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

[Fenris-77]

So if I know my Strength (Athletics) gives me a 45% chance to leap the chasm, while staying and fighting the hook horrors is certain doom, then rolling dice in that case would fall under "skilled play"?

That's really not the way to look at it. Point one, skilled play is not balanced play, so there's some expectation that you may need to retreat (unlike 5E). Two, if you're stuck in a room with a chasm and a Hooked Horror that's about to eat your tripes, skilled play is about using whatever is available to make things work. If there are no other options than to jump, then jump. Keep in mind, the systems in question don't tend to give back answers for jumping in percent like that, but ok. Really though, if you knew the Horror was there, and you knew it might be too tough to beat, skilled play is really about how do I get around it.

 

[clearstream]

That's really not the way to look at it. Point one, skilled play is not balanced play, so there's some expectation that you may need to retreat (unlike 5E).

I don't understand the connection between that and my question. Could you clarify?

Two, if you're stuck in a room with a chasm and a Hooked Horror that's about to eat your tripes, skilled play is about using whatever is available to make things work. If there are no other options than to jump, then jump. Keep in mind, the systems in question don't tend to give back answers for jumping in percent like that, but ok. Really though, if you knew the Horror was there, and you knew it might be too tough to beat, skilled play is really about how do I get around it.

The system does afford players knowledge of the probability in many cases, however I believe that is moot. The point is that the player is choosing to roll some dice instead of facing the hook horrors and as it turns out, that decision is greatly favoured by the odds. Is it "skilled play"?

 

[pemerton]

Just to check then, taking a calculated risk is not "skilled play"? (This will break the Poker analogy, but it is after all only an analogy.) And combat isn't "skilled play" (too much rolling dice and comparing the result to target numbers).

I don't understand what you are pressing towards.

Deciding (as one's PC) to jump over a pit to try and rescue a friend is taking a calculated risk. Enhancing the odds by putting on the boots worn by a recently-killed foe on the chance that they are Boots of Striding and Springing (suggested by the way the GM was narrating that foe in combat) would be layering a calculated risk (ie that the boots have the desired magical effect rather than, say, a curse) on top of the earlier calculated risk (ie that it is worth trying to make the jump to save one's friend). That is the sort of thing that I would anticipate being part of a "skilled play"/Gygaxian game.

If the Boots turn out to be magical, then there is a rule that tells us how far the wearer can jump and so the pit-crossing exercise is resolved deterministically. If the boots are not magical, then the attempt to jump over the pit will probably be resolved by a die roll (there being no general jumping rules in AD&D before Unearthed Arcana for thief-acrobats and barbarians, and then WSG for everyone else). Gygax's advice on this sort of thing is weak, but Moldvay's (in his Basic rules) is quite good.

The GM may or may not share the details of the die roll required before the player is required to commit to the jump - table practices on this are varied (and I don't think Moldvay makes it quite clear in his GMing advice). But that is secondary to the overall dynamics of the situation: the key thing is that the player is taking a chance with his/her character to try and rescue the other character, and (in choosing to put on the boots) is playing the fiction as part of that.

What I've just described is a real way to play D&D. I think three of the best exponents of it are Gygax (in his PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures just before the Appendices), from the player side but also giving ideas to GMs; Moldvay, in his Basic rulebook, who is writing from the GM side; and Lewis Pulsipher (writing in the late 70s/early 80s in White Dwarf), who writes from both player and GM sides.

I personally do not play in this style (i) because I don't find it super-interesting and (ii) as a GM I'm bad at it. That doesn't change the fact that it's a real approach to play. And the reason for calling it "skilled play" is simply that that is the label Gygax uses (or at least one of them - he also, in his PBH, refers to "playing well" by which he means this sort of engaging of the fiction).

Wargaming-style combat resolution - which is what AD&D and B/X use - is not an example of "skilled play" techniques in use. Obviously that sort of combat resolution can be quite exciting, which generates tensions in early D&D - should players stick to their skilled play priorities (eg Gygax advised avoiding wandering monsters if possible) or start fights because they're fun? Even in his DMG you can see Gygax flip-flopping a bit on the answer to this question, and by the time of 2nd ed AD&D we can see that "skilled play" priorities have been largely abandoned and it is assumed that from time to time the GM will frame the PCs into combat encounters because those are fun to play.

