Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8303780" data-attributes="member: 42582">For what it's worth, my experience does not conform with this conjecture.When I read reports of classic D&D tournament play, for instance, I can see what the skill is that is being expressed and can see how it would be portable. When these players end up in groups of more casual players, what I have seen is either (i) the casual group boots the more hardcore player as "not a good fit", or (ii) the casual group "ups its game" and becomes less casual in approach. But I've never seen an example where the casual group brings the hardcore player into conformity with its notion of skill.For completeness, I'm talking above about D&D groups.I think that there are big differences between RPGing and competitive team sports. The big one is the absence of head-to-head competition. Even tournament play is more like scoring in gymnastics or diving.But before Elo was invented and player ratings in commercial sports were invented, people (i) could talk meaningfully about which games required skill and which didn't, and (ii) about what those skills were, and (iii) about which players demonstrated them. Technical rankings of skill piggyback on those prior understandings of what playing skill consists in.The absence of technical rankings does not preclude talking in meaningful ways about skill in RPGing.</blockquote>