Player skill vs character skill?

[zarionofarabel]

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."

Burning Wheel and Burning Empires have "one roll combat" as an optional way to resolve combat, especially if the combat is of little real consequence. So, while it might not be the norm, and something you've never done, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Honestly I love it as an option as it allows me to have small fights sometimes that don't need much more than a quick explanation of the situation, a roll, and a description of the outcome. Stops the game from completely bogging down cause the loud mouth Dwarf got in to yet another bar brawl.

As for the OP question...

I specifically differentiate between player skill and character skill. More to the point, I feature absolutely no player skill in the context of how it affects the adjudicating of rolls. Modifiers are determined by the details of the situation. So in combat it's the environment, in a social situation it's the attitude of the NPC. The actions of the PCs determines when a roll is called for and the skill that is rolled, but how a player describes what they are doing has zero effect on the roll. Johnny can go on a ten minute in character voice acting speel to convince the town guard that his PC is not the thief, or Johnny can literally say the words "my character tries to convince the town guard he is not the thief" and the roll will be exactly the same. It's the only way I can ensure that there is no favoritism shown towards one player over others. The system determines the success and failure of rolled actions, not a player's description of what their PC does. I've found doing things this way really allows shy, neurodivergent, and not super imaginative players, enjoy the game just as much as the charismatic imaginative players. I want everyone to enjoy the game. I loathe "good role-playing" rewards and NEVER use them.

I also find that systems with robust skill lists really help players to latch on to a character concept and help them come up with ideas for different ways to deal with problems. I don't know how many times I've had a player say "wait a sec I have [insert skill name] I will try to do X", where X is an action related specifically to said skill. I think having a nice long list of diverse skills is basically an idea board for players. I find games with few skills often leave players short on ideas and often leads to frustration as they seem to self limit on what they think a PC is capable of doing. I'm not sure why as I don't have that issue as a player, so your guess is as good as mine. Cheers!

 

[Koloth]

I guess I would want to know what you mean by "Hulk Smash" character. If it's a superhero game where you can literally throw garbage trucks around and you weigh a metric f**kton, then....I guess so? I haven't actually played any of those RPGs so I don't know how they work.

But if you mean, in a D&D (or derivative) game, a character with 18 Strength, then I don't think that's a good ruling. 18 Strength means you get a 20% bonus to Strength-based rolls, compared to the average. Not 2000%, or 200%....20%. So why can't that character delicately sneak across a fragile bridge?

As I said upthread, if the player wants to roleplay this, "Ja, zare iz no vay I am crossing leetle girly-man bridge. My massive awesomeness vould crush ze poor bridge," then that's fine. But the player should not be overly mechanically penalized if they decide to cross anyway.

Hulk Smash in this case = the typical old school 1/2 orc barbarian with massive muscles that as described by the player would make Dwayne (the Rock) Johnson seem rather petite. If the player insists on Hulk (weight 400 lbs), trying to cross a bridge with a max weight limit of 70lbs, doesn't matter how well the character describes the activity or does on the die roll, Hulk will break the bridge.

Such a bridge is why the party has a halfling type character who weighs 50 lbs, is small and good at dealing with this type of problem.

Now if the Hulk player states that Hulk will try jumping across the chasm, that's a different matter. "How far can a Hulk jump...?"

If every character is almost as good as every other character at everything because the player describes it that way, a lot of money has been wasted on all those class, feat, skill, background, etc type books. "Hulk try casting fireball...."

 

[loverdrive]

I think player skill at navigating fiction (like, say, doing things that sensibly can help to find a trap) runs into a fundamental issue: only one party can ever be punished for making a mistake.

A player makes a mistake and misjudges a situation => player gets screwed
GM makes a mistake and misrepresents a situation => player gets screwed

 

[soviet]

I'm always puzzled with these threads because there isn't one answer. It's like asking 'how much bacon do you like on all meals forever'. Different games should be different.

 

[soviet]

I think player skill at navigating fiction (like, say, doing things that sensibly can help to find a trap) runs into a fundamental issue: only one party can ever be punished for making a mistake.

A player makes a mistake and misjudges a situation => player gets screwed
GM makes a mistake and misrepresents a situation => player gets screwed

GM makes a mistake and puts a plot-essential NPC in a position that allows a PC to kill them => GM gets screwed

Happened in our game this week.

 

[plecostomus]

There's an interesting case of this that exists entirely in D&D mechanics- caster players not casting the best type of spell (attack rolls vs. saves) against high AC enemies.