What about game mechanical attributes such as that mage hand can carry 10lbs. Relying on such values can be "skilled play", right? It is rolling the dice - taking a chance - that is verboten?

Again, I don't really understand what you are asking about. There is a fair bit of dice rolling in Gygaxian D&D - I quoted the rules on searching for secret doors not far upthread, and there are comparable rules for listening at doors, forcing doors open, etc.

In AD&D, if you are playing a fighter or cleric, it is obviously desirable - as far as character effectiveness is concerned - to acquire Gauntlets of Ogre Power, a Girdle of Giant Strength and a Hammer of Thunderbolts and become largely unstoppable in combat. But working this out isn't a manifestation of skilled play priorities. It's a manifestation of arithmetic ability. Conversely, a player who works out (what is not obvious to someone who hasn't read the books) that this combination of items is apt to stack, because it's just like Thor, would be manifesting skilled play priorities - because it is reasoning about the fiction (in this case in a somewhat metagamey way).

4e D&D has a lot of character building options that are more intricate than the AD&D combo I described in the previous paragraph. Working out how to put them together can require fairly intricate arithmetic and optimising reasoning (eg by tracking which choices permit or exclude which other choices, and how those various permutations interact with other moving parts of the system like action economy and the like). That is obviously a manifestation of skill in the ordinary sense of the word, but has nothing to do with "skilled play" as Gygax uses that phrase. It's the same sort of skill that makes a person good at boardgames and mechanics-heavy wargames.

But there are obviously moments in 4e where players get to engage the fiction. In one of my 4e sessions a player had his wizard PC use Icy Terrain to freeze a puddle (or small pond - I can't remember all the details) so that someone-or-other could cross it without having to go through the water. That's the sort of thinking that does manifest skilled play priorities. If the carrying capacity of a mage hand - which is an element of the fiction, just like the iciness of Icy Terrain - mattered to some clever ploy, then that would also be a manifestation of skilled play priorities.

But while this sort of thing figured in my play of 4e, it wasn't the dominant priority. That is to say, the overall goal of play was not to solve and outwit the GM's challenges by coming up with clever, fiction-engaging solutions. Those were means to other ends. In Gygax's skilled play dungeoneering game they are really the end in themselves. (Yes, notionally, it's about treasure to earn XP, but Gygax is crystal clear that the conditions for accruing treasure should, exactly and precisely, be that the player solved and outwitted the GM's challenges by coming up with clever, fiction-engaging solutions!)

 

[pemerton]

So if I know my Strength (Athletics) gives me a 45% chance to leap the chasm, while staying and fighting the hook horrors is certain doom, then rolling dice in that case would fall under "skilled play"?

"Skilled play" as used in the context of the OP and this thread is not a property of action declarations. It's a play priority - an aspiration one has for how one will successfully go about playing the game.

It contrasts, for instance, with the play priorities that underpin the DL modules, or the very different play priorities that underpin my play of Cortex+ Heroic or Prince Valiant or Wuthering Heights.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't understand the connection between that and my question. Could you clarify?


The system does afford players knowledge of the probability in many cases, however I believe that is moot. The point is that the player is choosing to roll some dice instead of facing the hook horrors and as it turns out, that decision is greatly favoured by the odds. Is it "skilled play"?

Sure, to the first point. 5E is, ostensibly at least, as per the rules 'balanced' in that encounters are supposed to be designed to fall within a range appropriate to the average character level. A lot of skilled play, much of the OSR for example, does no such balancing. The approach of players in those two situations is very different, and the former really mitigates against skilled play as we're discussing it. Keep in mind, that really doesn't mean that other kinds of play require no skill or less skill, that's the name we've got.

