So, what are the fundamental skills for players and GMs, in your opinion?

Off the top of my head:

Player:

-Creating a character that fits the group, the setting, and the action.

-Portraying a consistent character.

-Make the "stuff" of the character interesting to other players.

GM

-Setting up good, interesting scenes.

-Calling the game mechanics, dice, whatever, into play when they're useful, and leaving them out when they aren't.

-Creating conflict without 'taking over' the characters, which means building conflict that fits the characters, or a clear setup for character creation where the characters will be drawn to the already-laid-down conflict, or both.

------------

There's lots more.  What else?

Skilled players will know the rules well enough that they can use them in creative and engaging ways, without overshadowing or negating other players.

All players should show good sportsmanship.

This applies to both GMs and player-characters.

You know I've found good players who played well--even without knowing the rules well. Knowing the rules isn't some kind of rank or benefit for a player as long as they're able to roll with whatever is going on in character.

It's like comparing musicians. Musician A knows all the chords of your group by heart and he can play them well. But Musician B knows how to improvise, has an ear for music and can pick up your chords in a heartbeat. While the first person is technically correct and good--once the real world intrudes he may not be able to adapt to changes, dropped tempo, or other aspects.

The best musicians probably combine traits of A and B.

Same goes for players.

Quote from: SilverlionKnowing the rules isn't some kind of rank or benefit for a player as long as they're able to roll with whatever is going on in character.

I'll argue with that.

A good knowledge of the rules can, in many games, let the player "fit in" their character more naturally to many situations.

We're walking along through some place, and there's this big pit - like, ten feet across.  I'm playing a rogue, level 4, Dex 16, maxed ranks in Jump.

How hard is it for me to jump the pit?

If I know the rules well, I don't need to ask.  I just decide what to do.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'll argue with that.

A good knowledge of the rules can, in many games, let the player "fit in" their character more naturally to many situations.

We're walking along through some place, and there's this big pit - like, ten feet across.  I'm playing a rogue, level 4, Dex 16, maxed ranks in Jump.

How hard is it for me to jump the pit?

If I know the rules well, I don't need to ask.  I just decide what to do.

Right. And how many real world people no how hard it is to jump a big pit ten feet across? Most people know vaguely "Man that's huge." "damn that's hard."

Your example is about playing the system--about non-character knowledge that you've made matter.

It doesn't have to matter.

A person IN THAT WORLD. Would of course take a look at the pit and estimate their chances. Then likely comment like I put above to other people, or even to themself. But the /character/ doesn't know its going to take 10 or better on a d20 roll. Hence the player doesn't need to know to play their character either--just a general "it looks hard, difficult, it will be risky.." some other common usage word to represent an estimation of their chances.

A good player isn't caring about the specific numbers. If they are, they're already headed down the rules lawyer path. (A good player will still try and jump the pit, because its in character to do so--even if they know they /might/ fail.)


When the system becomes more important to determination of player's choice, than the events IN play. I'd call any player following the rules over the character reasons, and setting events "bad".

Quote from: SilverlionA person IN THAT WORLD. Would of course take a look at the pit and estimate their chances.

Yep.

Our person is athletic, and highly experienced with jumping.  He can get a good idea of his chances.  He knows to take a run up.  He has a context that the player doesn't have.

A good player can simulate that context by knowing the rules; he doesn't need to turn into an asshole or a rules lawyer to do so.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenA good player can simulate that context by knowing the rules; he doesn't need to turn into an asshole or a rules lawyer to do so.

 A good player doesn't NEED to know the numbers to act--they will act accordingly with subsumed knowledge of who the character is--a /bad/ player is using the rules when he should be using character knowledge. Knowing the rules is not inherently bad. But it isn't NECESSARY to being a good player.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo, what are the fundamental skills for players and GMs, in your opinion?

Off the top of my head:

Player:

-Creating a character that fits the group, the setting, and the action.

-Portraying a consistent character.

-Make the "stuff" of the character interesting to other players.

