Player Skill - what is it?

[Jackelope King]

I think "player skill" encompasses two slightly different ideas:

1. System Mastery. If you've played 3.Xe enough, you know that taking the Toughness feat is a waste of your feat choice, but first-timers might think that it looks great. Veteran Shadowrun players (at least for... 4e, I believe) know that you want wired reflexes out the wazoo. System-savvy oWoD players knew to pack battleaxes or some other weapons that dealt aggravated damage. You look at the numbers on character sheets and can decide when to run or when to fight, and how to squeeze the most bang for your buck out of every healing spell your have. System mastery is gaining an advantage because you know which rules benefit you most.

2. Metagame Mastery. I'd also call this "genre-awareness". You know full-well that you're playing a game, you know the people who you're playing with, and you know how to say and do the right things (without even necessarily rolling a single die) to come out ahead. If anything seems easy (like finding a lone kobold wandering the road), then you know it's a little too easy (because that kobold would turn out to be a high-level killing-machine). Not only do you know how to sniff out hidden danger or rewards, but you also just know how to resolve challenges without relying on your character's ability. You know how to say what the GM likes to hear, so you're likely to succeed in social challenges (whether your character has a good Charisma or nor) and other challenges. Metagame Mastery is gaining an advantage because you know how other gamers (especially GMs) think and what they like to hear.

(Note that "metagame mastery" is not intended in any way to be derogatory in any way, shape or form... it was simply the best term I could come up with.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Here is my take on player skill vs. PC skill.

 

[Remathilis]

Why does this bother you?

Because I could prioritize my PC to have 6's in all his mental scores and it wouldn't effect his survival one iota.

More to the point, as many others pointed out, I'm player a character who I may envision being smarter, wiser, or smoother than I as a person am, (or perhaps dumber, more foolish, and more annoying than I am) and if the DM isn't going to take that into account, I'm better off pumping up the scores that matter and dump-stating the ones that don't.

My groups always found these moments to be D&D comedy gold, and in the case of the dumb character/smart player, a chance to flex our storytelling muscle by trying to rationalize exactly how the idiot became a momentary savant.

I find it horribly belief-breaking for Str 10 wizards to break down doors Str 18 barbarians cannot, and I find it equally belief-breaking when the Int 8 barbarian solves the puzzle faster than the Int 18 wizard.

Sometimes solving a puzzle is more fun than simulating solving a puzzle.

True, but a good puzzle should challenge both character and player. There is no fun in "In order to enter the Treasury of Dimm, you must solve this Sudoku puzzle!", but there is equally no fun to "You see a number puzzle. DC 25 Int check to solve it".

 

[Mallus]

Because I could prioritize my PC to have 6's in all his mental scores and it wouldn't effect his survival one iota.

And?

More to the point, as many others pointed out, I'm player a character who I may envision being smarter, wiser, or smoother than I as a person am, (or perhaps dumber, more foolish, and more annoying than I am) and if the DM isn't going to take that into account, I'm better off pumping up the scores that matter and dump-stating the ones that don't.

So?

Am I alone in caring more about the pleasure from solving a puzzle/riddle/problem than dump-statting? Because that's what it boils down to for me.

Puzzle-solving is fun (in measured doses). A puzzle I roll to solve provides no satisfaction.

I find it horribly belief-breaking for Str 10 wizards to break down doors Str 18 barbarians cannot, and I find it equally belief-breaking when the Int 8 barbarian solves the puzzle faster than the Int 18 wizard.

What if dice where the deciding factor? What if the barbarian blew his STR check to open the door and the wizard got a nat. 20.

My philosophy is: don't needlessly problematize the game. Smart people do dumb things sometimes. Ditto smart PC's. And vice-versa.

True, but a good puzzle should challenge both character and player.

What I prefer to do is have some challenges that challenge the PC, and some which directly challenge the player. That way the campaign can appeal to more than a single play style. At least, that's my goal.

There is no fun in "In order to enter the Treasury of Dimm, you must solve this Sudoku puzzle!"

For you. I played a wonderful adventure at a con in Baltimore years ago that was exactly like that.

