WayneLigon
Adventurer
Just think of it as marketing copy so that someone could boast 'I played in a module that only highly skilled players could beat, and we did...'.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What was "player skill"?
- Thread starter Maggan
- Start date
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
WayneLigon said:
It also meant, "This module contains or potentially contains Death No Save situations, so don't play it if you're a crybaby."
Henry
Autoexreginated
Maggan said:
More caution and creative thinking than anything else. Many players wouldn't like, or be able to handle, their PCs waking up naked in the bottom of a dungeon as the start of an adventure.
A situation like that would take lots of caution in getting oneself back into a strong defensible position. But there also has to be trust of the GM that there IS indeed a method to (A) get your stuff back, or (B) get equivalent stuff back, and (C) get out alive.For those who don't game for the strategic or tactical aspects of play, this wouldn't be much fun, hence the wider variety of styles of play espoused today. Even if it's not everyone's preference, for me there is a certain sense of satisfaction in making it through a harrowing adventure with minimum resources and coming out victorious at the end.
Sanguinemetaldawn
First Post
Player Skill consists of several things...
1) Teamwork
Pretty self explanatory...working together to make the party function as effectively and powerfully as possible.
2) Player Experience/Judgement
Basically knowing what was a just not a very good idea, and knowing the difference between a smart risk and bad risk. This is probably the most important aspect of player skill. The sphere of annihiliation in ToH for example. A skilled player will do things like toss a coin into the opening, then try throwing a rope with a grappling hook or something, then summoning something and send them through, then some Auguries or Divinations, etc.
An inexperienced player will throw a copper in, then jump in himself "to see what happens".
Really, it boils down to "Respect and be wary of the unknown."
This is a main point of divergence between the editions, as the level-adjusted schedule of CRs teaches the exact opposite lesson: "There is nothing in here that we can't beat; that would be unbalanced"
*vomit*
3) Creative thinking and problem solving
There is no real formula for this, except maybe working on brain teasers and reading historical accounts of battles to see what innovative tactics were attempted. This is also where you saw the REALLY skilled players shine, coming up with solutions you would never have thought of yourself, and pulling out victories that you would have though impossible. This is one reason the best players would tend to gravitate toward non-fighter classes. Spells especially could give you a range of capabilities that could be creatively employed in a nearly infinite range of ways.
THIS IS NOT RULES LAWYERING. Rules-lawyering is a degenerate form of play, a miserable attempt to replace truly insightful and ingeneous play with rules mastery because one is incapable of better.
This didn't extend solely to play, but also to character creation. Players were encouraged to
develop the character beyond the skeleton presented in the rulebooks. This would typically be developed through play, and player/DM negotiation for custom special abilities and so forth.
Who needs supplemental rulebooks full of sanctioned junk? It can never cover all possibilities anyway, and a character with custom abilities based on his personal history is far more interesting than some generic thing out of a book.
This is another point of divergence between editions. 3E with its weight of rules is all about about telling people what they can't do. The only way these rules serve to tell you what you can do is if you have some 'tard of a DM. And the solution to that is to tell him he is a crappy DM, and if he doesn't change everyone quits his campaign and has someone else DM.
As for telling the difference between a skilled and unskilled player, you can usually see it within an hour or two.
1) Teamwork
Pretty self explanatory...working together to make the party function as effectively and powerfully as possible.
2) Player Experience/Judgement
Basically knowing what was a just not a very good idea, and knowing the difference between a smart risk and bad risk. This is probably the most important aspect of player skill. The sphere of annihiliation in ToH for example. A skilled player will do things like toss a coin into the opening, then try throwing a rope with a grappling hook or something, then summoning something and send them through, then some Auguries or Divinations, etc.
An inexperienced player will throw a copper in, then jump in himself "to see what happens".
Really, it boils down to "Respect and be wary of the unknown."
This is a main point of divergence between the editions, as the level-adjusted schedule of CRs teaches the exact opposite lesson: "There is nothing in here that we can't beat; that would be unbalanced"
*vomit*
3) Creative thinking and problem solving
There is no real formula for this, except maybe working on brain teasers and reading historical accounts of battles to see what innovative tactics were attempted. This is also where you saw the REALLY skilled players shine, coming up with solutions you would never have thought of yourself, and pulling out victories that you would have though impossible. This is one reason the best players would tend to gravitate toward non-fighter classes. Spells especially could give you a range of capabilities that could be creatively employed in a nearly infinite range of ways.
THIS IS NOT RULES LAWYERING. Rules-lawyering is a degenerate form of play, a miserable attempt to replace truly insightful and ingeneous play with rules mastery because one is incapable of better.
This didn't extend solely to play, but also to character creation. Players were encouraged to
develop the character beyond the skeleton presented in the rulebooks. This would typically be developed through play, and player/DM negotiation for custom special abilities and so forth.
