Player skill vs character skill?

[MichaelSomething]

If you really want to challenge the players, make a situation where they have to talk about their feelings!

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you really want to challenge the players, make a situation where they have to talk about their feelings!

Well in THAT case I'm gonna just roll a skill. Any skill.

 

[bloodtide]

If you really want to challenge the players, make a situation where they have to talk about their feelings!

Or have them cooperate with each other like a cohesive team.

Or solve a big problem without a combat answer.

Or even just role play (the acting kind).

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?

It is not the default.

An average or less INT character can make smart tactical decisions. You don't need to be "smart" to do "smart things". And most people have areas where they are smart, without being over all smart.

After all you can role play any character...despite what many players will say. So a smart tactical minded character can have a flaw where they "don't think" or "don't care" or are arrogant or many other such things. You can even have them 'hide' their ability.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I saw it in the games of Honey Heist and Kids on Bikes I played in. Non D&D, Non-OSR, but low mechanics games. The player skill was more improv and riffing on character concept and class archetype themes and making those work in the situation and the DM going with it or throwing in twists.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

I developed this style of play because I grew up running Rolemaster, where any given roll has a chance of disaster. This naturally guided me towards running those games in a way in which rolls weren't called for excessively, despite the fact it is a skill-based system. As far back as the mid-90s, I could run 12 hour sessions where, if there was no combat, there might sometimes only be a handful of skill rolls. The mechanics were there when required, but we weren't compelled to constantly use them just because they were available.

I have heard people make similar statements about how they ran earlier editions of WFRP, where starting characters had very low chances of success. Again, these were games where the mechanic revolves around skills and ability checks, yet many people advocate not calling for rolls in many situations.

While it might be the OSR that is loudest at promoting this style of play these days, it's definitely not something that originated with the OSR and it absolutely can be applicable to "skills-rich or ability-roll focused games".

 

[zakael19]

While it might be the OSR that is loudest at promoting this style of play these days, it's definitely not something that originated with the OSR and it absolutely can be applicable to "kills-rich or ability-roll focused games".

Sure, so it’s cool I didn’t say that! I just said that the wing of play which spends a lot of time and focus on the idea both in its community & actual rule-books generally in drawing a distinction for the newer player who may not be familiar is mainly the OSR+ in my experience.

What you did decades ago has little to do with the 22 year old player in the HMTW discord stumbling across places where these ideas are lauded and built upon in core books.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sure, so it’s cool I didn’t say that! I just said that the wing of play which spends a lot of time and focus on the idea both in its community & actual rule-books generally in drawing a distinction for the newer player who may not be familiar is mainly the OSR+ in my experience.

What you did decades ago has little to do with the 22 year old player in the HMTW discord stumbling across places where these ideas are lauded and built upon in core books.

I'm just pointing out that I've seen advocates for and participated personally in this playstyle outside of the OSR (including much more recently than 22 years ago on both counts), and now you have have seen it show up outside the OSR as well.

Also, you very much did say it's not applicable to "skills-rich or ability-roll focused games." Here, I will quote if for you again:

I don't think it's terribly applicable to skills-rich or ability-roll focused games,

 

[Bill Zebub]

I developed this style of play because I grew up running Rolemaster, where any given roll has a chance of disaster. This naturally guided me towards running those games in a way in which rolls weren't called for excessively, despite the fact it is a skill-based system.

I'm a believer that dice should not be rolled unless there is a consequence for failure. (5e even explicitly says this, although everybody ignores it.). And while those consequences aren't necessarily a disaster, they should at least be undesireable.

And, no, failing to find a secret door, or not recalling a bit of lore, or having that door continue to be locked, are not consequences of failure because those conditions existed before they rolled.

When players get used to the idea that dice rolling is risky, they tend to rely less on "using" a character skill, and they tend to use, well, player skill. Asking questions, trying things that don't require rolls, etc.

Which, among all the possible playstyles, is what I'm trying encourage at my table, and is also the kind of table at which I want to play.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm a believer that dice should not be rolled unless there is a consequence for failure. (5e even explicitly says this, although everybody ignores it.). And while those consequences aren't necessarily a disaster, they should at least be undesireable.

And, no, failing to find a secret door, or not recalling a bit of lore, or having that door continue to be locked, are not consequences of failure because those conditions existed before they rolled.

When players get used to the idea that dice rolling is risky, they tend to rely less on "using" a character skill, and they tend to use, well, player skill. Asking questions, trying things that don't require rolls, etc.

Which, among all the possible playstyles, is what I'm trying encourage at my table, and is also the kind of table at which I want to play.

Whereas I'm typically fine with status quo as a possible outcome. Sometimes, "no, you're not able to pick this lock at this time, try something else or find a way to change the situation in your favour" is an outcome that makes sense in the context of the fictional world, and I don't have a need for it to be spiced up with further consequences -- in fact, I actively don't want more interesting outcomes forced on me.

For me, the purpose of a roll is usually to determine what happens when the outcome is in doubt. No more, no less. It's not to drive play or guarantee interesting complications or anything like that. Interesting complications are fine, and I want them to be possible, but I don't want them to be mandatory.

The other way to look at it is that learning that, no, you can't get through that door that way, is a consequence. Now you need to find another way forward, or maybe even go sideways or backwards. The silent, stealthy method at this door is out. Do we chop through? Try kicking it down? Remove the hinges? Check around the back?

Of course, if I'm playing Blades in the Dark, that all goes out the window, and I'm buying into the whole success with a complication and all that other jazz, but for my more typical games, no thanks.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I'm a believer that dice should not be rolled unless there is a consequence for failure.

I started watching AP videos for the first time a little while ago and have now seen a fair number from a whole bunch of different creators. Not rolling unless there is an interesting consequence for failure seems to be the hardest skill a GM has to learn. The number of times I've watched GMs call for rolls, then have the roll fail, then scramble to try to cover for what they obviously thought was going to be a successful roll is painful. It's hard to quantify how much I now dislike the "fail forward" concept as I now feel that the prevalence of advice on why to use it is mostly so GMs who call for rolls far too often can use "fail forward" to cover for their poor judgement. I have watched a lot of GMs run what I can only describe as consequence free games because PCs either succeed, or "fail forward" which is just them succeeding through luck rather than skill.

Same with the "absolutely no consequence" rolls. The ones where it's pretty obvious the GM was calling for a roll just so the players could throw dice, as I can easily tell that no matter the outcome of the roll the result would be the same. It's really disheartening to see that for many groups the idea of the PCs suffering any kind of real setback is anathema. Maybe I need to hunt down more old school style AP, or just accept that fact that the games I run where PCs can have bad things happen, fail to achieve objectives, or (oh my gosh, what a concept) die, is by far not the norm anymore. Games nowadays are about coddling players and hand holding and participation trophies. Oh well.