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

[clearstream]

I think one of @Manbearcat's contentions WRT DW (and I guess BitD) is that skilled play and RP/characterization considerations are NOT orthogonal because the game deliberately invests them with mechanical weight bearing on success or failure at tasks in the game.

He furthermore describes 'Win Cons' for these games in terms of successfully expressing certain preferred outcomes in the fiction, and in gaining rewards like XP.

I'd like to stress again that I am speaking only of "skilled play" and not of skill. Those characterisations are orthogonal to "skilled play".

@Manbearcat may be putting forth claims and commitments relating to whatever is to be collected up under the label "'Bearcat skilled play" (BSP). Perhaps RP/characterisation considerations are not orthogonal to BSP? Perhaps the "skilled" in BSP is intended to draw attention toward a framework for skill in which reaching preferred outcomes in the fiction is an element? I have been silent on those matters.

EDIT I suppose I am making one claim, however - that SP and BSP are not identical.

 

[clearstream]

I can respond to your post further, after some thought. Foremost I am not sure your questions should be answered without first establishing if "bearcat skilled play" (BSP) is identical to "skilled play" (SP). The view I will put forward is that it is not.

At its most primordial level, playing skillfully is sorting through possible permutations of the move-space (whether its the opening move or a subsequent move) such that the outputs of your decision-point (your "move made") yield a gamestate that places you closer to a Win Condition than the inverse. Further still, you can play more or less skillfully here. To just put numbers to it for illustration, you have a Win Condition at value 30 and you have the following "move values"; -2, 4, 13. It will absolutely be clear upon honest and informed reflection of the play that the move equaling 13 units would have been profoundly better move than the move equaling 4 units and both would have been considerably better than the -2 gaffe (which moved you closer to a Loss Condition).

So, before I go any further, I'd like to ask a question (and get an answer) and make a proposition (and get an answer):

1) Do we at least agree with the above conception of skilled play? If not, can I get some clarification on disagreement?

The conception is problematic: it contains significant omissions. We should consider when the win conditions are not defined, or arbitrary, or defined after the fact, or there are a plethora of them. We should also look at moves that are considered more skilful even when they do not take us any closer to the win condition, and moves that are not considered skilful - gimmes let's call them - even when they take us closer to the win condition.

Taking your example,

1. I have available the moves -2, 4, 13. I don't know the win condition and choose 13. Was that skilful?
2. I have two win conditions - get to 30, get to -30 - is the only unskilful move picking 4?
3. I have another axis in play - to choose a number I must first overcome a challenge on this second axis - is choosing 13 now more skilful than it was in your example?
4. I choose 4, and convince everyone my win condition was get closest to 5. Which was skilful, choosing 4 or convincing everyone to accept my win condition? Both? Was this then more skilful than choosing 13 in your example?
5. I am offered -2 and 4, and you are offered 13. I choose 4 and you choose 13. Given the win condition in your example, did you play more skillfully than I? You certainly got closer to the win con, right?
6. I am offered 13 or 13, but to select the former 13 requires I recite Feynman's Lectures from memory, giving insight into his understanding of quantum mechanics. Is it more skilful to select the first 13, or is it the same as selecting the second, given both carry us the same distance toward the win condition?

I'll stop there, not because there are not more cases, but because I believe we would need to say more about win conditions and dimensions of challenge in play, and the factors players engage in overcoming them, to develop a satisfying conception of skilled play (and I contend, that would still not necessarily count as "skilled play" which can be played without skill).

a) One can play skilfully, without approaching a win condition. b) The ability to play skilfully can help toward achieving a win condition. c) There may be skilful moves available - acts that all observers will agree are skilful - that have nothing to do with any given win condition. d) Some moves may be more skilful than others, along axes in directions other than the win condition.

