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

[clearstream]

I can't speak for @Campbell, but from my point of view this is stated at such a level of abstraction that I don't even know what it means, let alone whether or not I agree with it.

In classic D&D, for instance, a standard measure of difficulty is level. In that sense, White Plume Mountain is more difficult than KotB. This is normally understood in terms of resources required for success, both depth of hit point resources (to handle physical punishment) and spells and similar magic available.

But difficulty can also be measured in terms of ingenuity demanded - eg the "gelatinous cube in a pit" trap requires more ingenuity to resolve successfully than navigating around an open, unconcealed and empty pit in a corridor.

There is no canonical way of measuring this second sort of difficulty in classic D&D, other than - say - setting ToH towards the more challenging end of the posited gradient of difficulty. Are you proposing some such canonical measure? Are you suggesting that having some such measure would assist us in understanding Gygaxian skilled play, or some other sort of RPGing?

What I've been attempting to do is go beyond what amounts to statements about what is found satisfying to a group. One of the clearest skill constructs we have in gaming is the Elo. This has been emulated by Microsoft's TrueSkill and in other games such as League of Legends MMR.

Each of these concrete skill constructs is silent on the factors of skill (e.g. ingenuity), and takes the approach of collecting game results and using that to predict subsequent results. When you say "abstraction", in fact I was attempting the opposite: to make concrete.

Even when its comes to 3E D&D, I'm not sure that one degenerate case supports a generalisation that the more skill a player has in one area of the game, the less they will likely need in another.

And even if that were true for 3E (I'm not expert enough in that system to have an opinion), I don't think it generalises to other systems. For instance, I have a friend who is much more skilled than I am at improving his PC when playing Burning Wheel, by managing the way in which he establishes his dice pools for his declared actions. Thus his PC grows in ability more quickly than mine does. This doesn't led to him needing less skill in other parts of the game: in fact in many ways its orthogonal to the rest of the play of the game.

Dismissing Pun Pun as one degenerate case fails to think through what is going on in 3rd and 5th edition charop. System mastery in those two games allows construction of mechanically stronger characters. The intended game balance as laid out in the DMG, e.g. as guided by CR, entails that those characters will defeat encounters with ease that ought to be matched for their level. The tweak is for the DM to adjust encounters although often what happens is that the optimised character joins a group of unoptimised characters so that route isn't open.

Your example in Burning Wheel is a different case. This is the second time that you have responded to a case I have presented by saying no that is not true in this - quite different - case. It is old news that more skill in the area of charop in 3rd and 5th edition lead to needing less skill during play (given a group is following the written principles of the game).

The fact that something doesn't admit of mathematical demonstration doesn't mean that there is no constraint, that there is no better or worse adherence to principles and guidelines.

It's not so much the mathematical demonstration, as the concrete construct and reducing of confounds around task modelling, task difficulty, and small group self-perceptions. When posters in this thread and others like it speak about skill, I feel at best they can be speaking about what their small group has experienced (in this context, less than a thousand is small).

What RPGs do you have experience with? From your posts I infer 3E and 5e D&D, and maybe some RuneQuest. Have you played or GMed AW, or DW or other PbtA system? BitD or other FitD systems? Buring Wheel? HeroWars or HeroQuest? Even 4e D&D?

I have played and/or DMd - Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, RuneQuest, D&D (all editions), HeroQuest, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Bushido, Empire of the Petal Throne, Land of the Rising Sun, Chivalry and Sorcery, Ars Magica, Traveller, Aftermath, Paranoia, GURPS, Savage Worlds, a diceless game of my own invention (influential in my small part of the world), Amber, Rifts, Champions, two or three games of friends' invention. We've probably one-session'd some others that I don't recall. EDIT Also T&T (solo only), Megatraveller, Call of Cthulhu, and DragonQuest (both editions).

@Campbell posted that your posts seem to be introducing ambiguity, "making it impossible to discuss real differences between different modes of play". I feel that they would benefit from being grounded in reference to actual RPG systems and actual processes of play in those systems. This would also make it clearer what the evidence base is that you are relying on for your generalisations.

Heh! I find that other posters are speaking ambiguously and making it impossible to discuss real differences. However, I am happy to revert to discussing experiences and preferences. One can learn from sharing those. One cannot make claims to be saying anything concrete about skill, however. Well, that is a little harsh: one can make guesses and speculate as to factors (e.g. ingenuity) and say what factors one values, but one cannot say that one self-reported example was any more skillful than any other - even in cases where the other sounds on surface less skillful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

You are not.

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?

Yup.

 

[Guest 85555]

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?

