Quote:
Originally Posted by khorboth
On one hand, the character could probably figure it out, but on the other, how much fun is just rolling dice at every juncture?
In tabletop roleplaying, we don't make physical skills dependent upon player skills. On the other hand, tactics is usually highly dependent upon player skill. In the middle are things like social skills where the roleplaying of interaction frequently gives a bonus or penalty to a reaction roll. I'm speaking in generalities, of course, because the problem exists in any system and different systems tend to have only slightly different approaches.
This brings us back to puzzles and riddles. So... how do you handle it? In my group, one thing we frequently do is have the players whose characters are stupider than the player help those whose characters are smarter than the player. So, if I'm playing a dim fighter, I get to help the person playing the superhumanly smart mage figure out the puzzle. But... at the end, there's usually still an option to just roll.
What about figuring out plot elements? Do the players have to figure it out? What if some character has a high skill in politics or subterfuge? Roll to win the game is pretty unsatisfying. How have you struck a good balance?
|
TLDR: My stance is that just like not all players are good at the
technical side of physical skills, merely
macromanage the applications thereof and still have fun (without needing to micromanage every sword swing), so it is also possible for players to macromanage application of scientific or social skills and still have fun. There's something of a double standard in many roleplayers' habits, probably originating from the fact that early RPGs didn't have much in the way of subsystems, and so left those things to player skill. Of course, preferences for fun vary, so it's important to figure out what level of the slider between the macro and the micro a player is enjoying playing.
Non-TLDR:
Here's a more expanded answer to pretty much the same or only slightly different question.