The acceptance of win conditions, and exercise of skill in play, are not intrinsically linked as you put it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I have arrived at a similar point in my thinking (by as you know a massively different route!) I'll attempt an example (I'm sure nowhere near as vivid as @Manbearcat's!) This restates an example from another thread.

The party need to persuade the fey queen to allow them through the perilous gate. Curiously, their bard has in her backstory a commitment to telling the truth. As it happens, in this specific instance there is a truth that if learned by the queen will harm any chance of persuasion: a lie is necessitated.

• In "skilled play" the bard simply lies. She describes how she persuades the queen in-the-fiction. She doesn't skip steps. What the DM is concerned for is a credible act of persuasion from the player. The DM doesn't care if that outright ignores the character's backstory... at least not in terms of marking down the axes of skill the mode is concerned with.
• In skilful 5e play, the rogue helps the bard - giving advantage - while the diviner bestows a low roll to the queen for her insight. Thus the bard's Charisma (Persuasion) check (hers is highest in the party) is more likely to succeed. The players can just tell the DM the outcome they want and the mechanics they use.
• In skilful DW play - as I understand it from the sourcebooks and what has been written about it - the bard must say how she navigates her commitment to telling the truth. Perhaps the DM has created a thorny situation for the party in which it is an established fact that the queen will only listen to the bard. The conflict is obvious and hopefully will play out engagingly.

Now I think 5e in fact guides to a higher bar, in that a DM is expected to respond to what players describe their characters doing, with anything from forbidding a check to obviating one. An example might be that the Queen loves silver, and the party cleric being a silversmith crafts a lovely trinket for her: a DM might call for some sort of tool use related check, and change things accordingly. However, I think 5e doesn't expressly mark players down for failing to do that.

I can respond to your post further, after some thought. Foremost I am not sure your questions should be answered without first establishing if "bearcat skilled play" (BSP) is identical to "skilled play" (SP). The view I will put forward is that it is not.


The conception is problematic: it contains significant omissions. We should consider when the win conditions are not defined, or arbitrary, or defined after the fact, or there are a plethora of them. We should also look at moves that are considered more skilful even when they do not take us any closer to the win condition, and moves that are not considered skilful - gimmes let's call them - even when they take us closer to the win condition.

Taking your example,

1. I have available the moves -2, 4, 13. I don't know the win condition and choose 13. Was that skilful?
2. I have two win conditions - get to 30, get to -30 - is the only unskilful move picking 4?
3. I have another axis in play - to choose a number I must first overcome a challenge on this second axis - is choosing 13 now more skilful than it was in your example?
4. I choose 4, and convince everyone my win condition was get closest to 5. Which was skilful, choosing 4 or convincing everyone to accept my win condition? Both? Was this then more skilful than choosing 13 in your example?
5. I am offered -2 and 4, and you are offered 13. I choose 4 and you choose 13. Given the win condition in your example, did you play more skillfully than I? You certainly got closer to the win con, right?
6. I am offered 13 or 13, but to select the former 13 requires I recite Feynman's Lectures from memory, giving insight into his understanding of quantum mechanics. Is it more skilful to select the first 13, or is it the same as selecting the second, given both carry us the same distance toward the win condition?

I'll stop there, not because there are not more cases, but because I believe we would need to say more about win conditions and dimensions of challenge in play, and the factors players engage in overcoming them, to develop a satisfying conception of skilled play (and I contend, that would still not necessarily count as "skilled play" which can be played without skill).

a) One can play skilfully, without approaching a win condition. b) The ability to play skilfully can help toward achieving a win condition. c) There may be skilful moves available - acts that all observers will agree are skilful - that have nothing to do with any given win condition. d) Some moves may be more skilful than others, along axes in directions other than the win condition.

The acceptance of win conditions, and exercise of skill in play, are not intrinsically linked as you put it.