Skilled play really isn't about that percentage at all. As I mentioned, if you get to that rather rough spot in a skilled play game you've mostly already dropped the ball. However, taking your example as written, skilled play is using everything at your disposal. So just what you have in the example isn't enough. What equipment do you have, what other exits are there, what else does the environment give you, how big is the room etc etc etc. Skilled play isn't about choosing something over rolling, at all, which seems to be what you're getting at. it's about player creativity and problem solving.

 

[pemerton]

Skilled play isn't about choosing something over rolling, at all, which seems to be what you're getting at. it's about player creativity and problem solving.

This description is too generic. When my group played a Wuthering Heights one-shot there was a lot of creativity and problem-solving (eg one of the players solved the problem of his PC being stuck in jail by starting a prison riot, during which he escaped).

But the Wuthering Heights game was in no sense Gygaxian skilled play.

To describe Gygaxian skilled play we need to identify the nature of the problem: broadly speaking, it is the puzzling geography and architecture the GM has created (the dungeon is the paradigm here), and secondarily it is the NPCs/creatures who populate that place and whose behaviour is often not self-evident but is (i) knowable and (ii) exploitable (the ogre in KotB is a well-known exemplar of this) or (iii) avoidable if not able to be turned from threat to opportunity (the evil priest in KotB is an example of this).

Then we have to identify the sorts of player "moves" or action declarations that are central to solving the problem. These are (a) moves that oblige the GM to reveal information (searching, making "perception"-type checks, explaining how one's PC uses marbles or water to find the slope of a room, using a wand of enemy detection, etc), which help the players better grasp the parameters within which solutions must be found; and (b) moves that negate or avoid threats, or overcome obstacles, so that the notional reward - treasure - can be obtained without too much PC injury/death.

Both the (a) and (b) moves are generally to be adjudicated having close regard to the fiction - GM's framing, and PC fictional positioning - but with implicit understandings as to what bits of fiction matter (I quoted some relevant passages from Gygax upthread - generally (eg) the shape of a room is deemed to matter, but (eg) the stitch on a NPC's boots is not). There are some moves where dice rolls play a bigger roll - some searching moves, some door-opening moves, much of combat - but even in those cases there is an underlying imperative to prioritise the fiction over the stipulation of abstract resolution procedures, or at least to apply the latter having regard to the former.

Modules that really exemplify the way GM preparation for this sort of play looks are B2 KotB, X2 Castle Amber, S1 ToH, S2 WPM, C1 Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness.

Conversely, two modules that invites a lot of player creativity and problem solving but that have nothing to do with skilled play at all are OA3 Ochimo the Spirit Warrior and OA7 Test of the Samurai.

EDIT: To elaborate the contrast with Wuthering Heights - the player's instigation of a prison riot was adjudicated via a roll on Despair, to determine whether he sincerely conveyed his socialist convictions to his fellow inmates. Fictional positioning mattered in the sense that he had to be in prison to get the opportunity to propagandise among other prisoners; but determining the consequences of his proselytising wasn't dependent in any fashion upon extrapolation from previously authored information about the prison, the mood of the inmates, etc. It's nothing like telling the GM you're rolling marbles along the floor to see if it slopes, or you're holding up a bit of tissue paper to try and test for drafts that would indicate the presence of a secret door.

 

[clearstream]

This description is too generic. When my group played a Wuthering Heights one-shot there was a lot of creativity and problem-solving (eg one of the players solved the problem of his PC being stuck in jail by starting a prison riot, during which he escaped).

But the Wuthering Heights game was in no sense Gygaxian skilled play.

To describe Gygaxian skilled play we need to identify the nature of the problem: broadly speaking, it is the puzzling geography and architecture the GM has created (the dungeon is the paradigm here), and secondarily it is the NPCs/creatures who populate that place and whose behaviour is often not self-evident but is (i) knowable and (ii) exploitable (the ogre in KotB is a well-known exemplar of this) or (iii) avoidable if not able to be turned from threat to opportunity (the evil priest in KotB is an example of this).

