Player skill vs character skill?

[zakael19]

Also, if you have actual new players there’a a host of “teach the paradigm” content out there these days! Shadowdark even does this right in the player facing material and further in its free dungeon.

 

[Koloth]

My experience is the opposite. New players can't always make sense of a character sheet, but they know how to engage with the fiction. If I compare years of teaching new players D&D, versus more recently using Shadowdark, when playing Shadowdark with it's sparse character sheets they are more likely to come up with creative plans. If they are looking at their character sheet it's probably at their equipment. With D&D they keep looking at their character sheet and tentatively asking, "Can I....?"



Yeah I think part of the problem is systems that focus too much on "character build".

EDIT: The "consequence" of putting a 6 in a stat is that (in some systems) you get a 10% penalty to rolls that rely on that stat. That's it; that's all it means. If somebody wants to choose to roleplay that stat as being more meaningful than a 10% penalty, that's entirely up to them. But I find attempts to arbitrarily impose additional constraints, "...and you are especially bad at X, Y, and Z...." to be, in effect, dictating to people how they should roleplay being 10% worse than average at something, and I don't agree with that.

I have seen the same with new players and story. Fun to watch. But still, if that player took a Hulk Smash character, no amount of fiction engagement should allow Hulk to delicately sneak across a fragile bridge. That is where the GM needs to explain the choices have consequences concept. Perhaps with a "As soon as Hulk gets on the bridge, it collapses...."

Agree that later versions of D&D linage games are less stat strict. Earlier versions had a much wider spread of stat based penalties and bonuses.

Have had success with a 'build it as you go' GURPS game. Start with 10 in each stat, a few basic advantages/disadvantages defined, and a large pool of unspent character points. If a character fails a roll, the player has the option to spend character points on things that will turn it into a success. If the character pisses off a NPC, the player might take "Enemy" disadvantage. One big advantage to this is everything on a character sheet has been used at least once.

 

[Voadam]

It’s all choice and preference.

There are rpgs where your actual skill at swinging a sword versus your opponent’s actual skill determines if you hit them. Live action roleplaying games like the old NERO. I’ve done that and it’s fun. There are LARPs like Mind’s Eye Theatre where combat is turned into rock paper scissors mechanics.

You can turn most anything into mechanics, it is just a question of what you want to do with mechanics or not.

I am mostly a non mechanics preference for talking and thinking for a more immersive first person roleplay experience with a bit of mechanics or ad hoc judgment calls for the more second person or abstracted out things like downtime activities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. If the players declare an action that may have a negative consequence, I tell them what the deal is. They can change their mind if they don't like the deal. (The deal may or may not include success at the task itself.)

EDIT: Re-reading what you wrote, the phrase "how their action affects the narrative" strikes me as off. Or, at least, their action doesn't "affect the narrative" any more or less than more traditional adjudications. It's not "I'm going to attempt pick the lock...and let me know if I do it quietly." It's "I'm going to attempt to pick the lock quietly." Failure means you fail to accomplish that objective.

What if they just say, "I try to pick the lock" without any mention of noise? Do they know they're not actually rolling to pick the lock (because that's a guaranteed success in your game)? That's what I mean by "affect the narrative". I mean outside of straight task resolution (what the rules say you're rolling for).

 

[Bill Zebub]

What if they just say, "I try to pick the lock" without any mention of noise? Do they know they're not actually rolling to pick the lock (because that's a guaranteed success in your game)? That's what I mean by "affect the narrative". I mean outside of straight task resolution (what the rules say you're rolling for).

Which specific rules are you talking about?

The answer, though, would require more context. If the players weren’t specifically trying to be quiet, but I knew there was something on the other side that might hear them, I’d have to figure out what would happen next, depending on context. Maybe the noise wouldn’t even occur to me if the players didn’t bring it up? Dunno.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

To me there's no question player skill makes for more fun and immersive gameplay, so should be favored where possible.

The undercurrent in the player skill vs. character skill conversation is: "what if I'm not witty/a good tactician, shouldn't I be allowed to imagine myself that way in-game?"

I think we have to be willing to say...no. That's what CRPGs on Story Mode are for.

In TTRPGs the gameworld is a cooperative construction. Something that only exists in one person's imagination doesn't count. As a player you have a responsibility to contribute to the vividness and coherence of our shared imaginary space; it's not a VR for your personal enjoyment. If you can't convincingly play a witty/tactically intelligent person, don't choose that sort of character.

 

[Scott Christian]

There isn't a difference. They combine to make a skill. A PC that has zero athletics or acrobatics, but is actually a climber in real life, can often weave a narrative that helps them. A simple, "You roll with advantage) is just as good as being proficient.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To me there's no question player skill makes for more fun and immersive gameplay, so should be favored where possible.

The undercurrent in the player skill vs. character skill conversation is: "what if I'm not witty/a good tactician, shouldn't I be allowed to imagine myself that way in-game?"

I think we have to be willing to say...no. That's what CRPGs on Story Mode are for.

In TTRPGs the gameworld is a cooperative construction. Something that only exists in one person's imagination doesn't count. As a player you have a responsibility to contribute to the vividness and coherence of our shared imaginary space; it's not a VR for your personal enjoyment. If you can't convincingly play a witty/tactically intelligent person, don't choose that sort of character.

Whoah. And I thought I was an outlier....

 

[Greg K]

To me there's no question player skill makes for more fun and immersive gameplay, so should be favored where possible.

The undercurrent in the player skill vs. character skill conversation is: "what if I'm not witty/a good tactician, shouldn't I be allowed to imagine myself that way in-game?"

I think we have to be willing to say...no. That's what CRPGs on Story Mode are for.

In TTRPGs the gameworld is a cooperative construction. Something that only exists in one person's imagination doesn't count. As a player you have a responsibility to contribute to the vividness and coherence of our shared imaginary space; it's not a VR for your personal enjoyment. If you can't convincingly play a witty/tactically intelligent person, don't choose that sort of character.

Why should we prevent a player who is not a good Tactician not to play a characterr who is not a good Tactician or to play a character more intelligent than themselves if they invest in the proper mechanics if that is their fantasy and role they want to play?
We don't tell people not to play an acrobatic character or high dex, because the player does not have it in real life. We don't tell them not to play high strength characters if the player is not strong.
We don't them not to play a Monk because the player doesn't know martial arts, not to play a martial character if they have training weapons, or a Rogue if they can't pick locks.

 

[Celebrim]

So why don't we use more character skills to cover more of the gaps between the players and their characters?

Because eventually if you follow that logic the player ceases to be the player of the character and becomes the observer. If you simulate the character too much, then the character starts making the choices. Perfect simulation is not only not possible, it's not desirable.

So back to the question. Where are your lines on player skill vs character skill?

Generally speaking, a character skill should not make many or any decisions for the character that the player could make themselves. The character skill should only inform how effective the player's choices are. Choose to shoot a sniper rifle, and the character skill determines how well you can shoot. It should probably not tell the character whether or not to shoot or whether using a sniper rifle is an effective plan, though it could perhaps inform how well the character sees things. A character skill can determine how well you hide, but not whether to remain in place or try to evade. At best character skill could estimate how difficult each plan is, though that can just as easily be communicated by having some guidelines in the player facing rules.