D&D General "Player Skill" versus DM Ingenuity as a playstyle.

[CreamCloud0]

But, in the spirit of the request: How should I interpret the statement, "When all the players had all of the rules in front of them, it became next to impossible to beguile them into danger or mischief."? What does it mean to "beguile" players with ignorance of the game's rules? How does this statement differ from black-box adjudication?

i personally just take it to mean that a player who is versed in all the potential hazards they may encounter and the solutions thereof is a player who experiences an adventure in very different way to someone who is ignorant of those challenges, sometimes even to the point of being able to overcome any and all difficulty and danger of them before they even need interact with them, many things in DnD have unforseen effects or are not what they initially seem, ignorance of the rules is not meant to make adjudication seem arbitrary to the players but to prevent them from just inputting memorised solutions.

There are numerous people on this very forum who have said, more than once, that they would prefer that players not even see their own character sheets--that the players just say things they wish to do, and the DM tells them what happens. Hence my phrases like "black box"ing the rules and the like. This is not some insane notion that only exists in my head. Real people want and pursue this, lamenting that player knowledge of the rules has made players "entitled" and other such nonsense.

It's been an undercurrent to D&D for about as long as there's been a thing called D&D. Fudging rolls, for example, is just another facet of that same idea. "Challenging" the players, not by actually giving them a puzzle they need to solve or a height they must reach, but by not allowing them to know how things work nor to connect their actions to the consequences that result.

i don't recall seeing any of those posts with that intent personally but i would've assumed it was an extension of the 'the answer isn't always on your character sheet' and 'anti-push ability button' crowds, to obscure how the rules work more with the intent of making people forget they are playing a game with numbers and rules to create a more accurate simulation or roleplay experience rather than to challenging the players through ignorace of their options.

i could be wrong but that's just my takes on the subjects.

 

[Reynard]

As in, do I allow or even encourage metagaming? No.

I wonder when this change over took place, because the Eldritch Wizardry intro very clearly expects players to use their collected knowledge of the game to succeed and that the GM must use new tricks, traps and enemies to keep the game fresh.

 

[MerricB]

I wonder when this change over took place, because the Eldritch Wizardry intro very clearly expects players to use their collected knowledge of the game to succeed and that the GM must use new tricks, traps and enemies to keep the game fresh.

It turns out that when there's SO MUCH STUFF out there, even dedicated players can't remember it all.

Which is why in 3E you have Knowledge skills to "remember" the weaknesses of monsters, because there were so many (certainly in 2E) that players never knew what they were facing.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I started later, but I've always played in that style and I'm a big fan of the non-racist aspects of the OSR.

This seems to me an odd comment to make/include in one's post.

 

[TiQuinn]

Obviously, some portion of the OSR is an attempt to recapture this. If you like OSR games, how does it land with you?

One thing to consider is that Gary Gygax ran a very particular game, had very outspoken opinions, and very much was reactionary to how he perceived others playing the game. Nevermind that Legend Lore was a 6th level spell and Magic Users had to survive long enough to reach a high enough level to cast it, or the DM simply allowed players to find an NPC to cast it for them, the fact that players were able to do this at all (and ruin whatever secret was planned) was a PROBLEM.

I’ve always felt this style of play when taken too seriously represented a race to the bottom in TTRPGs. Adversarial DMs were a thing. Killing player characters was a thing. There was a dissatisfaction with this style of play if not handled well, and frankly, you don’t find much in the original writing of the game that tempers these notions. It’s why the game evolved away from this style towards more heroic styles of play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

But the OP is right in suggesting the modern game in less about challenging players, and more about entertaining them.

Interesting statement.
Does challenging not fulfil the entertainment function? Perhaps seen as a subset of entertainment.
I'm not saying you are wrong, just playing devil's advocate.
What aspects of 5e do you think make a good case for entertainment being the primary goal?
I'm thinking the greater survivability of characters and the emulation of Critical Role-style playing at tables being obvious examples.

 

[Wolfpack48]

One thing to consider is that Gary Gygax ran a very particular game, had very outspoken opinions, and very much was reactionary to how he perceived others playing the game. Nevermind that Legend Lore was a 6th level spell and Magic Users had to survive long enough to reach a high enough level to cast it, or the DM simply allowed players to find an NPC to cast it for them, the fact that players were able to do this at all (and ruin whatever secret was planned) was a PROBLEM.