Then we have to identify the sorts of player "moves" or action declarations that are central to solving the problem. These are (a) moves that oblige the GM to reveal information (searching, making "perception"-type checks, explaining how one's PC uses marbles or water to find the slope of a room, using a wand of enemy detection, etc), which help the players better grasp the parameters within which solutions must be found; and (b) moves that negate or avoid threats, or overcome obstacles, so that the notional reward - treasure - can be obtained without too much PC injury/death.

Both the (a) and (b) moves are generally to be adjudicated having close regard to the fiction - GM's framing, and PC fictional positioning - but with implicit understandings as to what bits of fiction matter (I quoted some relevant passages from Gygax upthread - generally (eg) the shape of a room is deemed to matter, but (eg) the stitch on a NPC's boots is not). There are some moves where dice rolls play a bigger roll - some searching moves, some door-opening moves, much of combat - but even in those cases there is an underlying imperative to prioritise the fiction over the stipulation of abstract resolution procedures, or at least to apply the latter having regard to the former.

Modules that really exemplify the way GM preparation for this sort of play looks are B2 KotB, X2 Castle Amber, S1 ToH, S2 WPM, C1 Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness.

Conversely, two modules that invites a lot of player creativity and problem solving but that have nothing to do with skilled play at all are OA3 Ochimo the Spirit Warrior and OA7 Test of the Samurai.

EDIT: To elaborate the contrast with Wuthering Heights - the player's instigation of a prison riot was adjudicated via a roll on Despair, to determine whether he sincerely conveyed his socialist convictions to his fellow inmates. Fictional positioning mattered in the sense that he had to be in prison to get the opportunity to propagandise among other prisoners; but determining the consequences of his proselytising wasn't dependent in any fashion upon extrapolation from previously authored information about the prison, the mood of the inmates, etc. It's nothing like telling the GM you're rolling marbles along the floor to see if it slopes, or you're holding up a bit of tissue paper to try and test for drafts that would indicate the presence of a secret door.

You have laid out some good examples, here and above. The crucial matter I'm concerned with relates to "1. What is Skilled Play? D&D as a Game." in the OP. There seems to me a clear possibility that the "skilled play" construct operates on a level or to the extent only that D&D is not a game. This of course regresses to the question of what is a game?

Game theorists discuss rules and mechanics in their definitions of a game. Juul proposed that classic games are "mainly real rule-based systems that players interact with in the real world", and Sicart defined game mechanics as "methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world". Juul pointed out that his definition was "a markedly different description from another common one, namely that of describing games as fictive worlds."

This is a point that is often overlooked. We may speak of games in terms of what is going on within the game, but a game is always played out - always happens - in the real world. A game is narrated not just by words, but through the interplay of rules. In a sense, a game is an engine for generating narratives, rather than a static representation of a narrative. If we take @Fanaelialae's suggestion, Gygaxian "skilled play" might be better labelled "Narrative Focused Resolution".

Now, is narrative focused resolution a denial of appeal to game rules and game mechanics? A denial of game qua game? Or is it something else? If it is something else, how do we know what is in or out?

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is a point that is often overlooked. We may speak of games in terms of what is going on within the game, but a game is always played out - always happens - in the real world. A game is narrated not just by words, but through the interplay of rules. In a sense, a game is an engine for generating narratives, rather than a static representation of a narrative. If we take @Fanaelialae's suggestion, Gygaxian "skilled play" might be better labelled "Narrative Focused Resolution".

Now, is narrative focused resolution a denial of appeal to game rules and game mechanics? A denial of game qua game? Or is it something else? If it is something else, how do we know what is in or out?

I wouldn't necessarily focus too much on NFR as a term. That was just a quick name that I came up with more to illustrate that we shouldn't get too hung up on the terminology itself (restricting "skilled play" to only include explicit expressions of skill). While I think that "skilled play" is less than ideal as a term, it's not only unlikely to change at this late stage, but even if it were there would certainly be others more qualified than myself to coin the new term.

If everyone agreed to call this concept supercalifragilisticexpialidocious then that would work too, since we've all agreed to use that as the common term. However, it would be silly to assert that it suddenly had any relationship to Mary Poppins musical numbers as a result of the terminology. While "skilled play" certainly does encompass player skill, I'm not convinced that everything it encompasses qualifies as skill.

