Character Flaws: Crunch vs. Fluff

[Max_Killjoy]

Vahnavoi is basically right here.

I strongly strongly strongly dislike the "specialists take turns doing things while everyone else watches" model. The party is not a multi-headed hydra who can swap in the "perfect person" at each juncture. The DCs are low enough that unless you've gone out of your way to dump things into the gutter, you can contribute. And none of the checks are do or die--failure comes from choosing the wrong tactics and getting yourself stuck in a no-win state. You have to fail a lot of checks before that happens.

I believe that flaws (and strengths) are a signal to the DM. They're a "plot eyebolt" (an attachment point for a plot hook). Yes, I am going to have NPCs come up and talk to the unsociable person. Or people who will only listen to the urchin barbarian, not the noble bard. Who you are matters way more than what your modifiers are. And no, many times you can't Help with social things--more than one person talking just gets in the way. Been there, seen that in real life. "Butt out, I'm talking to your buddy here."

On the same note, there will be times when the paladin (immune to fear) gets to ignore a fear effect targeted at them. Or the rogue with Evasion gets to laugh at the fireball.

Same goes for someone who dumped STR into the gutter. They're going to have to make STR checks. Or the person who can't handle melee combat--things are going to get into their face. Or the inverse--if you only have melee capabilities, things will, inevitably, be at range. Same with INT checks. I don't care if you dumped INT into the gutter--you will have to make INT checks for things. And no, your smart buddy can't save you from it. Short version: your choices matter. You can't dump things, turning that into stronger strengths and then complain that you're not good at stuff. That was your choice, you pay the consequences. Otherwise it's just free build points. And if I wanted to give free build points, I'd have done that up front.

I don't do "one success to win" checks[0]. They're pointless. Checks are either individual and targeted (You, over there, make a X check) and their success or failure matters, or they're group checks, which use the group check rules.

[0] Edit: To be more precise, I do use them, but they're a smokescreen. They're basically a guaranteed pass, letting the characters feel like they earned something I was totally planning on giving them anyway. Effectively they're a bit of dice chatter, nothing more. For anything that actually matters, I do one of the other two types.

(And adjacent to this, as far as I'm concerned, don't dump-stat things and then expect to ahem "roleplay" around those limitations to the character, by fastidiously using player-layer knowledge and abilities, and fastidious avoidance of actual rolls, to avoid the character-layer result of the build-time choices.)

But... I will make allowances for the player who, for example, genuinely doesn't enjoy lots of character social interaction in their gaming, and not look at their lack of mechanical investment as an invitation to poke that sore spot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

(And adjacent to this, as far as I'm concerned, don't dump-stat things and then expect to ahem "roleplay" around those limitations to the character, by fastidiously using player-layer knowledge and abilities, and fastidious avoidance of actual rolls, to avoid the character-layer result of the build-time choices.)

But... I will make allowances for the player who, for example, genuinely doesn't enjoy lots of character social interaction in their gaming, and not look at their lack of mechanical investment as an invitation to poke that sore spot.

If you just don't enjoy it, tell me that. You'll still have to make the occasional check, but I won't press. And even the "default" dump in 5e (-1 modifier, no proficiency) is enough to contribute most of the time--when the majority of DCs are either 10 or 15 and failure just means the conversation takes a slightly different path, contributing isn't hard.

It's the people who try to get bennies for taking theoretical flaws and then whine when those flaws become actual that grind my gears.

Edit: as an example--I had a player who was super shy. She played a huge hulking barbarian whose first instinct was "I hit them with my axe." I still had her make an occasional social check, but they were based around being intimidating ("Gonna axe you a question"), generally in a support role. Such as when they were interrogating a captured NPC who happened to be a coward. The sweet-talking bard wasn't being very successful (Persuasion had a high DC due to his nature, plus they weren't hitting the things the NPC cared about). But he definitely was willing to talk once the giant "lizard person" (dragonborn, but in an area those aren't common) mentioned that she was hungry and gave him a meaningful look. Charisma (Intimidation), at advantage (hitting a weak point), plus a low DC (because he was a coward).

