Topic: How many DP do you give per level?

[Spectre771]

If they tried using Strategy skill in a Tactical encounter, I'd let them try it and then have the bandits kick their butts...

It all depends (for me, at least) on the background knowledge and abilities of the players. If they have the background, I will expect more in the way of explanation and the like...if not, I try to keep it simple for them. And for those of you who expect detailed descriptions and the like...how would you handle it if the character is more competent than the player? Say the characters are having the Cavalier plan an ambush. The Cavalier has a massive Tactics bonus, but the player running the character wouldn't have the faintest idea how to check for a clear field of fire for the party's bowmen, let alone some of the finer points of (say) an L-shaped ambush.

Hear hear.

Here here?

Yes, definitely.  I hope the more experienced players will add flair, but I don't require it.  It truly does make the experience more fun, if the player is comfortable with it.  This is where it can fall into meta-gaming too.  I award more XP if the players play the PCs to character.  Kevin knows there's an ambush.  He knows it's a trap.  Bondo the Dwarf Who Bounces Back does NOT know it's an ambush.  There's been so many times I've said "Aw crap.  <sigh> I open the door and walk through..."  or "... I pull the first lever too..." because that's what the PC would have done because the PC has no idea that the guy before him pulled the first lever and fell through the floor into the spike pit.  At least I'll have company in the pit.  I love when players keep the PC as close to character as possible.

  I've also had the reverse happen (the player knew far more than her character did about tactics), and in that case I asked for a die roll based on the character's skill bonus rather than what the player knew. Simulating lack of knowledge is sometimes harder than simulating knowledge.

Yes, I (personally as the GM) have to default to the PC's skills too.  The character simply does not have the meta world knowledge the player has.  While we are the ones playing the game, it's the PC in the game world doing these things.  The PC simply doesn't know about military tactics the way my Marine Staff Sargent friend who is playing the PC does.  And it usually defaults to a discussion of how this works and that works and how this was done in the Battle of Ardennes and how this army held off that army.... <sigh>  Bondo the Dwarf doesn't know that though!  He may get lucky with an open-ended roll and say "Hm... maybe if we set up this way and stick some guys here, this may work!" and bonuses apply.  The hardest thing is making your PC walk into what you already know is a trap.  Grrrrr....

[Green Manalishi]

It all depends (for me, at least) on the background knowledge and abilities of the players. If they have the background, I will expect more in the way of explanation and the like...if not, I try to keep it simple for them. And for those of you who expect detailed descriptions and the like...how would you handle it if the character is more competent than the player? .

You bring up a great point and one I think a lot of GMs miss. The character has the skills, not the player. If your character played guitar (let's say really well, 20 ranks), and you wanted to impress the serving girl by playing to her, would the GM make you get a guitar and start playing it to "role-play?" If you the player didn't pick up an actual guitar and play did you fail your attempt or get a big penalty to the roll? Now imagine a juggling character, and the GM says "Here are the knives, start juggling to see if your character succeeds."
That kind of thing isn't fair. Sometimes as a player we make characters that are NOT like us, so we should be penalized for it?

[Green Manalishi]

Reading some of these posts about some experiences, a GM I played with years ago was like some you posted (being unfair to players.)
I call those types the "griefer" GMs, the anti-player, do it "my way" and having to describe disarming traps? Really? To those GMs, why don't you make the player stand up and simulate the attack their doing against that orc? Or maybe show you how they are going to dodge that arrow, or parry?
Or better yet! Have them show you how they are going to cast that fireball, and when the player doesn't cast a fireball, have him automatically fail.
Man, there's a lot of bad GMing habits

[tbigness]

Would you also let a player skip describing and specifying their actions in combat because they have Strategy skill and just want to roll against that? There has to be something that you describe or play out, otherwise it's clearly a roll-playing game and not role-playing.

I usually let them describe how they want to proceed but ultimitaly most players do not have experience with tactics and the roll will help with getting information on if what is described would be sound or a disaster. Then the can rethink or I would give hints to the situation according to the roll for a more sound tactical option. Not everyone is a master in the skills a character may have so you have to use your judgement as a GM to have the rolls give the assist that is needed in the situation. I will not penalize the player for lack of real knowledge for character knowledge on the skill sheet.

[RandalThor]

Reading some of these posts about some experiences, a GM I played with years ago was like some you posted (being unfair to players.)
I call those types the "griefer" GMs, the anti-player, do it "my way" and having to describe disarming traps? Really? To those GMs, why don't you make the player stand up and simulate the attack their doing against that orc? Or maybe show you how they are going to dodge that arrow, or parry?
Or better yet! Have them show you how they are going to cast that fireball, and when the player doesn't cast a fireball, have him automatically fail.
Man, there's a lot of bad GMing habits

To be fair, the old-school (OS) games did not generally have skills as we see them today. The only things rolled were specific class abilities that really could not be replicated without being illegal in just about every nation on the planet. As I said to some new gamers recently, the OS games, the early ones that began the hobby relied heavily on the player learning how to do certain things. For example: The Tomb of Horrors worked (by being absolutely terrifying to players all over the world) not because the characters didn't know what to expect or how to handle the situation, but because the players didn't. In a more realistic take on the adventure, where the characters should know a whole lot more about, well everything, it wouldn't be as scary, just as if you play it in a more new-school way with skill checks taking the place of players testing things, poking idols with a 10' pole and all that. So, there is something to be said about that style of gaming, only it is hard to say you are doing one part of the game this way, and another another way in modern gaming.

Back "in the day" it was all we knew, while some individuals would actually make characters with character, most were just making mechanical humanoids with certain abilities that they put their own brains and personalities into - even the mental and social stats were really there just for mechanical reasons, to give pluses or minuses to certain abilities/events. I started back then, and I see some of the appeal of that, but I like character and personality too, and that comes with understanding that my character can do certain things at different ability levels, just as much as they cannot do other things. Plus, with the natural flow of how games work metagame knowledge is always around, so learning how to not let it influence your decisions is critical in modern gaming.

I think this is why I like to say I use a combination of styles, some old, some new as I see value in both and try to pick those parts that I value from each. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out too well.   

[markc]

 I have played in both types of games and I prefer the one in which the PC knows the skills and the player does not have to know them.
 IMHO it also depends on the GM and their playing style but often I have found that if the GM expects the players to know something and then they get into an area they do not have the same knowledge they often gloss over that. So IMHO the same rules have to apply to the GM as the player.
MDC