D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[Ovinomancer]

That is what I was describing.


That's an interesting example. A player could have a goal of getting a property of every colour, and play skillfully toward that.

Good point, I failed to note that I'm using player goals to cover games where there isn't a clear win condition. Let's add that player goals must conform to the expectations of the game's intent. Otherwise it's an out that says, "my goal is to run around waving my arms, so I'm playing Advanced Squad Leader very skillfully!" In other words, the point of Monopoly is to win by bankrupting other players. Adopting a goal outside the game's intent renders skilled play moot.

In the context of RPGs, the allowable goals are much broader and still allowable within the scope of the game, so I was shorthanding for this. Still, even here, goals need to be aligned within the context of the game. If I'm playing Blades in the Dark, for instance, I cannot have a player goal of getting the best magic armor and weapons in the game because that's not something that system really considers, so it's an incompatible play goal. However, having a goal to stick it in the eye of your mom, who said you'd never amount to anything, is very aligned and you can play skillfully towards that goal within Blades (because Blades primarily aims at you being a successful criminal in scope, although success is not guaranteed).

Player goals must align to be within the scope of the game played.

I think principles like rule of cool and being a fan of the players can obviate skill, or at least set it in a different place so that one group might not count the play of the other group skillful. Force is just a more overt case.

Being a fan of the PCs (it's not the players) doesn't really interact at all with skilled play in any way. It's not about being nice to or going soft on the PCs, or bending outcomes to an end you think is better for them, it's about being honestly interested in what these PCs do and being interested in framing situations that allow them to really do things and be interesting. How the players play doesn't really affect or interact with this -- the GM is providing honest adversity because that's how you enjoy seeing what the PCs do (ie, be a fan), and the players do whatever they do. If that's skilled play, great, be a fan of that. If it's something else, then it's something else. Being a fan of the PCs doesn't really do any work with regards to skilled play.

Rule of cool is GM Force, so, yeah, it cuts against skilled play.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I disagree, in part, with @Fanaelialae. Possibly due to the example chosen, or the need to be complex or overengineered in solution. If the straight fireball suffices, then using it rather than a more complicated ploy has to be judged in a wider context. If luring the orcs into tar takes time, and risks additional complications due to that time, then it's quite possible that doing so is less skilled play than using the same resource decisively to begin with. The example is too underdeveloped to be able to tell.

The thing that I think stands out, though, is that this seems to indicate that a more complicated solution is more indicative of skilled play. I disagree. I think there is a style of play that this may be true, though, and that that style of play is relatable especially to tales of early D&D, and that you can see some of this in the modules of the time, but that this is limited in use to that approach to play in general and not as a useful addition to the definition of skilled play in general. Having complex plans that overengineer success can actually be a failing strategy, so it cannot be part of the definition of skilled play.

I wasn't trying to say that a more complicated solution is indicative of skilled play. I simply said that I've noticed some correlation between "complicated" plans and skilled play. I say "complicated" because the plan to lure the orcs could be fairly simple, it's just more complicated than immediately fireballing the orcs upon noticing them.

Skilled play often tries to hedge bets, and this can involve a degree of complexity as players try to cover all the angles.

Let's assume that the players don't know how many HP the orcs have. There's a good chance that if they're regular orcs that a fireball will take them out, but it isn't guaranteed. However, if they happen to be unusually tough orcs, a fireball may not cut it at all. So they lure the orcs into the tar pit, figuring that if the fireball doesn't finish them off, the burning tar almost certainly will.

I'm not looking to debate whether the players in that hypothetical example were engaged in better or worse skilled play, just that it is skilled play (as opposed to some other style of play).

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree. By that definition, completely searching an area for traps when there are none to find would also be unskilled play. Since you are probably wasting meaningful resources doing so (torches, time, etc). Which would mean that a lot of skilled play would actually be unskilled play, which I don't think follows.

Can't say I follow. From your limited knowledge perspective there could be traps. Therefore, searching for them is nearly always skilled play (unless there's some intense clock pressure or hefty resource drain that might change the calculus). Losing a little bit of torch light or 30 minutes of rations is trivial in most scenarios. The only time searching for traps in this context is clearly not skilled play is if you know there aren't traps or that it's extremely likely there aren't traps.

I don't think that making a suboptimal choice disqualifies one from participating in the style of play termed skilled play. Players will usually be acting on imperfect knowledge, meaning that suboptimal decisions are bound to happen.

That you are making this counter-argument tells me you don't understand my objection - because I fully agree with this.

I think that as long as the players were trying to make the best decision with the knowledge they had, it still qualifies as skilled play. Maybe not quite as skilled as if they'd made the optimal decision, but c'est la vie.