Clearstream, I like your post so let us keep it for future consideration...but we are both (a) way far afield (because you're unintentionally Calvinballing the initial example...fundamentally changing the initial parameters + adding/subtracting new elements with it) and (b) way downstream of what I'm trying to initially establish (note that in my first sentence I'm establishing this as "at the most primordial level"). I'm trying to establish 1st principles that we can agree upon for the most basic/foundational conception of Skilled Play possible and the most basic instantiation of that conception that would apply.

The "significant omissions" were by design. What you've done here is profoundly change the landscape and then move the ball well down the field after doing so, such that we can't even discuss the most basic/foundational conception of Skilled Play possible and the most basic instantiation of that conception.

Lets crawl before we walk before we run before we fly (off in many different directions). I'm not trying to create an analogy to TTRPGing. I'm trying to develop a basic unit of understanding. We can then build out and increase complexity from there (which we will have to do)...once we do that, your post will be helpful.

So back to my post, do you agree that the most basic/foundational conception of Skilled Play possible and the most basic instantiation of that conception is the above?

• Substrate for play (conditions/parameters that create a bound field-of-play w/ permissible moves)
• Established win con/loss con
• Opposing parties navigating the substrate and move-space in attempt to make skillful moves of varying quality (composed as quantity in the example for ease-of-demonstration) against each other in attempt to achieve win/loss con.

EDIT - I don't recall precisely what I was setting out in the "discuss Win Cons" post in the other thread...but I did do a post in this thread about Dungeon World Win Cons and skilled play (there were 4 of them). Its post 493 here. If you're going to respond to that/critique it, please do it separately from responding to this particular post so the conversation doesn't get muddled. Please and thank you!

 

[AnotherGuy]

Another great thread, but gosh I'm late 30 pages of reading!

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

I think I could be somewhat compelled that Alignment as it originally existed was consistent with a sort of handicapping, but I think while there is a skill in playing a game like Blades in the Dark or Dungeon World well it is fundamentally different in nature. Approaching play from the perspective of what would Ragnar do is something I consider different in character to Jon what are you going to have Ragnar do to defeat this challenge. This often gets lost in many of these discussions. If only we had some other pithy phrase to discuss games where the point of play is to prove you are skilled by overcoming challenge. One might call it something like Step On Up. That would be crazy though.

I knew there was a reason why I like you! You picked up precisely on where I was going with handicapping!

Let me ask you a few things:

1) You have a moveset consisting of a possible 10 moves (let us just say 10 to keep things manageable) in a given situation where the configuration of the shared imagined space is thus (vs this or that or any other arrangement of elements of the fictional positioning...if it was this or that configuration, there would not only be a different number of permissible moves but there would also be, at least in part, variance within the subset of moves).

a) If you then include a thematic coefficient to each of those 10 moves (ranging from thematically degenerate to thematically coherent to thematically potent sufficient to trigger mechanical effect), would that make the cognitive workspace of managing that moveset and navigating that singular decision-point less or more demanding/intensive (cognitively)?

b) Then, would it be correct or incorrect or not applicable to make the claim "as it pertains to skill, managing the cognitive workspace of that decision-point has increased?"

2) Let us focus on a singular move in Dungeon World:

When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, roll+Con. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. As long as you stand in defense, when you or the thing you defend is attacked you may spend hold, 1 for 1, to choose an option:

• Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself
• Halve the attack’s effect or damage
• Open up the attacker to an ally giving that ally +1 forward against the attacker
• Deal damage to the attacker equal to your level

Now, again, I'm not getting into the 2nd and 3rd order impacts of making build decisions that intersect with enabling/optimizing this move nor am I even talking about managing the shared imagined space (SIS) such that this Defend move is even permissible in a given configuration of the SIS. Nor am I talking about the downstream effects of synergy with this move (what it opens up for other players or takes away from other players).

I'm merely talking about the move.

If we entirely changed Defend to the following iteration:

When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, roll+Con. On a 10+ you redirect the attack from the thing you defend to yourself. On a 7-9, you redirect the attack from the thing you defend to yourself but there is a cost or complication.

