Player skill vs character skill?

[John Dallman]

Very experienced players can still be more effective than moderate experienced players (especially with some classes) with the same characters but I'm just arguing the gap narrows with moderate player skill. Which I think in a cooperative game is a good thing.

There is another form of skill, which is skill in operating as a team. This was forcibly brought home to me on Saturday, watching a different party in the Avalon campaign. They are 6th-8th level AD&D, having played together since first level. A couple of the players have been playing for decades, but haven't learned how to organise a party.

They're still acting as individuals, without any anticipation of what the others are likely to do, or appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses. Some of them are being very brave and noble in the difficult fight they are half-way through (against 5HD water-breathing trolls, in a marsh) but they aren't thinking about what they're doing. They aren't self-organising, and they don't have a leader who can organise them. They need one badly.

 

[zakael19]

Just want to reiterate that I'm not sure I've seen the concept of "player skill" show up as a desired aspect of play outside of like "mastering the basic rules" anywhere besides OSR-esque play these days. I don't think it's terribly applicable to skills-rich or ability-roll focused games, those are interested in adjudicating chances of failure via dice rolls or abilities. The skill a player shows is knowing when to like, say something that should prompt a GM to go "yeah, give me a ..."

I see that as very different from "lets put our heads together and figure out how we're going to use the random stuff we have + a couple of rare spells + the environment to narrate something at the GM who goes 'yeah, that works and here's how...'" that I see stressed in all the OSR/NSR games these days.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Agreed.

The entire intention for puzzles etc in D&D games was to engage in player skill. Early D&D was more focused on player skill and I do miss it at times. There has been a dramatic shift to more narrative play with character builds used to circumvent player skill.

I get that it can be no fun if the players cannot figure out the puzzle which is, perhaps, the main reason for it. It is supposed to prevent the type of DM that will use lack of player skill against the players.

It can be a fun type of game. But early D&D didn't have Perception and Investigation skills which is where things get more murky. Even in early D&D we would sometimes perceive the disconnect though because of ability scores. Why does my 18 Int Wizard struggle with this fairly simple logic puzzle just because the players are not up to it? You can look the other way, justify it because the character is having a bad day, etc. but it's sometimes stretching...

It comes back to what should be player skill and what character skill. It's ok to have logic puzzles be player skill if you set that upfront and are ok with the little bit of disconnect if you have smart characters but not as smart players... It is more problematic if you have character abilities that overlap as then they become either trap options or you have a weird either/or/both situations.

I don't think the move to character ability (more skills, etc.) was primarily to prevent DM's using lack of player skill against them. I think it was a move to make it more congruent between character abilities and tasks. But D&D never came up with the equivalent of combat (move, select target, which ability) player skill so it has become for many only character skill which is perhaps not great either.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Just want to reiterate that I'm not sure I've seen the concept of "player skill" show up as a desired aspect of play outside of like "mastering the basic rules" anywhere besides OSR-esque play these days. I don't think it's terribly applicable to skills-rich or ability-roll focused games, those are interested in adjudicating chances of failure via dice rolls or abilities. The skill a player shows is knowing when to like, say something that should prompt a GM to go "yeah, give me a ..."

I see that as very different from "lets put our heads together and figure out how we're going to use the random stuff we have + a couple of rare spells + the environment to narrate something at the GM who goes 'yeah, that works and here's how...'" that I see stressed in all the OSR/NSR games these days.

Except there is more player skill in D&D at least for combat. Move, target, ability selection, coordinating with team mates abilities, etc.

For non combat, there could be something between the OSR player skill challenge and one character skill roll. D&D has not really explored it though.

 

[zakael19]

Except there is more player skill in D&D at least for combat. Move, target, ability selection, coordinating with team mates abilities, etc.

There can be, sure. A heavily optimized high tactics play table is going to look very different then one where people get together to BS and talk at each other most of the time, but I might put that down under "system mastery." When I've seen it in theory-style usage, "Player skill" is usually making a distinction from "character skill" and often with some derision (or at least distinction) about "buttons on character sheets" and the like.

eg:

"Think Outside the Box

Kindreds and Classes grant a number of special capabilities useful during adventures. However, more often than not, hazards, challenges, and foes cannot be overcome simply by using traits and powers listed on the character sheet. Careful investigation of the environment, creative use of equipment, clever plans, and harebrained schemes can be equally effective. See also Narrative Interaction, p150."

or

"There’s no list of skills or abilities to limit what you can do within the fictional world. Don’t ask “Can I make some sort of test to look for…” or “Can I make a test to disarm…” Instead ask questions like “Is there any tension as I slowly open the door?” or “Do I hear anything if I tap on the wall here?” Interrogate your surroundings by asking questions and state your character’s actions: the GM will tell you if you need to make a test of fate.

and

"Solve problems orthogonally

You should be trying to make your GM say: “I didn’t even think of that.”

In an RPG, you can do anything. That’s the appeal! When you’re playing a computer game, you can only do the things the game designer programmed in. They anticipated you moving left, right, and down. Going up is out of the question. Not so in a tabletop game.

Most problems aren’t solved by fighting them. People can be reasoned with. Monsters can be placated. Traps can be avoided. Monsters can be led into traps. People can be sold the monster’s guts.

Don’t expect to “use” your talents and motifs to solve a problem. The abilities and items you have listed are just tools—and they’re only one of the many tools in your arsenal. Think outside of your adventurer sheet."