[Vahnavoi]

This sort of loops back to the start of this thread.

Choosing a bad strategy and then trying to play a game avoiding the pitfalls of that strategy makes sense, if you're doing it for extra challenge. For example, while attempting to never fight is a bad strategy in D&D, there still is a huge space of possible D&D scenarios which are vincible without ever fighting. So if there's a possibility a scenario you're about to play is in that design space, you could give it a shot, just to see if you can pull it off. This requires accepting the possibility of the player being stuck in an unwinnable challenge, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This sort of loops back to the start of this thread.

Choosing a bad strategy and then trying to play a game avoiding the pitfalls of that strategy makes sense, if you're doing it for extra challenge. For example, while attempting to never fight is a bad strategy in D&D, there still is a huge space of possible D&D scenarios which are vincible without ever fighting. So if there's a possibility a scenario you're about to play is in that design space, you could give it a shot, just to see if you can pull it off. This requires accepting the possibility of the player being stuck in an unwinnable challenge, though.

There's a big difference (in my mind) between single player games, where this sort of "self-imposed challenge" is totally fine, and cooperative games, where it requires enthusiastic, up front buy in (not just avoiding confrontation but being annoyed by it, but actually liking the idea) from everyone else, DM intended.

I'm much more willing to create scenarios that avoid combat if everyone says "let's run a combat-light game" (whether that's one where combat just doesn't come up much or one where the presumption is that there's almost always a way to defuse combat scenarios). Same with social-lite or exploration-lite games. If one person, acting on their own, decides to put the party through hard mode for their own fun...that's not something I'm comfortable with. Character building is a conversation with compromise IMO, both with the group and with the DM. It's not a matter of right, where everyone gets to make their own decisions, the rest of the party notwithstanding. Everyone has to agree on what kind of game you'll be playing. And yes, this includes the DM not unilaterally deciding "hey, you signed up for a heavy combat game (or vice versa), but now it's going to be all social manipulation/all combat." That's not fair play IMO.

[Willie the Duck]

But... I will make allowances for the player who, for example, genuinely doesn't enjoy lots of character social interaction in their gaming, and not look at their lack of mechanical investment as an invitation to poke that sore spot.

Games with multicomponent character-build systems (GURPS as an example) ought to have 'milquetoast' or 'bouncer' advantages where someone just fades into the background or stands in the background looking menacing, but either way doesn't invite conversation. It'd pair nicely with the 'common sense' advantage such games often have.

[Tanarii]

(And adjacent to this, as far as I'm concerned, don't dump-stat things and then expect to ahem "roleplay" around those limitations to the character, by fastidiously using player-layer knowledge and abilities, and fastidious avoidance of actual rolls, to avoid the character-layer result of the build-time choices.)

Depends.

If they avoid doing things due to dump-stat weaknesses and thus don't have to make rolls based on them as often, that automatically is generating appropriate roleplaying of a low ability score. And on those occasions when they have to make a roll based on them in the course of events, and have a high likelihood of failure, then also working as intended.

If they're trying to use gaming the GM to succeed in a task instead of making a roll using a dump-stat, then that's not working as intended, either on the part of the player of the GM if they allow it. Classic example being dumping Cha-type abilities and then trying to persuade the DM by their pretty talking a roll isn't needed. (And I assume this is what you're talking about?)

That's not to say that every in-character approach (appropriate content of the talking vs the target, in the example) should automatically require a roll of come kind. Smart decision making might obviate a roll. But trying to bypass inherent character skill by replacing with player skill shouldn't. Not meaning Player Skill (with caps), which is usually a term that means smart decision making.

[kyoryu]

If they avoid doing things due to dump-stat weaknesses and thus don't have to make rolls based on them as often, that automatically is generating appropriate roleplaying of a low ability score. And on those occasions when they have to make a roll based on them in the course of events, and have a high likelihood of failure, then also working as intended.

I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.

I mean, we don't complain that the wizard doesn't jump into melee in D&D in most cases.