Who needs supplemental rulebooks full of sanctioned junk? It can never cover all possibilities anyway, and a character with custom abilities based on his personal history is far more interesting than some generic thing out of a book.
This is another point of divergence between editions. 3E with its weight of rules is all about about telling people what they can't do. The only way these rules serve to tell you what you can do is if you have some 'tard of a DM. And the solution to that is to tell him he is a crappy DM, and if he doesn't change everyone quits his campaign and has someone else DM.
As for telling the difference between a skilled and unskilled player, you can usually see it within an hour or two.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
And another edition war is born....
I think skilled player meant tactics, teamwork, knowledge of when to apply character abilities to a challange and how to do so in the most effective way.
I think skilled player meant tactics, teamwork, knowledge of when to apply character abilities to a challange and how to do so in the most effective way.
Grazzt
Demon Lord
Sanguinemetaldawn said:
Very good point...and I remember seeing both in play back then. ("Oh look...a lovely Green Devil-faced doorway...lets go in.")
Same thing with doors (asking which way they open, if the hinges are on the inside or out, opening doors with a length of rope, a pole, a henchman
)
Sanguinemetaldawn
First Post
Flexor the Mighty! said:And another edition war is born....
I think skilled player meant tactics, teamwork, knowledge of when to apply character abilities to a challange and how to do so in the most effective way.
Actually what I said is pretty tame compared to what I wanted to say, which I cut out of courtesy for the hosts.
I do think my statements are accurate characterizations of the facts.
Do you disagree that 3E scenario design emphasizes a "balanced schedule of CRs"? Do you disagree with my assertion that this design philosophy encourages an attitude of "we can kill everything in this dungeon"?
Do you disagree that the great mass of rules is an effective way of telling people "you can't do that"? "(because the rules say so)" And that stifles creative solutions to challenges and encounters?
What I posted previously is not intended to be incendiary. I am willing to listen to arguments that might change my views, but those views are based on the personal experience of having to change 3E D&D rules in the players favor so they can attempt a unique solution to a problem, and having to massively re-write 3E material so that it is fun and exciting.
Remathilis
Legend
IMHO, A "highly skilled" player could do the following:
1.) No Unnecessary Risks: The summon orc example is classic. Higher level PCs knew that death came at anytime, and there was no reason to stick your neck out unnecessarily. So you used every trick in the book to keep you out danger while maximizing profit. Orcs/undead opening trapped doors are easier than botching your find traps roll. This mindset could vary between tactically cautious to outright cowardism.
2.) Characters as "avatars", not people. You want MMORPG? Here it is. Characters became nothing more than said players way of "interacting" with the world. What mattered is what the players thought/new, not the character. Bargo might have a 3 int, but if his player had a knowledge of chemisty, he knew not to combine alochol and suphuric acid. Playing "in character" here would be death. It was one of the reasons alignment was stressed; it forced PCs to consider "what there character would do" rather than what was the the easiers or most efficient way ("Kill the kobold babies"). This is where you got the rise of "Bob's fighter, Lefty the 2nd, and Gene Eric the Cleric of Good.
3.) Teamwork: Ah, a lost art. "Lidda, is going to drink her potion of invisibility, then throw open the door. Mialee fireballs into the room. When the orcs come, Jozan, Regdar and Tordek all engage. Mialee, cast haste on us round 2, Lidda get into sneak attack position. Jozan, start healing if someone gets hit, otherwise bash. Ready? Ok, We open the door..."
This is not a concept exclusive to any edition, but in older days it was applauded and now it viewed as "metagamey" or "video gamey".
1.) No Unnecessary Risks: The summon orc example is classic. Higher level PCs knew that death came at anytime, and there was no reason to stick your neck out unnecessarily. So you used every trick in the book to keep you out danger while maximizing profit. Orcs/undead opening trapped doors are easier than botching your find traps roll. This mindset could vary between tactically cautious to outright cowardism.
2.) Characters as "avatars", not people. You want MMORPG? Here it is. Characters became nothing more than said players way of "interacting" with the world. What mattered is what the players thought/new, not the character. Bargo might have a 3 int, but if his player had a knowledge of chemisty, he knew not to combine alochol and suphuric acid. Playing "in character" here would be death. It was one of the reasons alignment was stressed; it forced PCs to consider "what there character would do" rather than what was the the easiers or most efficient way ("Kill the kobold babies"). This is where you got the rise of "Bob's fighter, Lefty the 2nd, and Gene Eric the Cleric of Good.
3.) Teamwork: Ah, a lost art. "Lidda, is going to drink her potion of invisibility, then throw open the door. Mialee fireballs into the room. When the orcs come, Jozan, Regdar and Tordek all engage. Mialee, cast haste on us round 2, Lidda get into sneak attack position. Jozan, start healing if someone gets hit, otherwise bash. Ready? Ok, We open the door..."
This is not a concept exclusive to any edition, but in older days it was applauded and now it viewed as "metagamey" or "video gamey".
Similar Threads
