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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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?

I will try again. You seem determined to argue with the term and the premise.

In fairness, I did not invent the term, and like a lot of jargon (or self-appellations), it can be alienating, especially if you are attempting to assert that a different modality of play is skilled ... as, in fact, other modalities are.

So in the hopes of making this a more productive conversation, I would advise the following-
1. Whenever you see the term skilled play, substitute a different term in your head. Use "Snarfian Play." Because I am awesome, and it also reduces to the same acronym -"SP." If that doesn't work for you, try Arnesonian/Gygaxian/Kuntzian Early D&D.

2. I would recommend against trying to use single instances to "argue" against modalities of play. For example, if someone said (pace your last paragraph quoted) that "roleplaying" means that they aren't playing D&D, because, hey, you have to roll to attack ... then that would obviously be untrue and unduly argumentative to someone who wanted to discuss roleplaying in D&D. It smacks of "gotcha" instead of conversation. In the same way, the overall modality of SP (see what I did there?) does not mean there there is never roleplaying, or using your strength to bend bars/lift grates, or saving throws.

3. If I were you, I would start by assuming that SP does exist, that other people (the other people on the thread, at a minimum) are familiar with it, and that it involves some element of player skill as opposed to character ability. I would then assume, at least for the purposes of conversation on the thread, that you could start with the concepts that have been given to you as what exemplifies SP (for example, player knowledge of how to explore dungeons, player ability in solving riddles or puzzles, player improvising in burning down a door instead of using their defined strength ability score, characters equipping items like continual light/dark rods due to player knowledge) and what exemplifies not-SP (using a skill check to solve a riddle, using a strength score to bust down a door, making decisions that harm the party or character based purely on RP reasons) and working from there.

4. Finally, I would remember (going from 2 & 3, and the OP), that in this discussion about D&D, we are almost always discussing a continuum of play. Players that optimize for combat will also roleplay; players that engage in skilled play will also optimize their characters; roleplayers will also engage in skilled play; no matter how you slice up the different modalities of play, there are no binaries, just a lot of overlapping circles.

Hope this helps.

 

[clearstream]

I will try again. You seem determined to argue with the term and the premise.

That's true. My goals in doing so are twofold.

1) I want to understand games better. What are games? What is the role of rules and mechanics in sustaining whatever it is we decide are games? Can games possibly be defined in a way that excludes rules and mechanics (my view is not, but there are definitions of game that might allow it.) SP is a really interesting construct for examining in that regard.

2) I want to understand what SP might be useful for (if it is useful)? When we think about how difficult D&D should be, we're naturally also drawn to thinking about where difficulty lies. As well as, as you say, what the outcome or consequences of difficulty should be? (I believe something can be difficult, without being consequential, as an aside. Not perhaps interestingly, but in construction.)

2. I would recommend against trying to use single instances to "argue" against modalities of play. For example, if someone said (pace your last paragraph quoted) that "roleplaying" means that they aren't playing D&D, because, hey, you have to roll to attack ... then that would obviously be untrue and unduly argumentative to someone who wanted to discuss roleplaying in D&D. It smacks of "gotcha" instead of conversation. In the same way, the overall modality of SP (see what I did there?) does not mean there there is never roleplaying, or using your strength to bend bars/lift grates, or saving throws.

3. If I were you, I would start by assuming that SP does exist, that other people (the other people on the thread, at a minimum) are familiar with it, and that it involves some element of player skill as opposed to character ability. I would then assume, at least for the purposes of conversation on the thread, that you could start with the concepts that have been given to you as what exemplifies SP (for example, player knowledge of how to explore dungeons, player ability in solving riddles or puzzles, player improvising in burning down a door instead of using their defined strength ability score, characters equipping items like continual light/dark rods due to player knowledge) and what exemplifies not-SP (using a skill check to solve a riddle, using a strength score to bust down a door, making decisions that harm the party or character based purely on RP reasons) and working from there.

4. Finally, I would remember (going from 2 & 3, and the OP), that in this discussion about D&D, we are almost always discussing a continuum of play. Players that optimize for combat will also roleplay; players that engage in skilled play will also optimize their characters; roleplayers will also engage in skilled play; no matter how you slice up the different modalities of play, there are no binaries, just a lot of overlapping circles.

Hope this helps.

With games especially I agree that there are no binaries. Famously, even! However, when you say...

So when there is a conversation various issues in D&D revolving around risk, whether it's death, or level drains, or traps, or "save v. death" or any number of other ways that some people have to increase the stakes and consequences in the game, it's not about bringing back a rule that is unfun any more than someone would say, "I like playing poker with money because I find it fun when I go all-in and lose everything."

Instead, it's a desire to have stakes and consequences that matter to skilled play; not just narrative consequences that matter to roleplay.

It seems like we want not just narrative consequences that matter to roleplay, but stakes and consequences that matter to SP. When I read the examples and consider the expressed exclusions (and note I am not arguing with those) then there is a strong sense of the terms of SP being best satisfied by players describing actions that their DM deems effective (or not) rather than relying on application of mechanics.

I'm not sure that a game can be truly difficult on those terms, because it would be like describing that you hold a full house, without having to make that so through calculated discarding. That is to say that SP results - and only can result - in stakes and consequences that matter to roleplay! (And of course, I suspect that can be mitigated to the extent that the game is addressed as game, so it becomes important to understand what wiggle room is supposed to exist.)

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not sure that a game can be truly difficult on those terms, because it would be like describing that you hold a full house, without having to make that so through calculated discarding. That is to say that SP results - and only can result - in stakes and consequences that matter to roleplay! (And of course, I suspect that can be mitigated to the extent that the game is addressed as game, so it becomes important to understand what wiggle room is supposed to exist.)