The trick there is making sure that their "optimal" path has negative consequences. IOW, it's not that interesting to put the high-strength character in a situation where they have to use intelligence as a rolled stat - it's more interesting to put them in a situation where they totally can still use strength, but there will be some consequences for doing so.

[Batcathat]

I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.

I mean, we don't complain that the wizard doesn't jump into melee in D&D in most cases.

The trick there is making sure that their "optimal" path has negative consequences. IOW, it's not that interesting to put the high-strength character in a situation where they have to use intelligence as a rolled stat - it's more interesting to put them in a situation where they totally can still use strength, but there will be some consequences for doing so.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting to occasionally push characters out of the comfort zone and see what happens if the heavily armored fighter have to be sneaky or the smelly barbarian have to be charming, or whatever. It shouldn't be done too often, but now and then I think it's quite fun.

Ensuring that their preferred method has consequences can also be interesting, but I don't see why it'd be automatically preferable to the above.

[Satinavian]

If the players plan around their weaknesses and thus avoid rolls on them, they still feel those weaknesses in terms of limited options and/or extra effort. That is enough for me.

And that is very different from roleplaying around them. Dumping Charisma and then "playing out" lying to the guard without a roll is not acceptable. Dumping Charisma and then sneaking around the guard so that you don't have to talk to him very well is.

[kyoryu]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting to occasionally push characters out of the comfort zone and see what happens if the heavily armored fighter have to be sneaky or the smelly barbarian have to be charming, or whatever. It shouldn't be done too often, but now and then I think it's quite fun.

Ensuring that their preferred method has consequences can also be interesting, but I don't see why it'd be automatically preferable to the above.

It can be interesting occasionally, but I think it should be the exception, not the rule.

It also feels more aggressive in some ways.... like, if I have a character that wants to sneak through everything, and sneaking gets them into trouble, I kind of feel like "okay, well, that makes sense." OTOH, if sneaky character is put in a position where sneaking is impossible, and they have to do the thing they're bad at, that feels less good as a character, more punishing.

But I also wonder why this rears its head in skill-based systems more. We rarely hear about wizards having to beat things down with a stick, or fighters having to figure out how to magic their way out of something. I suspect it's because in GURPS or something, the fact that you bought a high fighting skill doesn't mean that you can't get a sneak skill, so there's an impulse to..... make sure you feel the weight of that decision? While in class-based systems the choices are at the class level and harder to avoid, so it's more, I guess "understandable"?

If the players plan around their weaknesses and thus avoid rolls on them, they still feel those weaknesses in terms of limited options and/or extra effort. That is enough for me.

And that is very different from roleplaying around them. Dumping Charisma and then "playing out" lying to the guard without a roll is not acceptable. Dumping Charisma and then sneaking around the guard so that you don't have to talk to him very well is.

Agreed on both counts.

[Max_Killjoy]

If the players plan around their weaknesses and thus avoid rolls on them, they still feel those weaknesses in terms of limited options and/or extra effort. That is enough for me.

And that is very different from roleplaying around them. Dumping Charisma and then "playing out" lying to the guard without a roll is not acceptable. Dumping Charisma and then sneaking around the guard so that you don't have to talk to him very well is.

Agreed.

For me, it's less "force them to feel the weight of their choices" than it is "don't let them get away with actively ignoring the choices they made".

[NichG]

I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.

I mean, we don't complain that the wizard doesn't jump into melee in D&D in most cases.

Agreed. I think this is a lesser part of a general design pattern that I've learned to dislike - what I'd call 'go fish' style. Basically a game where the player has to guess before the adventure what things will be needed, followed by the GM calling for checks, saves, or required thresholds in specific areas.

I generally prefer a 'if you pay for something, it adds a new option to your toolkit' kind of design these days, where checks and skill levels and such either primarily come into play in response to something the player initiates, or they're common enough to come up every session so there's no guessing about whether it's going to be relevant.

[Alteiner]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting to occasionally push characters out of the comfort zone and see what happens if the heavily armored fighter have to be sneaky or the smelly barbarian have to be charming, or whatever. It shouldn't be done too often, but now and then I think it's quite fun.