 

[clearstream]

I wouldn't necessarily focus too much on NFR as a term. That was just a quick name that I came up with more to illustrate that we shouldn't get too hung up on the terminology itself (restricting "skilled play" to only include explicit expressions of skill). While I think that "skilled play" is less than ideal as a term, it's not only unlikely to change at this late stage, but even if it were there would certainly be others more qualified than myself to coin the new term.

If everyone agreed to call this concept supercalifragilisticexpialidocious then that would work too, since we've all agreed to use that as the common term. However, it would be silly to assert that it suddenly had any relationship to Mary Poppins musical numbers as a result of the terminology. While "skilled play" certainly does encompass player skill, I'm not convinced that everything it encompasses qualifies as skill.

That misses my broader meaning. Are we talking about narrative focused resolution, under the label "skilled play"? That, and only that? Does "focused" imply "entirely", or "mostly"? If the latter, what else might be included? If the former, might we be thinking of roleplaying, sans game?

For instance, the whole question of which spells count and which don't seems to me very arbitrary, especially once Vancian magic and saving throws are involved. 10' pole and unseen servant - yes, rolling dice having considered the alternatives - no. What about charm person? Can it be used in doing "skilled play"? Might a fireball be used in doing "skilled play"? If that, then why come down so hard on classes that rely on rolling dice to do their thing? Can the player not exercise that same "skilled play" muscle in choosing their actions even if those end up with a dice roll?

Does "skilled play" exclude then, player fiat over the narrative, and any reliance on chance? Is that it's main consequence? And of course, more fundamentally, is doing "skilled play" a denial of game qua game?

 

[Mannahnin]

"I use this thing that exists as an actual object in the game narrative (unseen servant) to do X (open the chest lid) to activate the trap from a hopefully safe distance" versus "I use this thing that exists on my character sheet as a mechanics abstraction to hopefully disable the trap on the chest."

This. Gygaxian-style Skilled Play can involve dice rolling, but the role of player skill is largely in minimizing the necessity of dice rolls. As a general rule, the more skillfully you play the less you have to rely on your luck.

You will still have to sometimes! Combat will come down to attack rolls or spells when it breaks out. Although with skilled play you can avoid, negotiate with, or frighten off foes and have to resort to attack rolls less often. You pick your spots for gambles, and maximize your odds where you can. Skilled Play can involve the rolling of dice- for example, say that you have an intractable foe (warband of skeletons or orcs, for example) and you have a single Fireball spell. It would be Skilled Play in the Gygaxian sense to employ a ruse or bait or strategic retreat to draw the enemy group into a room or area where you could maximize the number of them who would be caught in the area of the Fireball, even though the enemies will still get saves. By being smart and engaging with the fiction, you've improved the effectiveness of the Fireball, though final resolution will still involve mechanics and dice.

This discussion brings to mind the Saving Throw meta discussion from not long ago. A Saving Throw is specifically a fiction-emulation mechanic to represent the last lucky chance or hand of fate which saves the hero. A significant element of old school Skilled Play is avoiding having to make saves. Saves are there to give you a chance after you've already made play/narrative choices which put you in danger.

I remember an OD&D session I played last year, in which my elf, Athanor, had chosen to enter the dungeon unarmored to function as the party Magic User rather than a Fighting Man. We had a couple of frontliners and a few hireling warriors, so I spent most of the session in the middle or rear ranks of the party. At one point exploring a room which had been part of a Roman-style bath house, a giant spider crawled out of a crevice and attacked the party. I was one of the three characters closest to the spider when it emerged. Rather than retreating immediately, I decided to shoot it with a bow along with the others. Sadly we missed, and wouldn't you know it, the spider made a beeline for me, hitting and forcing a Save vs. Death/Poison. Thankfully I rolled the 12 I needed, but, given that I was unarmored, it would have been a better play for me to retreat with Athanor and minimize the risk of death, letting the armored characters face it up close.