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).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have a lot of thought on this. In general, I am very much of the opinion that the character should carry much of the weight over the player. Unless the players and the DM want to play the other game. That game is not illegitimate, but I have seen, charismatic players pull off shenanigans that their less charismatic player fail on despite having the more charismatic character.
The player should be able to play a character that they cannot actually pull off, and the DM and the system should help them achieve their fantasy.

There is a fundamental tension between what a referee can communicate and what the players can pick up. The players can only experience the world as described them and the DM can never really convey all that a person in the player characters situation would actually know. This is not a problem in a novel or other media since author only need to communicate to their audience. They do not have to worry overmuch about the audience missing a piece of the narrative it is not going to change the arc of the story.
On the other hand, if the players misses something essential, that can bring the whole thing to a grinding halt.

Traps, can be really tricky and emblematic of the issues. Are they there as gotcha?, to attrit resources, as puzzles for the players, to allow the rogue show off their cool stuff, to split the party or something to indicate the alien and dangerous nature of the environment? Some or all of the list.
Personally, I do not want my player probing every step with a 10 foot pole, dusting rooms with flour to reveal tripwires and poking at every loose brick and statue. I prefer to believe that the player characters are competent at this dungeon delving stuff and thus have a keen sense of where traps are likely to occur and some innate mechanic to spot and or disable them as needed.

The social situation is similar, if people want to act out in character that is lovely but if some stammers out that they want to say something cool and swive their potential paramour with a charisma check, I am also cool with that. I am pretty poor at the acting thing myself despite being at this for years.

The players are not tactical geniuses, which is why the characters have all those cool combat powers. There is no real singular answer to this, but I think, leverage as much of the character as we can and let the players direct as much as they can and are comfortable with.
Rolling dice on its own is not at that interesting, if it is not interesting people will not play it. The players need to exert some level of direction and creativity, or they may as well be playing a boardgame.
Not sure, there is a single place to draw this line or even that the same people will draw this line in the same place in different contexts.

 

[zakael19]

Most of the time when I see "player skill" highlighted its in terms of "use your knowledge of tropes and conventions and procedures to achieve success" with the idea that this in part stands in for what a skilled adventurer would know operating in a world built on this sort of assumptions. This is often combined with GM side neutral-adjudication, "if it's reasonable it should work without a roll," and intentional adventure design that doesn't prescribe skills-based solutions (the classic WOTC "for this to be possible players must roll a 18 on Investigation").

It's engaging with the game as a game at all times instead of just combat, at the same time you're playing characters as well.

In many ways, I'd say that fiction-first gaming is kind of the most opposite. If your character doesnt do a thing in the fiction to trigger a mechanic, it's not done. You can't just sell the GM on something being possible that the rules have apportioned to a dice-driven outcome - if a situation is charged and you start asking questions, make with the roll.

 

[Tonguez]

Character skill first and allow them to cover awide swarth of possible tasks. For instance I have no real world skill in picking locks but I like to play skilled burglars - I have no idea how different locks function or how jimmying tumblers, or listening for clicks works but I expect that my roll of 20 for a lockpick skill is going to do something. - which the DM will be generous about