 

[Hussar]

For you. I played a wonderful adventure at a con in Baltimore years ago that was exactly like that.

And you don't see any problems arising from that? When my Int 18 Wis 20 character cannot solve the problem because I, the player, suck at Sudoku? Or my Int 3 character breezes through it?

I find it terribly jarring. Sure, solving the problem is fun, but, then again, I can do that anytime. (or at least try) When I play D&D, I'm trying to play a role. If I can completely ignore my character, then what's the point?

 

[RFisher]

There have been some good descriptions already.

To me, a classic example are riddles. The player and the PC inhabit different worlds, are part of different cultures, and probably speak different languages. Not to mention having different mental faculties. A player could nigh never solve a truly in-game riddle. The pure “character skill” approach would favor solving a riddle being nothing but an ability/skill check against a DC.

The “player skill” approach ignores all that and gives the players a riddle the players can solve in their own language using their own cultural background. No die roll will be allowed to solve the riddle for the players.

There are, of course, hybrid approaches that mix the two.

(Nevermind that it’s perfectly valid to consider the “player skill” approach an abstract simulation of the characters solving an analogous in-game riddle.)

For me I guess it comes down to (currently) wanting my decisions to count more than the dice. For my decisions during play to count more than my decisions during character creation. That I’m more interested in playing myself in the PC’s role than playing the role of the PC. (The PC as more player avatar or pawn.)

Note that these are relative statements. I still like the dice, character creation decisions, and playing the PC. I just don’t want to take the player out of the equation, and I currently prefer the player to be a bigger term in that equation than the others.

I don’t mind if you call what I call “player skill” “metagaming”. I think most of the things I’ve seen called “metagaming” are not necessarily bad.

 

[Hussar]

Rfisher - I'd actually agree with your last point. Metagaming is not necessarily bad.

On the riddle thing, I can see your point, particularly that it might simply be abstract, but, it can be far worse than that - "Oh, I see statuary around here, get out your mirrors", the bumbling 1st level fighter turning into MacGyver the second he steps into a dungeon, the 9 Int, 8 Cha character speaking in eloquent, polysyllabic terms trying to outline his master plan. That sort of thing gets really jarring sometimes.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Personally I see all the things that the OP listed as player skill.

Olaf the Stout

 

[RFisher]

Rfisher - I'd actually agree with your last point. Metagaming is not necessarily bad.

On the riddle thing, I can see your point, particularly that it might simply be abstract, but, it can be far worse than that - "Oh, I see statuary around here, get out your mirrors", the bumbling 1st level fighter turning into MacGyver the second he steps into a dungeon, the 9 Int, 8 Cha character speaking in eloquent, polysyllabic terms trying to outline his master plan. That sort of thing gets really jarring sometimes.

If I’ve set up clues the players are going to instantly recognize (lots of petrified people means a medusa nearby) then I suppose I just expect them to. If I don’t want them to recognize such things, then I try to change things up and so that I’m not exactly following what they expect. When the players are in the dark as much as the characters should be, then you nicely sidestep the problem.

In the third case, I try not to take the ability score names or descriptions too seriously. Really, even dexterity and strength can be considered misnamed based on some of the ways they’re used mechanically. Someday I’m probably going to run a homebrew system that doesn’t have attributes like intelligence, wisdom, or charisma.

The middle example, I don’t really see the problem. I’m not sure how being bumbling (in some aspects of life) and first level conflicts with being MacGyver.

Which is not meant to try to convert you to my way of thinking. I get that those things are jarring for you. Just trying to explain why I don’t think they bother me.

 

[Korgoth]

Why do you equate System Mastery with powergaming?

I didn't say a thing about powergaming. With the right feats and build in a d20 game it's easy to make even a mid-level (say 10th) character that can beat a DC 40. If you're playing some versions and/or with some sourcebooks you can get phenomenal skill check bonuses.

What I was trying to illustrate in my example was that "System Mastery" is a subspecies of the "Character Skill" method... you resolve everything by tossing a d20 like all CSers, but you've got a refined "build" and so tend to blow the doors off. What I'm arguing against is viewing System Mastery as something separate from the Character Skill approach, when it's really only a subset of that.