HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 13, 2017 18:26:11 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure my Tweet about player skill came about from me reading the blurb for an OSR game. It mentioned "player skill" and seemed to imply that was a better way to play, which got me started thinking about what exactly "player skill" is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 18:38:58 GMT -8
The idea that the description of how the spell is cast is all useless fluff doesn't make sense to me. When we're speaking purely about game mechanics, though, it IS useless fluff. Note I'm not saying it's useless fluff for the players, or for the narrative; I'm only talking about with regards to game mechanics. For example, take the player of a first level magic-user in one game who says to his DM, "I cast magic missile." Then consider the player of a first level magic-user in another game who says to his DM, "I glare at my opponent with fierce concentration in my eyes. I raise a single eyebrow as the strain which comes with harnessing magical energies begins to crease my forehead. I raise one hand and point my index finger at my foe; with the other, I make a slow but deliberate swirling motion around my extended finger... once, twice, three times. As I swirl my hand I forcefully intone the magic phrase which will unlock the arcane energy locked in my mind: KLAATU! BARADA! NIKTO! I then watch with glee as the magic missle forms in front of me - a glowing bolt of eldritch energy - and screams across the room towards the miscreant who dares oppose me!" Know what happens in both cases, by way of pure game mechanics? The bad guy gets hit with a magic missile that does 1d4+1 damage. That awesome description of how the second player described the spell being cast didn't change the mechanics one bit. It was, from the game mechanic's point of view, useless fluff. Until he does that twice, which is now the basis for another character being able to counterspell. I know that mixture of incantations and finger twirling is magic missle, so now I don't need to make a spellcraft check to identify the spell before I can try to counterspell. Likewise, in games where you can take abortive actions, knowing which spell is incoming allows you to make that decision (shield spell vs magic missile, for example). The GM never has to tell you the name of the spell being cast. So if you don't make a check or pick it out by context clues, then you don't have good information to base that decision off of. I know this to be true because in 3.5 you had to make a spellcraft check to identify spells being cast. That wasn't just information that was freely available if you asked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 19:02:38 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure my Tweet about player skill came about from me reading the blurb for an OSR game. It mentioned "player skill" and seemed to imply that was a better way to play, which got me started thinking about what exactly "player skill" is. Engaging the player is always better than engaging a character sheet. It doesn't have to replace the ability to use one's sheet though. In my example of seeing spells cast, you could still roll your spellcraft to identify a spell if you didn't pick up the context clues. A good GM might assign bonuses and penalties based on situational factors to that roll. Maybe you get a bonus to identify the spell because you've already seen him use it. Engaging a character sheet doesn't create immersion. Engaging the player at least immerses them in the story (maybe not in their character though). Further, it gives incentive for paying attention. You can daydream when it isn't your turn, but you'll miss the chance to identify that spell for sure. You'll be stuck with rolling (if you even can, I think you had to have a held action to do that). Any carrot you can put out there to get your players to engage with the game is a worthwhile endeavor. If you decide that you want to narrate all that and still make the players go through with all the same rolling (no bonuses, etc), then of course your players are tuning out. Sure, some people get off on flowery descriptions, but your job as a GM is to run a game the is compelling for everyone. Narrating things turns description into a puzzle when done right. The description of the skeleton's impales on spikes from the walls tells your players to be wary for that sort of trap (and just traps in general). It's not just fluff, it's foreshadowing and telegraphing. Anything you describe that will happen twice that the characters can react to is important. If the dragon always inhales before shooting fire, that is the signal to get behind cover. Telegraphing is an important part of gaming. It allows you to set up interesting situations. Will the cleric run over to heal someone, or will they take cover from the incoming breath attack? That's an important decision, and it only occurred because the player knows that breath attack is coming. Description is the stimulus for action. Asking for saving throws won't get you the scene were the paladin covers the child with his own body to shield them from the breath attack, because they know that child isn't making it to cover. The secret service agent can't jump in front of a bullet he doesn't know is coming in. To me this is less about old school vs new school and more about how to run a good game where players can make meaningful decisions and are rewarded for engaging with the game. By placing importance on narration your game will change. All of a sudden the rules for concealing magic will become important. Magical duels might be just as much about the feints as they are the spells being cast. Instead of just blasting each other, they are new embroiled in contest just as compelling as a duel of swordmasters.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 13, 2017 19:45:19 GMT -8
