Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Basic Expert" data-source="post: 9810137" data-attributes="member: 7054049">I always thought there was a distinct difference in when to apply player skill or character skill.The player gets to decide what their character does, including the methods or tactics they attempt. They are in the driver's seat. They act and react as they believe their character would, but their choices are what matter. This is how they participate in the game.Character skill (their stats, gear and other particulars) determines how effective the character is once the course of action has been selected by the player. They are assumed to add the sophistication or technical expertise to the situation.That's it.For social interactions, the player decides what their PC is trying to do and how they go about it. If the PC is trying to fast-talk past a guard they might say, "I pretend to be a harmless drunk on the way home from the tavern," or "I pretend to be a higher-ranking officer and berate him for not recognizing me," or whatever. This might include some role-playing for fun (it is a role-playing game, after all) or to establish additional facts for the situation, but the actual success is left to PC skill (usually an appropriate skill roll).If it's all character skill you'd have: "I convince the guard to let me pass. I rolled a 23". The GM checks his notes: "Uh, that's a success. You pretend to be a harmless drunk on the way home from the tavern and he ignores you." That misses a critical interaction in my opinion and most of the fun of role-playing.What happens if you have a player with zero social skills that wants to fast-talk a guard, but has no idea of how to go about it? Well, it's up to the GM to adjust the difficulty and expectation of their game to suit the capabilities and preferences of their players. Not all characters are the same, and the same goes for players. Some players want an easier time of it. Some want to be challenged. Most have changing preferences. One of the great GMing arts is to read players and adjust accordingly.So can you veer too far towards player skill? Absolutely! As soon as the GM starts demanding technical explanations, you are getting into dangerous territory. Asking players which knot they're using to tie up prisoners or to explain the steps they take to care for their horses at night or to know the same archair-historian BS they saw on TV the previous week.The exception is puzzles, which are included in the game to test player knowledge or problem-solving skills. A highly-intelligent character might be great at puzzles and problem-solving IN the fiction of the campaign, but having such a character automatically bypass problems by making simple skill roll can ruin the fun and challenge for the players. Some players and groups enjoy trying to out-think a puzzle. Others do not. Once again, it's up to the GM to figure out the proclivities of their players and run their games accordingly.However, even for players or groups that desire easier challenges, I do not advocate a "I make a roll to solve the problem" methodology. I design easier challenges with more, and more obvious, solutions, to help the players along a bit. This includes more "tells" or signifiers of what tactics might work.But the player acts and the character determines how well system should always remain intact.</blockquote>

Verification