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

[pemerton]

I think, in the world of RPGing and theorisation, it's often better to start with existence proofs rather than generalisations.

Of course existence proofs tend to rely on testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, but this is where actual play reports become important. Presented in sufficient detail (sufficient here might often be relative to context and audience familiarity), an actual play report can reveal how something or other took place at an RPG table. And so it helps show us what is or isn't possible.

When it comes to skilled play, it seems to me that some questions to which existence proofs are relevant include:

1. Is it possible to have RPGing in which playing with skill is a (or the) major preoccupation of the game?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes, is it also possible to have RPGing in which meeting challenges is a (or the) major preoccupation of the game, but skill does not loom especially large?

3. If the answer to (2) is yes, is it also possible to have RPGing in which outcomes in confronting challenges turns more on what the players do in the moment of play than on prior input from players or decision-making by the GM?​

These aren't the only questions one might ask, but answering them already gives us a picture of many different approaches to RPGing, which it might be helpful not to mush together in our generalisations about RPGing.

For instance, the answer to 1 seems to be yes because we have, as examples, Gygaxian D&D and The Green Knight.

The answer to 2 also seems to be yes because we have, as examples, Burning Wheel and (perhaps, at least in some moods) Tunnels & Trolls. Perhaps also, at least in some moods, 5e D&D.

The answer to 3 also seems to be yes - Burning Wheel and T&T would both be examples again. 5e D&D, though, perhaps not. BW has clear principles for extrapolating consequences by reference to player choices in the moment of play; T&T uses a lot of dice rolls that yield consequences in the moment of play; 5e, on the other hand, seems (at least as often played) to rely much more heavily on GM decision-making and on "spotlight" considerations.

These differences aren't mysterious, either. We can look at what is present or absent in these various systems (mechanics, principles, techniques, especially in the domain of action resolution) and see how they support different sorts of orientation towards challenges, player skill and player decision-making in the moment of play.

And we can look at other RPGs where the notion of meeting challenges doesn't seem particular apt at all: Cthuhlu Dark, Wuthering Heights, maybe even Apocalypse World. How if at all does skill fit into these games? Without challenges as a focus of play what might it mean for the PCs to lose, and how would this relate to the players winning or losing?

Teasing out these differences in how RPGing can be approached and can work seems (to me) more profitable than trying to frame abstract generalisations beyond very basic ones, such as that the basic dynamic of RPGing is fiction => action declaration => mechanics => (new) fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Its a side trip, but I do think there's a defensible argument that D&D 3e (and its close cousin PF1e) had elements that could make really determined character generation efforts make many difficulties in the game much, much easier. In fact, the fact PF2e is far less likely to make that work has been a complaint from some circles.

I'd believe that. But Pun Pun isn't evidence in favour of this. Showing me the build specs and likely play for a cleric at (say) 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 10th levels would be.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think that sizing up a real person is very different from pretending to size up an imagined person being portrayed by my friend sitting across the table. Radically different.

sure it’s a very different thing. But you can still do it. And his that would be fine might vary by table. Could involve the player asking things his how does this person carry themselves, do they have any distinct marks, tattoos, jewelry; what is their physique, do they appear calm, nervous, etc. no one is saying it has to be like real life. But just as you can size a person up in real life, you can try to do it in a game as well

 

[Guest 85555]

Those premises might be true for 3E D&D, but aren't true for (among other RPGs) Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World and the Green Knight. All of these use dice-based action resolution for an attempt at a bluff declared by a player for his/her PC. None of them put most of the skill for that into character creation as you describe it.

I am not saying they are. I am just speaking to the two types of skilled play I know. As I said earlier, if there are more types of skilled play, those should be included in the discussion too. My point wasn’t to advocate for one approach being better, or to say skill can’t be emphasized in other ways; just there is s visible distinction between skilled play in something like system mastery and optimization you find in a system like 3E and skilled play like you find in the OSR. I css as my speak to his apocalypse world or green knight handles bluff (and where that falls in the skilled play discussion because I don’t play those games)

 

[Ovinomancer]

To the general point that there's an idea of multiple types of skilled play, this is both obvious and obfuscating. Obviously, different games, with different system structures, will admit to different kinds of skilled play. However, this doesn't mean that any demonstration of skill at something is the same as skilled play. You will note that those advancing these arguments are also loathe to even put a definitional statement forward, instead relying on the "I know it when I see it." This is obfuscatory, though, because it allows preference to seep into the conversation -- the desire to label one's own play as skilled rather than a critical analysis of what skilled play means as an approach. It's starting at the end and working towards the beginning.