Until he does that twice, which is now the basis for another character being able to counterspell. We're talking primarily about old-school D&D here. There was, and is, no "counterspell". There was, and is, no "spellcract check". And at that, because D&D is round-based, you only act on your initiative. So it doesn't matter if you can identify his narrative or not, you don't get to do anything about it until it's your turn. Further, we're talking about "player skill" being used in situations where game mechanics don't exist. Were there a "spellcraft check" in old-school D&D, the game mechanics would take over and then the narrative truly becomes fluff. To me this is less about old school vs new school and more about how to run a good game where players can make meaningful decisions and are rewarded for engaging with the game. But this thread is specifically about "player skill" in old-school games. You're more than welcome to start a new thread to discuss what it's more about to you, so that we can remain on-topic in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 14, 2017 1:34:51 GMT -8
HyveMynd : ADnD attribute checks were also 'roll under' Aaron
|
|
|
Post by The Northman on Jun 14, 2017 1:39:11 GMT -8
It's true. As were the skill checks, yeah? Based off the attribute but modified in some cases to simulate more difficult or easy skills.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Jun 14, 2017 8:11:33 GMT -8
Really, personally, as hinted in an earlier post in this thread, I think we tend to get a little over-analytical about our RPGs. Coining the term "player skill" makes it seem a lot bigger than, I think, it actually is and more of a "thing" than it actually is. Ultimately, it's just... a difference in how you play the game because many codified rules didn't exist. How do you search a room in OD&D or its many clones and derivatives? As mentioned, attribute checks didn't even become a "thing" until the Moldvay edition of Basic D&D. So while we now look back at the game from the paradigm of having skills or attribute checks, back then you just said what you wanted to do. There wasn't a feeling of "wow, there's no skill or check for searching", because none of those concepts had really been invented in the D&D world. And if you want to re-capture the feeling of the games of yore, like is the case with the OSR and all the retro-clones and what-have-you, that's the way the game was played originally. I don't think you can really retro-fit that into a concept like "player skill". Anyway, that's not a comment on your tweet, HyveMynd. Just some idle thoughts about the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 14, 2017 10:07:34 GMT -8
It also comes down to how you treat the likes of Intelligence and Wisdom in OSR games. The attribute represents mechanical things such as, for intelligence, recall and the ability to retain information (spells, languages) not the actual, more fluid and thus abstract, ability to process information and problem solve - that comes from the Player, it is 'this' that an OSR Player injects into an OSR PC. Wisdom as and attribute is just simple willpower not the more ephemeral wisdom that comes from experience and age (though raw will power tends to increase with age due to old grognards - real world definition not gaming definition- being stubborn fucks as they get greyer). Aaron
|
|
temmogen
Initiate Douchebag
I am the thread killer
Posts: 40
Preferred Game Systems: 1st Ed. AD&D; Pathfinder; Mongoose Traveller; Call of Cuthulhu
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by temmogen on Jun 14, 2017 20:01:38 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure my Tweet about player skill came about from me reading the blurb for an OSR game. It mentioned "player skill" and seemed to imply that was a better way to play, which got me started thinking about what exactly "player skill" is. Different generations of players, regard "skills" differently. What I would consider Player skill could be best described as skill at description. Basic storytelling skill. I don't look for drama in games, where the newer generation of gamers considers the generation of drama in a game a skill.
|
|
andreasdavour
Patron (Supporter)
Posts: 257
Preferred Game Systems: M0, Savage Worlds, Over the Edge, Warhammer FRP 1st ed.
Currently Playing: None
Currently Running: Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate
Favorite Species of Monkey: Llama
|
Post by andreasdavour on Jun 16, 2017 10:44:57 GMT -8
I would describe "player skill", as it originally developed in the OSR context, as the antithesis to "Can I roll for that?", in its many forms. The rest is details. Lots of them, as usual.
|
|