Player skill vs character skill?

[Lanefan]

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?

They have to tell me they're hunting and pecking, and sometimes give some specifics as to how they're going about it, an then the dice tell us how they do.

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 socially-awkward player who wants to play a social character is IMO intentionally digging their own hole and has to live with the result. 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.

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?

I'm often impressed at just how good my players' tactical knowledge and ideas really are. No worries on that aspect.

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?

Here I put it down to the effects of working under high and perhaps life-threatening stress and-or time pressure. Sub-optimal decisions can easily result from such conditions, even from the smartest of people.

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.

Well, ideally they're making decisions as if they are their characters. I go to some lengths to try to ensure character knowledge and player knowledge are the same (or as close as can be practically achieved), and after that IMO the true skill of a good player is the ability to separate self from character and think as the character would think, without metagaming.

The dice come in when something's uncertain (e.g. will this action succeed, does the character remember some snippet of info right now, etc.) or needs to be abstracted (combat, usually).

 

[Lanefan]

I'm glad you highlighted that, because there are multiple meanings of "players skill" and sometimes people debating it are using different definitions.

FWIW, usually when I refer to player skill I don't mean their ability to sway the GM with their eloquent first person acting, or their own experience learning how to pick locks from YouTube videos. I mean their ability to think up novel solutions to challenges, without looking at their character sheet.

"Let's grab rocks from the caved-in entrance and throw them down the trapped hallway to use as stepping stones to get past the pressure traps!"

"Let's put a sleeping potion into a bottle of wine and then Bernice can dress up like an altar boy and offer it to the priest!"

"I don't know if I believe that sign that says Pull Lever to Open Treasure Room. It's written in kobold."

For me, these examples are just "skill" combining player and character together: the player is thinking as the character would. Great stuff!

 

[Lanefan]

Do you require a roll if the wrong part of the room is being searched? What happens on a really high roll?

"Confidence is high that there's nothing here".

In general I find asking the players to roll to see if they discover secrets is problematic, because merely asking them to roll conveys information. (Which could, I suppose, make it a meta-tell.)

First off, for things like searches I-as-DM do the rolling, in large part to avoid that meta-tell you mention. If they don't find something, in character they can't tell the difference between a) looking in the wrong place and b) looking in the right place and blowing it; thus that should also be the info-state for the players.

And if they say they're searching, I'll go through the motions of rolling even if I already know there's nothing to find there.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. If the players declare an action that may have a negative consequence, I tell them what the deal is. They can change their mind if they don't like the deal. (The deal may or may not include success at the task itself.)

EDIT: Re-reading what you wrote, the phrase "how their action affects the narrative" strikes me as off. Or, at least, their action doesn't "affect the narrative" any more or less than more traditional adjudications. It's not "I'm going to attempt pick the lock...and let me know if I do it quietly." It's "I'm going to attempt to pick the lock quietly." Failure means you fail to accomplish that objective.

To me the bolded is two different objectives concatenated into one:

--- pick the lock
--- be quiet about it

And thus there should be two rolls, with four possible aggregate outcomes (or one roll on a sliding scale, perhaps):

--- lock is picked quietly
--- lock is picked noisily
--- lock is not picked but it's quiet
--- lock is not picked and it's noisy

Smart players will try to concatenate multiple objectives into one like this and it's on the DM to separate them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To me the bolded is two different objectives concatenated into one:

--- pick the lock
--- be quiet about it

And thus there should be two rolls, with four possible aggregate outcomes (or one roll on a sliding scale, perhaps):

--- lock is picked quietly
--- lock is picked noisily
--- lock is not picked but it's quiet
--- lock is not picked and it's noisy

Smart players will try to concatenate multiple objectives into one like this and it's on the DM to separate them.

I understand that. But I assume the expert lockpicker is…an expert lockpicker. They will eventually open most locks. So why roll?

But if there are additional complications/requirements (time limit, trying to do it quietly, trying to not leave any telltale scratches, trying to not trigger a known trap, magical lock…) then it becomes a test of that expertise.

