Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8302967" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I feel like I can identify (at least) three ways of thinking about skill in this thread -</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The dimensions of skill can only be defined in terms of declared system (including pre-established fiction) and goals, regardless of RPGing context</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">As above, but declared system includes principles that don't tell us what a result is forced to be (a set with finite members), but guide as to what sort of form it ought to take (a set with infinite members, which ought to share similarities)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The dimensions of skill are whatever they are defined to be within each RPGing context</li> </ol><p>I doubt these ideas are clearly separated, and who knows, maybe I have expressed them fatally incorrectly. Anyway, what I feel about them is -</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The matter of goals can work very nicely for 3., but to suppose that everyone must share an idea of what goals are valid, or even have goals that are commensurate, seems suspect; and on the other hand limiting to declared system and goals seems more a statement about the skill-construct within some RPG context, than all contexts</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I find this view a little difficult to grasp, because it tries to bring into 1. something which seems expressly excluded from it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I find this view easiest to defend: if you would like to say that in your context(s) skill is defined a certain way, it seems consistent and useful to exclude other ways from that context</li> </ol><p>Where I think the 1ers run into problems is thrusting their definition of skill onto 3ers who don't happen to be 1ers. 2ers present an open question. Maybe what has to be imagined is an infinite set whose members take the form move+principle. The hitch is that much as people can quibble over rules, they can quibble over principles doubly so. Assuming however that the form move+principle is right, then it seems up to 1ers if they will let them in. We see disagreements right here before us on that score. I would probably suggest that rather than simply 1ers, there are 1.1ers, 1.2ers and so on: some happy to let 2ers in, others excluding them.</p><p></p><p>What is most confusing to me is how 2ers then go on to deny that other forms of move+principle can't be counted skill? Such as move+story_principle.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8302967, member: 71699"] I feel like I can identify (at least) three ways of thinking about skill in this thread - [LIST=1] [*]The dimensions of skill can only be defined in terms of declared system (including pre-established fiction) and goals, regardless of RPGing context [*]As above, but declared system includes principles that don't tell us what a result is forced to be (a set with finite members), but guide as to what sort of form it ought to take (a set with infinite members, which ought to share similarities) [*]The dimensions of skill are whatever they are defined to be within each RPGing context [/LIST] I doubt these ideas are clearly separated, and who knows, maybe I have expressed them fatally incorrectly. Anyway, what I feel about them is - [LIST=1] [*]The matter of goals can work very nicely for 3., but to suppose that everyone must share an idea of what goals are valid, or even have goals that are commensurate, seems suspect; and on the other hand limiting to declared system and goals seems more a statement about the skill-construct within some RPG context, than all contexts [*]I find this view a little difficult to grasp, because it tries to bring into 1. something which seems expressly excluded from it [*]I find this view easiest to defend: if you would like to say that in your context(s) skill is defined a certain way, it seems consistent and useful to exclude other ways from that context [/LIST] Where I think the 1ers run into problems is thrusting their definition of skill onto 3ers who don't happen to be 1ers. 2ers present an open question. Maybe what has to be imagined is an infinite set whose members take the form move+principle. The hitch is that much as people can quibble over rules, they can quibble over principles doubly so. Assuming however that the form move+principle is right, then it seems up to 1ers if they will let them in. We see disagreements right here before us on that score. I would probably suggest that rather than simply 1ers, there are 1.1ers, 1.2ers and so on: some happy to let 2ers in, others excluding them. What is most confusing to me is how 2ers then go on to deny that other forms of move+principle can't be counted skill? Such as move+story_principle. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
Top