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

[Fenris-77]

A couple of reviews should catch you up. But yeah, that's the gist, for sure. When one of the entrances is a carved head with a sphere of annihilation in its mouth you know the module isn't for casual consumption.

 

[pemerton]

The label - "skilled play" - that was applied in some times and places, relates to successfully second-guessing your DM.

<snip>

The "player knowledge and ability" referred to has narrow scope. It's not about skillfully wielding the game mechanics. Nor skillfully managing your presence at the table. Nor most other kinds of skill at D&D (as a game). It's knowledge and ability to second-guess the DM. In your example, to guess that your DM would believe it made sense to have three pits in a row. That is a metagame ploy, and the aspect of "skilled play" that is most interesting is just that - it takes place in the metagame.

This is not fully accurate. It's not just "metagame" or second-guessing the referee. It's about playing the fiction - even if the players fail to second-guess the GM and hence suffer an attack from ear-seekers, they can come up with the idea of ear trumpets with wire that ear-seekers can't get through.

Skilled Play doesn't need to be beaten to death as an idea. It's about player ingenuity to overcome obstacles, that's it.

I think that playing the fiction is pretty central. Of course mechanics inform this (in all sorts of ad hoc ways, in classic D&D) but skilled play in the Gygaxian sense doesn't involve things like clever exploitation of the action economy. But it could include using the up/down feature of a cube of force to good effect!

 

[pemerton]

When one of the entrances is a carved head with a sphere of annihilation in its mouth you know the module isn't for casual consumption.

That's not quite accurate.

The most epic of all ToH threads was this one.

 

[clearstream]

Skilled Play doesn't need to be beaten to death as an idea. It's about player ingenuity to overcome obstacles, that's it. They can use stuff on their character sheet or not, that's immaterial. It's also not about 'not roleplaying', that's just nonsense. In a low mechanics environment (which is where skilled play originates) there's a game element past pushing mechanical buttons, an element where the players use their noodles to get stuff done. Why that needs to be a controversial idea is beyond me. The more mechanical buttons you add, and the less room the system in question leaves for player ingenuity, the less skilled play is an appropriate moniker for the game in question. It's not complicated,

None of the above has a whit to do with whether or not other styles of play also require skill, of course they do, but that isn't what we're getting at specifically in this case.

I think the OP is talking about Gygaxian "skilled play". Reflecting on @Fanaelialae post above, it quickly evolves to second-guessing the DM. Or consider @Arilyn's comment: "his players were getting overly smug" - they were becoming too good at second-guessing him.

As far as I can make out, we are in agreement about ToH. It's not a good "stick it into your campaign" module precisely because it is a Gygaxian "skilled play" module. Again referring to @Arilyn's post, it's dubious as an example of skilled play (no quote marks) because Gygaxian "skilled play" is not the same as skillful play.

As @pemerton puts it, "it's about playing the fiction". I agree with @pemerton's point here, albeit I say that Gygaxian "skilled play" always relies on players knowing and perforce accepting what their DM will allow. They can't appeal to a rule that says ear-seekers can't get through the wire mesh of modified ear trumpets, when there is no such rule.

The argument is emotive because it connects with a long-standing rift as to what are the most important skills in RPG. Are they in managing your presence at the table? Are they in witty dialogue. Voice-acting? Mastery of the mechanics in play? Are they in blending your use of those mechanics seamlessly into the fiction? Do they lie in being able to predict what your DM will allow? Are they in character optimisation? Are they in imaginative use of the game mechanics? Are they in narrating actions that are outside the game mechanics in a way that your group will accept? Are they in imaginative and varied responses to each situation? Or are they more in believable responses to each situation? Or responses that connect with and depict your character's motivations? Perhaps they are in your ability to evolve your character as a consequence of their experiences? Gygaxian"skilled play" excludes the DM, and thus excludes skills that are vital for engaging and satisfying play.