Ensuring that their preferred method has consequences can also be interesting, but I don't see why it'd be automatically preferable to the above.

This is not something I have ever bothered doing as a player. No. I am not going to go out of my way to try and do something when I know for a fact I will not succeed. I'm going to force the way I do things to apply to the situation, no matter how messy it makes things. I play broadly-competent characters whenever I can, encourage the rest of my group to do the same, and let people who are good at things do the things they're good at while avoiding the things I know I'm bad at. My heavily-armored warrior isn't sneaking anywhere. That isn't his job. He's walking in through the back door and shoving his sword inside of the first person who sees him before they can call for help, and the next and the next. That's his version of stealth. You don't need to go unseen. You just need to incapacitate anyone who sees you before they can get reinforcements. Are they good people? Do they deserve to be stabbed to death? Don't know; don't care. Is it going to be hard? I don't know, probably. But it'll be easier than trying to sneak through, which is what matters here. I didn't invent the material conditions of the situation. The GM did, and if I'm expected to resolve it the best that I can, then anything that happens from trying to force a square peg to pretend to be a triangle is on them.

Like, I know what happens when a character I'm playing has to do something they're not good at: they fail. I've done the math, I've run the numbers, and I've known how this situation will go since before the game started. It isn't interesting or amusing; it's just annoying. Interesting desperate acts of necessity arise from natural circumstances; not from contrivances. If it's do or die time and the guy who's supposed to do this is incapacitated or indisposed, I'll bite the bullet and do what needs doing. But if I see the hand of the author, then I'm sinking my teeth in. You can't ask an axe to do a lockpick's job and not expect the door to be demolished. If you want the door to be open and intact, then either wait for the lockpick to get here or prepare to be disappointed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is not something I have ever bothered doing as a player. No. I am not going to go out of my way to try and do something when I know for a fact I will not succeed. I'm going to force the way I do things to apply to the situation, no matter how messy it makes things. I play broadly-competent characters whenever I can, encourage the rest of my group to do the same, and let people who are good at things do the things they're good at while avoiding the things I know I'm bad at. My heavily-armored warrior isn't sneaking anywhere. That isn't his job. He's walking in through the back door and shoving his sword inside of the first person who sees him before they can call for help, and the next and the next. That's his version of stealth. You don't need to go unseen. You just need to incapacitate anyone who sees you before they can get reinforcements. Are they good people? Do they deserve to be stabbed to death? Don't know; don't care. Is it going to be hard? I don't know, probably. But it'll be easier than trying to sneak through, which is what matters here. I didn't invent the material conditions of the situation. The GM did, and if I'm expected to resolve it the best that I can, then anything that happens from trying to force a square peg to pretend to be a triangle is on them.

Like, I know what happens when a character I'm playing has to do something they're not good at: they fail. I've done the math, I've run the numbers, and I've known how this situation will go since before the game started. It isn't interesting or amusing; it's just annoying. Interesting desperate acts of necessity arise from natural circumstances; not from contrivances. If it's do or die time and the guy who's supposed to do this is incapacitated or indisposed, I'll bite the bullet and do what needs doing. But if I see the hand of the author, then I'm sinking my teeth in. You can't ask an axe to do a lockpick's job and not expect the door to be demolished. If you want the door to be open and intact, then either wait for the lockpick to get here or prepare to be disappointed.

But what about checks you make involuntarily? You're on a boat, and it hits a bad wave. Make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check[1] to stay on your feet. You're climbing, and a big wind comes up. Make a Strength check[1] to stay on the wall and not fall. You're riding a horse, and something spooks it. Make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to keep it under control. You're playing bodyguard at a party for your more fancy colleague and someone influential comes up to you and starts trying to talk to your principal while he's occupied. You don't want to piss him off, but you can't let him distract your party member. Make a Charisma (Social) check. Etc.

