convince NPCs to abandon their gods or other core beliefs to follow a new path.
• Also using magic.

Example of #2
When a GM ask players to describe every detail of how they search you end up with "Gary, I look up, and down, and all around the area before I walk in. That stopped a lot of ugly surprises from happening." because the GM is training the player not using the character. It is not uncommon to have GMs ask the players to describe-roleplay exactly what where they search what they move and how they move it auto failing or succeeding without allowing character roles. The same with any charisma check where the GM judges players success or failure based on what the player said. In both cases without any involvement form the player character and in disregard/disrespect of the players investment into their character as a reflection of what they want to be in this world they visit to escaping reality. The GM is forcing the problems of reality back on them through meta gaming. The players develop meta game scripts to use with every character in order to counter dealing with the meta gaming of the GM and get back to enjoying there escape from their deficiencies in real life. Add to that players don't always get to see everything that is in the room inside the GMs head or pickup on the inflections of voice and reactions of other characters that even the player might notice if they were really there and certainly their more capable character would.

Right, so we did touch on all (I think) of these considerations. I think the many years formed consensus is that some people LIKE exercising their personal cleverness in thinking through and describing exactly what their characters do in dangerous and exciting situations, and others find it more enjoyable to imagine the story of being that person and want to let mechanical aspects of the game handle exactly how it is they get in the window or whatever.

Even in the former case abstraction and stochastic methods are usually resorted to (dice) in order to deal with issues like combat where the outcome cannot be ascertained by logic and nobody is competent to really describe the techniques (lock picking and such often follow the same logic when it comes to execution vs deploying the technique). So, no games of which I'm aware are 'pure skill', not even early D&D c1974.

And then we get into the various ways in which the process implicit in classic D&D narrows its applicability and various trends that have come about as answers (often with mixed success) to some of the issues, how DM dependent Skilled Play is, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes falling off a three story building will kill most low level D&D characters, more likely in the older sets with fewer starting hp and going to zero is death while in 5e you have more hp and it knocking to zero means starting death saves with no death until three failed saves.

An actor focused player might not be happy being driven to playing careful characters designed to survive in a high lethality environment. Again this is more a comment about them being unhappy with high lethality consequences than skilled play player focus versus a character mechanics focus. A character not designed mechanically to deal with those lethal challenges (a tank fighter who dump statted dex is poorly set up mechanically for spotting pits and balance checks or acrobatics checks and reflex saves for instance) will make an actor just as unhappy.

Can't we just admit that skilled play is just plain not for actors? To the point of antithesis seeing as SP is about the player, not the character? I mean the best an actor can do is desperately pretend all the metagaming is an in-character choice and that the only characters they can play are super genius cowards?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes falling off a three story building will kill most low level D&D characters, more likely in the older sets with fewer starting hp and going to zero is death while in 5e you have more hp and it knocking to zero means starting death saves with no death until three failed saves.

An actor focused player might not be happy being driven to playing careful characters designed to survive in a high lethality environment. Again this is more a comment about them being unhappy with high lethality consequences than skilled play player focus versus a character mechanics focus. A character not designed mechanically to deal with those lethal challenges (a tank fighter who dump statted dex is poorly set up mechanically for spotting pits and balance checks or acrobatics checks and reflex saves for instance) will make an actor just as unhappy.

Which means classic D&D is not the right game for playing any sort of character who isn't all about careful systematic exploration of the 'delve' or other high lethality situation. This gets you into another long and complex discussion of the dissonance between the PRESENTATION of D&D, as a game of heroic fantasy RP, and the dungeon crawling problem-solving reality of the game. Eventually high-level play does converge towards a more heroic game, but few players make it to those levels (I think in my experience less than 20% of campaigns have achieved 'name level' in actual play).

Even if you made it to, lets say level 7 where a more open-ended and less 'grub around in the shadows trying to steal treasure' type of game becomes possible, the rules then basically break down. Character (player) options become so much greater that it becomes impossible for the DM to anticipate where and how the action will go, and thus the 'play against my prepared gauntlet of obstacles' breaks down into a process of full extemporizing on basic plot/location information. Here D&D's process and agenda simply aren't sufficient to support play much at all. The rules work to an extent, but in essence the game becomes entirely one where the players ask the DM what his imagination suggests happens when they attempt to do things.

2e ironically, by recognizing these facts and attempting to 'go with the flow' really made things worse by eliminating much of the original dungeon crawl agenda and mechanics. IMHO unfortunately, 5e pretty much picks up where 2e left off.