Player skill vs character skill?

[djotaku]

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.

I like your style, but if I have a table that's up for it, we usually get some of the most fun moments that we are reliving months later when the players describe or monologue how they'd convince the guard. Especially on a wackier style game where you have house rules that a nat 20 is awesome in social (rules as written says that's only for combat) you could have the player come up with some nonsense and still have the guard listen to them.

 

[djotaku]

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?

I think some of this resolves itself if you play starting from level 1. By the time the characters are supposed to be semi-god awesome people they'll have done enough combat, dungeon delving, etc that they'll be playing tactically well (to whatever degree the TTRPG system requires it)

 

[Distracted DM]

I think a mix of both approaches fits best. Players already take a lot of metaknowledge with them into the game, whether they're thinking about it or not. They know a troll will die by fire or acid even if their character doesn't (unless you change it up, don't use the word troll, etc). Some players play low-INT characters as making bad decisions, others dump INT and keep making the same choices that they would if their characters had high INT (I think we're talking those different RPG "stances" here, like pawn stance etc).

If a player wants to ask about stuff in the room, do stuff with traps by manually describing what they want to do and what their goal is (I always have to remind them tell me what your end goal is so I can give them the benefit of the doubt), search the bed posts for hidden jewels, I'll avoid calling for rolls unless there's something dicey (ha) in the action they're taking. But if they just want to "search the room," then they can make a roll. I like to reward player skill, inventiveness, thinking outside the box, poking things, not just rolling dice. That's my bias. But I absolutely am fine with leaving it to the dice as well, that pushes things forward one way or the other.

 

[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...

I just re-read this post (because @djotaku quoted it).

On the one hand, we could compare traps to combat and say that your avatar also knows a lot more about combat than you (or me), so we use simplified game rules to resolve it, instead of requiring players to describe how they hold their sword, what their stance is, and what kind of strikes they make.

But on the other hand, the game does have rules that allow players to deeply engage with combat. Rules about (to lean on D&D 5e...) actions and action economies, weapon choices, special abilities, Inspiration, reactions, movement, things like opportunity attacks, spell choices, etc., all let players make tactical decisions even if those rules have very little correlation to real life combat. And a single good or bad roll typically doesn't resolve the situation: each success and failure nudges the outcome one direction or the other, and that process becomes especially rich when multiple PCs and adversaries are all taking turns contributing, not only nudging the outcome back and forth, but changing the tactical landscape as well.

For tasks in which this kind of richness is absent, I really struggle to find a way to resolve them mechanically that feels satisfying. (YMMV). I really don't know how you would create a mini-game for finding or disarming a trap, or figuring out how to open a secret door, in which the decision-making feels as "real" as moving your character on a grid, or choosing to block instead of attack.

If there is a spectrum of possible approaches, I think the two ends of that spectrum are:

1. Details and description of the challenge are narrative fluff, perhaps interesting but irrelevant. All that matters is the dice roll
2. The player has to engage with the details and description, and the GM decides if the approach is successful.

The middle ground of that spectrum would be #2, but then skill rolls (perhaps with DCs set by the GM) determine if the approach succeeds. And I think, if I'm reading this thread correctly, that is where most people end up.

I just question what value a skill test, in the absence of any tactical decision-making, actually contributes at that point. The most common answer I see is "so that players feel good about their investment in the skill." But that feels like mechanics for the sake of justifying game design, instead of game design for the sake of engagement.

 

[Voadam]

I just question what value a skill test, in the absence of any tactical decision-making, actually contributes at that point. The most common answer I see is "so that players feel good about their investment in the skill." But that feels like mechanics for the sake of justifying game design, instead of game design for the sake of engagement.

It would be to show that some are good at it and some are not. Those who train at disarming traps (generally thieves/rogues/Indiana Jones) are good at it and can get it done more. Others not so much. Mechanics showing that a thief has a +10 to the disarming roll while a wizard has a +1 would reflect that.

Some designers could do it to reward character build investment, others to support specific narrative concepts mechanically.

 

[cbwjm]

I think a mix of both approaches fits best. Players already take a lot of metaknowledge with them into the game, whether they're thinking about it or not. They know a troll will die by fire or acid even if their character doesn't (unless you change it up, don't use the word troll, etc). Some players play low-INT characters as making bad decisions, others dump INT and keep making the same choices that they would if their characters had high INT (I think we're talking those different RPG "stances" here, like pawn stance etc).

I think some of this knowledge is common to the world anyway. That is, unless trolls are brand new to the world or the region, it would be common knowledge for the character in-game to know that trolls are harmed by fire. It's the same thing with werewolves being harmed by silver and vampires needing a wooden stake through the heart or that they can't stand direct sunlight.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think some of this knowledge is common to the world anyway. That is, unless trolls are brand new to the world or the region, it would be common knowledge for the character in-game to know that trolls are harmed by fire. It's the same thing with werewolves being harmed by silver and vampires needing a wooden stake through the heart or that they can't stand direct sunlight.

That's very setting-dependent- how widespread such knowledge is, communication between towns, etc.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It would be to show that some are good at it and some are not. Those who train at disarming traps (generally thieves/rogues/Indiana Jones) are good at it and can get it done more. Others not so much. Mechanics showing that a thief has a +10 to the disarming roll while a wizard has a +1 would reflect that.

Some designers could do it to reward character build investment, others to support specific narrative concepts mechanically.

So I guess my follow-up question would be: if you're playing a game without skills, and one of these scenarios comes up, and the GM thinks the plan is good ("we jam iron spikes into the holes") and therefore it just works (which maybe the players only discover by walking in front of it)...do you* find that anticlimactic and think, "Gosh I wish this game had skills so that my thief character could make a dice roll and feel like an expert."

Or does that factor only exist if a game already has skills?

*generic 'you'...for anybody reading

 

[SableWyvern]

I think some of this knowledge is common to the world anyway. That is, unless trolls are brand new to the world or the region, it would be common knowledge for the character in-game to know that trolls are harmed by fire. It's the same thing with werewolves being harmed by silver and vampires needing a wooden stake through the heart or that they can't stand direct sunlight.

Yep. If I'm running a game where common D&Dism apply, I'll tell the players anything they know as players is likely common knowledge in the world -- but to note that not everything that is considered common knowledge is necessary 100% correct, thus leaving a bit of room for mixing some things up.

Conversely, if I'm running a world where common D&Dism don't apply, I'll point out to the players with lots of D&D experience that this is not a D&D world and they should not assume things based on what is common in D&D.

That's very setting-dependent- how widespread such knowledge is, communication between towns, etc.

If I want to run a game where the PCs don't know these things, my very strong preference would be to not use monsters and features already familiar to the players. I have very outcome-oriented players and tend to run games that can be fairly lethal, so my players would chafe at regularly having to play dumb, especially when it puts their characters' lives at risk. However, they quite enjoy discovering new things and learning how to overcome new challenges. Your mileage may, of course, vary.