Does this new iteration of Defend increase/decrease/unchanged ("move-in/move-out"...across a sufficiently large population of Defend moves) the potential skillfulness in its deployment by the player who triggers the move?

 

[clearstream]

Clearstream, I like your post so let us keep it for future consideration...but we are both (a) way far afield (because you're unintentionally Calvinballing the initial example...fundamentally changing the initial parameters + adding/subtracting new elements with it) and (b) way downstream of what I'm trying to initially establish (note that in my first sentence I'm establishing this as "at the most primordial level"). I'm trying to establish 1st principles that we can agree upon for the most basic/foundational conception of Skilled Play possible and the most basic instantiation of that conception that would apply.

Let's reflect on the fact that frequently victory conditions for a game come in late in the arc of design. That is to say, victory conditions tell us something about skill, but they are usually not faithful to all of skill. Contrast Diplomacy with Chess. Skill in these games is a comparative concept: I win Chess when I play more skillfully than my opponent even if neither of us would be considered skillful by more experienced observers. On the other hand, I win Diplomacy not as a matter of any simple comparative, but of the balance between the participants. In some Diplomacy sessions, the two most skilful opponents take one another out, so that an objectively less skilful player wins. In Dune, players occasionally win by accident... as a consequence of more skilful players devastating one another.

You might wonder if perhaps exercising skill to devastate one another turns out not to be skilful?! That is an interesting question, and gives us the right sort of nuance to ask what skill is.

So back to my post, do you agree that the most basic/foundational conception of Skilled Play possible and the most basic instantiation of that conception is the above?

• Substrate for play (conditions/parameters that create a bound field-of-play w/ permissible moves)

Are you saying that if the field of play is unbounded, or permissible moves can be added to on-the-fly, then there is no possibility of skill?

• Established win con/loss con

Are you saying that if there is not an established win con/loss con, then there is no possibility of skill?

• Opposing parties navigating the substrate and move-space in attempt to make skillful moves of varying quality (composed as quantity in the example for ease-of-demonstration) against each other in attempt to achieve win/loss con.

Are you saying that if parties are not in opposition - for example if they have non-zero sum win cons - then there is no possibility of skill?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Manbearcat

I think I could be somewhat compelled that Alignment as it originally existed was consistent with a sort of handicapping, but I think while there is a skill in playing a game like Blades in the Dark or Dungeon World well it is fundamentally different in nature. Approaching play from the perspective of what would Ragnar do is something I consider different in character to Jon what are you going to have Ragnar do to defeat this challenge. This often gets lost in many of these discussions. If only we had some other pithy phrase to discuss games where the point of play is to prove you are skilled by overcoming challenge. One might call it something like Step On Up. That would be crazy though.

Actually, if you were to take all of what Gygax states about playing alignment in the 1e DMG seriously, then alignment becomes a pretty serious RP mechanic, almost on the level of stuff that is in DW. I would still fault it heavily for being a cumbersome mechanism that is unclear, subject to too much DM judgment, and hard to consistently communicate from GM to GM for any sort of consistent implementation. Still, it advises the player in terms of ways they should act, and their alignment can easily be 'tested' by fictional circumstance. Properly following it has no benefit though, which is one problem. Breaking your alignment is punished, and I don't really like that model. I think PERHAPS Gary might have thought of 1e's RP rating and training system as a more 'carrot like' and finer-grained approach, but it wasn't very workable (and is still fundamentally all based on GM whim).

So, one might argue, that at least by the time 1e was written, which is the first time the 2-axis alignment system is fully explicated and taken as the official rules (though it was known somewhat before then) that alignment is an ATTEMPT to figure out a way to develop a deeper tie between fiction and character mechanics. I don't know if Gary had anything else to say on that topic later. 2e decrees itself to be a game about stories, but it doesn't really do anything new in this direction. Alignment remains basically moribund, and even today in 5e it hasn't ever taken on any more sophisticated character or better mechanics. The training system was pretty much stillborn, Rob Kuntz told us recently in a thread Gary himself wrote it but never used it. IME it was not really a practical system.

