Player skill vs character skill?

[overgeeked]

Tangent from another thread.

A reoccurring theme of trap discussions (and many others, if we're being honest), is where to draw the line between player skill vs character skill.

So that's what this thread is about. Where are your lines on player skill vs character skill?

Everyone's different, of course. And there are multiple different places the question can come up.

Some common ones are traps and social interaction.

Some uncommon ones I think would be interesting to talk about are combat and resource management.

The player who's not actually in the dungeon that has to rely on the referee for their senses. Should they have to hunt and peck every possible location for a trap or secret door, just roll for it, or a mix of both?

The socially awkward player who wants to play a social character. Should they have to RP in first-person dialog to convince someone of something, just roll for it, or a mix of both?

A common refrain against relying too much on player skill is the question of making players swing swords vs having them roll dice. Despite being a dumb argument, it does point to something useful.

We use character skills for the gaps between the players and their characters.

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?

The easy answer is it's about the players making decisions.

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 why are some gaps considered best left to the dice but others are strictly for the players?

Leaning too far to character skill leaves nothing for the player to do but build a character and roll dice. Leaning too far into player skill leaves nothing for the system to do but provide a possible back stop. Almost like break glass in case of emergency.

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

 

[Bill Zebub]

Big topic, but first thing I'll offer is that player skill in social interactions doesn't have to require acting skills or being eloquent. You can still describe what you are trying to achieve, and how. "I'll stop at a bakery for a fresh pie and offer it to the guard if he gives us five minutes to talk to the prisoner."

 

[thullgrim]

The idea that I as a player have to figure out the trap when my avatar in the world knows more about traps than I ever will has always perplexed me.

The same is true for social situations or combat or anything else. We ask for actions in combat and a similar approach works for actions outside of combat as well.

For social situations I typically ask the player for the approach his character is taking: aggressive, suggestive, seductive, bribery, diplomatic entity, and so on. Once we have an approach we can adjudicate outcomes. Asking a player to debate, argue, or try to convince me, the GM of their position or desired outcome can be disingenuous. Have an approach, roll the math rocks, and let the immutable power of the dice decide.

Essentially I can’t roleplay and 18 intelligence or an 18 charisma or dexterity or whatever. The player interacts with the world through their character who has skills, knowledge, and powers the player can only dream of. Why take that away from them by making the player be the one challenged?

Now you can run your table however you want. I’m not judging the player skill guys. I can see the appeal, it just does not resonate with me or my play group.

 

[Bill Zebub]

re: Combat vs Non-Combat

I often see the argument, "We don't require players to know how to swing swords, so why should we ask them to know how to pick locks?"

Well, we also don't try to resolve combat with a single roll. "Give me a DC 18 Combat check. If you win the dragon dies, if you fail you die."

Rather, combat involves a bunch of decision-making on each player's (and the monster's) turns. Where should I move? Who should I attack? What is the best use of my turn? Should I trade some defense for offense, or vice versa? Should I expend this limited resource now, or save it? Which spell will be most effective in this situation? And while the dice-rolling adds some unpredictability to the whole endeavor, player knowledge about the relative probability of those actions also contributes. "That monster has really high armor class, so Advantage would not be as beneficial as straight up +hit..."

So the reality is that even though we don't expect roleplayers to know anything about actual sword fighting, RPG combat depends on a lot of player skill...skill at the game itself...to make the right decisions.

In other words, "player skill" doesn't have to mean actual knowledge about the subject being roleplayed. It means "skilled at making decisions within the rules of the game."

The problem is that, outside of combat, most game systems don't have sophisticated rules that allow a player to develop "skill". So we tend to resort to either:

1. Use game rules by making a die roll based on a character skill
2. Let the GM decide based on what the players propose.

Some people lean toward #1, others lean toward #2.


P.S. Although I have heard (on the internet, not IRL), "Your 1st level character wouldn't know about trolls and fire" or "Your barbarian wouldn't know how to solve that puzzle", I have never heard of somebody making a smart move in combat based on the game rules and the GM saying, "Your character wouldn't think of that." YMMV, but if that actually happened to me I would never play with that GM again.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The idea that I as a player have to figure out the trap when my avatar in the world knows more about traps than I ever will has always perplexed me.

The same is true for social situations or combat or anything else. We ask for actions in combat and a similar approach works for actions outside of combat as well.

For social situations I typically ask the player for the approach his character is taking: aggressive, suggestive, seductive, bribery, diplomatic entity, and so on. Once we have an approach we can adjudicate outcomes. Asking a player to debate, argue, or try to convince me, the GM of their position or desired outcome can be disingenuous. Have an approach, roll the math rocks, and let the immutable power of the dice decide.

Essentially I can’t roleplay and 18 intelligence or an 18 charisma or dexterity or whatever. The player interacts with the world through their character who has skills, knowledge, and powers the player can only dream of. Why take that away from them by making the player be the one challenged?

Now you can run your table however you want. I’m not judging the player skill guys. I can see the appeal, it just does not resonate with me or my play group.

FWIW, I think you are describing player skill. The player suggests an approach, and you then decide how to adjudicate outcomes. In other words, if the player proposes something that you, the GM, think is likely to succeed, you give it better odds than if they proposed something that you thought was improbable. Right? In my mind, that's player skill. Character skill just tweaks the probabilities. I might be more likely than you to just grant auto-success if I think it's a good plan, but that's just a matter of degree.

 

[thullgrim]

FWIW, I think you are describing player skill. The player suggests an approach, and you then decide how to adjudicate outcomes. In other words, if the player proposes something that you, the GM, think is likely to succeed, you give it better odds than if they proposed something that you thought was improbable. Right? In my mind, that's player skill. Character skill just tweaks the probabilities. I might be more likely than you to just grant auto-success if I think it's a good plan, but that's just a matter of degree.

Correct. A good approach weighs the outcome in their favor. I am not opposed to auto-success either. There are times when the right approach will always succeed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Tangent from another thread.

A reoccurring theme of trap discussions (and many others, if we're being honest), is where to draw the line between player skill vs character skill.

So that's what this thread is about. Where are your lines on player skill vs character skill?

Everyone's different, of course. And there are multiple different places the question can come up.

Some common ones are traps and social interaction.

Some uncommon ones I think would be interesting to talk about are combat and resource management.

The player who's not actually in the dungeon that has to rely on the referee for their senses. Should they have to hunt and peck every possible location for a trap or secret door, just roll for it, or a mix of both?

The socially awkward player who wants to play a social character. Should they have to RP in first-person dialog to convince someone of something, just roll for it, or a mix of both?

A common refrain against relying too much on player skill is the question of making players swing swords vs having them roll dice. Despite being a dumb argument, it does point to something useful.

We use character skills for the gaps between the players and their characters.

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?

The easy answer is it's about the players making decisions.

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 why are some gaps considered best left to the dice but others are strictly for the players?

Leaning too far to character skill leaves nothing for the player to do but build a character and roll dice. Leaning too far into player skill leaves nothing for the system to do but provide a possible back stop. Almost like break glass in case of emergency.

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

My take is that the player decides what they want done, but the character has to carry it out to the best of their in-setting ability. So the socially awkward player can tell the GM they want their PC to take an action requiring high social acuity, and if the PC has good social skills it'll probably work. On the other hand, the player with high social skills has to filter their actions through their PC too and, if they dumped charisma, well...

And you can apply this to any situation in game where player and character skill may be at odds (which is often).