My comment shouldn't be read to insinuate that the situation must be judged on perfect knowledge when you only have limited. That's not what it was about. It's for the cases you do know what you are doing will be sufficient and waste resources on overkill. That's why fireballing a bunch of orcs after trapping them in a tar pit is unskilled play. I'm not sure why you aren't readily agreeing with this?

 

[FrogReaver]

I wasn't trying to say that a more complicated solution is indicative of skilled play. I simply said that I've noticed some correlation between "complicated" plans and skilled play. I say "complicated" because the plan to lure the orcs could be fairly simple, it's just more complicated than immediately fireballing the orcs upon noticing them.

Most complicated plans create more points of failure than redundancies - requiring more things to go right. Plans that have redundancies tend to indicate skilled play - hedging bets as you call it below. So I'd say that most skilled play involves complex plans, but that most complex plans aren't indicative of skilled play.

I think some of it is that we fondly remember how awesome or super complex plan was when it worked and disregard the times they don't. I think that's called Selection bias.

Skilled play often tries to hedge bets, and this can involve a degree of complexity as players try to cover all the angles.

Agreed, but hedging those bets also involves hedging bets about the unknown variables of any new plan. What's the chances something negative happens when your trying to implement your complex 'skilled play'.

Let's assume that the players don't know how many HP the orcs have. There's a good chance that if they're regular orcs that a fireball will take them out, but it isn't guaranteed. However, if they happen to be unusually tough orcs, a fireball may not cut it at all. So they lure the orcs into the tar pit, figuring that if the fireball doesn't finish them off, the burning tar almost certainly will.

This materially changes the example though. You started out with a fireball that would kill the orcs. Now it's a fireball that might kill the orcs. And maybe the more important question is - why fireball at all? These are orcs. Is it possibly more skilled to just fight them straight up without higher level magic? Depending on their numbers and your level and gear and what edition you are playing - it may very well be the better decision to avoid the complicated stuff and just combat through them. Which is getting back to the heart of this - skilled play is more than complicated tactics that dominate a single encounter. Skilled play is about achieving your goal.

I'm not looking to debate whether the players in that hypothetical example were engaged in better or worse skilled play, just that it is skilled play (as opposed to some other style of play).

Depending on the precise parameters it could have been skilled play or totally unskilled play. I can give you this, the players were attempting to play skillfully with their tactics, that doesn't mean they achieved that result though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wasn't trying to say that a more complicated solution is indicative of skilled play. I simply said that I've noticed some correlation between "complicated" plans and skilled play. I say "complicated" because the plan to lure the orcs could be fairly simple, it's just more complicated than immediately fireballing the orcs upon noticing them.

Skilled play often tries to hedge bets, and this can involve a degree of complexity as players try to cover all the angles.

Let's assume that the players don't know how many HP the orcs have. There's a good chance that if they're regular orcs that a fireball will take them out, but it isn't guaranteed. However, if they happen to be unusually tough orcs, a fireball may not cut it at all. So they lure the orcs into the tar pit, figuring that if the fireball doesn't finish them off, the burning tar almost certainly will.

I'm not looking to debate whether the players in that hypothetical example were engaged in better or worse skilled play, just that it is skilled play (as opposed to some other style of play).

I suppose, but then it's a situation that's being justified by added conditions to qualify as skilled play, and this seems, to me at least, to undercut the example's general usefulness. The play you're describing is one where there's lots of hidden and undiscoverable information (we can't tell if these orcs are tougher than normal, for example), and where is seems that this idea means that you'll often face difficult opposition and so need to engage in such kinds of plans to mitigate the difficulty of the encounters. As I said, I saw this quite a lot in some older modules, where players were expected to take advantage of such things. So, sure, it can absolutely be skilled play in that context. However, it's not broad enough for inclusion in the general definition.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Can't say I follow. From your limited knowledge perspective there could be traps. Therefore, searching for them is nearly always skilled play (unless there's some intense clock pressure or hefty resource drain that might change the calculus). Losing a little bit of torch light or 30 minutes of rations is trivial in most scenarios. The only time searching for traps in this context is clearly not skilled play is if you know there aren't traps or that it's extremely likely there aren't traps.


That you are making this counter-argument tells me you don't understand my objection - because I fully agree with this.


My comment shouldn't be read to insinuate that the situation must be judged on perfect knowledge when you only have limited. That's not what it was about. It's for the cases you do know what you are doing will be sufficient and waste resources on overkill. That's why fireballing a bunch of orcs after trapping them in a tar pit is unskilled play. I'm not sure why you aren't readily agreeing with this?

Is your meaning that the players used a fireball instead of a firebolt knowing full well that that the firebolt would definitely take out the orcs?

I agree that would constitute significantly less skilled play, but it's such an absurd scenario that I had assumed that couldn't be your meaning.