It would be interesting to see what OSR people thought of a bond type system applied to classic D&D, lol. It seems like it would work, if a reasonably significant XP award was attached to it. A DW-style alignment statement system seems like it would work too. You'd have to decide how exactly to modify XP to get it all right, and there's the problem that thieves would be rewarded much more than anyone else (along with clerics for some reason, I guess that part maybe makes sense) but I suppose it could be expressed as a % of what you need for your next level. It would maybe work best in a 2e-style XP system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd like to stress again that I am speaking only of "skilled play" and not of skill. Those characterisations are orthogonal to "skilled play".

@Manbearcat may be putting forth claims and commitments relating to whatever is to be collected up under the label "'Bearcat skilled play" (BSP). Perhaps RP/characterisation considerations are not orthogonal to BSP? Perhaps the "skilled" in BSP is intended to draw attention toward a framework for skill in which reaching preferred outcomes in the fiction is an element? I have been silent on those matters.

EDIT I suppose I am making one claim, however - that SP and BSP are not identical.

Well, different games, so I think it is natural that there are differences of course. 'BSP' (where did the 'Man' go? lol) seems to be about mechanically succeeding, and thus imposing your preferred fictional state, onto the game via in-character action. I actually don't think it is hugely different from GSP. I mean you might literally describe them with almost the same words. Yes, they ARE different in detail at the table. Mainly GSP doesn't use process/agenda to push the story to some sort of crisis point, its mechanism of testing is purely the passive "I made a dangerous dungeon, see if you can beat it." kind. So, significant difference there, but DW is very clever in terms of reaching the same destination by a very different route. Each certainly rewards players for 'working the fiction' and being clever.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If we entirely changed Defend to the following iteration:

When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack, roll+Con. On a 10+ you redirect the attack from the thing you defend to yourself. On a 7-9, you redirect the attack from the thing you defend to yourself but there is a cost or complication.

Does this new iteration of Defend increase/decrease/unchanged ("move-in/move-out"...across a sufficiently large population of Defend moves) the potential skillfulness in its deployment by the player who triggers the move?

It is clearly much less fictionally powerful. However I'm not sure there is a real change in SKILL. There are less decision points, so cognitively 'simpler' in isolation. However I don't believe it makes the GAME cognitively simpler. In fact it is probably creating a harder problem for the player to solve, overall.

 

[clearstream]

Well, different games, so I think it is natural that there are differences of course. 'BSP' (where did the 'Man' go? lol) seems to be about mechanically succeeding, and thus imposing your preferred fictional state, onto the game via in-character action. I actually don't think it is hugely different from GSP. I mean you might literally describe them with almost the same words. Yes, they ARE different in detail at the table. Mainly GSP doesn't use process/agenda to push the story to some sort of crisis point, its mechanism of testing is purely the passive "I made a dangerous dungeon, see if you can beat it." kind. So, significant difference there, but DW is very clever in terms of reaching the same destination by a very different route. Each certainly rewards players for 'working the fiction' and being clever.

To retain space for MSP ("modern skilled play" or was it "Moldvay skilled play"... I really can't recall).

Anyway, maybe. A nagging doubt for me is that in SP the DM and only the DM decides what works, right? I pour water on the floor. The DM and only the DM tells me what happens... if I find the pressure plate. Whereas in MSP the players get a say.

Having not played DW I have to rely on others testimony. From the RAW, it looks like I as player will get to say what happens, sometimes. Also, and more pervasively, only I or we as players can decide what satisfies our various fictions.

So two quite different things. I think it would be confusing to collect up under the label "skilled play" something so modally different from its traditional use. Even if it would be an embetterment!