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

[Manbearcat]

The aim of disambiguating "skilled play" (quotes, per Snarf's thread) from skilled play (no quotes).

Isn't it just readily inferable once you've played the games in question though?

The goal of a Mouse Guard unit (in Mouse Guard curiously enough) when delivering the mail through a harrowing wood to a neighboring village is going to be fundamentally different (in theme, in systemitization, and in the skillful deployment of moves to achieve the goal) is going to be fundamentally different than Pawns/Murderhobos trying to avoid needless, resource-ablating encounters so they can minimize risk and maximize treasure: encumbrance: time relationships.

I absolutely agree with the goal of disambiguation. But I feel like the "ambiguation" (is that even a word?) is the actual problem to be honest with you. It should be fundamentally obvious that skillful play in one game is going to be different than skillful play in another game. Further still, it should be obvious that the same game that imposes/engenders/incentivizes thematic constraint is absolutely different than skilled play in the same type of game (with similar taxonomical relationships of conflicts and premise at the highest level of the hierarchy) that imposes/engenders no thematic constraint, and/or actually disincentivizes it (!), within the scope of the same sort of play!

 

[clearstream]

Isn't it just readily inferable once you've played the games in question though?

The goal of a Mouse Guard unit (in Mouse Guard curiously enough) when delivering the mail through a harrowing wood to a neighboring village is going to be fundamentally different (in theme, in systemitization, and in the skillful deployment of moves to achieve the goal) is going to be fundamentally different than Pawns/Murderhobos trying to avoid needless, resource-ablating encounters so they can minimize risk and maximize treasure: encumbrance: time relationships.

I absolutely agree with the goal of disambiguation. But I feel like the "ambiguation" (is that even a word?) is the actual problem to be honest with you. It should be fundamentally obvious that skillful play in one game is going to be different than skillful play in another game. Further still, it should be obvious that the same game that imposes/engenders/incentivizes thematic constraint is absolutely different than skilled play in the same type of game (with similar taxonomical relationships of conflicts and premise at the highest level of the hierarchy) that imposes/engenders no thematic constraint, and/or actually disincentivizes it (!), within the scope of the same sort of play!

Would you agree though, that what counts as "skilled play" in a given game might differ on a per player cohort basis?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The aim of disambiguating "skilled play" (quotes, per Snarf's thread) from skilled play (no quotes).

In fairness to myself, I have never liked the term, and only used it (with full caveats) because it is in wide currency. I thought it would be interesting to look at the ways in which that early mode of play still influences certain conversations in 5e, but that's not what happened.

Given my general dislike for the jargon threads, I would only say that-
"Skilled play" (in the defined term sense) has a specific meaning that is about a modality of play.
However, you can skillfully play in all sorts of way, and the way that player does that will depend upon both the game and upon their particular modality of play- a player who is emphasizing RPing in D&D 5e (for example) will play skillfully in a manner differently than a player who is emphasizing optimization and combat- and, of course, modalities of play are often on a continuum.

 

[Manbearcat]

Would you agree though, that what counts as "skilled play" in a given game might differ on a per player cohort basis?

I think Dungeons and Beavers culture has made talking about TTRPGs fundamentally more difficult than it should be.

Players don’t just get to pick whatever the hell they want any game to be about just because Dungeons and Beavers culture said way back “you know what…today the game is going to be about baking cakes and wedding prep and laundry sorting!” And a sort of Calvinballing approach to all play (of anything) amplified this.

There is a specific strain of play that does this (as above). It’s beloved and has considerable market share. Yes, in that particular strain of play there is no such thing as an actual systemitized premise of play and no such thing as goals that interact with that systemitized premise and the attendant Win Condition for that goal.

But outside of that particular Dungeons and Beavers (and maybe married to Calvinball) strain of play, there is an enormous swath of play that is independent of the sort of “player cohort” predilections you’re speaking of.

 

[clearstream]

There is a fundamental divide in the way we see games. I do not see games as tools or collections of mechanics to do what we wish with. For me the power of all games and sports is the Magic Circle, the shared purpose we take on as players when we play a game. For a short period of time we give up our usual social roles and take on the ones the game or sport provides.

Something that has provoked argument in game studies is that players often play a given game in different ways. This takes two forms. In one form, the players all on surface join the same game, but each with different ideas of how they will play (including different ideas of what is permissible). One of the more marked cases is the player who participates without knowing the rules.

For me personally the objectives, reward systems, and principles of play are the primary components of design. Changing those without changing mechanics is a much bigger deal than changing mechanics without changing the underlying principles.

I feel like the example of griefing in MMOs might represent a challenge to that. Perforce - as it is enforced programmatically - the players are playing the same mechanics. Their objectives, rewards and principles of play diverge. What do you think?

 

[clearstream]

Players don’t just get to pick whatever the hell they want any game to be about just because Dungeons and Beavers culture said way back “you know what…today the game is going to be about baking cakes and wedding prep and laundry sorting!” And a sort of Calvinballing approach to all play (of anything) amplified this.

There is a specific strain of play that does this (as above). It’s beloved and has considerable market share. Yes, in that particular strain of play there is no such thing as an actual systemitized premise of play and no such thing as goals that interact with that systemitized premise and the attendant Win Condition for that goal.

But outside of that particular Dungeons and Beavers (and maybe married to Calvinball) strain of play, there is an enormous swath of play that is independent of the sort of “player cohort” predilections you’re speaking of.

I don't have a settled position on this. One challenge is that players vary within cohorts as well as across them. The cheater is a notorious example. My current view on games is to think about them as tools. Just as most people know the use of a hammer, and will use it to drive in nails, it is possible to use a hammer in other ways. A hammer might come with instructions for use, and that will help produce conformity (without guaranteeing it).

Unfortunately, RPGs are rather more fuzzy than hammers. Whereas the properties of matter offer a graspable object that persists in its form whatever we think of it - for hammers - with games players have a role in determining properties. A great example is "Opponent loses next turn" (the original text of Time Walk) which some players grasped and enacted as instant victory.

Thus I feel that where "skilled play" might do work, is with regard to how players embracing it might conform their play. It then operates at the layer of techniques or principles, where it informs a predisposition as to how to grasp what the game rules entail, and how they should be used. Including what might happen outside the scope of the written game rules.

 

[Manbearcat]

I feel like the example of griefing in MMOs might represent a challenge to that. Perforce - as it is enforced programmatically - the players are playing the same mechanics. Their objectives, rewards and principles of play diverge. What do you think?

Griefing is the same thing as Dungeons and Beavers.

It’s subversive.

Humans having the capacity to be subversive (and willfully destructive) is a statement about the unique operating system of a subset of people (when it comes to Griefing…a vanishingly small subset). It is no more a statement about gameplay broadly than putting a person with no legs behind the wheel of a car is a statement about the ability of cars to (a) travel forward at all and (b) dramatically differentiate the driving experience based on the integration of systems.

 

[clearstream]

Griefing is the same thing as Dungeons and Beavers.

It’s subversive.

Humans having the capacity to be subversive (and willfully destructive) is a statement about the unique operating system of a subset of people (when it comes to Griefing…a vanishingly small subset). It is no more a statement about gameplay broadly than putting a person with no legs behind the wheel of a car is a statement about the ability of cars to (a) travel forward at all and (b) dramatically differentiate the driving experience based on the integration of systems.

What I am seeing increasingly with younger players is a willingness to make the game serve them. They don't take the goals laid out by game designers as carven in stone. I believe that will be the pattern for the future.

We have strong-minded people on these boards who are able to put forward their informed preferences very confidently. Asserting a preference or belief won't make it true for all players. I don't seek that kind of understanding of games. I seek an inclusive understanding, that gives consideration to how each player chooses to play... not how I expect them to play. In almost every session of play that I observe, I see differences in understanding of what they are doing between the players. Most manage these differences to successfully fulfil the social contract - stay within the magic circle - yet these differences are palpably present.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't have a settled position on this.

I don’t see how this squares with your lines of inquiry across the multiple threads involved here (nor what you’ve written below).

I understanding that you’re toggling on and off a framing of your thoughts as “curious rumination” with possible “devil’s advocacy” with “actual assertion.” The reality is, that collection of toggling is going to land squarely on privileging (if not outright asserting) “there can be no functional orthodoxy in play” and/or “all brands of deviant interaction with games inherently reveal games as interpretable/malleable medium/social constructs (rather than revealing something inherent to the individual operating systems performing the deviant interactions).”

One challenge is that players vary within cohorts as well as across them. The cheater is a notorious example. My current view on games is to think about them as tools. Just as most people know the use of a hammer, and will use it to drive in nails, it is possible to use a hammer in other ways. A hammer might come with instructions for use, and that will help produce conformity (without guaranteeing it).

Unfortunately, RPGs are rather more fuzzy than hammers. Whereas the properties of matter offer a graspable object that persists in its form whatever we think of it - for hammers - with games players have a role in determining properties. A great example is "Opponent loses next turn" (the original text of Time Walk) which some players grasped and enacted as instant victory.

Thus I feel that where "skilled play" might do work, is with regard to how players embracing it might conform their play. It then operates at the layer of techniques or principles, where it informs a predisposition as to how to grasp what the game rules entail, and how they should be used. Including what might happen outside the scope of the written game rules.

 

[Campbell]

It's obviously possible for us to play a loosely defined game without a shared purpose. I think doing so reduces the social value of games which to provide spaces where we can freely develop skills or practice different social roles in a context that is somewhat removed from our normal social divisions. When play games in an environment where we have to socially negotiate with others existing social norms tend to take precedence and the freedom to really play is incredibly diminished.

For functional play I don't think that shared purpose needs to come from the game text, but it needs to be there or we don't have a Magic Circle. Instead we have dysfunctional play. Obviously there will never be a perfect match here, but in my experience the more of a shared purpose there is the better play is. Without a shared purpose there is no mastery. We are not valuing each other's play and contributions. It's a mess in my opinion.