Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8290116" data-attributes="member: 6801252">You guys have very different experiences playing these games than I do, because for me what we're discussing as 'Gygaxian Skilled Play' is seamless with the dimensions of the game that are being rejected. My understanding is that even in the very oldest incarnations of Dungeons and Dragons one would have a notion of being good at some things and bad at others, and hew towards solutions to problems that use one's talents-- the fundamental distinction between a 'thief' and 'fighting man.' Something clearly and obviously present in the tradition of war games that, through chainmail, the game was descended from. The notion of simulating elements through statistics, those strengths and weaknesses defining the viability of differing approaches, and the players learning from experience/game rules what they're good at and how to succeed?I hate to break the illusion, but whether the meta centers on clear knowledge of simulation game rules, figuring out the sort of things your buddy thinks are reasonable, studying character options, or some other procedure, it all comes down to the same basic premise of identifying the rules of the game and how they affect the 'metagame' and optimizing your own play to seek the greatest degree of victory. That is the essence of 'Skilled Play' being discussed, the distinctions being made beyond that are entirely arbitrary and not particularly cogent. Which is why I want to break it down, because this becomes about including something, which is the sense of interacting with your environment to gain advantages as an aspect of Skilled Play, rather than it's totality (even within the concept of a single game), but with a healthy coexistence with other aspects of Skilled Play. Even 4e players who had never played another TTRPG in their short, high school aged lives still engaged in what you're talking about, I know this because I started in 2010 under those exact circumstances. I have distinct memories of players casting fey step to get to the other side of locked doors by peering through the keyhole for line of sight, and of announcing a door, and solemnly telling my players that "SUDDENLY, the door continues to be a door" after they poke at it, trying to discover if it might be trapped, and making molotov cocktails to throw down underdark pits to smoke out foes. This was concurrent, and often intermingled with their character optimization, and combat tactics as a skill set.  Someone suggested 4e was 'classic' in terms of the six cultures of play, and I don't think that's a bad fit at all. It certainly fits how we played the games-- a series of challenges to be overcome, the rules stepped aside once combat was over and everything was entirely up to my discretion, full on descriptions of where they search and what they do to try and open doors, or remove gemstones from statues without incurring terrible ramifications.In reality, I think it was the modern conventions and sensibility that turned those traditional skilled play people away, 4e had very different art, very different mechanics, you had the option to stand and fight with some degree of competence, you had elaborate character builds with lots of choices, you had eye popping anime esque martial maneuvers all over the place and a little power fantasy with minions, and explicit party roles that evoked MMO ones, and so forth. The milieu was so different from what they'd grown up with I see it as complete culture shock, because it totally was for me looking back after the fact, reading old ADND manuals, the Alexandrian, etc.</blockquote>

Verification