Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TerraDave" data-source="post: 4453016" data-attributes="member: 22260">I think you may already know...but I will give a "classic" example.Say Dave is playing the rogue Redvar. Redvar is trying to talk his way past some guards. In the "charecter skill" approach, he makes his bluff check, and gets by, or fails, and doesn't. In the "player skill" approach, you role-play the whole thing, there is no roll, and the DM just decides what guards do. Puzzles that really only on things players say, and not on knowledge checks or other charecter attributes, are another example. Exploration and role-playing oriented play in general--without many checks--are often said to rely more on player skill, especially in older editions of D&D that didn't have much in the way of (charecter) skills.But, as you imply in the first post, this is all a little to simple. The tactical wargame that has always been inside the game is often the big test of player skill, DM skill, and of course is the most rules-bound, as it always has been. Charecter creation and other forms of preperation are other good examples where rules and player skill meet. On some level, saying rules or systems mitigate player skill would be like saying chess doesn't require skill, since the rules are so well defined!I think where this really is an issue is doing somewhat unexpected things in of combat, and pretty much any rules interaction (or lack there of) outside of combat. Maybe player skill is not the right term. Maybe player imagination...player creativity...something like that.</blockquote>

Verification