Player skill vs character skill?

[SableWyvern]

None of what you say here is wrong. Part of what I was trying to communicate, it seems poorly, is that in lacking that common framework, which is natural, I'm going to be generous in my interpretations of player desire of character execution.

I personally take more onus on me as GM to understand the players, what they are looking for, and how they wish to play the game, than the reverse. That is the much easier task.

OK, so we pretty much agree, it seems. But, in that case, I can't see why you think a "player skill" focused game is different to any other in this regard. The only basis for saying a player skill is really just about "learning to play the GM" is if you ignore that learning to work together and understand each other is a fundamental necessity for any social activity and especially for any RPG and/or you assume that in a "player skill" game the participants make no good faith efforts to establish a common framework and the players are provided with no basis for any kind of logical decision-making.

This feels similar to another poster earlier claiming that if anyone makes a mistake, it's always the players who suffer. Who actually participates in games like that? Why, as a player, would (generic) you put up with it, if it's not what you want out of the game? If you're going to assume a GM who just arbitrarily punishes players, can't ever admit to a mistake and doesn't have any interest in working with the rest of the participants, of course the game probably won't work very well. However, if you assume a group who are working together in good faith to ensure everyone has a good time, these terrible outcomes suddenly don't seem very likely.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

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?

Because "I roll to succeed" is boring for everyone else, and their fun matters too. Everyone should contribute to the shared fiction, and roleplaying your character's words and actions contributes MUCH more than "I use skill X" clickety clack.

Note that I'm not saying only witty or brilliant players can play -- I'm happy to GM awkward but sympathetic characters, strong-and-silent types, foolish but hilarious Leroy Jenkins-types, as long as they're portrayed in a vivid and coherent way that contributes more lift than drag to the game. Flawed characters are often most interesting, of course.

Players (and GMs!) don't need to be perfect; they just need to be not boring. Honestly I see this as a fairly low bar.

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.

I don't see the force of this, that for the sake of fairness we need to reward and punish all qualities equally in RPGing. It's a particular type of game with a particular medium. It naturally rewards strategy, teamwork and verbal fluency because the game is about working together to overcome challenges by describing our character's thoughts, words, and actions to each other verbally. Different games advantage different qualities. We don't consider basketball an unfair game because tall people have an easier time of it.

Just to understand:

If I build a character who spends resources to speak Elven, but I've myself never studied Professor Tolkien's Quenya nor Telerin, my character can still read and speak those languages even though the player cannot. So we baseline establish a character can speak in ways the player can't.

But if I build a character who spends resources to be witty and have a silver tongue, like Matthew Broderick's character Mouse in the movie Ladyhawke (a character I admit I mimicked back in the early 90s) or the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride, you will bar me from using those character resources if I myself am not witty and clever?

If two players want to play silver tongued characters and one can do it in real life, do you show them favoritism by letting the rules work for them? I'm sorry, that's incorrect, rules working should be the default. Would you discriminate against one of the players and not let the rules work for them because they don't possess spoken wit? Even in a game that explicitly allows characters to do things the players can't so?

Well I prefer RPGs that don't put so much weight on the character-building minigame, and that don't forbid the GM from adjusting success chances according to their judgement. I agree it would be problematic for a GM to unilaterally decide to run a game like that in a player skill-centric way.

 

[Xamnam]

OK, so we pretty much agree, it seems. But, in that case, I can't see why you think a "player skill" focused game is different to any other in this regard. The only basis for saying a player skill is really just about "learning to play the GM" is if you ignore that learning to work together and understand each other is a fundamental necessity for any social activity and especially for any RPG and/or you assume that in a "player skill" game the participants make no good faith efforts to establish a common framework and the players are provided with no basis for any kind of logical decision-making.

This feels similar to another poster earlier claiming that if anyone makes a mistake, it's always the players who suffer. Who actually participates in games like that? Why, as a player, would (generic) you put up with it, if it's not what you want out of the game? If you're going to assume a GM who just arbitrarily punishes players and doesn't have any interest in working with the rest of the participants, of course the game probably won't work very well. However, if you assume a group who are working together in good faith to ensure everyone has a good time, these terrible outcomes suddenly don't seem very likely.

I am fortunate to not have been burned by this myself over much. However, the sort of language I constantly see go hand in hand with "player skill over character skill" are phrases like "I'm not here to hold the players' hands." and "My job is to be a neutral referee/arbiter." Those two are not unreasonable precepts, but they do make me nervous when I hear a GM lead with them. It signposts to me we might be looking for fun in very different ways.

Both sides of the table could be acting in 100% good faith, but if one of the guiding principles for adjudication is "Player ideas need to impress me" and the players are not impressing that GM, that could lead to a very miserable experience. Many social activities have more strict bounds for what interactions to expect, and my stance is very much about preventing negative experiences. I introduce a lot of new players, and I do not want risk driving them away because of bad initial trial. I've heard that story too many times.

Like I said, I try and be generous to my players, assume character competence, and interpret them in the best possible light, reading vagueness of plans in their favor when possible. It does not sound like the people who prioritize player skill really want me in their camp.

 

[Bill Zebub]

However, the sort of language I constantly see go hand in hand with "player skill over character skill" are phrases like "I'm not here to hold the players' hands." and "My job is to be a neutral referee/arbiter."

Ok, I find that really strange, because in my mind it's the "character skill" camp that wants GMs to be neutral arbiters.

Player skill requires "rulings instead of rules" GMing.

 

[Xamnam]

Ok, I find that really strange, because in my mind it's the "character skill" camp that wants GMs to be neutral arbiters.

Player skill requires "rulings instead of rules" GMing.