It is late so my answer may lack certain details or start to ramble. I think first, it does depend on what the guard is guarding and what kind of setting we are dealing with. So it is a little hard to say in a vacuum, dealing with the guard alone. Again a lot of it is going to be asking questions (what is he wearing, what does he look like, etc). There may also be skill rolls to notice things if that seems important. My rule of thumb is if the player asks something specific, no roll needed they get the info (i.e. if the player asks what his hands look like, I will mention that he has a wedding ring, whereas if he just says "I look at the guard" I may ask for a roll to see if the the player spots the ring. Keep in mind, I am answering for myself when I run my approach to skilled play (which is not going to be standard for all OSR GMs---for example I use social skill because a lot of people like them, even though personally I dislike them: and social skills are a contentious thing among skilled play GMs.

What information is obtainable would depend on the guard. You aren't going to be able to deduce where he was last night and how much money he spent at the casino like Sherlock Holmes, by just observing his demeanor, but you could certainly get details like someone seeming emotionally weak or strong, someone seeming sad, happy, or angry, a person looking like they've been in a lot of combat and survived, someone looking like they are in need of new clothes, etc. That is just off the top of my head. There would be plenty more that would come up naturally in an interaction with players on this front. If the players cased out the guard more, they could definitely do a lot more than that. Like I said, I've had players follow guards and similar NPCs around, to learn more about them. That would potentially lead to a lot more information. That also would, to your above question, come with greater risk of being caught (and spotting someone following you is definitely an area I would leave to a die roll with a possible modifier based on spotter's specific actions: i.e. I am constantly checking over my shoulder to see if I am being followed). A good example of this might be the scene in Goodfellas where they found out the security guard had a weakness for women, and arranged to put him in a situation where they could steal his keys and make copies. I can imagine a similar scenario where players learn about that sort of shortcoming, an potentially use it to black mail and coerce the guard. What they could find though depends on the guard and what his situation and personality is. If he is someone heavily in debt, or who demonstrates a powerful interst in money, they might be able to try bribery, or offer to trade information for a favor. Again though depends on what this guy is guarding, what the setting is, what the players choose to do specifically in terms of bluffing this guard.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Pun Pun is ideal evidence for it. Pun Pun was created in order to demonstrate how far charop in 3rd ed + splatbooks could overshadow other play. From the forum -

I Win:​

Benefit: Pun-Pun cannot be harmed, directly or indirectly. Any act that would harm him automatically fails, at any place and at any given time. Further, Pun-Pun automatically succeeds at anything he attempts.

Q: Why would anyone ever play Pun-Pun?
A: I have no clue. I don't think it would be much fun honestly. Pun-Pun was never created with the intention of being played, and any game that allows a Pun-Pun character will quickly degenerate from there.

Pun Pun was not intended to be played. He was intended to show what was possible with charop. Each time you have asked for examples, you have quibbled the examples. And often not on the terms that the example was requested for. For example with the force example, the quibble was that it felt like it was teaching. We were not debating teaching, we were debating if force could be used in any way positively.

I say that without umbrage. God knows I struggle to make my arguments clearly and show the generosity to others arguments that I would like to. I'd like to do better and I hope you might take the above in good faith.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is late so my answer may lack certain details or start to ramble. I think first, it does depend on what the guard is guarding and what kind of setting we are dealing with. So it is a little hard to say in a vacuum, dealing with the guard alone. Again a lot of it is going to be asking questions (what is he wearing, what does he look like, etc). There may also be skill rolls to notice things if that seems important. My rule of thumb is if the player asks something specific, no roll needed they get the info (i.e. if the player asks what his hands look like, I will mention that he has a wedding ring, whereas if he just says "I look at the guard" I may ask for a roll to see if the the player spots the ring. Keep in mind, I am answering for myself when I run my approach to skilled play (which is not going to be standard for all OSR GMs---for example I use social skill because a lot of people like them, even though personally I dislike them: and social skills are a contentious thing among skilled play GMs.

What information is obtainable would depend on the guard. You aren't going to be able to deduce where he was last night and how much money he spent at the casino like Sherlock Holmes, by just observing his demeanor, but you could certainly get details like someone seeming emotionally weak or strong, someone seeming sad, happy, or angry, a person looking like they've been in a lot of combat and survived, someone looking like they are in need of new clothes, etc. That is just off the top of my head. There would be plenty more that would come up naturally in an interaction with players on this front. If the players cased out the guard more, they could definitely do a lot more than that. Like I said, I've had players follow guards and similar NPCs around, to learn more about them. That would potentially lead to a lot more information. That also would, to your above question, come with greater risk of being caught (and spotting someone following you is definitely an area I would leave to a die roll with a possible modifier based on spotter's specific actions: i.e. I am constantly checking over my shoulder to see if I am being followed). A good example of this might be the scene in Goodfellas where they found out the security guard had a weakness for women, and arranged to put him in a situation where they could steal his keys and make copies. I can imagine a similar scenario where players learn about that sort of shortcoming, an potentially use it to black mail and coerce the guard. What they could find though depends on the guard and what his situation and personality is. If he is someone heavily in debt, or who demonstrates a powerful interst in money, they might be able to try bribery, or offer to trade information for a favor. Again though depends on what this guy is guarding, what the setting is, what the players choose to do specifically in terms of bluffing this guard.

