D&D General GMing and "Player Skill"

[Bae'zel]

I encourage the players to be clever, outwitting the challenges that I present to them, sometimes anti-climactically.

eg, totally neutralize or defeat an encounter with little effort at all.

However I roll out in the open, and don’t really focus much on “balancing” everything to their level. If their clever ploy has dangerous consequences, I warn them, and if they follow through anyway, and fail, that’s on them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless the rules call for certain rolls at certain times based on the actions the player chose. That is why in some ways, more prescribed systems like 3.x are better. Knowing the process can increase player agency.

Well, it can at least increase the players’ confidence in knowing what their character is capable of. And, certainly it’s difficult to express agency if you lack any confidence in such knowledge. On the other hand, strictly defined parameters of what your character can do tends to create implications of what they can’t do, which is limiting on agency. So, IMO the best way to insure maximum player agency is to support player confidence in knowledge of their capabilities within a minimally-prescribed system. This is, in my experience, best achieved by giving the player ample information relevant to their decision making process.

 

[overgeeked]

The DM decides if a roll is needed/possible, and if so, what the parameters of the roll (difficulty, consequences for failure, etc) are. But, once a roll is determined to be called for, and the parameters laid out, the DM abides by the results of the roll according to those parameters. If the results they got don’t make sense, that’s on the DM for setting the parameters in a way that allowed for those results.

Exactly. The referee makes a long string of decisions to determine basically everything except what the player decides their PC does. And if the referee decides a roll is proper, they also decide all the variables and factors involved in that roll. But yes, once the dice fly...it's up to the dice.

Given all the decisions the referee is expected to make for even a single roll, the notion of "I don't like the referee deciding things" is simply nonsensical in the context of RPGs.

I can see an argument for both dice and roleplaying being important, especially in social situations, but at no point should the dice be the only factor. If you RP kicking a guard in the nuts it doesn't matter than your persuasion bonus is a +49 and you rolled a natural 20. You're getting tossed in the jail.

I really do like the 2014 DMG section on social interactions with the advice to also include third-person roleplaying rather than only first-person roleplaying. To me it solves the awkward player running a social character. I don't need the players to be thespians, but I do need the players to do more actual role-playing than shouting "I persuade, nat 20!"

I'm 100% fine with a player saying, "Bobert the Bard will try to bribe the guard and jingle a sack of coins."

But then that leads straight back to the other thread about intent/goal and approach...

 

[Charlaquin]

No. The social equivalent is the murderhobo convincing the king to give up his kingdom.

My comment was specific to social challenges. I was pointing out (admittedly in a glib way) that talking about swimming in lava was a non-sequitur.

 

[zarionofarabel]

What's the alternative to the referee deciding things? Randomly roll for everything?

In essence, yes. While this is an extreme example, it could be done.

Roll to see if the guard can be negotiated with at all. Roll to see what kinds of negotiating tactics the guard is open to. Roll to see what kinds of negotiating tactics the guard is closed to. Roll to see if the PC uses a tactic the guard is open to. Roll to see if the PC uses a tactic the guard is closed to. Roll to see how convincing the PC is.

That would be one way to do it.

And if that's the preference, then someone...most likely the referee...will need to make decisions to determine the likelihood of all those factors. Or create random tables to roll on for each and every one of those possible outcomes. Again, not removing the referee from making decisions. Or the game itself is several thousand pages long with rules and charts to cover literally everything that's possible.

At some point in that process, the referee has to decide some things. If not you could program that all into a computer and press a button to get the result. The referee exists in RPGs to make some of those decisions. If for no other reason than to speed up play.

True, but also potentially doable if wanted.

I'm just not a fan of "player skill" determining social challenges when "system skill" is used to decide everything else. I don't rely on a player's swordfighting ability to determine their PC's swordfighting ability. Seems disingenuous to rely on "player skill" rather than "system skill" to decide social ability. I like it when a shy not-to-good-at-talking player can portray an eloquent charismatic PC. Which can easily be achieved by relying on Math Rock to decide social conflict the way it decides physical conflict.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm just not a fan of "player skill" determining social challenges when "system skill" is used to decide everything else. I don't rely on a player's swordfighting ability to determine their PC's swordfighting ability. Seems disingenuous to rely on "player skill" rather than "system skill" to decide social ability. I like it when a shy not-to-good-at-talking player can portray an eloquent charismatic PC. Which can easily be achieved by relying on Math Rock to decide social conflict the way it decides physical conflict.