I'm not sure how you would describe this spell differentiation in-character. The character's knowledge is probably more along the lines of knowing particular spells are good for particular situations, i.e., "Your character knows certain cantrips like Toll the Dead can evade a foe's heavy armor, making the fight easier than if you tried to bust through the armor with your mace."

edit: There's actually 2 steps for the player here- figuring out the enemy has high AC, then adjusting spell choice as needed. But the first step should be foreshadowed in some way by the enemy's appearance or presentation...

 

[Bill Zebub]

Hulk Smash in this case = the typical old school 1/2 orc barbarian with massive muscles that as described by the player would make Dwayne (the Rock) Johnson seem rather petite. If the player insists on Hulk (weight 400 lbs), trying to cross a bridge with a max weight limit of 70lbs, doesn't matter how well the character describes the activity or does on the die roll, Hulk will break the bridge.

Such a bridge is why the party has a halfling type character who weighs 50 lbs, is small and good at dealing with this type of problem.

Now if the Hulk player states that Hulk will try jumping across the chasm, that's a different matter. "How far can a Hulk jump...?"

If every character is almost as good as every other character at everything because the player describes it that way, a lot of money has been wasted on all those class, feat, skill, background, etc type books. "Hulk try casting fireball...."

If the GM has defined the bridge as breaking at 70 lbs, then sure. But...it will probably also break for everybody but the halfling.

Where did you get the 400 lb value? I'm not aware of a specific game system where half-orcs weigh 400 pounds. (In AD&D they were basically the same as humans) or one where there's a formula where your attribute scores modify a base weight. Did the player choose to be 400 pounds? If so, and then the player also wants to be able to tip-toe across the rickety bridge, what you have is a player problem, not a game design problem.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The other side of that coin is the eloquent player who used CHA as their PC’s dump stat. Do you let them charm and beguile NPCs or do you limit their character to their character’s stats?

(Assuming D&D): If the character has a 6 Cha, then they get a -2 penalty for social interactions. That's it. Let them play an eloquent, silver-tongued rogue if they want to...it's just not very effective.

Then there’s the question of the smart player with the dumb character. “Your character wouldn’t think of that” is an obvious problem.

"Your character isn't smart enough to think of that" is an absolute no-fly in any game I participate in, whatever side of the table. Again, totally fine with a player deciding to roleplay that way, e.g. not suggesting ideas because they think their character isn't smart enough to come up with it (or actively suggesting bad ideas...I've done that myself). But enforcing it on somebody else? Never.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I specifically differentiate between player skill and character skill. More to the point, I feature absolutely no player skill in the context of how it affects the adjudicating of rolls. Modifiers are determined by the details of the situation. So in combat it's the environment, in a social situation it's the attitude of the NPC. The actions of the PCs determines when a roll is called for and the skill that is rolled, but how a player describes what they are doing has zero effect on the roll. Johnny can go on a ten minute in character voice acting speel to convince the town guard that his PC is not the thief, or Johnny can literally say the words "my character tries to convince the town guard he is not the thief" and the roll will be exactly the same. It's the only way I can ensure that there is no favoritism shown towards one player over others. The system determines the success and failure of rolled actions, not a player's description of what their PC does. I've found doing things this way really allows shy, neurodivergent, and not super imaginative players, enjoy the game just as much as the charismatic imaginative players. I want everyone to enjoy the game. I loathe "good role-playing" rewards and NEVER use them.

I think this illustrates yet another distinction witin the term "player skill" that clouds the debate because different people mean different things.

In the above you seem to be defining player skill in terms of presentation. And I 100% agree with you that it should have no bearing on the outcome. It's the method/plan/approach itself that matters, not how well it is roleplayed. This mostly comes up in discussions about Charisma.

Then there's "player skill" in terms of decisions: players choosing courses of action, or suggesting ideas to the group, that a low Intelligence character "wouldn't think of". In general I think that enforcing certain kinds of roleplaying on other players is dumb, but this one is just about the stupidest one there is. Not only would I not come back to a table that imposed this, but I would probably just get up and leave.

There are other definitions, such as "player knowledge", e.g. trolls/fire, but that hasn't really come up in this thread.

I also find that systems with robust skill lists really help players to latch on to a character concept and help them come up with ideas for different ways to deal with problems. I don't know how many times I've had a player say "wait a sec I have [insert skill name] I will try to do X", where X is an action related specifically to said skill. I think having a nice long list of diverse skills is basically an idea board for players. I find games with few skills often leave players short on ideas and often leads to frustration as they seem to self limit on what they think a PC is capable of doing. I'm not sure why as I don't have that issue as a player, so your guess is as good as mine. Cheers!

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.