Thanks, but before I respond in detail, there's one major thing missing. The details about the 'random' guard you end up describing - how are you determining those? Do you roll dice behind the screen? Are you going with the first thing that pops in your head? I'm curious about your DM thought process and methods in how you end up determining those specific details.

 

[clearstream]

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?​

I like this approach. I would modify to say that it is impossible that playing with skill can be what is demonstrably happening for reasons you note (self-reporting), but that it is very possible to be preoccupied with playing in the way we call skillful (us being the group, and the wider community for whom the concepts and reports resonate).

Where some posts have most failed for me has been in claiming the high ground. I feel forced to resist your original framing not out of sheer pettiness, but because I read posts that seem to take it that if they are "playing with skill" then they know what skill is and is not, and can go on to dismiss what other groups call skillful.

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?​

Skill can't be known to loom large, only that the play satisfies the group and makes them feel like they exercised skill. So I would say meeting challenges matched to what we call skill, that satisfy us as to what we do to overcome them.

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?​

This is a really nice question! I'll need to reflect on it. I can see that it may speak well to your agenda.

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

Modified as I propose, I would agree with you.

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.

Likewise, I would agree if modified as I propose.

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.

I am not sure yet. What are some examples of - "prior input from players" and "decision-making by the GM"?

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.

They are differing aims. Both can be profitable in terms of their aim. That said, I understand that the profits you want to enjoy are connected with a more general, less concrete discussion and I agree that that can be profitable.

 

[Guest 85555]

Thanks, but before I respond in detail, there's one major thing missing. The details about the 'random' guard you end up describing - how are you determining those? Do you roll dice behind the screen? Are you going with the first thing that pops in your head? I'm curious about your DM thought process and methods in how you end up determining those specific details.

Normally a guard won't be random. It depends on the situation though (like if this is a place I've mapped out in advance or something I had to come up with on the fly). But let's say the players are robbing a bank, and I have a bank in town that I have planned out, I would include basic information on the characters there, including things like guards. But that is a small location so say it is a bigger one, like a sect complex. The guards would all just be lower rank members of the sect, and I would normally have a sense of their patrols and probably an encounter table for determining when they might come up (i.e. check every ten minutes an encounter). So lets say these are random guards, in the sect complex, and all I have on them is the junior disciple stat block, not individuals. Once the players start engaging the guards that way, my first impulse would be to get all relevant personality details down on the page so I have those to inform my responses to the players. As soon as I sensed the players were treating this as more than a random guard, I would start writing notes net to the guard like the guard's name, who they are married to, if they have kids, basic personality, what their goals are, what their problems are, etc. And I would just be generating it based on what leaps to mind. Sometimes I may assign a probability and roll for something (like say I am going down this path of thinking and I wonder if I should include something that would be potentially very useful to people trying to bluff or bribe a guard, and that seems like it should be left to the dice to decide; I may assign it a 20% chance of being part of that guard's personality and roll).

 

[clearstream]

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.

If you are not familiar with charop, there are acres of examples on various forums. Google Hexblade or Sorlock 5e. I hope you will see that what you are asking is unnecessary. People have made and played optimised characters in 3rd ed and now 5th ed for decades.

 

[Campbell]

@clearstream

In focusing in on feelings I feel you substantially undervalue the integrity of the play space. That leaves room for blatant manipulation of play (as long as the players do not suspect it) which regardless of player feelings is not skilled play in any meaningful way in my opinion. For play to be skillful I think the GM needs to be meaningfully constrained by player actions and not just appear to be constrained.

 

[clearstream]

Thanks, but before I respond in detail, there's one major thing missing. The details about the 'random' guard you end up describing - how are you determining those? Do you roll dice behind the screen? Are you going with the first thing that pops in your head? I'm curious about your DM thought process and methods in how you end up determining those specific details.

I understood the method to be asking questions and using the answers to decide on a plausible approach. What is the way in which it matters if the DM generates up front or decides on the fly, so long as once answered the facts become established?

I mention this because I noticed some descriptions of OSR play leaning into a pre-drawn map+key, and other descriptions leaning into DM building out map+key on the fly. It feels like what is fundamental is that facts are established (that don't later change without knowable cause).