Player skill vs character skill?

[Bill Zebub]

I have found myself leaning more towards assuming and rewarding character skill over time, because I have found even when trying to be neutral, there's a lot of dangerous overlap between the idea of 'player skill' and playing in the way the GM personally expects/prefers/thinks is 'skilled'.

Can you give an example scenario of what you mean?

In particular I want to understand if you are referring to the GM's judgment of the presentation of the action...i.e. how glibly/eloquently the player narrates their actions...versus the GM's judgment of the action itself. Those two things seem to get conflated in this thread.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I'm confused by this. The correct answer is "all of the bacon." What point were you making?

 

[Xamnam]

Can you give an example scenario of what you mean?

In particular I want to understand if you are referring to the GM's judgment of the presentation of the action...i.e. how glibly/eloquently the player narrates their actions...versus the GM's judgment of the action itself. Those two things seem to get conflated in this thread.

The latter. To boil it down to as simple an example as possible:

You've got some bandits in a cave/tomb/whatever, in between you and your goal. For one table, diplomacy might be the most valuable possible approach. Talking is always a good option, as long as they can understand you. At a different table, the best results come from laying traps, creating chokepoints, and luring enemies back into them.

Swap the GMs at those tables, changing absolutely nothing about the situation, and you could run into "Sorry, nothing you say could ever convince them." / "Sorry, they're too tactically aware and notice what you're doing." The underlying result at both: Why did you, the player, think that would work?

(I get that it follows from the fiction, and different approaches might fit different situations better as result, but I'm trying to describe broad strokes individual GM tendency here.)

I don't want a player to have to learn how to play me in order to play my games effectively.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The latter. To boil it down to as simple an example as possible:

You've got some bandits in a cave/tomb/whatever, in between you and your goal. For one table, diplomacy might be the most valuable possible approach. Talking is always a good option, as long as they can understand you. At a different table, the best results come from laying traps, creating chokepoints, and luring enemies back into them.

Swap the GMs at those tables, and you could run into "Sorry, nothing you say could ever convince them." / "Sorry, they're too tactically smart and notice what you're doing." The underlying result at both: Why did you, the player, think that would work?

(I get that it follows from the fiction, and different approaches might fit different situations better as result, but I'm trying to describe broad strokes individual GM tendency here.)

I don't want a player to have to learn how to play me in order to play my games effectively.

While I don't love how that last sentence is expressed, I also don't want the opposite: that the only thing players are able to do are things that are explicitly supported by rules. That just leads to more and more rules (which means more and more contradictions and loopholes) but no matter how many rules you write that approach can never support truly freeform play.

When I create adventures, and I create challenges within those adventures, I make sure I can think of a couple ways to resolve those challenges, but more often than not my players think up entirely different approaches. And then I have to make up some probability of success.

So, yeah, I want the GM to have that authority. In my opinion that's the whole point of RPGs!

Yes, sometimes it means I get GMs who frustrate me because they interpret things differently than I expect. And sometimes it's bad enough I stop playing with them. But I'd rather have that occasionally happen than play a game where everything has to be defined by explicit rules.

One of my core beliefs about RPGs is that the purpose of rules should never be to protect players from "bad" GMs (however one wants to define that), or protect GMs from "bad" players. No amount of rules will actually prevent jerks from being jerks; you just end up with too many rules AND jerks.

 

[Xamnam]

While I don't love how that last sentence is expressed, I also don't want the opposite: that the only thing players are able to do are things that are explicitly supported by rules. That just leads to more and more rules (which means more and more contradictions and loopholes) but no matter how many rules you write that approach can never support truly freeform play.

When I create adventures, and I create challenges within those adventures, I make sure I can think of a couple ways to resolve those challenges, but more often than not my players think up entirely different approaches. And then I have to make up some probability of success.

So, yeah, I want the GM to have that authority. In my opinion that's the whole point of RPGs!

Yes, sometimes it means I get GMs who frustrate me because they interpret things differently than I expect. And sometimes it's bad enough I stop playing with them. But I'd rather have that occasionally happen than play a game where everything has to be defined by explicit rules.

One of my core beliefs about RPGs is that the purpose of rules should never be to protect players from "bad" GMs (however one wants to define that), or protect GMs from "bad" players. No amount of rules will actually prevent jerks from being jerks; you just end up with too many rules AND jerks.

I'm sorry the last sentence hit poorly. I want to be clear, I'm only trying to speak for myself. Put another way, I don't want a player to have a bad time just because they have not grokked my style. I get that I can't eliminate the possibility, but a priority of mine is to minimize the chance.

I fully agree with all the bolded! I'm not asking for rules to cover every scenario! My concern is actually specifically about GM's who are not open to the different approaches a player might bring. It's one thing to think about a presented plan, and decide it's unlikely to succeed. What I'm trying to be wary of is the (potentially unconscious!) line of thinking: "Well, that's not how I would solve it." and making things harder for them as a result.

I'm not asking for rules to protect the players from bad GMs. The way I see it, as much as they are constraints on what the players can do, rules of systems also give players certain levers with which to interact with the world. I want that knowledge to be as effective as a player is expecting said levers to be. In a system that does give the character skills, I don't want to undercut the system. And because I can't put my players fully inside my head, and know that they see and understand everything I'm picturing, that's why I tend towards systems that give the character skills to help close that gap.

 

[Basic Expert]

I always thought there was a distinct difference in when to apply player skill or character skill.

The player gets to decide what their character does, including the methods or tactics they attempt. They are in the driver's seat. They act and react as they believe their character would, but their choices are what matter. This is how they participate in the game.

Character skill (their stats, gear and other particulars) determines how effective the character is once the course of action has been selected by the player. They are assumed to add the sophistication or technical expertise to the situation.