These are things that in the normal case don't require any kind of check or roll (at least in 5e D&D). But something happens, and now you need to try to save the situation. Not every action is initiated by the players--you don't get to choose what happens all the time. And no one can save you--you can't just substitute in a different party member on the fly in every case.

[1] or a DEX/STR saving throw, depending on the situation.

[Batcathat]

This is not something I have ever bothered doing as a player. No. I am not going to go out of my way to try and do something when I know for a fact I will not succeed. I'm going to force the way I do things to apply to the situation, no matter how messy it makes things. I play broadly-competent characters whenever I can, encourage the rest of my group to do the same, and let people who are good at things do the things they're good at while avoiding the things I know I'm bad at. My heavily-armored warrior isn't sneaking anywhere. That isn't his job. He's walking in through the back door and shoving his sword inside of the first person who sees him before they can call for help, and the next and the next. That's his version of stealth. You don't need to go unseen. You just need to incapacitate anyone who sees you before they can get reinforcements. Are they good people? Do they deserve to be stabbed to death? Don't know; don't care. Is it going to be hard? I don't know, probably. But it'll be easier than trying to sneak through, which is what matters here. I didn't invent the material conditions of the situation. The GM did, and if I'm expected to resolve it the best that I can, then anything that happens from trying to force a square peg to pretend to be a triangle is on them.

To each their own. I do agree that a character should mainly do whatever they're good at and that most problems should have multiple way of solving them. However, I find it both more interesting and more realistic if characters are sometimes forced to utilize their weaknesses rather than their strengths.

[Cluedrew]

I've never understood why people seem to get so obsessed with making people use weak skills/stats, especially in skill-based games.

Its an interesting situation to put a character in that will never come up if they always play to their strengths. Which also a situation I would like to see to but I'm just assuming that will come up frequently.

There is a difference between weak-attributes, things that can go negative and everyone has, where this weakness is part of the character and weak-skills, things that start at zero or does not apply, where this weakness is just something the character does not have. And there are also weak-traits, aka flaws that start at does not apply and goes negative with explicit buy in, but in terms of this they are kind of like weak-attributes.

I understand both actually. Sometimes there is nothing interesting to say about a character in that regard (narratively or mechanically) so why invest points into it? Other times the fact you haven't invested points into it is the interesting thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its an interesting situation to put a character in that will never come up if they always play to their strengths. Which also a situation I would like to see to but I'm just assuming that will come up frequently.

There is a difference between weak-attributes, things that can go negative and everyone has, where this weakness is part of the character and weak-skills, things that start at zero or does not apply, where this weakness is just something the character does not have. And there are also weak-traits, aka flaws that start at does not apply and goes negative with explicit buy in, but in terms of this they are kind of like weak-attributes.

I understand both actually. Sometimes there is nothing interesting to say about a character in that regard (narratively or mechanically) so why invest points into it? Other times the fact you haven't invested points into it is the interesting thing.

I'm a believer that opportunity costs matter. Both what you choose to invest in and what you choose (as a result) not to invest in (for things where those aren't the same decision) matter.

So being a D&D fighter and not having Sneak Attack isn't an interesting thing--it was a branch and you chose one path, not the other. But choosing to put the "extra" ability score points (ie the tertiary+ stats) into INT instead of WIS or CHA (or vice versa) is an interesting statement. Often more interesting than the choice to have a high STR (or DEX for that type of fighter)--that's just part of the base class, almost baked in.

And especially if you're doing some form of point buy and decide to dump multiple stats. The baseline in 5e (at least) is that you generally have (before racials) 2 +2s, 2 +1s, 1 +0, and a -1. Where you put that -1 is interesting. And if you choose instead to have e.g. 3 +2s, 2 +1s, and two -1s, that's an interesting statement.

[Tanarii]

If the players plan around their weaknesses and thus avoid rolls on them, they still feel those weaknesses in terms of limited options and/or extra effort. That is enough for me.

And that is very different from roleplaying around them. Dumping Charisma and then "playing out" lying to the guard without a roll is not acceptable. Dumping Charisma and then sneaking around the guard so that you don't have to talk to him very well is.