I think it's fairly improbable that a player would waste resources that way. Even then, I don't think it actually means they're not actually engaging in skilled play. But I would agree that they're playing poorly (and not just by the measures of skilled play).

 

[FrogReaver]

Is your meaning that the players used a fireball instead of a firebolt knowing full well that that the firebolt would definitely take out the orcs?

Nope. Assumption is that if the orcs get in the tar pit then their mobility is limited to some extent and so the party can back off and use no-resource abilities or low-resource abilities until something about the situation changes. Say, the tar doesn't slow down the orcs as much as anticipated. At that point one can bring out fireball.

I agree that would constitute significantly less skilled play, but it's such an absurd scenario that I had assumed that couldn't be your meaning.

What's the difference between less skilled and unskilled?

I think it's fairly improbable that a player would waste resources that way. Even then, I don't think it actually means they're not actually engaging in skilled play. But I would agree that they're playing poorly (and not just by the measures of skilled play).

So is skilled play in your mind just trying out complex tactics regardless of their benefits to your effeciency?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Most complicated plans create more points of failure than redundancies - requiring more things to go right. Plans that have redundancies tend to indicate skilled play - hedging bets as you call it below. So I'd say that most skilled play involves complex plans, but that most complex plans aren't indicative of skilled play.

I think some of it is that we fondly remember how awesome or super complex plan was when it worked and disregard the times they don't. I think that's called Selection bias.


Agreed, but hedging those bets also involves hedging bets about the unknown variables of any new plan. What's the chances something negative happens when your trying to implement your complex 'skilled play'.


This materially changes the example though. You started out with a fireball that would kill the orcs. Now it's a fireball that might kill the orcs. And maybe the more important question is - why fireball at all? These are orcs. Is it possibly more skilled to just fight them straight up without higher level magic? Depending on their numbers and your level and gear and what edition you are playing - it may very well be the better decision to avoid the complicated stuff and just combat through them. Which is getting back to the heart of this - skilled play is more than complicated tactics that dominate a single encounter. Skilled play is about achieving your goal.


Depending on the precise parameters it could have been skilled play or totally unskilled play. I can give you this, the players were attempting to play skillfully with their tactics, that doesn't mean they achieved that result though.

The original example with the fireball was being described from a meta perspective. The DM might know that a fireball will definitely kill these orcs, but the players might not. While I'm sure there are exceptions, I suspect that many of the DMs who run skilled play games wouldn't just tell their players how many hp a creature has.

You guys realize that when I am referring to "skilled play", I am not talking about play that is skilled, right? I'm talking about the narrow definition of the term used by the OSR. Which is how I believe the OP intends it to be used, since this is an offshoot of another thread about skilled play where that is how the OP defined the term for that thread.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Nope. Assumption is that if the orcs get in the tar pit then their mobility is limited to some extent and so the party can back off and use no-resource abilities or low-resource abilities until something about the situation changes. Say, the tar doesn't slow down the orcs as much as anticipated. At that point one can bring out fireball.


What's the difference between less skilled and unskilled?


So is skilled play in your mind just trying out complex tactics regardless of their benefits to your effeciency?

As I described in my previous post, I am and have been referring to skilled play in the OSR sense.

Skilled play is basically a play style (though some would say it's more of a technique). Less skilled suggests you're engaging with that style, just not very effectively. Unskilled says to me that you believe that they're no longer engaging with this style whatsoever, and are now engaged in some distinct other style of play.

I already did my best to define skilled play up thread. But no, "trying out complex tactics regardless of their benefits to your efficiency" is not how I would define skilled play.

 

[FrogReaver]

The original example with the fireball was being described from a meta perspective. The DM might know that a fireball will definitely kill these orcs, but the players might not. While I'm sure there are exceptions, I suspect that many of the DMs who run skilled play games wouldn't just tell their players how many hp a creature has.

That's interesting. I would have given the example from the players perspective as that's the detail level we need to actually determine skilled play IMO. There's no right or wrong there - but that seems to be where a good chunk of miscommunication is occurring.

You guys realize that when I am referring to "skilled play", I am not talking about play that is skilled, right? I'm talking about the narrow definition of the term used by the OSR. Which is how I believe the OP intends it to be used, since this is an offshoot of another thread about skilled play where that is how the OP defined the term for that thread.

IMO, that wasn't clear either. It's also jargon that I think complicates the discussion. And maybe jargon is too forgiving of a term because no one can actually define what skilled play actually means in relation to OSR. Instead for every person we get a new vague notion of what counts for it and what doesn't.

IMO the crux of understanding skilled play in OSR terms is understanding how early D&D play worked and then understanding the techniques players could use to more efficiently navigate the obstacles. But all that ultimately entails is applying the regular term 'skilled play' to an early D&D or OSR game.