Player skill vs character skill?

[aramis erak]

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.

If it's not clearly in the character's abilities, it needs a roll.
Player skill in narration can get moderate bonuses to the roll.

If it's not totally absurd or a clear miscommunication, I generally will set a reachable goal and send to a roll.

I absolutely do NOT let player skill trump character definition; no matter how eloquent the player. If you dumpstat Charisma, everyone's either creeped out by you or thinks you a boor, if not a total ass, by how low.

 

[aramis erak]

I have seen the same with new players and story. Fun to watch. But still, if that player took a Hulk Smash character, no amount of fiction engagement should allow Hulk to delicately sneak across a fragile bridge. That is where the GM needs to explain the choices have consequences concept. Perhaps with a "As soon as Hulk gets on the bridge, it collapses...."

Agree that later versions of D&D linage games are less stat strict. Earlier versions had a much wider spread of stat based penalties and bonuses.

No, the earliest edition was a max +1/-1 from atts... until expansions. Holmes kept that.
BX has a +3/-3 range
AD&D1 ranged from -3 to +4 or more, by attribute. AD&D2 had a similar range. both had extensive secondary abilities off the attribute, too.
3E on has a -5 to +5 range for starting PC att mods.
4E and 5E have the same mods table as 3e; 5e caps atts for PCs at 20 (exception Barbarians). for the +5 att mod cap.

D&D has, except for the AD&D1 predating BX, had a consistent increase in attribute importance over time. Even the 3E/4E and 4E changes increased it by decreasing skill mods...
BX/BECMI/BBB+Cyclo has a wider table, but PC's can't get above the +3 without magic.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Because Charisma is so often abused by players dumpstatting (given the various methods other than "in order" rolling) that it's the most common case across game systems.

I've also had players who dumpstatted Int... and then try to use player knowledge to solve traps and such. I cut them off with the att check, just like I do the Cha dumpstats.
And I don't care how nimble the player is, if the dex is 7 on a 3-18, no one will be impressed by their dancing itself, tho' proficiency/skill might impress by them being barely competent at 30 different complex dances... which is impressive, but for different reasons...

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.

Knowing that, if you showed up at my table, ID'd yourself by handle, I'd say, "find another table," because I use atts & skills to gatekeep character action choices.

I use the game to provide the texture to player choice. If you chose a low IQ and low knowledge character, and are providing all the tactical plans, you're not playing the character as written.

Then again, I've had, off and on, mentally disabled players as part of my groups... and them being able to play other than basic fighters was enabled by, "Need help? Make a roll on ___, and on success, the others or I can give you suggestions"

I run my games as games first, story-generators second. Story constrained by rules and setting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Knowing that, if you showed up at my table, ID'd yourself by handle, I'd say, "find another table," because I use atts & skills to gatekeep character action choices.

Good to know.

I use the game to provide the texture to player choice. If you chose a low IQ and low knowledge character, and are providing all the tactical plans, you're not playing the character as written.

If we're talking D&D, Intelligence "as written" says there's a modifier to dice rolls. That's it. There's nothing that says a certain score is needed to engage in certain ways.

So if, whenever a player proposes a plan, you make them roll Int to see if their character "would think of it", then I think that's kinda lame but fine I'll roll and take the -2 modifier.

But if you are arbitrarily imposing a limitation on low Int characters, based on your assessment of how sophisticated the plans are, while giving high Int characters a pass, then...yeah...don't worry, I won't be at your table.

I run my games as games first, story-generators second.

Then why are you imposing specific roleplaying interpretations rather than just running with the rules?

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I think one of the issues is that in combat there are some clearly defined player skill areas, at minimum:

1) where to move
2) what target to select
3) which ability to use (some of which are limited resources)

The level to which these player skill choices matter varies, but in general I would say the bulk of the "outcome" is still character skill and rng. Especially after establishing at least a fairly medium level of player skill competency which most people can achieve. Yes, a very skilled player can gain some advantages but it does not overwhelm the medium skill player with the same character. (perhaps the character building player skill game is more differentiated however but I think that is a separate topic).

For combat, the kind of player skill being tested is basically tied to strategic gaming -- maximizing actions, targeting weaknesses, building combos, selecting the right game ability for the job, etc. It's a skill that anyone can build some expertise in and are presumably a bit interested in if playing a game like D&D.

What is the equivalent player skill being asked for non combat encounters?

It's less well defined, partly because the non combat resolution systems are so poor and neglected in D&D. One roll resolution, with DM fiat on when the goal is met or if additional one roll skill checks are needed. What is the equivalent gaming player skill?

Whatever the player skill is I don't think it should count any more than combat player skill (moderate at most) and should probably be tied to strategic gaming choices and not acting, real world knowledge or charisma, or rule ignoring/breaking creativity.

D&D doesn't give you a lot of support for how to include player skill in non combat however.

 

[SableWyvern]

For combat, the kind of player skill being tested is basically tied to strategic gaming -- maximizing actions, targeting weaknesses, building combos, selecting the right game ability for the job, etc. It's a skill that anyone can build some expertise in and are presumably a bit interested in if playing a game like D&D.

There's a presumption that, if you're at my table, you're "a bit interested" in planning, problem solving, lateral thinking and the like. Probably a lot more than you're interested in "building combos" and "maximising actions", and I don't think it should be taken as read that if you're interesting in D&D that your automatically interesting in charop and related things.

If you're not into problem solving as a player, then it may well be that you won't have much fun at my table but, I presume, such a person would feel much more at home at @bert1001 fka bert1000's table.

Whatever the player skill is I don't think it should ... be tied to ... rule ignoring/breaking creativity.

Whereas, for me, the ability to ignore/break/change rules when they don't fit is a huge part of what makes RPGs worth playing. Being constrained to ensure the events at the table fit into some paradigm invented by someone on the other side of the world who I've never even interacted with and who has no real idea what we're going to get up to in our game, makes zero sense to me.

D&D doesn't give you a lot of support for how to include player skill in non combat however.

While this isn't universally true, it's definitely the case that, a lot of the time, people looking to focus on player skill aren't looking for mechanical support. If you're just talking about advice, then you're probably right.

Edit: skill, not school.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The level to which these player skill choices matter varies, but in general I would say the bulk of the "outcome" is still character skill and rng.

I mostly agree with your post, but disagree here. I think you are undervaluing player skill, or at least do not have an expansive enough definition. Very experienced players are frequently dramatically more effective than new players, because of the choices they make in combat.

 

[aramis erak]

Good to know.



If we're talking D&D, Intelligence "as written" says there's a modifier to dice rolls. That's it. There's nothing that says a certain score is needed to engage in certain ways.

So if, whenever a player proposes a plan, you make them roll Int to see if their character "would think of it", then I think that's kinda lame but fine I'll roll and take the -2 modifier.

Under BX/BECMI, it's not a d20+ mod, it's 1d20≤ Att for many checks. It's only attacks and saves that are 1d20+mod.
AD&D, NWPs are rolled 1d20 ≤ attribute+extra-slots; same for BECMI/Cyclo General skills.

But if you are arbitrarily imposing a limitation on low Int characters, based on your assessment of how sophisticated the plans are, while giving high Int characters a pass, then...yeah...don't worry, I won't be at your table.



Then why are you imposing specific roleplaying interpretations rather than just running with the rules?

Because the Rules strongly imply I can. In BX, it's in the example of play that actions can be checked by dictating a roll against attributes.
Oh, and in AD*D 1, Gygax advises changing the rules to cure player misbehavior.

And the explicit player skill at social with no mechanics for social is why I don't run Palladium's games anymore.