Making decisions based on trying to avoid your weaknesses is exactly roleplaying them.

Trying to game the GM to avoid making a roll while still getting all the successes of something that requires a roll is not roleplaying.

That's mostly a point on people using the term "Roleplaying" to mean "talky-time without rolling" instead of "making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment", as opposed to disagreeing with the sentiment of what you wrote.

[Zuras]

Making decisions based on trying to avoid your weaknesses is exactly roleplaying them.

Trying to game the GM to avoid making a roll while still getting all the successes of something that requires a roll is not roleplaying.

That's mostly a point on people using the term "Roleplaying" to mean "talky-time without rolling" instead of "making decisions for the character in the fantasy environment", as opposed to disagreeing with the sentiment of what you wrote.

I agree with your argument about players trying to act eloquent when their character isn’t, but is that really a min-max problem? It feels like a table problem when it comes up for me—usually an eloquent player sees a less eloquent player who’s trying to play a high-CHA character struggling in a scene and tries to help/take over (which one varies by their level of personal maturity/empathy).

Same issue when the player who solves math problems and riddles for fun but chose to play a dumb barbarian this campaign helps the party solve puzzles. Is it even a problem? Usually it’s hard to tell without feeling the dynamic around the table.

The idea that bad stats or flaws should be periodically targeted for “balance” simply doesn’t pan out in most cases. Most of the time, the entire party ends up paying for one character’s mistake when the clanky fighter blows a stealth check or the uncouth barbarian offends a countess. If the GM is looking at these as punishments rather than handy levers to use to propel the plot forward it can be a bad dynamic (especially if the other players feel they’re being punished for someone else’s flaws).

It’s a complex issue, because a modest level of flaws adds to the tactical complexity—in D&D keeping the squishy wizard in the back and knowing the dumb fighter can’t see through illusions is part of the fun.

[Batcathat]

If the GM is looking at these as punishments rather than handy levers to use to propel the plot forward it can be a bad dynamic (especially if the other players feel they’re being punished for someone else’s flaws).

Well, yeah. I think the GM doing pretty much anything as punishment towards the players is questionable at best. There might be situations I can't think of right now where I'd be okay with it, but it feels like a slippery slope.

Which shouldn't be confused with the GM not letting the players/characters suffer the consequences of their actions, which can seem very similar. I'm fine with "you did X so now Y happens as a logical consequence" but not "you didn't do as I intended, now feel my wrath".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, yeah. I think the GM doing pretty much anything as punishment towards the players is questionable at best. There might be situations I can't think of right now where I'd be okay with it, but it feels like a slippery slope.

Which shouldn't be confused with the GM not letting the players/characters suffer the consequences of their actions, which can seem very similar. I'm fine with "you did X so now Y happens as a logical consequence" but not "you didn't do as I intended, now feel my wrath".

This. It's not punishment, it's just a recognition that not all events are under the players' control. And that I, as the DM, won't twist things to avoid your weaknesses. Nor will I generally[1] aim at your weaknesses. But a manufactured weakness that never comes up is just free points.

[1] the exception is intelligent enemies who have seen the weaknesses in action and choose to target them. But they can (and often are) wrong--trying to fear the party, even though they're protected by heroes' feast, or trying to grapple the little unarmored guy...only to find out that he's really a monk. Etc.

[Zuras]

Well, yeah. I think the GM doing pretty much anything as punishment towards the players is questionable at best. There might be situations I can't think of right now where I'd be okay with it, but it feels like a slippery slope.

Which shouldn't be confused with the GM not letting the players/characters suffer the consequences of their actions, which can seem very similar. I'm fine with "you did X so now Y happens as a logical consequence" but not "you didn't do as I intended, now feel my wrath".

Sure, but even logical consequences for the party as a whole can be problematic if they’re the result of events triggered by “it’s what my character would do” behavior.

[Batcathat]

Sure, but even logical consequences for the party as a whole can be problematic if they’re the result of events triggered by “it’s what my character would do” behavior.

