Quote from: The Shaman;367731I actually never said anything about not using the skills on my character sheet. What I said was is that what's on my character sheet may not reflect my character's current or future interests.

Am I smelling straw here? As a GM I wouldn't mind if you're planning to play your character against his/her own strength and explore some tragic tale of inadequacy. What the table would know about your character's interests and ambitions will be above all what shows through you role play. The exploration of his/her mindset and emotions is mostly a solitary pleasure until it transforms into action.

What I was talking about is players' capacity to influence outcomes during the game. In a skill based trad' game it relies a lot on character skills. Sure there are special snowflake players who want to express themselves by not engaging the game system. It's like they assert themselves or something. As long as every players, me included, enjoy the game, with or without paying attention to the character sheet, we're fine.  

Now I, and most players I know, spend char gen resources with a general intention to be able to play within the rules and have our characters be efficient at least in a couple of activities.  

QuoteMaybe my character was a hitman who's trying to get out of the life, to walk their earth like Caine. He has a set of skills he's acquired over the years which may or may not serve him well in the future. Since the future is undefined at the start of the game - and the bloody referee better bloody well not be bloody defining it for me - I have no idea at the start what skills will be relevent and what won't. Part of playing this particular character is making do with what I have, come what may.

Hey, that's a cool character concept, I'd be happy to see his adventures. I don't know why you decided my ultimate mustache twirling evil plan was to railroad the shit out of you by following some hidden oracle on your character sheet. What would probably happen though is me preparing situations where violence would look like the super obvious solution, and wait and see how your repenting hit man actually turn his back (or not) on his previous ways. Is it cool with you?

It's got nothing to do with your freedom as a player. It's got to do with task resolution and a vague compass about the type of conflict I may introduce as a GM. If you prefer your character to act with mediocre talents rather than his legendary hitman skills that's cool. I have no money on how you plan to deal with crap. OTOH if no character at the table has invested in, say, investigative skills, my players should boo me if I present them some Sherlock Holmes crime mystery.

QuoteSo don't think to much. You don't know more about my character than I do, so please don't presume to see it as some sort of secret love letter to the future of the game.

We cool?

Hey, you're the one who jumped on my post like a hungry flea on a dog, crying "wolf, wolf" about my railroading tendencies. It may seem like I think too much but it's sometimes difficult to guess what situations players are looking for during the game, even when asked directly. I don't think it's tyranny to take hints (and I only talked about hints) from character sheets. Obviously this isn't the only guide I have to try and make the game fun.

Are we cool? As soon as you stop with the condescension we might be.

Thanks for all the replies, it's been helpful for my further consideration.

As it stands, I'm inclined towards a game having a skill system, preferably one that's more generalized than overly specific.  Playing in the BD&D game hasn't been anything of a chore for not having skills for me, though I've found myself sympathizing with the player with the thief character.  His character just seems fairly incompetent in comparison with similar characters in the 3e game that I was playing in the past.  It's occasionally skirted close to being farcical, to be honest.

As for specific points, I'll respond to a few that seemed intriguing.

Quote from: Benoist;367536Pros
May provide mechanical support to eyeball chances of failure and success

This item matches up with my experience in the game.  With no skill system in place, it often feels like attempting actions that the GM decides requires some sort of determination via the dice comes off as a bit flat, as if there's little difference between my character attempting a task that his background might suggest he would be better at than any other character in the game.

Quote from: Benoist;367536Cons
Provides a structure where creativity and common sense could do the job

May shortcurt in-game descriptions of actions
- ("I roll Library Research" instead of actual description of the research methodology, interactions with the Librarian etc)

Character skill matters more than player skill

These three items are all ones that have come up in discussions with the other players and with the DM.  

Prior to playing the game, I was inclined to think that the lack of a skill system might provide for more creativity on the part of us players, but I don't really notice it being that different in a positive way.  If anything, I've noticed that the player playing the thief is much less daring and involved in the game after the first couple of sessions due to the sense of his character being nigh incompetent in his skills.  Perhaps that's the player.  

