Player skill vs character skill?

[Voadam]

Under BX/BECMI, it's not a d20+ mod, it's 1d20≤ Att for many checks.

In Moldvay B/X Basic the only example I can find is an optional rule on page B60. Everything else is 2d6 based (reaction rolls, morale) d6 based (listening, finding traps or secret doors), or percentile (thief skills) or more frequently the DM just decides. The one optional example is right after a longer section about a DM just deciding and then optionally assigning percentiles for success.

"That's not in the rules!" The players will often surprise the DM by doing the unexpected. Don't panic. When this happens, the DM
should just make sure that everything is done in the order given by the outline or sequence of events being used. Minor details may be made up as needed to keep the game moving. All DMs learn how to handle both new ideas and unusual actions quickly and with
imagination.
Quite often a DM can decide on a solution to a player's actions not covered by these rules. Other times, a problem may have no simple solution. One quick way for a DM to decide whether a solution will work is by imagining the situation, and then choosing percentage chances for different possibilities. For example, suppose the DM is running a combat that is taking place on a ledge next to an unexplored chasm. One player suddenly decides that his character has no chance to survive combat. The player announces "My character wants to jump into the chasm to escape!" There may be a chance that he will fall to a nearby ledge or land in a pool of water at the bottom of the chasm. The DM thinks about the dungeon for a minute, and remembers that an underground river flows through some of the lower dungeon levels, so there might be a pool below. Even so, the character will fall 60', and a normal fall will do 1d6 points of damage per 10' fallen. This character has only 7 hp, and seems likely to die even if the water cushions his landing and reduces the damage. However, there should always be a chance to do something nearly impossible. A player should have, at the very least, a saving throw or a stated percentage chance of a miraculous occurrence saving the character. The DM answers: "Looking down into the chasm, your character can estimate that he has a 98% chance of dying, no saving throw, if he jumps. If you decide your character jumps, roll percentage dice. A result of 99 or 00 will mean that your character lives, but any other result will mean that he will die in the attempt. Do you still want to jump?"

"There's always a chance." The DM may want to base a character's chance of doing something on his or her ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and so forth). To perform a difficult task (such as climbing up a rope or thinking of a forgotten clue), the player should roll the ability score or less on 1d20.

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.

I can't find any such example in either of the examples of play on B28 or B59. The PCs just say what they are doing and the DM adjudicates. They accidentally leave behind their dead companions gear and supplies when the players say they leave, no int or wis check involved. When trying to talk down the encountered hobgoblins they just act out what they say and there is a reaction roll (which would possibly be modified by Charisma and is modified by the chosen technique) not a charisma roll.

Are you thinking about the B60 section on acting on information the characters would not know? That is a bit different than int score rolls limiting planning.

"Your character doesn't know that." A player should not allow his or her character to act on information that character has no way of knowing (for example, attacking an NPC because the NPC killed a previous character run by the player, even though the NPC and current character have never met). If the players get careless about this the DM should remind them. The DM may, in addition, forbid certain actions to the characters involved. The DM should make it clear to the players before the adventure begins that characters may not act on information they don't have. It will save lots of time later.

 

[delericho]

So back to the question. Where are your lines on player skill vs character skill?

In general, apply each where the fun lies.

In the case of traps, I'd suggest building in things like tells and other clues for the players... but if you find you have a group that just hates that stuff, default to rolling the dice. (But I'd suggest going with one or the other - if the group does enjoy traps as a challenge to player skill, adding the dice as a backup is likely to make it all too easy.)

Likewise, most players who create outgoing, social characters will want to handle the interactions themselves - default to player skill. But if you have a socially awkward player who nonetheless wants to play such a character, that's fine too, and in that case let the dice handle the details. (And, again, one or the other; not both.)

And so it goes.

Unfortunately, that all seems to be a real weakness of D&D 5e in particular - very often a player who is interested in a particular aspect of the game proceeds to create a character who is good at that aspect of the game... and is 'rewarded' by the mechanics utterly trivializing that aspect of gameplay. (Or, at least, that's the case in the 2014 version - 2024 may do better in that regard.)

 

[Voadam]

Unfortunately, that all seems to be a real weakness of D&D 5e in particular - very often a player who is interested in a particular aspect of the game proceeds to create a character who is good at that aspect of the game... and is 'rewarded' by the mechanics utterly trivializing that aspect of gameplay. (Or, at least, that's the case in the 2014 version - 2024 may do better in that regard.)

24 is a little less of that, but not great. Instead of the 14 Outlander background whose feature allows bypassing survival rolls for food foraging entirely, the new 24 background of Guide (the most outdoorsman option, the only one granting survival skill) gives you a specific 1st level magic initiate feat that grants a druid cantrip instead.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.

I agree. That's why I said after developing a moderate level of skill that is obtainable by most people. Very experienced players can be way more effective than new players, but I think after obtaining a pretty moderate level of player skill the gap narrows (as it probably should in a game like D&D).

Very experienced players can still be more effective than moderate experienced players (especially with some classes) with the same characters but I'm just arguing the gap narrows with moderate player skill. Which I think in a cooperative game is a good thing.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

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.


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.

I didn't mean to say that if you are interested in D&D you are interested in charop -- I specifically carved that out. I meant you aren't adverse to a game that has a lot of strategic game rules for combat. It's explicit that the player makes choices (player skill) on where to move, which enemy to select, and what ability to use. Abilities are for the most part tightly defined. You can of course be creative in planning/problem solving to gain an advantage or bypass this type of player skill and to some extent the character abilities, and I think that has it's place in D&D. If that is the primary focus of your game, however, then I would offer that there are superior rpgs these days to play.

And it's not that you can't ignore/break/change rules when they don't fit. Sure, I do that too. But it's better to have those discussions upfront.

I'm not opposed to problem solving/lateral thinking/planning giving advantages or being necessary to reach certain objectives. But can it bypass character skill altogether? Under what circumstances? Do these player skill solutions align with in world characters or is it fine to have a disconnect at times? Can you use character skill if the player skill option fails (say in searching)?

We did this a lot when playing AD&D/Basic as kids, but in the end it is often a kind of "DM will this work?". Again, I'm not opposed to this altogether. If you have a group of like minded people and a DM where you are aligned on what is "good" problem solving/planning/creativity then it is a lot of fun and yes partly what a TTRPG does better than board games/video games.

But back to the original intent of the thread:

D&D (and other rpgs) have character abilities (stats, skills, powers, etc.) that try to represent that character in the world.

These games also have some space carved out for the "game" aspect of rpg, where player skill is involved.

If you care, how do you carve out a player skill space while still letting the character manifest appropriately within the game world?

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.

This may be true, but most rpgs have some default character mechanics and you still have to make the decision on how the character mechanics that are there relate to the focus on player skill if the rpg is not explicit about it and there is potential overlap.

Pre campaign discussion: "For our D&D game there's these skills called Perception and Investigate, but you can as a player (independent of what your character abilities say) can narrate looking at objects, manipulating things, etc. and the DM will tell you if you find hidden things. You can also roll Perception or Investigate if you don't want to or can't figure it out."

This is a valid set up, although I prefer games which allow the player skill option to not have perception or investigate at all.

Another option are games like Fate and Cortex where non combat and combat is similar rules and some player skill is involved in invoking aspects, creating aspects, narration edits, selecting traits, etc. but resolution is mostly character skill driven.