Player Skill - what is it?

[Scribble]

I think what you describe here is usually called "system mastery."

Hrmmm not in my experience.

The two are related sure, but not entirely the same.

I'm talking about how best to use the various options you have, whereas I've always taken the other to be about knowing which of the various options combine to achieve a greater result before the game starts.

Example:

Ohhh looks like this guy has a vulnerability to fire... I should probably hit it with my fire blast!

Vrs.

Hrmmm choosing fire blast plus double fire power combine to allow me to achieve maximum damage against fire creatures!

 

[Korgoth]

Situation #1: A patrol of the Town Watch surprises the characters skulking around the back of Lord Malintent's Villa.

Player Skill: "I tell them that we saw a shadowy figure holding a blade moving down The Street of Woodworkers, and we thought it might be the Leafydale Ripper. We want to catch him and get the reward [more plausible than an appeal to the goodness of our hearts] so we chased him back here, but we lost him [which could cast suspicion on Lord Malintent, who we think is guilty anyhow]."

Character Skill: "I roll a d20 for Diplomacy."

System Mastery: "I roll a d20 for Diplomacy. I make a DC of 58 or better."

Situation #2: The party discovers a hallway into the Inner Shrine of Mano-Tiki-Tia. The hallway is paved with tiles of three different colors and lined with statues bearing suspiciously hollow ports for their eyes and mouths. Skeletons, their bones nicked by stone darts, litter the hallway.

Player Skill: "Using my 10' pole, I probe one of the tiles. I'll start with a blue slate tile."

Character Skill: "I roll a d20 for Search."

System Mastery: "I roll a d20 for Search. I make a DC of 58 or better."

and so on.

 

[Remathilis]

My biggest complaint (and Irda hit it on the head) is that true "player skill" often conflicts with a characters mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) and abilities tied to them.

Classically, it meant that no matter how charismatic your PC was, it was your own ability to talk that mattered. You could sink an 8 into cha and still talk your way out of stuff because that 8 wasn't really a penalty on your social skills.

Even worse was having a normal Joe play either a neanderthal (6 or lower int) or a super-genius (17+ int) and getting forced into odd positions (a dumb barbarian played by a smart player who realizes the door is trapped, or a super-smart wizard not obviously seeing the word-puzzle the average-Joe Player doesn't see).

The most extreme version of this is what I "challenge by proxy" in which the PCs are not challenged per se, but are stand ins for the players and what attributes the character may have has no influence on the tasks at hand (see Horrors, Tomb of).

 

[Mallus]

My biggest complaint (and Irda hit it on the head) is that true "player skill" often conflicts with a characters mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) and abilities tied to them.

Why does this bother you?

Even worse was having a normal Joe play either a neanderthal (6 or lower int) or a super-genius (17+ int) and getting forced into odd positions (a dumb barbarian played by a smart player who realizes the door is trapped, or a super-smart wizard not obviously seeing the word-puzzle the average-Joe Player doesn't see).

My groups always found these moments to be D&D comedy gold, and in the case of the dumb character/smart player, a chance to flex our storytelling muscle by trying to rationalize exactly how the idiot became a momentary savant.

The most extreme version of this is what I "challenge by proxy" in which the PCs are not challenged per se, but are stand ins for the players and what attributes the character may have has no influence on the tasks at hand (see Horrors, Tomb of).

Sometimes solving a puzzle is more fun than simulating solving a puzzle.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

For our group "player skill" is essentially, "player's ability to group storytell" we don't care about system mastery or being the best in combat or knowing every little rule or anything of that sort. It is all about us all telling a story together, so the closest thing to player skill is how well you can storytell along with the rest of us. In a way even the DM has some measure then of "player skill"

 

[GnomeWorks]

I'm not speaking for Remathilis, here, but I wanted to throw my two cents in.

Why does this bother you?

Because I, the player, am not my character.

I can play a character with either a 2 Strength or a 20, and this is accounted for in the game. I personally am not expected to be held to the limits of a 2 Strength, nor am I expected to be able to personally lift or carry what a character with a 20 Strength could lift or carry.

Why is this only applied to physical stats? Applying this same sort of logic to mental stats is more difficult, yes, but they should follow the same general guidelines.

My groups always found these moments to be D&D comedy gold, and in the case of the dumb character/smart player, a chance to flex our storytelling muscle by trying to rationalize exactly how the idiot became a momentary savant.

And I find them to be constantly frustrating moments, because they fly in the face of what the characters are. If they are irregular... well, even dumb people get the right answer sometimes, and sometimes smart folk just can't get the right answer.

