D&D General Skilled Play, or Role Play: How Do You Approach Playing D&D?

[Weiley31]

I'm all for role playing, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't care about my Fighter being good at his job and not being a useless buffoon. Unless I was intentionally playing the character like that or doing a parody of a Lawful Stupid Paladin that deserved that butt whooping.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That’s not an example, really. Except for solo play, there’s no RPG I can think of that doesn’t involve one person describing the scene and one or more people describing their characters reacting as if they were in that scene. Even story games like Fiasco are still RPGs by that definition. Whether that involves a set role of DM/GM/Storyteller/Referee/Facilitator/Etc or not. All RPGs involve one person describing something and another describing their character’s reaction to that description. I mean that’s literally playing a role. naughty word. That description is so broad it might even include proper acting and improv. So I’m not sure why you think it excludes some RPGs. If you could give me an example of a game you think doesn’t fit my definition that would be a great start.

Then what is happening in Burning Wheel? A player gives his character a belief, or a 'wise' (specialized knowledge) and then declares an action based on that which, at least potentially establishes fiction. The example in a different thread was a PC making a check against a 'wise' to establish the exact location of a building which he claims to know is in this area. He succeeds, the building is now canonically established to be in a location (which I guess was a detail the GM then established) within the region in question.

I don't see a binary thing going on here where one player is describing and the other player's character is reacting to that description. It simply doesn't describe that play at all, yet BW is most certainly an RPG. I think the question here might then be about the granularity of the interactions. I believe you are describing a D&D-like kind of process where a DM continuously describes, with the players interjecting PC action declarations and questions which can be addressed declaratively about what has been described. Now, how would an 'establishing declaration' like the one I described above fit in there? The player can describe an ACTION 'consulting my knowledge' with the intent of answering a certain question in a dispositive manner, so that it establishes something. The GM can then provide more fiction in line with what is now established. It can sort of be described as "one participant describes, one reacts" but that doesn't capture the essential essence of what just took place at all, IMHO. It is a whole different paradigm.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Haven't played Dungeon World, but sounds like a nice mechanic for that ruleset. Although, not having the context of having played DW, the description you provide here doesn't sound all that different from playing 5e.


Very much the same as in D&D 5e, in my experience, with the key being the bolded part - and everything else follows.


Again, plays very much the same in 5e at our table. Most any action declaration to make the right puzzle move (or to not make the wrong puzzle move) might be met with a DM asking for an ability check - that is, if the action has the possibility of success or failure, and meaningful consequences for said failure.

Hmm... I guess one might say that the distinction between "skilled play" and "narrative play" needn't have a strongly defined border.

Well, mechanically DW is nothing like D&D of any ilk really. It is a clever hack of a game which produces a very D&D-like narrative of a party of adventurers delving into some sort of dangerous situations for whatever reasons (usually profit being amongst them). The GM never rolls dice in DW, he just makes 'moves', and the players also make their own 'moves' which come from 'playbooks' associated with their class, or are otherwise 'generic moves'. They don't closely resemble things you would find being declared in a D&D game, mainly because DW is entirely fiction-first, so you simply make up your part of the fiction, which is then sorted out by the GM as to what move it amounts to, and what, if anything needs to be checked, based on that. 'Combat' in DW isn't even a specific thing, there are no 'combat rounds', 'maneuvers', etc. There isn't even such a thing as a 'turn order' in any formal sense. The players simply act (or react as the case may be) with descriptions of what their characters do next or how they cope with whatever danger has arisen.

If an orc charges into the midst of the party from the shadows, it may simply be a 'hard move' by the GM "hey dwarf, an orc jumps out from behind the boulder and slams you in the head with his scimitar, take 5 damage! What do you do?" that's sort of the typical kind of process. Maybe the dwarf player responds by pulling out his axe and swinging wildly in retaliation. The GM probably says "that's hack & slash, make a check." Once that's resolved he might ask "what are you doing, Blasty? An orc is hacking up the dwarf!"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you equate stats on the sheet with the character concept then you will hit the disconnect. If the character concept is based on an independent narrative concept instead then it is not a big deal.

As a DM I want everybody to roleplay what they want from a conceptual narrative roleplay perspective (divorced from stats and classes) and to be roughly mechanically balanced for combat effectiveness.

I have no interest in trying to get players to match roleplay with class and stats. I generally do not care about what the stats on the sheet are unless there is a roll. If someone wants to play a smart charismatic Tyrion Lannister or Mr. Wednesday concept I could care less if they are a bard where the good stats for the class match up to that part of the roleplay concept or if they are a monk who mechanically is MAD for everything but Charisma and Intelligence. I actively do not want them to knock down their character's effectiveness at doing their class things just to meet a character roleplay concept by the stats on the sheet. I want the Jaimie Lannister concept knights to be awesome combatants who did not sacrifice point buy combatant stats just to meet their roleplay part of the concept of being crafty and charismatic. In a fight as part of a D&D party I want Jaimie Lannister the Knight to be as effective as Jaimie Lannister the Warlock. If a player wants to play an RDJ Sherlock Holmes expert bare-knuckle boxer concept as a monk that is just as cool a character roleplay concept to me as doing RDJ Sherlock Holmes as a wizard. Mechanically this means characters having stats to support their class mechanics.

I think 5e's background is a pretty decent mechanic for getting concept and numbers to work together as much as I want it to, particularly if the players come up with a custom background themselves. A DM throwing in conceptually appropriate proficiency bonuses or advantage supports that well too.

As far as actually roleplaying at the table I have no interest in policing my players' choices and telling them they are playing their characters wrong.

I am also fine with players with high int wizards/high wis clerics making dumb plans and high charisma characters ticking people off through the player's abrasive in-character interactions.

It is part of the whole "Tell me what you do, I will tell you what happens." aspect of the DM-Player relationship in roleplaying games for me.

Yeah, I don't really understand. Ability scores need to 'carry water', or why bother? I mean, literally why do you play a game that has ability scores when you don't care one bit about what they say about the character? They're just arbitrary numbers, your mechanics don't support your story. We are definitely worlds apart there! I mean, I have no problem with running games that don't have concepts like 'ability score', or have some very narrow 'trait' type mechanics where a given thing doesn't tell more than 'one interesting thing' about the PC, but I think 6 all-encompassing ability scores like D&D has don't work that way, for me.

 

[Zsong]

When we talk about 'skilled play', how many different skills and even categories of skills are we talking about?

Seems a list might come in handy. And a discussion of how they function at the same table/campaign.

I mean, "mechanical character optimization" is a skill. As is "BS'ing NPCs with pure improv".

If you have to look to see what is on your character sheet to decide what is an option to do it is not skilled play it is mechanical play.

 

[Mallus]

If you have to look to see what is on your character sheet to decide what is an option to do it is not skilled play it is mechanical play.

Knowing how to use a system’s mechanics is also a skill.