GM

-Setting up good, interesting scenes.

-Calling the game mechanics, dice, whatever, into play when they're useful, and leaving them out when they aren't.

-Creating conflict without 'taking over' the characters, which means building conflict that fits the characters, or a clear setup for character creation where the characters will be drawn to the already-laid-down conflict, or both.

------------

There's lots more.  What else?

In a well-run RPG campaign, characters face genuine danger on a regular basis courtesy of a tough-but-fair GM and player skill is measured primarily by character survival. If Your Guy makes it to next week's session, you're a winner. If he makes it to every week's session, you're a master.

Character improvement is a good secondary measure, closely-tied to the first.

So the fundamental skills are what allows Your Guy to navigate the game world sucessfully. Primarily knowledge of its dangers and the ability to cope with them wisely and creatively. Surviving and prospering in a hostile environment.

Exactly. I'm in 100% agreement with Levi on this. Many players can make their own adjudications as long as they are familiar with the rules of the game.

A lot of times in the game this sort of thing comes up: I know I've done the jump example where I had described a chasm and (once I had given the distance across) one player looked at his character sheet for a second and then announced "I can easily make that jump" and even told me what the target number was.

Quote from: SilverlionA good player doesn't NEED to know the numbers to act--they will act accordingly with subsumed knowledge of who the character is--a /bad/ player is using the rules when he should be using character knowledge. Knowing the rules is not inherently bad. But it isn't NECESSARY to being a good player.

Totally disagree. The good player does need to know what the rules say as much as possible. But I wouldn't consider the guy who hasn't quite got the rules down a bad player. I would consider him to be a novice player.

I do agree that a good player keeps IC and OOC knowledge seperate.

Quote from: SilverlionBut it isn't NECESSARY to being a good player.

Necessary?

Fuck, no.  But it's a skill - and using it properly, to be a good player rather than a rules lawyer, is important.

Likewise, a GM can be total shit at setting up and defining scenes, leading to the "Wait, I thought we were still in the bar, what do you mean he's leaning on a cart?" problem, or the equally pissy 'scene that goes on too long' problem.  And with a group of players that are on the ball, that GM can still run one hell of a good game if their other skills are sharp, because the players can take up the slack on that one issue if need be.

But it's still a skill I think GMs should practice.

And, duh, another skill for players:

-Firewalling: When acting as the character, acting on what the character knows or should be able to get a feel for, and not on wildly out-of-character stuff.

Quote from: Abyssal MawTotally disagree. The good player does need to know what the rules say as much as possible. But I wouldn't consider the guy who hasn't quite got the rules down a bad player. I would consider him to be a novice player.

I do agree that a good player keeps IC and OOC knowledge seperate.

To me both players and GMs, while benefiting from full knowledge of the rules (especially GMs, with players I don't see it as so vital), are defined by how they handle themselves socially with the group and how they handle themselves at roleplaying.  "Knows the rules" is almost never on my top list of stuff you have to have to be a good player OR a good GM.

Stuff like "can play well with others"; "can portray his character effectively"; "good speaking skills"; "funny"; "can make characters come alive"; "GM can manage the group and any potential conflicts of interest"; etc etc.
This sort of stuff is what I find important.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd, duh, another skill for players:

-Firewalling: When acting as the character, acting on what the character knows or should be able to get a feel for, and not on wildly out-of-character stuff.

"firewalling"?

Call me crazy, but I think before you go around inventing new terms (or borrowing them from elsewhere if "firewalling" isn't your own) you may want to be sure that there is something in what you've said above that is different from, say: "playing in character".


Because the latter, while perhaps not as sexy, hip, or modern as "firewalling", has the benefit of being used since forever and being readily understandable.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditCall me crazy, but I think before you go around inventing new terms (or borrowing them from elsewhere if "firewalling" isn't your own) you may want to be sure that there is something in what you've said above that is different from, say: "playing in character".

I got it from Dragon Magazine.  I think....  hm.

But, whatever.  The ability to seperate that information is a skill.

What else?