Skilled play is about using the system artifacts -- mechanics, current fictional positioning, player/gm roles and constraints -- and leveraging those. What leveraging means is straighforward -- you take what you can and stack as much in your favor as possible. Good systems for skilled play have meaningful decisions points -- places where you can do many things, many of which are viable, but that all have differing costs or likelihoods. This creates a landscape where skillful decision making and even risk taking creates play where the players have more control over whether they reach their goals or not. What fights against this are any black box processes or where the GM can exert fiat decisions that do not include these player leveragings as binding inputs. So, if the GM is deciding that this outcome is better for story than that outcome, this fights against skilled play. Similarly, if play is about the player acting out their character and the GM using their own judgement as to whether or not this is sufficient for the player to achieve their goal, then this also fights against skilled play. This latter fights because the system is opaque to the players -- there's nothing there to leverage within the system. Instead, the player has to leverage things outside of the system, like the social landscape between players at the table, social expectations, and even social manipulation. Skill here is knowing how to use these outside the system things to get the GM to agree that you can get what you wanted. And, as I've noted, there's plenty of skill here, but this doesn't mean that it's skilled play -- the paradigm is broken because you're outside the system. And this being outside the system can be trivially shown because there's no difference in how it works regardless of the system you're using -- it works the same in 2e as in Traveler as in FATE. If the "system" is convincing your GM, then it's not skilled play, even if you are very skilled at convincing your GM with your skillful funny accent.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd believe that. But Pun Pun isn't evidence in favour of this. Showing me the build specs and likely play for a cleric at (say) 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 10th levels would be.

All I can say is that a carefully built 3e era character and a casually built one started out notably different in capability, and that difference only snowballed with time as the accumulated feats, equipment choices, and other character options set in.

 

[pemerton]

To the general point that there's an idea of multiple types of skilled play, this is both obvious and obfuscating. Obviously, different games, with different system structures, will admit to different kinds of skilled play. However, this doesn't mean that any demonstration of skill at something is the same as skilled play. You will note that those advancing these arguments are also loathe to even put a definitional statement forward, instead relying on the "I know it when I see it." This is obfuscatory, though, because it allows preference to seep into the conversation -- the desire to label one's own play as skilled rather than a critical analysis of what skilled play means as an approach. It's starting at the end and working towards the beginning.

Skilled play is about using the system artifacts -- mechanics, current fictional positioning, player/gm roles and constraints -- and leveraging those. What leveraging means is straighforward -- you take what you can and stack as much in your favor as possible. Good systems for skilled play have meaningful decisions points -- places where you can do many things, many of which are viable, but that all have differing costs or likelihoods. This creates a landscape where skillful decision making and even risk taking creates play where the players have more control over whether they reach their goals or not.

I don't think I'm one of those advancing these arguments, but I'm not sure.

I don't want to label most of my play "skilled play" because I think of "skilled play" as an agenda. And most of my play has a different agenda.

I think of the agenda as being best supported by RPGs which demand the sort of leveraging you describe if the players are to avoid loss. (And so I tend to prefer RPGs without really strong player-side loss conditions.) I think there are also RPGs that permit but don't demand skilled play (Burning Wheel is the one I've pointed to; Dungeon World is the one that caused contention in the other thread!).

I think we're agreed that GM skill in storytelling or player skill in persuading the GM are largely orthogonal to a discussion of skilled play in RPGing, though both would be important in a broader discussion of what skills/talents might be useful for a RPG participant?

 

[pemerton]

All I can say is that a carefully built 3e era character and a casually built one started out notably different in capability, and that difference only snowballed with time as the accumulated feats, equipment choices, and other character options set in.

Sure. I've not experienced this, because I've only played a handful of 3E sessions, and no PF. But it's widely reported, and given that I've done this in AD&D (with clerics and wizards) and 3E only powers up these character types compared to other build options, I believe those reports.

I just don't think Pun Pun is the evidence for it. And I don't think it provides any support for a generalisation to other RPGs that connect PC building to player skill.

 

[Campbell]

Wrong thread

 

[FrogReaver]

sure it’s a very different thing. But you can still do it. And his that would be fine might vary by table. Could involve the player asking things his how does this person carry themselves, do they have any distinct marks, tattoos, jewelry; what is their physique, do they appear calm, nervous, etc. no one is saying it has to be like real life. But just as you can size a person up in real life, you can try to do it in a game as well

So let's take a step back and look at play from that point forward. The guard is 'random' with no real important information established about him yet. Can you walk us through what a player/PC does to size up the 'random' guard and what kind of information you as DM would typically provide the player in such a scenario and how you determine that information. Also, are there any potential consequences for attempting to size up the guard?