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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Pretty much. I mean, you can fudge it. There are a few templates you can follow
1. so dumb I just act as the muscle - remember to name your character 'Grog'
2. 'Inspector Clouseau' - utterly bumbling and incompetent, but always successful.
3. 'Hired Help' - I'm brave, but the boss says run, so...

 

[Voadam]

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?

I don't see that at all.

Acting would be about acting out the character concept whether that concept is an aspect of you in the game world or something not you in the game world. Whether that conflicts with skilled play would depend entirely on whether the character concept would engage in the skilled play concept.

I generally see the skilled play concept (at least as I view it) as a generally fun way to approach in game challenges that is more first person immersive than abstracted mechanics. I also don't see it as an obligation, most D&D games I play in and run are not that lethally consequential for people not engaging in skilled play.

Plenty of players could say in character or as themselves as players I hate riddles, you guys handle this riddle challenge and not engage in the skilled play. An actor can say in character "I hate riddles, hopefully you guys got this." A skilled play focused player who normally likes skilled play but hates riddles can also say, "I hate riddles, hopefully you guys got this," and a mechanics oriented player can say, "I've got nothing mechanically appropriate that will help here, hopefully you guys got this."

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't see that at all.

Acting would be about acting out the character concept whether that concept is an aspect of you in the game world or something not you in the game world. Whether that conflicts with skilled play would depend entirely on whether the character concept would engage in the skilled play concept.

That's just what I got done saying; the only option is to play a character who is good at D&D.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's just what I got done saying; the only option is to play a character who is good at D&D.

Sure, but if you agree to play this style, then you ought to make a character that fits.

Refusing to do so is poor table manners. It's no different from establishing that we are going to play an adventure path whose goal is to save the princess. If a player insists on creating a character who despises royalty and then complains that their character wouldn't want to join this quest, the DM is perfectly in the right asking them to make a character who will be motivated to save the princess.

Obviously, you could create a character who endlessly complains about having to rescue the spoiled, pampered princess. As long as the player is on board and the character cooperates, such complaints are merely RP and can bring a lot of fun to the table. It's only when the player complains and is uncooperative that you really have an issue.

If you don't want to play a particular play style or adventure, then session zero is the time to speak up. Once the player agrees, they should act in good faith in creating a character that will work within the established boundaries.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure, but if you agree to play this style, then you ought to make a character that fits.

Refusing to do so is poor table manners.

That's not the discussion. The original discussion was whether or not SP could satisfy the various player archetypes, particularly the actor, who SP pokes in the eye with flaming pokers.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's not the discussion. The original discussion was whether or not SP could satisfy the various player archetypes, particularly the actor, who SP pokes in the eye with flaming pokers.

It might not be ideal for an actor, but it's not unworkable either, IMO.

I felt my post was pertinent, since something like the expectation of SP should be established in session zero. If the player doesn't think that the group's style fits their own, then either the group will need to adapt, or the player will, or the player will need to find a more suitable group.

They could even compromise. If the group doesn't mind SP on hard mode, maybe they agree to let the player play characters that are perpendicular to SP. The honorable and brave knight, for example. Then the rest of the party has to work their SP around this character, who often poses an additional hinderance. If everyone is clear ahead of time, this can be a lot of fun, and still allow the actor to play whatever they feel like. You definitely don't want to spring it on a group that isn't interested in this though.

Which is why establishing expectations in advance is important. Whether or not an actor is a good fit with a group is going to depend a lot more on the particulars of that group, than whether they utilize SP.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But SP has absolutely no interest in engaging the actor. That's the point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But SP has absolutely no interest in engaging the actor. That's the point.

Yeah, basically, there just seems to be a profound reluctance to admit that. lol!

OTOH, there's a point to the notion that Skilled Play (or any other agenda) needn't be an all-consuming agenda. You can play the foolish guy who wants to always charge ahead and doesn't want to check for traps, as long as you are willing to also be convinced to let the other players have their way most of the time. In a sense your 'skill' would be knowing when to say "my character acts like an idiot" when it won't actually blow up the game (and might even be effective). This is a version of the 'Clouseau' type character.

Beyond that, you can always engage in the skilled play parts that you do like, and not the other ones, as was pointed out by a couple of people. I agree none of this amounts to SP catering to your preferred style, but it does mean more than one agenda MIGHT be fit within a single table at least.

Of course, people who want to engage in Skilled Play can equally complain that a zero myth story now game which emphasizes dramatic action probably doesn't work well for them either. As I've said before, maybe in another thread, part of the angst with D&D is simply that it is usually seen as the only alternative.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But SP has absolutely no interest in engaging the actor. That's the point.

My point being that the group may or may not have an interest in engaging the actor, irrespective of their use of SP. The former is far more important than the latter (IMO).

I understand that you're looking to analyze a technique/play style. That's fine. I even agree with you that, in general, SP is not well suited for actors. However, it's also important to remember that such general observations frequently don't hold up when applied to individual instances.

Awareness that SP and actors don't necessarily jive well can be useful if you're trying to diagnose that particular issue at your table. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate from it the reverse. An actor could play with an SP group and everyone could have a great time, depending on the individual actor and the group.

 

[Mannahnin]

OTOH, there's a point to the notion that Skilled Play (or any other agenda) needn't be an all-consuming agenda. You can play the foolish guy who wants to always charge ahead and doesn't want to check for traps, as long as you are willing to also be convinced to let the other players have their way most of the time. In a sense your 'skill' would be knowing when to say "my character acts like an idiot" when it won't actually blow up the game (and might even be effective). This is a version of the 'Clouseau' type character.

And to be fair, Gygax envisioned (and tried to incentivize, via random encounter checks and even some of the dumb "gotcha" monsters like earseekers, to penalize interminable pixel-bitching) a balance between cautious play and pick-your-spots boldness and aggression.

There's a happy medium in SP where caution is exercised a lot of the time, but sometimes you just need to go for it and take a gamble. I've been embracing this style in a few different online OSR games over the past 6+ months, and I've had surprisingly few characters die, despite them usually being in the front and taking occasionally charging in damn-the-torpedoes style.