Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8262258" data-attributes="member: 6801252">I don't think that the morality of early DND was an outgrowth of skilled play, I think it was an outgrowth of the game's theming on the basis of absolute Law Vs. Chaos, and eventually Good vs. Evil. That theming in turn, was probably an outgrowth of both fiction at the time, and a need to create a loose narrative justification for the game's core loop. By making creatures card carrying members of the evil faction, we create a justification for fighting them more or less in line with modern notions of tolerance of intolerance-- because they want things that are fundamentally at odds with the rights of others, they have to be addressed regardless of if they currently have the power to impose their desires, because someday they will have that power and use it. The only meaningful difference is whether that intolerance for the rights of others is considered an inherent trait, whether the exceptions to that are 'not appearing in this story,' or in the modern construction where only some of the orcs are intolerant of others rights, so only some of the Orcs qualify as monsters.  But skilled play, in and of itself, isn't incompatible with that modern construction of morality because ruthlessness doesn't have to be the best rewarded solution to a problem-- it can be deconstructed via appropriate cause and effect in game. Its not hard to imagine a game where killing the entire orc camp to make sure there aren't any survivors to take revenge would cause others to target the players in shock and horror thereby making it an example of unskilled play, or one where even opening oneself up to betrayal would net some other worthwhile benefit such as the aid of well intentioned others and make the moral play the skilled one. Its actually interesting, because it opens up a question concerning skilled play-- does skilled play have to mean taking whatever action most reduces the difficulty of the scenario, or can it mean taking the hard road, but using skill to overcome the greater difficulty? Is the 'combat as war' mentality of killing creatures lest they warn or reinforce others a decision that demonstrates player skill, or a difficulty slider by which they attempt to reduce the need for skilled play by reducing the difficulty of upcoming challenges? Both obviously have their place, but its interesting to think about-- my friends and I have sometimes included optional rewards for engaging with optional encounters that are harder than the baseline, players skilled enough to take and overcome the risk are better rewarded than players who avoid taking unnecessary risk. It deconstructs 'skilled play' as exclusively careful play, and reconstructs it as one's ability to survive reckless derring-do through the finesse with which they handle the resulting situation one has found themselves in. 'Skilled play' isn't avoiding the Dragon, its overcoming or escaping the Dragon. It suits the combat-positive, player empowered systems I prefer to play. To drag this back around to the main subject of the thread, I think clear framing up front is important. In my upcoming Pirate West Marches, because the emphasis is on treasure, I'm going to stipulate that the players ought to construct characters who mesh with treasure seeking as a core motivation-- by being up front, I'm hoping to avoid scenarios where characters are built to be disinterested in what qualifies as skilled play (treasure-seeking, exploration), or to be so morally uncompromising that it presents impassable conflicts of interest ("but its wrong to loot a tomb!") They'll ideally be characters for whom skilled play and the two way bleed between character and player, are in relative alignment. It effectively delineates a space within which the players know that they can construct and play characters with 'integrity' to borrow Campbell's Verbiage.</blockquote>

Verification