As for the matter of a skill system shortcutting descriptions of actions, I never noticed that being true in the 3e game or any of the other RPGs I've played with a skill system.  Perhaps it was having a DM who fairly much demanded explication of what we were doing.  Still, on a personal note, the amount of in-game description seems about the same.

The last item, the debate about player skill versus character skill is very interesting, but one for which I've never been able to come to much of a conclusion.  I can see the admiration for the players being the ones to solve a solution rather than it coming down to a skill roll, but I've never experienced the latter being the dominant case.  Again, perhaps it's the DMs that I've played under, or just the players.  

That said, I can also see the desire in occasionally wanting the skills of the character, that the player has created, to be a deciding factor.  God knows that I wouldn't want it to be me having to solve some all-important riddle in the middle of a game, considering my general lackluster ability with such.

Anyway, clearly I'm just thinking aloud here.

Quote from: boulet;367750Am I smelling straw here?

I dunno. Do you live in a barn or something?

Quote from: boulet;367750As a GM I wouldn't mind if you're planning to play your character against his/her own strength and explore some tragic tale of inadequacy.

No, I don't get off on playing tragically gimped characters, nor do I cut myself or spend a lot of time gazing at my shoes.

Fact is, I usually have no idea what the future of my character will be. My characters tend to start with sketchy backgrounds and develop in play, which means they may change considerably in play.

This is one of the reasons I moved away from game systems like d20 which reward detailed planning for characters, mechanically speaking.

Quote from: boulet;367750What the table would know about your character's interests and ambitions will be above all what shows through you role play. The exploration of his/her mindset and emotions is mostly a solitary pleasure until it transforms into action.

As it should be.

I don't give a crap what's on a character sheet as far as personality and background. I care about how that character is played at the table, no matter which side of the screen I'm on.

Quote from: boulet;367750What I was talking about is players' capacity to influence outcomes during the game. In a skill based trad' game it relies a lot on character skills. Sure there are special snowflake players who want to express themselves by not engaging the game system. It's like they assert themselves or something.

"Snowflake players who want to express themselves by not engaging the game system?" Really, boulet? That's where you want to go?

Fact is, I'm a pretty relentless mix/maxer, in systems which allow that sort of thing, and I like games which reward player mastery of the system. That said, I min/max characters is ways that make sense for the character, such as my 3e barbarian for whom I chose every horse-related feat I could, reflecting his background as a member of a tribe of steppe nomads. With a horse under him he was a force to be reckoned with, but I didn't create the character in this way as a plea to the referee to offer encounters where my character would be fighting from horseback. It simply fit my vision of the character.

Quote from: boulet;367750Now I, and most players I know, spend char gen resources with a general intention to be able to play within the rules and have our characters be efficient at least in a couple of activities.

As do I.

Quote from: boulet;367750Hey, that's a cool character concept, I'd be happy to see his adventures.

Rent Pulp Fiction.

The character is Jules Winfield, as played by Samuel L. Jackson, which was also the source of the "tyranny of evil men" quote at the start of my previous post.

Quote from: boulet;367750I don't know why you decided my ultimate mustache twirling evil plan was to railroad the shit out of you by following some hidden oracle on your character sheet.

Hmmm, let me think . . .

Quote from: boulet;367750What would probably happen though is me preparing situations where violence would look like the super obvious solution, and wait and see how your repenting hit man actually turn his back (or not) on his previous ways. Is it cool with you?

It's actually the kind of refereeing tht makes me cringe, to be honest.

Offer a world full of challenges and my character will seek them out. Put your effort into making a vibrant world with lots of stuff for my character to do, and stop thinking of ways to tailor 'situtions' to my character. Can you see the difference here?

Quote from: boulet;367750It's got nothing to do with your freedom as a player.

No, actually it very much does.

Quote from: boulet;367750It's got to do with task resolution and a vague compass about the type of conflict I may introduce as a GM. If you prefer your character to act with mediocre talents rather than his legendary hitman skills that's cool. I have no money on how you plan to deal with crap.

