So that means every game player character shouldn't have skill under that logic since they can technically be piloted by 5 year olds too.
Characters like Master Chief are shown to be able to do shit on their own in cutscenes and it can be generally assumed that is how they might act "in-lore". When you play Halo, you get to control master chief in the shooty sections because that's fun. You're not Master Chief directly, you just get to shoot shit as him. Player characters in Roblox games are generally loreless, so you don't really get that many skill feats; even if there are skill feats, most of the people in this thread aren't exactly indexing them super well.
Barring that, I do think it could be argued that the most common way of playing the game should be accepted as a bare minimum for skill feats. If you were to make a profile for
Blast Zone, you should be able to argue that the player characters in that game would be able to perform tech like launching their bombs with hammers
because they are literally shown to do this in-game. I think it's disingenuous to say that they can't do shit like
bomb jump into hammer swipes (
or perform even riskier versions of it) if it's shown to be possible in-game and is not a feature that the devs want to remove (e.g, a glitch). It should
also be assumed that they'll have zero knowledge of the opponent because it shouldn't be assumed that they'll have the same knowledge as the player when it comes to pop-culture. Just imagine them like, fighting an exploiter that's using custom powers & shit - not game-breaking, but like around the level of the character they're pit up against.
If John Blastzone fights somebody like Master Chief, they're not gonna know what he's capable of and they'll just bomb-jump towards them or some shit because that is what they do in-game. You can fight against enemies that throw grenades in Blast Zone, and you can fight against opponents that use plasma weapons (fusion cannon) that ignore hammer strikes & melt through terrain. With this in mind, you can assume that they'll have some level of baseline knowledge of what to do against certain weapons in the fight. If chief tries throwing a grenade, they'll attempt to swat it back at him with his hammer, if they use a
fuel rod cannon, incineration cannon, or
rocket launcher, they'll avoid it because it looks like their
rocket launcher/handheld energy cannon in-verse equivalent that they are not capable of deflecting with hammer blows. They might try swatting a plasma grenade because it looks like another grenade, but if it sticks to their hammer and blows up in their face, it should be assumed that they'll learn
not to swing at the glowing blue grenade that the green space marine guy throws because they'll stick to your hammer and ******* blow up again.
Could this fight go different? Yeah, maybe they'll try to swat the fuel rod cannon shots away with their hammer because they look different from Blast Zone's energy weapons, but it can also be assumed that they'll just avoid it because the fuel rod cannon has the property of blowing up on-impact like their in-verse rocket launchers do; they're more likely than not going to just dodge them as opposed to swat them away because of that. Hell, it can also be assumed they'll know not to swat away plasma grenades if chief misses a throw because
there's an in-verse equivalent of sticky bombs.
For loreless characters, you should generally base knowledge off of what happens ingame. If John Fartattack fights Master Chief, he's not going to know jack shit (...lol) because his entire game plan is just farting other people into toilet bowl water. Like, he MIGHT dodge some of his weapons to avoid getting knocked around, I guess? He takes 0 damage in-game, so it should not be assumed that they'll prioritize dodging unless the fight takes place in Fart Attack's toilet.