Perhaps, but that seems like it has less to do with the GM creating consequences for actions and more to do with players taking actions not deemed acceptable by the table. If the group is okay with a character randomly stabbing an important NPC or whatever, they shouldn't be upset when the city guard comes looking.

[kyoryu]

Agreed. I think this is a lesser part of a general design pattern that I've learned to dislike - what I'd call 'go fish' style. Basically a game where the player has to guess before the adventure what things will be needed, followed by the GM calling for checks, saves, or required thresholds in specific areas.

I generally prefer a 'if you pay for something, it adds a new option to your toolkit' kind of design these days, where checks and skill levels and such either primarily come into play in response to something the player initiates, or they're common enough to come up every session so there's no guessing about whether it's going to be relevant.

In general, I prefer character builds to determine what options you have available to you, rather than the build being a significant determinant of success and failure itself.

Like, in general, I think if you look at a baseline of a player reasonably informed on the system, but not an expert, as operating at 100% efficiency, then I'd expect a player who was new to the system but made reasonable choices based on logic to be at 80-90% efficiency, a well informed player to be maybe 110% or so, a skilled optimizer to be in the 120% range, and someone abusing every illogical choice to be in the like 130% range.

[Xervous]

But what about checks you make involuntarily? You're on a boat, and it hits a bad wave. Make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check[1] to stay on your feet. You're climbing, and a big wind comes up. Make a Strength check[1] to stay on the wall and not fall. You're riding a horse, and something spooks it. Make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to keep it under control. You're playing bodyguard at a party for your more fancy colleague and someone influential comes up to you and starts trying to talk to your principal while he's occupied. You don't want to piss him off, but you can't let him distract your party member. Make a Charisma (Social) check. Etc.

These are things that in the normal case don't require any kind of check or roll (at least in 5e D&D). But something happens, and now you need to try to save the situation. Not every action is initiated by the players--you don't get to choose what happens all the time. And no one can save you--you can't just substitute in a different party member on the fly in every case.

[1] or a DEX/STR saving throw, depending on the situation.

Now I’m deathly curious what example DCs would be for the DEX and STR checks. Are we on a part of the D20 range where the proficient Barbarian no-rolls the check while climbing, or do we see high roll wizard staying put while the barbarian tumbles on a low roll?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now I’m deathly curious what example DCs would be for the DEX and STR checks. Are we on a part of the D20 range where the proficient Barbarian no-rolls the check while climbing, or do we see high roll wizard staying put while the barbarian tumbles on a low roll?

The options (in 5e are):
DC 5 (probably shouldn't even call for a check here) -- something that an unskilled person should succeed on the vast majority of the time.
DC 10 -- something that's about a 50/50 shot for an unskilled person
DC 15 -- something that's about a 50/50 shot for a beginning, but skilled, character (ie low-level proficiency + decent ability score)
DC 20 -- something that's about a 50/50 shot for an advanced and skilled (but not expert) character (ie high level proficiency + good ability score OR high-level double-proficiency + a low ability score)

The exact details depend on the situation. But my gut says that I'd rarely call for such things in the DC 5 or 20 range, so either 10 (the barbarian with athletics proficiency is unlikely to fail, while the no-proficiency STR -1 wizard has a 50/50 shot) or 15 (the barbarian can fail, but only rarely, while the wizard can succeed, but only rarely).

Checks never should be called (for an individual) where success is overwhelmingly likely or actually impossible[1] for that character. Checks exist to resolve uncertainty--if there's no uncertainty, there's no check. Relatedly, if the consequences for failure are meaningless, there's also no need for a check, because checks exist to keep the narrative moving in the face of uncertainty. And "nothing happens, try again" or "you don't make progress" are meaningless unless time matters at a resolution of seconds.

[1] yes, there's asymmetry here. On purpose--the characters are heroic, so they can do things that are really hard, but shouldn't have to worry about things that only have a tiny chance of failure[2]. Generally, I don't call for checks of lower than DC 10, unless conditions are special. Or if I do, they're color checks (clacking of math rocks without real purpose) or degrees of success (success is guaranteed, but how well you do determines how much you find out or how quickly you find out, etc).