Ah. But that's the thing. In games where player skill is important, it's not relegated to only social interactions, it's the dominant resolution mechanic. It's how almost everything is decided.

In OSR circles you hear people talk about how combat is a fail state. It's a fail state because the players couldn't come up with a smart or clever way around the combat. They failed their attempt at using player skill, or didn't bother, so were forced to use the mechanics to resolve things instead.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly. The referee makes a long string of decisions to determine basically everything except what the player decides their PC does. And if the referee decides a roll is proper, they also decide all the variables and factors involved in that roll. But yes, once the dice fly...it's up to the dice.

Given all the decisions the referee is expected to make for even a single roll, the notion of "I don't like the referee deciding things" is simply nonsensical in the context of RPGs.

I can see an argument for both dice and roleplaying being important, especially in social situations, but at no point should the dice be the only factor. If you RP kicking a guard in the nuts it doesn't matter than your persuasion bonus is a +49 and you rolled a natural 20. You're getting tossed in the jail.

I really do like the 2014 DMG section on social interactions with the advice to also include third-person roleplaying rather than only first-person roleplaying. To me it solves the awkward player running a social character. I don't need the players to be thespians, but I do need the players to do more actual role-playing than shouting "I persuade, nat 20!"

I'm 100% fine with a player saying, "Bobert the Bard will try to bribe the guard and jingle a sack of coins."

But then that leads straight back to the other thread about intent/goal and approach...

Yeah, I mean, I would question what the player is trying to achieve by kicking the guard in the nuts. There are certain goals to which I can imagine that approach having a chance of success and chance of failure. For example, maybe they want to kill the guard, but want plausible deniability that it wasn’t just straight-up murder, so they kick him in the nuts to try to goad him into attacking them first. Just as an off-the-dome example. On the other hand, if they’re trying to convince him to let them get away with some minor offense… yeah, kicking him in the nuts would not have any chance of succeeding in that goal.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, it can at least increase the players’ confidence in knowing what their character is capable of. And, certainly it’s difficult to express agency if you lack any confidence in such knowledge. On the other hand, strictly defined parameters of what your character can do tends to create implications of what they can’t do, which is limiting on agency. So, IMO the best way to insure maximum player agency is to support player confidence in knowledge of their capabilities within a minimally-prescribed system. This is, in my experience, best achieved by giving the player ample information relevant to their decision making process.

Exactly. A good base of solid, if minimal, mechanics as the starting point and cover the rest with the conversation and player skill.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm just not a fan of "player skill" determining social challenges when "system skill" is used to decide everything else. I don't rely on a player's swordfighting ability to determine their PC's swordfighting ability. Seems disingenuous to rely on "player skill" rather than "system skill" to decide social ability. I like it when a shy not-to-good-at-talking player can portray an eloquent charismatic PC. Which can easily be achieved by relying on Math Rock to decide social conflict the way it decides physical conflict.

I mean, combat tactics is a player skill. So, I would say while player skill is not really relevant to deciding how good they hit with a sword, it is relevant to their chances of winning in a combat challenge. Again, players decide, characters act. The player chooses where to move, who to attack. The character moves there and makes the attack. Both player skill and avatar strength are relevant to the combat challenge. As should they be in a social challenge, and an exploration challenge.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Ah. But that's the thing. In games where player skill is important, it's not only relegated to social interactions, it's the dominant resolution mechanic. It's how almost everything is decided.

In OSR circles you hear people talk about how combat is a fail state. It's a fail state because the players couldn't come up with a smart or clever way around the combat. They failed their attempt at using player skill, or didn't bother, so were forced to use the mechanics to resolve things instead.

Avoiding the combat would be avoiding the check in the first place, it would be avoiding the social interaction. The outcome of the combat or social interaction shouldn't be decided by GM fiat, IMHO. Would "player skill" folks be okay with the outcome of a combat encounter being decided soley by GM fiat.

Player: "I attack the guard!"
GM: "The guard is quite skilled, your PC gets skewered by the guard, make a new PC."

Is the same as...

Player: "I try to convince the guard by saying [whatever].
GM: "The guard ain't bying it, you shall not pass!"