:nono:

It's not about "acting with mediocre talents," boulet. It's about making creative use of the talents you have, of adapting to situations which arise in the course of play.

Quote from: boulet;367750Hey, you're the one who jumped on my post like a hungry flea on a dog, crying "wolf, wolf" about my railroading tendencies.

You keep mixing metaphors like that and you're going to break your blender.

Quote from: boulet;367750It may seem like I think too much but it's sometimes difficult to guess what situations players are looking for during the game, even when asked directly. I don't think it's tyranny to take hints (and I only talked about hints) from character sheets. Obviously this isn't the only guide I have to try and make the game fun.

It's not your job to make the game fun. It's everyone's. Stop trying to hold their hands. Show 'em a world of adventure, and tell 'em, "Do you know what's waiting for you? Immortality! Take it! It's yours!"

Quote from: boulet;367750Are we cool? As soon as you stop with the condescension we might be.

Do they not show Quentin Tarantino films in whatever part of the world you live in? That's the second Pulp Fiction reference you've missed.

Quote from: The Shaman;367757I dunno. Do you live in a barn or something?No, I don't get off on playing tragically gimped characters, nor do I cut myself or spend a lot of time gazing at my shoes.

Fact is, I usually have no idea what the future of my character will be. My characters tend to start with sketchy backgrounds and develop in play, which means they may change considerably in play.

This is one of the reasons I moved away from game systems like d20 which reward detailed planning for characters, mechanically speaking.As it should be.

I don't give a crap what's on a character sheet as far as personality and background. I care about how that character is played at the table, no matter which side of the screen I'm on."Snowflake players who want to express themselves by not engaging the game system?" Really, boulet? That's where you want to go?

Fact is, I'm a pretty relentless mix/maxer, in systems which allow that sort of thing, and I like games which reward player mastery of the system. That said, I min/max characters is ways that make sense for the character, such as my 3e barbarian for whom I chose every horse-related feat I could, reflecting his background as a member of a tribe of steppe nomads. With a horse under him he was a force to be reckoned with, but I didn't create the character in this way as a plea to the referee to offer encounters where my character would be fighting from horseback. It simply fit my vision of the character.As do I.Rent Pulp Fiction.

The character is Jules Winfield, as played by Samuel L. Jackson, which was also the source of the "tyranny of evil men" quote at the start of my previous post.Hmmm, let me think . . . It's actually the kind of refereeing tht makes me cringe, to be honest.

Offer a world full of challenges and my character will seek them out. Put your effort into making a vibrant world with lots of stuff for my character to do, and stop thinking of ways to tailor 'situtions' to my character. Can you see the difference here?No, actually it very much does.:nono:

It's not about "acting with mediocre talents," boulet. It's about making creative use of the talents you have, of adapting to situations which arise in the course of play.You keep mixing metaphors like that and you're going to break your blender.It's not your job to make the game fun. It's everyone's. Stop trying to hold their hands. Show 'em a world of adventure, and tell 'em, "Do you know what's waiting for you? Immortality! Take it! It's yours!"Do they not show Quentin Tarantino films in whatever part of the world you live in? That's the second Pulp Fiction reference you've missed.

Please be aware Boulet is French and English is not his first language or he might start quoting Satre at you and then we'll all be sorry.

If you played that hit man in my game I would railroad the crap out of him. Every town he got to there would be a guy offering 500 green to off some punk kid. Murder would always be the easy way out I presented at every opportunity.  

"Did you really think it would be that easy?"
"Yeah I kind of did."

Quote from: jibbajibba;367762Please be aware Boulet is French and English is not his first language or he might start quoting Satre at you and then we'll all be sorry.

Hmmm.

In the words of the immortal Jean-Paul Sartre, "As far as men go, it is not what they are that interests me, but what they can become."

Clearly M. Sartre was an old-school roleplayer.

Quote from: jibbajibba;367762"Did you really think it would be that easy?"
"Yeah I kind of did."

:hatsoff: