Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8301411">First off, let me say, I don't think it is helpful for people to be dismissive of a style jus because it isn't something they enjoy. So I don't agree with OSR people who are dismissive of skilled play that applies to the mechanic side (I will tackle this more below but I personally always like to have one or two such players in my group because it helps me find the boundaries of the system) I don't think they write off mechanics. They simply don't want the mechanics to be the driving focus. I think someone who say likes a dungeon crawl with puzzles, wants to have as much of a direct line as they can between themselves and that puzzle unmediated by mechanics where it is feasible. The aim of skilled play in the style I am talking about is really a lot less about getting the character to their goal, and more about letting the player experience the fun of solving the puzzle, of thinking through and strategizing. Sometimes mechanics will be a factor. But I used to play a lot of 3E with heavy emphasis on builds, on system mastery, etc., and that kind of using the system to achieve the goals of the character or your goals of character concept, or even your goals within the scenario, I think is scratching a slightly different itch. There the fun is the puzzle of the mechanics themselves and getting them to do what you want (and by the way I am not knocking this style, I engaged it for many years and think there is a lot of value in learning how to master a system like that). But OSR play is much more focused on simpler versions of D&D than 3E or pathfinder. Skilled play is a lot less about players mastering those mechanics and using them to achieve things and more about the choices you make in the setting itself. That is one of the reasons why rulings are important. Obviously it doesn't mean mechanics aren't important. They still play a crucial role. A player who is a spell caster and understands a spell well enough to creatively apply it is using the mechanics for skilled play. So I don't want to say there is this hard, unbreakable wall between the styles. There is just a different mentality and a difference in where the fun is being found I think (which is fine, there is nothing wrong with these differences). It is just a distinction worth making because I think two different schools of thought are getting folded into skilled play (and this matters because if you took a typical 3E or pathfinder player and put them in an OSR game, told them it was skilled play (but they thought that had to do with mastery of the mechanics and getting mechanics to help you achieve your goals, while in reality it was the kind of OSR style play I am talking about, you are going to have confusion). If both camps are using the same term to mean slightly different things, or even emphasizing different aspects of skilled play, I think that is okay.  But the distinction can be important. In terms of writing off skilled play. I am not a fan of writing off the different styles. They just aim for slightly different things. I don't see skilled play that is focused on scenario as better than skilled play focused on mechanics. The latter is actually very difficult. I know because I had to learn how to play to that style while GMing 3E. It was like learning how to do a new form of math quite honestly. So I don't underrate how much of a challenge it can be, nor do I underrate how engaging it can be once you unlock that and learn to make it work for you as either a GM or player. At the same time, skilled play in the OSR sense also requires effort and developing a sets of skills. They feel very different in practice though. And of course, most games aren't monolithic. Been in plenty of sessions where both were present. They aren't mutually exclusive. In one of my own campaigns I have both. I have players who thrive on mastering the system end of things, and learning to make the mechanics and abilities work for them (and I encourage and reward that). However I have characters who are more exploration or socially oriented and are good at doing that through the setting (and of course I also have players who can do both, though I think most people do seem to be stronger in one or the other in my experience). It is still helpful to be able to make this distinction though because even when I have both types of players, and engage both styles in the same campaign, it is helpful to know how players might respond (in terms of being interested) to different elements I might include in a session.</blockquote>

Verification