Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037595That might make them easier to run, but affect play not at all, provided you're playing under the original paradigm of "don't think about rules, just tell me what you want to do."

Maybe, but this thread was about which type of rules is easier to play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037854Maybe, but this thread was about which type of rules is easier to play.

Um... anything that comes in a red box.

Quote from: Krimson;1037860Um... anything that comes in a red box.

...or a white or brown box...

Quote from: Krimson;1037860Um... anything that comes in a red box.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037862...or a white or brown box...

Even D&D 4e?

Quote from: Moracai;1036960No, because oldskool relies more on "player skill".

You know, other way of saying for: rolling four new characters every session to find out the various ways this particular dickwad of a DM is trying to kill my characters.

As I recall from the old days, "player skill" wasn't anything that couldn't be produced by actually listening and paying attention to what was going on, and applying a bit of rational common sense to the situation in an ever repeating cycle. About the worst thing to happen to D&D in more modern iterations has been the development of the individual turn. This construct encourages players to zone out, play on their phone, etc. until it is their personal turn.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;1037987As I recall from the old days, "player skill" wasn't anything that couldn't be produced by actually listening and paying attention to what was going on,

"Waaaa!   WAAAAA!  You're being MEAN to me!"

Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

Quote from: Brad;1038041Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

Damn good question, old sport.  I've been asking that since I drifted back into this hobby around 2000.

A lot of people seem to want to construct a homonculous and watch it perform.  One guy in one thread even said "I don't want to think about things, just have my character make an INT roll and tell me the answer."

Just like my assertion that "if you want your character to be a good negotiator, learn to negotiate.  NEGOTIATE skills suck."  That one never fails to get my ass hairs set on fire.

Personally, I suspect the answer is "most people are lazy."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;1037987As I recall from the old days, "player skill" wasn't anything that couldn't be produced by actually listening and paying attention to what was going on, and applying a bit of rational common sense to the situation in an ever repeating cycle. About the worst thing to happen to D&D in more modern iterations has been the development of the individual turn. This construct encourages players to zone out, play on their phone, etc. until it is their personal turn.

Interesting. I like your concept about the individual turn. The game I wrote for my players doesn't have individual turns, because we didn't want to record keep that. And you are right, as a result, everyone is engaged throughout a turn. It also helps that an individual action is really quick.

However, I don't deny that a lot of "old school" GM's modus operandi isn't accurately described as "player hostile".

Quote from: Brad;1038041Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

Some players like using their own knowledge to solve problems. The GMs for such players often like to craft player-skills tests in those games. Here, I've seen people require players to pick locks, solve crosswords, and play chess.

Some players want to use player skills and knowledge they don't have themselves.

To both groups, this is the purpose of role playing.

Putting one kind of player under the other kind of GM can make both miserable.

Like many other situations like this, there is often poor communication on the subject and unclear initial pre-conceptions.

Quote from: Tod13;1038066Some players like using their own knowledge to solve problems. The GMs for such players often like to craft player-skills tests in those games. Here, I've seen people require players to pick locks, solve crosswords, and play chess.

Some players want to use player skills and knowledge they don't have themselves.

To both groups, this is the purpose of role playing.

Putting one kind of player under the other kind of GM can make both miserable.

Like many other situations like this, there is often poor communication on the subject and unclear initial pre-conceptions.

But is that really addressing my question? Putting some sort of chess game in a dungeon, and expecting the players to actually make moves to win the game, isn't the same thing as "it's probably a good idea to take a 10' pole and probe for pit traps."

Quote from: Brad;1038070But is that really addressing my question? Putting some sort of chess game in a dungeon, and expecting the players to actually make moves to win the game, isn't the same thing as "it's probably a good idea to take a 10' pole and probe for pit traps."

It was supposed to be. ;-)

The first group (player skills) would use the 10' pole approach. Depending on the group and edition, they might not even expect to roll for trap detection.

The second group (character skills) would use the "check for traps" skill, and maybe expect a bonus or penalty for having or lacking appropriate tools (the 10' pole).

Quote from: Brad;1038070But is that really addressing my question? Putting some sort of chess game in a dungeon, and expecting the players to actually make moves to win the game, isn't the same thing as "it's probably a good idea to take a 10' pole and probe for pit traps."

Yeah your second example is more along the lines of what I'd call "Player Skill" in D&D.  Different gear load outs and uses for gear (like why would you prefer to use an Axe instead of a Sword), how watches should be set, marching order, clearing and searching rooms, all the procedural stuff that shouldn't just be covered by a die roll.

I'll let players roll to have their character negotiate or get clues/solutions to puzzles but I won't allow one to roll for "maybe we should have someone at the rear who can actually see things well and not the myopic bookworm wizard."

Quote from: KingCheops;1038073"maybe we should have someone at the rear who can actually see things well and not the myopic bookworm wizard."

And when they hit a dead end and get surprised by a wandering monster attacking their back rank, the wizard is gone in one gulp...

But truly, what IS a cow? (And, besides INT checks only on Negotiations, how do I have one? )

As for "How did we get here?," I'd blame 'Fast-Forward to the Fun!' attitude that didn't want to apply consequences, or bookkeeping, or even that pesky roleplaying. I mean, we don't do make-believe combat For Realzies at the table for legal reasons, (and I would hope for some of you, moral reasons too!). But I'd like to think we can at least have fun with make-believe during In-Character conversations, and even indulge in describing our actions.

But behaving in any way "Contrary to the Fun!" (there's a loaded term that should be defined before starting,) gets dumped for happy feelz. For example, rations are barely counted, Goodberry handwaviums away Survival issues. Same applies to material components or ammo, magical focus or ignored quivers (or my fave, magical ever-full quivers) becomes prominent.

It's these little things that New School introduced -- to wave away Maintenance -- that causes me the largest headache. That and they are intrinsically embedded within an interlaced framework -- leading to my oft complaint about minor houserules having cascading consequences. They've left a legacy of "I don't wanna be bothered! Please me already!" entitlement that I don't have in me as a GM to cater, yet with all the system landmines inside I must learn to excise carefully.

This gives me a sad.