That's it.

For social interactions, the player decides what their PC is trying to do and how they go about it. If the PC is trying to fast-talk past a guard they might say, "I pretend to be a harmless drunk on the way home from the tavern," or "I pretend to be a higher-ranking officer and berate him for not recognizing me," or whatever. This might include some role-playing for fun (it is a role-playing game, after all) or to establish additional facts for the situation, but the actual success is left to PC skill (usually an appropriate skill roll).

If it's all character skill you'd have: "I convince the guard to let me pass. I rolled a 23". The GM checks his notes: "Uh, that's a success. You pretend to be a harmless drunk on the way home from the tavern and he ignores you." That misses a critical interaction in my opinion and most of the fun of role-playing.

What happens if you have a player with zero social skills that wants to fast-talk a guard, but has no idea of how to go about it? Well, it's up to the GM to adjust the difficulty and expectation of their game to suit the capabilities and preferences of their players. Not all characters are the same, and the same goes for players. Some players want an easier time of it. Some want to be challenged. Most have changing preferences. One of the great GMing arts is to read players and adjust accordingly.

So can you veer too far towards player skill? Absolutely! As soon as the GM starts demanding technical explanations, you are getting into dangerous territory. Asking players which knot they're using to tie up prisoners or to explain the steps they take to care for their horses at night or to know the same archair-historian BS they saw on TV the previous week.

The exception is puzzles, which are included in the game to test player knowledge or problem-solving skills. A highly-intelligent character might be great at puzzles and problem-solving IN the fiction of the campaign, but having such a character automatically bypass problems by making simple skill roll can ruin the fun and challenge for the players. Some players and groups enjoy trying to out-think a puzzle. Others do not. Once again, it's up to the GM to figure out the proclivities of their players and run their games accordingly.

However, even for players or groups that desire easier challenges, I do not advocate a "I make a roll to solve the problem" methodology. I design easier challenges with more, and more obvious, solutions, to help the players along a bit. This includes more "tells" or signifiers of what tactics might work.

But the player acts and the character determines how well system should always remain intact.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I always thought there was a distinct difference in when to apply player skill or character skill...

I pretty much agreed with everything you wrote, so I won't quote the whole thing. Just want to make a couple of comments:

If it's all character skill you'd have: "I convince the guard to let me pass. I rolled a 23". The GM checks his notes: "Uh, that's a success. You pretend to be a harmless drunk on the way home from the tavern and he ignores you." That misses a critical interaction in my opinion and most of the fun of role-playing.

I agree it misses some (if not 'most') of the fun, but I think it's also ok to play this way. That player might learn to open up a bit over time.

The exception is puzzles...

I agree, and there is a SUPER important more general point: interpretations don't have to be 100% consistent across all contexts. It drives me crazy when people say, "If it's ok for PCs it's ok for NPCs" or "We do X in combat so we should do X in social interactions" as if that's self-evident truth. No, it's not. I think it's horse$%^@.

 

[Hriston]

Where are your lines on player skill vs character skill?

Different games are different, but, with that being said, I'm going to address the question with reference to the RPG with which I'm most familiar, D&D. To me, there's a clear demarcation around the player's sphere of authority which includes what's commonly called roleplaying. I.e. it's the player who gets to make decisions on behalf of their PC in reaction to the situations presented by the DM. This is what I would call playing the game, and the PC is a vehicle for said gameplay. To limit the player's decision making by reference to the PC would seem to me to be an instance of the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Maxperson]

Why should we prevent a player who is not a good Tactician to play a characterr who is a good Tactician or to play a character more intelligent than themselves if they invest in the proper mechanics if that is their fantasy and role they want to play?
We don't tell people not to play an acrobatic character or high dex, because the player does not have it in real life. We don't tell them not to play high strength characters if the player is not strong.
We don't them not to play a Monk because the player doesn't know martial arts, not to play a martial character if they lack training in weapons, or a Rogue if they can't pick locks.

Most of that can be supplemented/represented by rolls. The player can't think of a solution, but his PC has an int of 20, a roll can give a clue or solve it. The player can't do a triple summersault over some lava, a roll can allow the PC to do with with athletics.

Tactics, though, is a different beast. Unless it's some sort of roll for how your army does against the opposing army, a tactics roll isn't going to work. If the party is up against 12 orcs in an encounter, it's the players who determine where there PCs go and what they do, and that's the tactics for the encounter. The DM isn't going to start moving that tactical genius PC for the player and deciding which abilities to use when so that the PC can display tactical genius, so if the player isn't good at tactics, the tactical genius is not going to be good at tactics.

 

[Blue]

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?

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

If a PC gets to benefit from the player’s stats, then they should also be limited by the player’s stats.

Likewise, if a PC does not get to benefit from the player’s stats, then they should not also be limited by the player’s stats.

It seems obvious to me you should pick one or the other. Either the character’s stats are the floor and the ceiling or they shouldn’t matter. It’s weird to say stats only matter when you benefit from them but don’t matter when they’d limit you.

It seems obvious to me that you can NEVER pick one or the other -- every action in RPGs is a combination of both. A player can determine what spell to cast or what foe to attack or where to position themselves (player choice) and use their character's attack (character mechanical interaction).

Even for a player talking in third person, the approach is important. "Brandor brings some ales over to the guardsmen's table and bonds with them over his own experiences as a guard in Waterdeep since that is his background" would likely have a lower DC to become friendly with the guards of a town than an inappropriate approach.

Can a player not give any more input than "I search for secret compartments"? Sure. Should the player be barred from adding more any more in every circumstance? No.

I can't see that it's "obvious" that you should either use the character mechanics never influenced by what the player chooses, or only go by player actions and never use the mechanics of the character. That's the antithesis of what roleplaying games are about.