It’s pretty easy to learn how to pick 99% of modern locks. But professional thieves in a fantasy world have a much lower chance to pick crude, blacksmith-forged locks? I don’t think so.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I see the exact opposite with new players, who merrily propose all kinds of plans. It's only experienced players (primarily those who have played a lot of D&D 5e) who stare at their character sheets looking for solutions to problems.

That seems to be the exception, brand new players. I'm not sure what happens or when, but at some point players lose the "interact naturally with the fiction" and begin to self restrict based on what is written on the character sheet. I do see it to a greater degree with folks that come from D&D 5e only groups (I don't use D&D or derivatives). I think it might have something to do with how rigid D&D classes are with what it is implied that they can do. Only the Bard does the talking, only the Rogue does the sneaking, Fighters can't do anything but fight, etc. Like I said it seems like an odd thing to me, but it does seem to become the default. Which is part of the reason why I like systems with robust skill lists. It's a lot of fun seeing the look on a players face when they are new to my table, usually having come from a D&D table, and watching them explore the skill list. It's like they are realizing that all these skills means they can do so many things they would never be allowed to do at their old table.

 

[Lanefan]

I understand that. But I assume the expert lockpicker is…an expert lockpicker. They will eventually open most locks. So why roll?

You answered your own question with the bolded words.

It doesn't matter that the expert lockpicker will eventually open most locks. The only thing that matters is whether said lockpicker can open this lock, right now, and that's what the roll is for.

But if there are additional complications/requirements (time limit, trying to do it quietly, trying to not leave any telltale scratches, trying to not trigger a known trap, magical lock…) then it becomes a test of that expertise.

All those other riders are separate issues requiring IMO separate resolution.

It’s pretty easy to learn how to pick 99% of modern locks. But professional thieves in a fantasy world have a much lower chance to pick crude, blacksmith-forged locks? I don’t think so.

If picking modern locks is that easy why do we bother using them?

 

[soviet]

I think that the player skill vs character skill conflict is really a false one. What I'm interested in is 'does this add to the game?'.

If one player gives a great acting performance and is able to get social successes without necessarily resorting to the dice, or by getting a decent bonus to the dice for their efforts... great! That player added to the game.

Is there a point where it's bad roleplaying for your CHA 6 war criminal goblin necromancer to expect to sweet talk the elven king? Sure. Part of giving a good performance is making sure it is consistent with the situation and how your character willl be perceived. But for most PCs in most situations the player's efforts should have real weight. We will still roll on many occasions so your actual stats will still matter, but a good bit of acting will go a long way.

Does this penalise players with poor social skills? Not really, they don't have to actually convince me, they just have to give a bit of a performance and put some effort in. Create an evocative scene. If their PC has a higher charisma than the player we can assume that (roll dependent) the PC is able to deliver the same approach with a lot more effectiveness.

Does this penalise players with poor social skills and a lack of imagination (or a lack of confidence to express that imagination)? Yes it does. If they aren't adding anything to my game beyond 'I roll to persuade' then they are not welcome at my table. I'm not going to water down my experience to accommodate them.

 

[SableWyvern]

Expecting a 1st time player to know about D&D tropes on traps, seducing the barmaid, etc is probably going to create an ex-D&D player frustrated by the group's expectations. It is almost a certainty that the first time player's character is far more experienced at <D&D activity> then the player.

That hasn't been my experience at all. Both my adult players and my pre-teen nieces and nephews have learned through doing, through consistent action and consequence.

There was a moment when I was running my first AD&D game with an OSR philosophy, and I was genuinely impressed as the group spotted a threat and suddenly everyone was just automatically manoeuvring into smart defensive positions as a cohesive unit. This contrasted dramatically with the thoughtless and headlong approach they'd often employed earlier in the campaign.

If a new player joins a more experienced group, then I wouldn't expect everyone else to just let them fail so they can point and laugh. The more experienced players should be helping the new player to learn and understand. The only reason the new player would be frustrated with the expectations is if they just don't want to play that style of game in the first place -- in which case the issue isn't that they're new, it's that they don't want to play that style of game.