[2] with the caveat that extremely unlikely failure, combined with extremely costly failure, might require a check. But generally you're better off avoiding those kinds of situations entirely. Falling as you get out of bed and killing yourself because you hit your head is rarely a heroic way to die.

[Talakeal]

In general, I prefer character builds to determine what options you have available to you, rather than the build being a significant determinant of success and failure itself.

Like, in general, I think if you look at a baseline of a player reasonably informed on the system, but not an expert, as operating at 100% efficiency, then I'd expect a player who was new to the system but made reasonable choices based on logic to be at 80-90% efficiency, a well informed player to be maybe 110% or so, a skilled optimizer to be in the 120% range, and someone abusing every illogical choice to be in the like 130% range.

That's not how math works!

Joking aside, there are two problems with this.

The first is that every line is arbitrary, where you put 100%, what the appropriate level of tactics, what the appropriate win rate is, and where you draw the line between punishment and reward are all really subjective and depend on the mindset of the group as a whole.

Second, if you are playing in a game with even a bit of verisimilitude, lots of things will be situational. Benefits in some situations, drawbacks in others, and most of them time just free / wasted points that don't come up at all.

I mean, I like the sentiment that the gap between player characters should be smaller, but its really hard to do, especially when you also factor in the player's skill at playing the build on top of just making the builds.

[Quertus]

That's not how math works!

Joking aside, there are two problems with this.

The first is that every line is arbitrary, where you put 100%, what the appropriate level of tactics, what the appropriate win rate is, and where you draw the line between punishment and reward are all really subjective and depend on the mindset of the group as a whole.

Second, if you are playing in a game with even a bit of verisimilitude, lots of things will be situational. Benefits in some situations, drawbacks in others, and most of them time just free / wasted points that don't come up at all.

I mean, I like the sentiment that the gap between player characters should be smaller, but its really hard to do, especially when you also factor in the player's skill at playing the build on top of just making the builds.

Heck, I hand two people the exact same characters, and you'll see more variance than that (just imagine if they were both role-playing "a gamer making a D&D character").

In fact, as a proponent of CaW, who believes that encounters should be able to go from "impossible" to "cakewalk" based on the characters' actions, I all but demand a much higher level of variance in outcomes.

But, yes, it would be nice if *every* build could produce that much variance - if there wasn't so much variance in ability to create variance.

[NichG]

Heck, I hand two people the exact same characters, and you'll see more variance than that (just imagine if they were both role-playing "a gamer making a D&D character").

In fact, as a proponent of CaW, who believes that encounters should be able to go from "impossible" to "cakewalk" based on the characters' actions, I all but demand a much higher level of variance in outcomes.

But, yes, it would be nice if *every* build could produce that much variance - if there wasn't so much variance in ability to create variance.

Well, you can have that variance from decisions only, from build only, from both...

There's also a way of thinking about this where it isn't at all about the absolute efficiency, but rather about resonance between a character and a player's ability to play that character - so things which are equally effective, but one 'feels good to play' for a particular player; and freedom in build is basically the ability for a player to seek out the things that feel best to play rather than a method of acting on the game world or garnering agency.

[kyoryu]

That's not how math works!

Joking aside, there are two problems with this.

The first is that every line is arbitrary, where you put 100%, what the appropriate level of tactics, what the appropriate win rate is, and where you draw the line between punishment and reward are all really subjective and depend on the mindset of the group as a whole.

Second, if you are playing in a game with even a bit of verisimilitude, lots of things will be situational. Benefits in some situations, drawbacks in others, and most of them time just free / wasted points that don't come up at all.

I mean, I like the sentiment that the gap between player characters should be smaller, but its really hard to do, especially when you also factor in the player's skill at playing the build on top of just making the builds.

Yeah, this is a rough guideline, and doesn't take tactical choices into account. The point is not to create a scientific expectation that can be rigorously tested - it's to give an idea of the level of variance I'd like to see specifically from build choices.