Player skill vs character skill?

[John Dallman]

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.

There is another form of skill, which is skill in operating as a team. This was forcibly brought home to me on Saturday, watching a different party in the Avalon campaign. They are 6th-8th level AD&D, having played together since first level. A couple of the players have been playing for decades, but haven't learned how to organise a party.

They're still acting as individuals, without any anticipation of what the others are likely to do, or appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses. Some of them are being very brave and noble in the difficult fight they are half-way through (against 5HD water-breathing trolls, in a marsh) but they aren't thinking about what they're doing. They aren't self-organising, and they don't have a leader who can organise them. They need one badly.

 

[zakael19]

Just want to reiterate that I'm not sure I've seen the concept of "player skill" show up as a desired aspect of play outside of like "mastering the basic rules" anywhere besides OSR-esque play these days. I don't think it's terribly applicable to skills-rich or ability-roll focused games, those are interested in adjudicating chances of failure via dice rolls or abilities. The skill a player shows is knowing when to like, say something that should prompt a GM to go "yeah, give me a ..."

I see that as very different from "lets put our heads together and figure out how we're going to use the random stuff we have + a couple of rare spells + the environment to narrate something at the GM who goes 'yeah, that works and here's how...'" that I see stressed in all the OSR/NSR games these days.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Agreed.

The entire intention for puzzles etc in D&D games was to engage in player skill. Early D&D was more focused on player skill and I do miss it at times. There has been a dramatic shift to more narrative play with character builds used to circumvent player skill.

I get that it can be no fun if the players cannot figure out the puzzle which is, perhaps, the main reason for it. It is supposed to prevent the type of DM that will use lack of player skill against the players.

It can be a fun type of game. But early D&D didn't have Perception and Investigation skills which is where things get more murky. Even in early D&D we would sometimes perceive the disconnect though because of ability scores. Why does my 18 Int Wizard struggle with this fairly simple logic puzzle just because the players are not up to it? You can look the other way, justify it because the character is having a bad day, etc. but it's sometimes stretching...

It comes back to what should be player skill and what character skill. It's ok to have logic puzzles be player skill if you set that upfront and are ok with the little bit of disconnect if you have smart characters but not as smart players... It is more problematic if you have character abilities that overlap as then they become either trap options or you have a weird either/or/both situations.

I don't think the move to character ability (more skills, etc.) was primarily to prevent DM's using lack of player skill against them. I think it was a move to make it more congruent between character abilities and tasks. But D&D never came up with the equivalent of combat (move, select target, which ability) player skill so it has become for many only character skill which is perhaps not great either.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Just want to reiterate that I'm not sure I've seen the concept of "player skill" show up as a desired aspect of play outside of like "mastering the basic rules" anywhere besides OSR-esque play these days. I don't think it's terribly applicable to skills-rich or ability-roll focused games, those are interested in adjudicating chances of failure via dice rolls or abilities. The skill a player shows is knowing when to like, say something that should prompt a GM to go "yeah, give me a ..."

I see that as very different from "lets put our heads together and figure out how we're going to use the random stuff we have + a couple of rare spells + the environment to narrate something at the GM who goes 'yeah, that works and here's how...'" that I see stressed in all the OSR/NSR games these days.

Except there is more player skill in D&D at least for combat. Move, target, ability selection, coordinating with team mates abilities, etc.

For non combat, there could be something between the OSR player skill challenge and one character skill roll. D&D has not really explored it though.

 

[zakael19]

Except there is more player skill in D&D at least for combat. Move, target, ability selection, coordinating with team mates abilities, etc.

There can be, sure. A heavily optimized high tactics play table is going to look very different then one where people get together to BS and talk at each other most of the time, but I might put that down under "system mastery." When I've seen it in theory-style usage, "Player skill" is usually making a distinction from "character skill" and often with some derision (or at least distinction) about "buttons on character sheets" and the like.

eg:

"Think Outside the Box

Kindreds and Classes grant a number of special capabilities useful during adventures. However, more often than not, hazards, challenges, and foes cannot be overcome simply by using traits and powers listed on the character sheet. Careful investigation of the environment, creative use of equipment, clever plans, and harebrained schemes can be equally effective. See also Narrative Interaction, p150."

or

"There’s no list of skills or abilities to limit what you can do within the fictional world. Don’t ask “Can I make some sort of test to look for…” or “Can I make a test to disarm…” Instead ask questions like “Is there any tension as I slowly open the door?” or “Do I hear anything if I tap on the wall here?” Interrogate your surroundings by asking questions and state your character’s actions: the GM will tell you if you need to make a test of fate.

and

"Solve problems orthogonally

You should be trying to make your GM say: “I didn’t even think of that.”

In an RPG, you can do anything. That’s the appeal! When you’re playing a computer game, you can only do the things the game designer programmed in. They anticipated you moving left, right, and down. Going up is out of the question. Not so in a tabletop game.

Most problems aren’t solved by fighting them. People can be reasoned with. Monsters can be placated. Traps can be avoided. Monsters can be led into traps. People can be sold the monster’s guts.

Don’t expect to “use” your talents and motifs to solve a problem. The abilities and items you have listed are just tools—and they’re only one of the many tools in your arsenal. Think outside of your adventurer sheet."

(from Dolmenwood and His Majesty the Worm respectively)

 

[overgeeked]

There can be, sure. A heavily optimized high tactics play table is going to look very different then one where people get together to BS and talk at each other most of the time, but I might put that down under "system mastery." When I've seen it in theory-style usage, "Player skill" is usually making a distinction from "character skill" and often with some derision (or at least distinction) about "buttons on character sheets" and the like.

eg:

"Think Outside the Box

Kindreds and Classes grant a number of special capabilities useful during adventures. However, more often than not, hazards, challenges, and foes cannot be overcome simply by using traits and powers listed on the character sheet. Careful investigation of the environment, creative use of equipment, clever plans, and harebrained schemes can be equally effective. See also Narrative Interaction, p150."

or

"There’s no list of skills or abilities to limit what you can do within the fictional world. Don’t ask “Can I make some sort of test to look for…” or “Can I make a test to disarm…” Instead ask questions like “Is there any tension as I slowly open the door?” or “Do I hear anything if I tap on the wall here?” Interrogate your surroundings by asking questions and state your character’s actions: the GM will tell you if you need to make a test of fate.

and

"Solve problems orthogonally

You should be trying to make your GM say: “I didn’t even think of that.”

In an RPG, you can do anything. That’s the appeal! When you’re playing a computer game, you can only do the things the game designer programmed in. They anticipated you moving left, right, and down. Going up is out of the question. Not so in a tabletop game.

Most problems aren’t solved by fighting them. People can be reasoned with. Monsters can be placated. Traps can be avoided. Monsters can be led into traps. People can be sold the monster’s guts.

Don’t expect to “use” your talents and motifs to solve a problem. The abilities and items you have listed are just tools—and they’re only one of the many tools in your arsenal. Think outside of your adventurer sheet."

(from Dolmenwood and His Majesty the Worm respectively)

Exactly that. When I say player skill, that's exactly what I mean. Players solving problems with their ingenuity and brains rather than rolling dice. Interacting with the environment and interrogating the fiction.