In short, Gygaxian "skilled play" considers only some dimensions of play: modules like ToH were designed to test said dimensions. By using traps and puzzles, they obviate direct applications of the game mechanics. The idea being to force players to play "skillfully" in the Gygaxian sense... but not in other equally valid senses of skilful.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Skilled Play doesn't need to be beaten to death as an idea. It's about player ingenuity to overcome obstacles, that's it. They can use stuff on their character sheet or not, that's immaterial. It's also not about 'not roleplaying', that's just nonsense. In a low mechanics environment (which is where skilled play originates) there's a game element past pushing mechanical buttons, an element where the players use their noodles to get stuff done. Why that needs to be a controversial idea is beyond me. The more mechanical buttons you add, and the less room the system in question leaves for player ingenuity, the less skilled play is an appropriate moniker for the game in question. It's not complicated,

None of the above has a whit to do with whether or not other styles of play also require skill, of course they do, but that isn't what we're getting at specifically in this case.

While I think a low mechanical environment is sufficient to encourage skilled play, I don't see it as necessary. After all, old school games are often associated with skilled play, but the vast majority have at least one class that obviates the need for skilled play with mechanics (thief in any number of retro clones, expert in WWN, etc). Sure, at low levels those mechanics may be unreliable, but it would be easy to exclude them entirely if that would drive skilled play. Heck, if no one at a table plays that class, they've effectively excluded it (not entirely in WWN, since anyone can learn a skill, but you do lose out of the guaranteed success once per scene).

We could imagine a mechanical system that indirectly encourages skilled play. For example, a complex skill system where failing a skill check always/sometimes causes circumstances to worsen in some way. That makes rolling skill checks to resolve issues high risk / x reward, but skilled play remains low(er) risk / x reward, making the latter the clear choice. If rolling to disarm the trap risks setting it off, but I believe I can safely think my way past it, then rolling is not the smart play.

I would agree, however, that a safe and reliable skill system doesn't encourage skilled play in the same way. In this case, rolling is a quicker and easier alternative.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The label - "skilled play" - that was applied in some times and places, relates to successfully second-guessing your DM. One can ask - was (or is) "skilled play" a worthwhile mode of engaging with RPG? For the reasons you outline, either not always or not particularly.

The "player knowledge and ability" referred to has narrow scope. It's not about skillfully wielding the game mechanics. Nor skillfully managing your presence at the table. Nor most other kinds of skill at D&D (as a game). It's knowledge and ability to second-guess the DM. In your example, to guess that your DM would believe it made sense to have three pits in a row. That is a metagame ploy, and the aspect of "skilled play" that is most interesting is just that - it takes place in the metagame.

I disagree that skilled play is necessarily about second guessing the DM. I think it can be about doing so, and that's perfectly fine as long as everyone has agreed to that kind of game (even if only by tacit consent).

IMO, making it about second guessing the DM is legitimately bad DMing if the group hasn't agreed to this. For example, that DM expected us to be in character, not metagame, and approach his setting as a real place (as opposed to say, a video game). But then he did this thing that was extremely discordant to those goals. This was a gotcha, pure and simple. It was just him showing off how "clever" he was. The pits weren't deep, or difficult to get out of. They weren't there to kill anyone. It was literally there to get one over on the players. To get a laugh at our (my) expense. It wasn't a rational addition to the game world. There was no way to anticipate it, short of something like tapping every square with a 10' pole, or searching for traps everywhere (but this guy had vehemently objected to that approach when we tried it because they slowed down game too much and made it boring).

Don't get me wrong, in the sense that the setting comes from the DM's imagination there will always be an element of second-guessing the DM. However, if the DM constructs the setting to be a well-reasoned place, the players aren't second-guessing the DM in the same sense as they would be with a gotcha DM. They might be second-guessing what the DM considers logical in a given circumstance, but that's a far narrower scope than playing 'what gotcha will the DM try to pull on us today'. In the case of a logical world, players should be able to make logical deductions about the world, and this is itself an important aspect of skilled play as I see it.

Unsurprisingly, I enjoy skilled play in a logical setting. I can't stand it in an illogical gotcha setting. And flagrantly mixing-and-matching the two is IMO very bad DMing, because then your players never know what to expect. Such a game devolves into a bait-and-switch.