Interesting. I totally see your logic here. But I definitely associate Neutral Ref with OSR texts/advice, especially in the context of justifying lethal play and combat as war.

Edit: Yeah, the very first section on the Principia Apocrypha after the introduction is Be An Impartial Arbiter.

 

[SableWyvern]

I am fortunate to not have been burned by this myself over much. However, the sort of language I constantly see go hand in hand with "player skill over character skill" are phrases like "I'm not here to hold the players' hands." and "My job is to be a neutral referee/arbiter." Those two are not unreasonable precepts, but they do make me nervous when I hear a GM lead with them. It signposts to me we might be looking for fun in very different ways.

I use those phrases.

I would also say that it is because I use them I personally consider it so critical to establish a common framework, and to respond reasonably and with an open mind when players question their understanding of the situation or a ruling I've made.

Both sides of the table could be acting in 100% good faith, but if one of the guiding principles for adjudication is "Player ideas need to impress me" and the players are not impressing that GM, that could lead to a very miserable experience. Many social activities have more strict bounds for what interactions to expect, and my stance is very much about preventing negative experiences. I introduce a lot of new players, and I do not want risk driving them away because of bad initial trial. I've heard that story too many times.

I agree with this. Players don't need to impress me, they just need to come up with plans that would work (of have a chance of working) given the facts of the situation. I don't see how a requirement that the players impress the GM is compatible with being a neutral arbiter (nor do I recall seeing anyone claim it is), so I'm completely with you on this one.

I have no clue what exactly it is that you've heard that people do that drives people away, but it has to do with GMs saying things fail because they're inadequately impressed, that doesn't sound like it has anything to do with player skill or lack thereof, to me.

Like I said, I try and be generous to my players, assume character competence, and interpret them in the best possible light, reading vagueness of plans in their favor when possible.

Again, nothing you're saying here really conflicts with my GMing philosophy, which is quite player-skill oriented. I don't necessarily interpret things in the best possible light, but this isn't a binary situation where the alternative is interpreting them in a negative light.

Instead, I'm very likely to seek clarification. It's not my job to decide for the players what they're doing, but it is my job to ensure their decisions are made with a clear understanding of the situation (as clear as it would be for the characters). I see no reason to assume much of anything about their intent when I can just ask them outright what their intent is. If the players say they're doing something and it seems to me that their character's should know better, I will seek clarification and endeavour to root out any miscommunication. If the plan is vague in an area where clarity is needed, I ask for clarity. This is a game where a substantial proportion of what we do is talk to each other; clear back and forth communication is essential.

We are pretty much on the same page regarding competence, assuming there's no explicit reason to assume incompetence.

It does not sound like the people who prioritize player skill really want me in their camp.

Based on what you've actually said in this thread, as long as you were willing to participate in good faith, I would see no reason not to want you at my table and no reason to think you wouldn't fit in. It's entirely possible that you're not looking for the same things as me in RPGs, but I don't see any reason to believe my GMing style would lead you to feel a loss of agency or as if you're playing mother-may-I, unless you enter the game already convinced that's what it's going to be.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Interesting. I totally see your logic here. But I definitely associate Neutral Ref with OSR texts/advice, especially in the context of justifying lethal play and combat as war.

Edit: Yeah, the very first section on the Principia Apocrypha after the introduction is Be An Impartial Arbiter.

Fair. I guess "neutral arbiter GM" is yet another term with a wide range of potential meanings...

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have no clue what exactly it is that you've heard that people do that drives people away, but it has to do with GMs saying things fail because they're inadequately impressed, that doesn't sound like it has anything to do with player skill or lack thereof, to me.

I have had experiences...and I'm sure others have, too...where GMs, faced with an unexpected move by players, "save their plot" by preventing the idea from succeeding.

I can see how some players, having experienced the same, get a bad taste in their mouth for letting GMs have the authority to judge the soundness of their plans. They want rules, dammit.

But it's just bad GMing, not bad game philosophy.

 

[Voadam]

Like I said, I try and be generous to my players, assume character competence, and interpret them in the best possible light, reading vagueness of plans in their favor when possible. It does not sound like the people who prioritize player skill really want me in their camp.

This approach of being generous seems agnostic on whether you are doing it through mechanics or ad hoc adjudication.

Player skill approach is usually describe it narratively and avoid mechanics with resolution based on DM judgment. Sometimes it is second person just coming up with a plan, sometimes it is more first person such as directly roleplaying out a scene. It is easy to be generous or harsh in how things resolve here. A player skill approach DM can be generous or harsh in how they adjudicate plan success or roleplay responses.

Character skill approach is usually mechanics on the sheet and how they apply. How the DM calls for checks and sets DCs and results can vary and be generous for character competence or harsh and impose character incompetence.

Of course it is usually a spectrum with some player skill schemes ending with an ad hoc roll test or a character skill approach taking something like the written stuff of the character (say sailor background) and extrapolating narrative non mechanical ad hoc stuff (assuming they can just tie knots with no checks).

 

[SableWyvern]

Ok, I find that really strange, because in my mind it's the "character skill" camp that wants GMs to be neutral arbiters.

Player skill requires "rulings instead of rules" GMing.

I think the extreme character skill people don't want GMs arbiting at all -- the mechanics are there for that and the GM is just there to help facilitate the mechanics. Neutral doesn't really come into it, because they're not making decisions in the first place, just following the program.

In a player skill game, the GM should be fairly and objectively assessing the chance of success, not deciding success or failure on a whim, or because one option aligns with their pre-planned story, or punishing players because they've had an easy ride, or letting them win because they've been struggling or other more subjective options.