I’ve always felt this style of play when taken too seriously represented a race to the bottom in TTRPGs. Adversarial DMs were a thing. Killing player characters was a thing. There was a dissatisfaction with this style of play if not handled well, and frankly, you don’t find much in the original writing of the game that tempers these notions. It’s why the game evolved away from this style towards more heroic styles of play.

Well, having lived and played through all that, I do remember it being very much a note of conversation in Dragon articles both from Gary and others, about the proper amount of challenge, notes on being impartial and fair, not falling into the killer DM trap, giving players plenty of clues, and so forth. Everyone was coming to grips with the fact that players knew more about the types of challenges that could be placed, and ways to keep things challenging and fun. I don't think, however, there was ever a discussion about not challenging players at all and simply entertaining them.

Everyone points to Tomb of Horrors, but you can also point to Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, which had its fair share of puzzles and traps, but all the clues were made apparent and relatively easy to solve if the party put their heads together. Monsters always had unique or special abilities to keep players on their toes, and the slaver series had tactical challenges in the combats, even with standard type orcs and goblins. Also, keep in mind that one of the earliest modules, Village of Hommlet had a mystery about the dungeon, for which clues needed to be obtained by interacting with villagers.

What there wasn't a lot of time spent on was finding new rule buttons so the players could just roll on a stat to solve the mystery. Pushing players to use their noggins was a goal, and I think a good one.

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, having lived and played through all that, I do remember it being very much a note of conversation in Dragon articles both from Gary and others, about the proper amount of challenge, notes on being impartial and fair, not falling into the killer DM trap, giving players plenty of clues, and so forth. Everyone was coming to grips with the fact that players knew more about the types of challenges that could be placed, and ways to keep things challenging and fun. I don't think, however, there was ever a discussion about not challenging players at all and simply entertaining them.

I think the problem is that Gygax was the equivalent of an editorial blurter. Yes, one day he writes a well balanced article about being fair and impartial in Dragon Magazine (circulation: whatever it was) but then he is also the guy who writes the 1e DMG which sets a very adversarial tone (and has a much wider circulation than his Dragon article.) His is not a consistent tone, and the adversarial DM is very much his creation.

As may be obvious, I am not a fan of Gary Gygax’s views on the game.

As for player knowledge vs character knowledge, my own two cents is that unless the players want a very in depth game with lots of role playing, there’s no problem with challenging the player versus the character. I think one does have to be careful - I’ve found through painful experience that what I think is a fun easy puzzle is not fun or easy for many players - it’s a royal pain in the butt. So some restraint there is necessary. It’s also very much a session zero kind of consideration (I wonder what Gary Gygax would’ve had to say about Session Zeroes and being open about what’s to come in a campaign).

 

[Reynard]

I think the problem is that Gygax was the equivalent of an editorial blurter. Yes, one day he writes a well balanced article about being fair and impartial in Dragon Magazine (circulation: whatever it was) but then he is also the guy who writes the 1e DMG which sets a very adversarial tone (and has a much wider circulation than his Dragon article.) His is not a consistent tone, and the adversarial DM is very much his creation.

As may be obvious, I am not a fan of Gary Gygax’s views on the game.

As for player knowledge vs character knowledge, my own two cents is that unless the players want a very in depth game with lots of role playing, there’s no problem with challenging the player versus the character. I think one does have to be careful - I’ve found through painful experience that what I think is a fun easy puzzle is not fun or easy for many players - it’s a royal pain in the butt. So some restraint there is necessary. It’s also very much a session zero kind of consideration (I wonder what Gary Gygax would’ve had to say about Session Zeroes and being open about what’s to come in a campaign).

I wouldn't be too hard on Gygax. If we all went and looked through our years of posts here on EN World, i bet we would find plenty of our own inconsistency.

 

[TiQuinn]

I wouldn't be too hard on Gygax. If we all went and looked through our years of posts here on EN World, i bet we would find plenty of our own inconsistency.

Fair enough. I find my stance to be as much a reaction to the often times infallible pedestal he is placed on, or that his is the correct way to play OSR games.