Sometimes solving a puzzle is more fun than simulating solving a puzzle.

And this opinion is part of the problem with resolving the issue, in the sense that you can't get past that particular problem. If you rely on the character's abilities, then you really are just simulating the puzzle-solving, which isn't very entertaining... but if you the player solve it, then the character's abilities are meaningless in that situation.

Finding something that allows the players to solve the puzzle, but within the confines of what their characters are capable of, would be ideal.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Finding something that allows the players to solve the puzzle, but within the confines of what their characters are capable of, would be ideal.

Well I know for our group to combine the two. What we do is, I the DM will write down on paper any info I deem (through simply my own thoughts or perhaps some listed DC) what info that PC would be able to determine right then and there.

After giving these hints and pieces of info, the players solve it themselves and can choose to give their info out (since the PCs would) or not, for whatever reason.

For REALLY dumb PCs, I will actually give out false or misleading info/hints, to show that specific PC hindrance.

 

[GnomeWorks]

That sounds like a rather reasonble combination of the two styles.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That sounds like a rather reasonble combination of the two styles.

Thanks, this has also bleed into things like Skill Challenges with 4e. So, while your actual success is through them rping (if it is something like a diplomatic discussion) the rolls they make and they successes and failures they have will impact what they know/see.

So they do well they will realize say he is fidgeting or I say something wrong and tell those that succeed that skill challenge roll what I said wrong. If they do badly I don't or I don't tell them that he is fidgeting, etc.

 

[Hussar]

Why does this bother you?


My groups always found these moments to be D&D comedy gold, and in the case of the dumb character/smart player, a chance to flex our storytelling muscle by trying to rationalize exactly how the idiot became a momentary savant.


Sometimes solving a puzzle is more fun than simulating solving a puzzle.

Yes, but isn't the entire point of role-playing actually playing a role? If the game forces you to step out of your role and allows, and even rewards you, for doing so, isn't that a mistake?

And, let's face it, I'm certainly not the only player to ignore the stats on my character sheet when failure means a high chance of PC death. That Cha 9 fighter suddenly becomes the most eloquent public speaker in history when he has to explain why his hand is down the bodice of the mayor's wife.

I find it very jarring now to have to ignore what's on the character sheet in order to play.

For our group "player skill" is essentially, "player's ability to group storytell" we don't care about system mastery or being the best in combat or knowing every little rule or anything of that sort. It is all about us all telling a story together, so the closest thing to player skill is how well you can storytell along with the rest of us. In a way even the DM has some measure then of "player skill"

This isn't a bad definition IMO. It pretty much incorporates the idea of metagaming without calling it such. After all, if you are group story-telling, you have to metagame to some extent. Like I said before, my problem comes in when the game pretty much ignores what's on your character sheet in favor of a "good story".

Situation #1: A patrol of the Town Watch surprises the characters skulking around the back of Lord Malintent's Villa.

Player Skill: "I tell them that we saw a shadowy figure holding a blade moving down The Street of Woodworkers, and we thought it might be the Leafydale Ripper. We want to catch him and get the reward [more plausible than an appeal to the goodness of our hearts] so we chased him back here, but we lost him [which could cast suspicion on Lord Malintent, who we think is guilty anyhow]."

Character Skill: "I roll a d20 for Diplomacy."

System Mastery: "I roll a d20 for Diplomacy. I make a DC of 58 or better."

Situation #2: The party discovers a hallway into the Inner Shrine of Mano-Tiki-Tia. The hallway is paved with tiles of three different colors and lined with statues bearing suspiciously hollow ports for their eyes and mouths. Skeletons, their bones nicked by stone darts, litter the hallway.

Player Skill: "Using my 10' pole, I probe one of the tiles. I'll start with a blue slate tile."

Character Skill: "I roll a d20 for Search."

System Mastery: "I roll a d20 for Search. I make a DC of 58 or better."

and so on.

Why do you equate System Mastery with powergaming? They are certainly not the same thing. System mastery simply means that you don't make substandard choices, not that you take advantage of possibly fuzzy rules in order to be more powerful than anyone at the table.

System mastery can be as simple as putting your highest roll into your prime requisite. It can be as simple as taking weapons specs for your fighter because it helps you do more damage. Taken to extremes, I suppose it becomes powergaming.

Same as player skill, taken to extremes, becomes pure meta-gaming. "Oh, that's a Fleagarbarf. They're weak against acid. Get out your vials boys!" is player skill. The player has memorized the Monster Manual and knows the weakness of every monster.