(from Dolmenwood and His Majesty the Worm respectively)

 

[overgeeked]

There can be, sure. A heavily optimized high tactics play table is going to look very different then one where people get together to BS and talk at each other most of the time, but I might put that down under "system mastery." When I've seen it in theory-style usage, "Player skill" is usually making a distinction from "character skill" and often with some derision (or at least distinction) about "buttons on character sheets" and the like.

eg:

"Think Outside the Box

Kindreds and Classes grant a number of special capabilities useful during adventures. However, more often than not, hazards, challenges, and foes cannot be overcome simply by using traits and powers listed on the character sheet. Careful investigation of the environment, creative use of equipment, clever plans, and harebrained schemes can be equally effective. See also Narrative Interaction, p150."

or

"There’s no list of skills or abilities to limit what you can do within the fictional world. Don’t ask “Can I make some sort of test to look for…” or “Can I make a test to disarm…” Instead ask questions like “Is there any tension as I slowly open the door?” or “Do I hear anything if I tap on the wall here?” Interrogate your surroundings by asking questions and state your character’s actions: the GM will tell you if you need to make a test of fate.

and

"Solve problems orthogonally

You should be trying to make your GM say: “I didn’t even think of that.”

In an RPG, you can do anything. That’s the appeal! When you’re playing a computer game, you can only do the things the game designer programmed in. They anticipated you moving left, right, and down. Going up is out of the question. Not so in a tabletop game.

Most problems aren’t solved by fighting them. People can be reasoned with. Monsters can be placated. Traps can be avoided. Monsters can be led into traps. People can be sold the monster’s guts.

Don’t expect to “use” your talents and motifs to solve a problem. The abilities and items you have listed are just tools—and they’re only one of the many tools in your arsenal. Think outside of your adventurer sheet."

(from Dolmenwood and His Majesty the Worm respectively)

Exactly that. When I say player skill, that's exactly what I mean. Players solving problems with their ingenuity and brains rather than rolling dice. Interacting with the environment and interrogating the fiction.

 

[SableWyvern]

I didn't mean to say that if you are interested in D&D you are interested in charop -- I specifically carved that out. I meant you aren't adverse to a game that has a lot of strategic game rules for combat. It's explicit that the player makes choices (player skill) on where to move, which enemy to select, and what ability to use. Abilities are for the most part tightly defined. You can of course be creative in planning/problem solving to gain an advantage or bypass this type of player skill and to some extent the character abilities, and I think that has it's place in D&D. If that is the primary focus of your game, however, then I would offer that there are superior rpgs these days to play.

It sounds like when you say "D&D" you mean 5e, Pathfinder and similar games, where choosing and using specific feats and abilities is a key component (hence my feeling that you were referring to games with a strong charop element). As this is a thread in the TTRPG General forum, I assume D&D isn't a given and, if D&D, 5e isn't a given.

If I run D&D, it will be something much closer to B/X or AD&D, and the choices the players are making will tend to involve manoeuvring formations rather than individuals, trying to ensure you only enter melee in favourable conditions (because you lose a lot of active control over outcomes once you are in melee), moving the spearman to take the high ground, etc. The decisions won't generally be about activating feats, using abilities or other factors that mostly revolve around pure mechanics and, as you say, "tightly defined" abilities.

And, as others have noted, even if you are running 5e, the focus still doesn't necessarily have to be on the use of special in-combat abilities.

A few sessions ago (admittedly, playing Rolemaster rather than D&D), my players negotiated a kobold deathtrap room using summoned animals to distract/occupy some kobolds fighting behind murder holes, characters with bundles of sticks rushing around the chamber to fill murder holes and shield bearers to cover a thief while he picked locks. The solution made use of some abilities, but also a lot of simple common-sense and pre-planning. What it absolutely wasn't about was any kind of rulesmastery as player skill -- it was players engaging with the world, not the mechanics.

 

[soviet]

Except there is more player skill in D&D at least for combat. Move, target, ability selection, coordinating with team mates abilities, etc.

This is an interesting thought. Is it bad roleplaying for the player of a low INT character to make smart tactical decisions in combat? Should they deliberately stumble into getting flanked and occasionally forget to use their extra abilities?

 

[Bill Zebub]

...
It comes back to what should be player skill and what character skill. It's ok to have logic puzzles be player skill if you set that upfront and are ok with the little bit of disconnect if you have smart characters but not as smart players... It is more problematic if you have character abilities that overlap as then they become either trap options or you have a weird either/or/both situations.
...

Yeah, ultimately I am playing a game, and solving puzzles...not just literal "dungeon puzzles" but anything that needs to be figured out, solved, planned...is really why I play games. The aspect of roleplaying that is pretending to be another person is fun, but that's not why I play the games. So to intentionally forego solving puzzles, in order to serve that secondary goal of acting in character, just doesn't compute. (I do realize that other people flip those priorities, and that's cool. For them.)

When using other kinds of "skills" that are purely in-game fiction where it's difficult to judge success and failure...finding traps, persuading barmaids, recalling lore...I would prefer to story it out without dice, narrating my approach and relying on the GM's discretion, but I get that it's hard to always GM that way, and although it's not my favorite approach I'm ok with just making a skill check. But to me there is an absolute world of difference between "your attempt to persuade the barmaid fails" and "your character isn't smart enough to think of that idea." The latter is just....crazy.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is an interesting thought. Is it bad roleplaying for the player of a low INT character to make smart tactical decisions in combat? Should they deliberately stumble into getting flanked and occasionally forget to use their extra abilities?

I was referring to this exact same thing upthread. I've never experienced anybody saying this at the table, and wouldn't game with anybody who did.