 

[clearstream]

I would agree, however, that a safe and reliable skill system doesn't encourage skilled play in the same way. In this case, rolling is a quicker and easier alternative.

Suppose we moot that the play is greatest when game mechanics seamlessly address a consistent fiction, to the satisfaction of all at the table. In that case, to be maximally skillful will be to master at least mechanics, the fiction, the interaction between them, the social dynamic, and the metagame.

So then our dimensions of skill might include, at least

1. game mechanics
2. consistent fiction
3. interactions of mechanics and fiction
4. social dynamics
5. the metagame

The OP presents a fundamental confusion in how that may be understood. Consider the example of Poker. The OP speaks in terms of a separation between your play and your cards. There can be no such separation. Success at Poker relies on mastery of Poker's game mechanics. It relies on how each player applies that mastery to the current game state. It relies upon the social dynamics, and the metagame.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Suppose we moot that the play is greatest when game mechanics seamlessly address a consistent fiction, to the satisfaction of all at the table. In that case, to be maximally skillful will be to master at least mechanics, the fiction, the interaction between them, the social dynamic, and the metagame.

So then our dimensions of skill might include, at least

1. game mechanics
2. consistent fiction
3. interactions of mechanics and fiction
4. social dynamics
5. the metagame

The OP presents a fundamental confusion in how that may be understood. Consider the example of Poker. The OP speaks in terms of a separation between your play and your cards. There can be no such separation. Success at Poker relies on mastery of Poker's game mechanics. It relies on how each player applies that mastery to the current game state. It relies upon the social dynamics, and the metagame.

Right, but that's simply the terminology and what it's become synonymous with. The OP even says it's not the only kind of play that is skilled, but that the term is being used in its established context.

 

[Mannahnin]

Um, no, the fact that it's a tournament module makes it different in kind than any other module that doesn't share the designation. I mean yeah, it's a skilled play tourney module, but it's not a good stick it into your campaign and see what happens module, because it wasn't designed to be that. In a tournament module there's no expectation of character continuation outside the module, and in the case of something as deadly as ToH, you're probably going hurt some feelings if you just drop it into a campaign.

It had two intended use-cases:

1. High difficulty tournament play, which, as you say, has different stakes than regular campaign play, because the characters being used are much more disposable.
2. High difficulty campaign play, on a purely opt-into-the-danger basis. Where PCs hear legends that this place is horrible and deadly and they choose whether to engage with it or not. It's not a campaign plot where the Tomb is about to conquer the kingdom and burn down your village. It's sitting in a swamp way in the middle of nowhere. You have to seek it out. Legends say it's a death trap, and if the players want to take it on, that's their choice and opportunity to prove their skill and bravery against an unusually difficult and deadly challenge.

The idea that it was created to reign in overly smug players was, I think, Gygax hearing about players out in the wild (rather than in his own group) playing in Monty Haul games where treasure and levels came easy, and who had high level characters without, as far as he could discern, developing particularly advanced player skills or facing truly deadly challenges. This particular tournament module was designed to challenge players even with quite high level characters, into engaging with the fiction and using lateral thinking to avoid the deathtraps. To give players an opportunity to display their personal skills.

IIRC when Gary tested it at home, Rob Kuntz' character made it through without dying and without a ton of spells, in part by employing a large number of orcish henchmen to help him cautiously explore. I've seen reports from other old school players that they made it through with minimal casualties, employing relatively low-level magics like Unseen Servants to help check rooms out and move stuff around while exposing themselves less to danger.

 

[Voadam]

My understanding of TOH was similar, it was Gygax being annoyed by people at conventions bragging about high level PCs who showed no evidence of being particularly skillful at figuring out challenges besides with the power of their characters. So he set up a high player skill challenge scenario that generally requires more than high level stats to overcome and had a very steep deadliness consequence for a lot of challenges.

The deadliness of the consequences is not necessary for a scenario to be skilled play.