You might not be able to hold a full house without calculated discarding, but you can certainly bluff that you have one, which can be almost as good.

SP would be that bluff, whereas non-SP-skill would be the player discarding.

If you're playing at a table that's never heard of bluffing, or that want to let you win, then they might never call your bluff. However, if someone is playing to win, they might.

Similarly, a DM can certainly let a player engaging in SP succeed. However, if they're not inclined to do so (which is the assumed mindset for this mode of play) they'll make a determination that seems fair. If the character sticks their head into a sphere of annihilation they die. If they stick a 10' pole in, they realize they probably shouldn't stick their head in (and have a 9' pole).

It can be as easy or difficult as you want. And since things like hp loss or character death can result from this, and those are typically categorized as non-RP consequences, the consequences don't need to be RP.

That said, I don't think this style excludes RP consequences. If I talk to a kobold and end up offending him, he's not required to shank me just because we're engaged in skilled play. The consequences of such an encounter could be entirely RP.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It seems like we want not just narrative consequences that matter to roleplay, but stakes and consequences that matter to SP. When I read the examples and consider the expressed exclusions (and note I am not arguing with those) then there is a strong sense of the terms of SP being best satisfied by players describing actions that their DM deems effective (or not) rather than relying on application of mechanics.

I'm not sure that a game can be truly difficult on those terms, because it would be like describing that you hold a full house, without having to make that so through calculated discarding. That is to say that SP results - and only can result - in stakes and consequences that matter to roleplay! (And of course, I suspect that can be mitigated to the extent that the game is addressed as game, so it becomes important to understand what wiggle room is supposed to exist.)

So two things-

1. The poker example is just a simplified example of "rule utilitarianism." Let's make it more clear- imagine that there's a rule, like Priest/Penitent confidentiality, or Attorney/Client privilege. There might be individual times that having the rule sucks, right? Imagine that the priest hears that the penitent murdered someone, or the attorney was told some damaging piece of evidence. The harm of the rule, in that case, is greater than the good of it! But ... if the rule doesn't apply, if it can be voided on an ad hoc basis, then people stop depending on it. The overall utility of the rule is lessened. In other words, the utility is not measured by the consequences of the act, but by the consequences of the rule. So when it comes to SP, as noted by others, the idea of "save or die" (for example) as a consequence is not measured by how much it sucks when it happens, instead what matters is the utility of the rule- in that it leads to more SP, which is to say, it leads to people trying to avoid the save or die situations.

2. Your analysis is bizarre for a simple reason- if something exists, then it seems odd to say that (for example), "I'm not sure that a game can be truly difficult on those terms{.}" Simply put, if other people are telling you that they engage in a modality of play, it is borderline dismissive for you to assert that. It would be similar to someone saying, "Oh, you're one of those people that does everything with skills, right? Glorified button masher. How can a game be difficult on those terms?" I mean ... that would betray a profound ignorance of an entire modality of play, and be kind of insulting.

3. Finally, as I already stated, skilled play is mode of play that was emphasized early on, but that didn't mean that there wasn't (for example) role play, optimization, or any number of other ways of engaging with the game.

 

[MichaelSomething]

From what I can tell, skilled play means "negotiating with/manipulating/persuading the DM to rule in your favor using lateral thinking/fictional positioning/logical reasoning."

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Is "Skilled Play" Prescriptive or Descriptive? I would certainly describe my group's character optimization to be a form of skilled play, in that it is a skill they earned through practice and experience, and the game rewards them for that skill with greater ability to solve problems, and with survival. It takes commitment and study to learn the theory, and combinations that offer power in the game space in crunchy option heavy games. My personal favorite, Pathfinder 2e frames this in such a way that timing the use of abilities, and managing action economy, take judgement-- so even without any kind of Macguyver-plans the there is skill being expressed through play.

While I understand that this is different than what is conventionally meant, my takeaway from this thread so far is that the boundaries of skilled play are being set prescriptively by sensibility, rather than the presence of skill in play. For me, the kind of skilled play being discussed, and the kind of skilled play I mention above, flow together-- the contrast between them is culturally constructed.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Is "Skilled Play" Prescriptive or Descriptive?

I think you misunderstand the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism.

A descriptivist would say, "The term has been used by a group of people to mean X. Therefore, it means X. The attempt by someone else to say that they understand something different from the convention (the usual usage) by appealing to the 'presence of skill in play' is using prescriptivism."

Descriptivism is about usage.

YMMV. Have fun.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think you misunderstand the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism.

A descriptivist would say, "The term has been used by a group of people to mean X. Therefore, it means X. The attempt by someone else to say that they understand something different from the convention (the usual usage) by appealing to the 'presence of skill in play' is using prescriptivism."

Descriptivism is about usage.

YMMV. Have fun.

Yes, that was exactly what I was alluding to, thank you for restating the most basic principle of my 101 linguistic class from college.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, that was exactly what I was alluding to, thank you for restating the most basic principle of my 101 linguistic class from college.

Earlier:
"While I understand that this is different than what is conventionally meant, my takeaway from this thread so far is that the boundaries of skilled play are being set prescriptively by sensibility rather than the presence of skill in play..."

 

[clearstream]

You might not be able to hold a full house without calculated discarding, but you can certainly bluff that you have one, which can be almost as good.

SP would be that bluff, whereas non-SP-skill would be the player discarding.

Yes, exactly. SP would be an act by a player that successfully influences others at the table - focally, of course, their DM.

I'm suggesting that it can then only be playing the game as a game if there are subsequently or contextually mechanical effects. Extending the analogy, if the hand is not concluded and the pot not taken, or if called and the cards not shown - if the mechanics of play are not in the end carried out - then the bluff has no gameful meaning.