Player skill vs character skill?

[SableWyvern]

A player makes a mistake and misjudges a situation => player gets screwed
GM makes a mistake and misrepresents a situation => player gets screwed

This is very easy to assert, but how are you arriving at the conclusion that someone gets screwed any time a mistake is made? Why are there no options to discuss a situation, question things that don't makes sense or otherwise take steps such that no one gets unreasonably screwed?

If I, as GM, describe a a river of lava, but do so in such a way that the players think it's a shallow, conventional creek, when the PCs decide to wade across, they don't get screwed. Instead, I stop the game and try to work out where the miscommunication has occurred.

 

[cbwjm]

I probably lean more on the player skill than character skill side of things, I feel like it comes from earlier editions of DnD where having skills wasn't a given (basically the split between TSR and WotC editions).

Player "skill" really just players thinking of doing something will often mean no roll needed. Searching a room doesn't require a skill check to find the door hidden behind the tapestry if the player asks to look behind the tapestry.

I might not ask that every word be acted out but I do expect some in-character dialogue; just saying "I try to convince the guard to let us pass" (or worse, "Jocinda tries to convince the guard to let us pass") isn't enough.

I'm the same, no roll is going to work if the players just says "can I convince them to let us pass", they need to give an indication of how they want to convince them, whether with a bribe or with false credentials or something. Depending on how plausible it is, in 5e terms, they'd roll with advantage. Of course, maybe the guard is greedy and a bribe of 20 or more gp might be an auto success.

Social checks become a lot easier if you have some sort of wants and needs of an NPC since they can help determine an auto success, advantage, disadvantage, or a straight roll on a persuasion check.

 

[cbwjm]

This is very easy to assert, but how are you arriving at the conclusion that someone gets screwed any time a mistake is made? Why are there no options to discuss a situation, question things that don't makes sense or otherwise take steps such that no one gets unreasonably screwed?

If I, as GM, describe a a river of lava, but do so in such a way that the players think it's a shallow, conventional creek, when the PCs decide to wade across, they don't get screwed. Instead, I stop the game and try to work out where the miscommunication has occurred.

Which in the situation described is basically "Wait, what? Did I not say it was lava?"

I'm pretty sure in the past that I've had situations where I've described something and then clarified because otherwise it seemed like a player was about to send their character to death.

 

[SableWyvern]

I don't want a player to have to learn how to play me in order to play my games effectively.

You call it learning to play the GM.

I describe it as establishing a shared understanding and expectations. I consider this a critical component of any successful game and it works both ways -- it's not just about the players understanding the GM, but the GM understanding the players, their expectations and how they see things. There is no standard baseline that all GMs and players can automatically default to -- in any group it essential to establish a common framework that works for that group. Further, every time I run a new game in a different style, that common framework needs to be re-established in the context of the new style, even if the participants remain consistent.

If your common framework involves some adherence to mechanical systems to resolve as much as possible, that's still something that needs to be hashed out and the group will need to understand if there are ever times those mechanics don't apply, or what happens if there is no clear mechanic, or if there is always a default mechanic, which optional rules are in place, or what-have-you. In many cases, these things won't all be covered up-front, and will need to be discussed as unexpected situations arise. At the end of the day, two groups that claim to play D&D 5e RAW or very nearly so may, in fact, be playing quite differently. In fact, the way they play is likely to be something that develops over time as they learn what works for them as a group and what doesn't.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You call it learning to play the GM.

I describe it as establishing a shared understanding and expectations. I consider this a critical component of any successful game and it works both ways -- it's not just about the players understanding the GM, but the GM understanding the players, their expectations and how they see things. There is no standard baseline that all GMs and players can automatically default to -- in any group it essential to establish a common framework that works for that group. Further, every time I run a new game in a different style, that common framework needs to be re-established in the context of the new style, even if the participants remain consistent.

If your common framework involves some adherence to mechanical systems to resolve as much as possible, that's still something that needs to be hashed out and the group will need to understand if there are ever times those mechanics don't apply, or what happens if there is no clear mechanic, or if there is always a default mechanic, which optional rules are in place, or what-have-you. In many cases, these things won't all be covered up-front, and will need to be discussed as unexpected situations arise. At the end of the day, two groups that claim to play D&D 5e RAW or very nearly so may, in fact, be playing quite differently.

Hear, hear.

 

[Xamnam]

You call it learning to play the GM.

I describe it as establishing a shared understanding and expectations. I consider this a critical component of any successful game and it works both ways -- it's not just about the players understanding the GM, but the GM understanding the players, their expectations and how they see things. There is no standard baseline that all GMs and players can automatically default to -- in any group it essential to establish a common framework that works for that group. Further, every time I run a new game in a different style, that common framework needs to be re-established in the context of the new style, even if the participants remain consistent.

None of what you say here is wrong. Part of what I was trying to communicate, it seems poorly, is that in lacking that common framework, which is natural, I'm going to be generous in my interpretations of player desire of character execution.

I personally take more onus on me as GM to understand the players, what they are looking for, and how they wish to play the game, than the reverse. That is the much easier task.

 

[bloodtide]

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

The players are not tactical geniuses. The player doesn't know the best spot to stand in a battle, but you bet their veteran fighter PC would. So why not roll for things like knowing the best position to take or hold on the battle map?

The players are not magical prodigies. The player doesn't know the best spell to use during a combat, but you bet their INT 20 wizard PC would. So why not roll for things like knowing which spell would have the best effect?

But, again, the players are not their characters. The decisions the players make are not the decisions the PCs would make...because the players are not their characters.

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

My line is player engagement and involvement with the fiction and story. I hate the Mechanical Game where the player just sits there, rolls some dice, and the "character just does everything".

The players are not their characters, but they control them. The only only way for that to happen would be for the DM, who does have the ability to play as a character, to take control of all the PCs while the players just sit there and watch.

Why should we prevent a player who is not a good Tactician to play a characterr who is 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 lack training in weapons, or a Rogue if they can't pick locks.

The problem is once you go past a single simple direct imaginary physical action....it breaks down.

An acrobatic character can roll dice and jump over a trap. Single simple direct single action.

But you have an average player with a intelligent tactician character. How do you do that? Well, if the DM is an intelligent tactician they can take control of the character while the player sits there and watches. Sure if the game has a "roll DC10" to get a "tactical" +1 to hit, but that only effects the mechanics, not the game. It does not help when the player falls for a trick or trap.

Because if you try to simulate the mental skills of the character then very quickly these will need to overrule or supplant the choices of the player, reducing the player to an observer of the character which would actually be controlled by the dice or game rules or the referee.

This.