Should strong players have an advantage?

[Bedrockgames]

How much importance do you place in your game on a player roleplaying his character according to the character's strengths and weaknesses rather than his own; and if you place high importance on it, how do you deal with it?

I like this quesiton better than the first. I place a lot importance on this because to me it is the heart of role playing.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Tossing out my opinion again. It's true that a player who is intellectually smarter and a better problem solver would probably get into their character better and play it more true to form, so I think it may lend more credence to them having an advantage at the table-top game the same would be true if you had a jock playing in an athletic game, his natural abilities are more athletic than the nerdy intellectual, he'll be better in the game of basketball or whatever sport you put him into.

I would never give a player any kind of advantage or treat him/her any different based on their physical attributes and try not to based on mental attributes, but this is -again- a game using mental attributes not physical.

As a DM, I do reward players more if they get into their characters more and play their characters more accurately. I've used Action Points in 4E to this effect, and I told them ahead of time it's my judgment call, that I reward people for good role playing and good cinematic moments in-game. So perhaps I was rewarding the more intellectual and imaginative people in the group, but this is a game of "imagination."

I totally agree, as long as everyone is having fun, that's the whole point of the game and the social interaction of a table-top RPG.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think extroverted, clever, game-wise players already get enough advantages as it is, by their inherent nature. I see no point in rewarding their characters with in-game, explicit mechanical bonuses for their traits over other people whose charisma, intelligence, and wisdom manifest themselves less powerfully in that environment.

I prefer it this way not least because you get what you reward, and I'm not particularly impressed by people trying to "play the DM" instead of playing the game. Moreover, people that have the traits that translate to natural advantages in play can typically, sans such rewards, get the other players to go along with whatever they want. That is a bigger reward than any implicit or explicit bonus a DM could ever give.

On the second formulation of the question, I don't tend to give XP benefits or penalties for roleplaying anymore. I prefer other rewards, such as action points, and prefer them to range from zero on up, with the "penalty" for bad roleplaying being not getting any. And I would certainly consider trying to play a character with a very low intelligence, wisdom, or charisma as if they had a much higher ability, and relying on the players' native ability, to be extremely bad roleplaying.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. A valid point. But let's take it away from "advantage" and move it into the realm of "different". Should a strong player be penalized in some way for not roleplaying his character as weak, if the character is so?

I am not sure this makes a lot of sense. A player's actual strength has no bearing on how strong his character is played (unless you mean agression or something). And I can't think of a way to play a STR 10 Character as having STR 20 (unless the concept is the character is a weakling who thinks he is strong and behaves like you would expect a strongman to behave). For me the issue has nothing to do with the players' real life strength and everything to do with how well is he is playing the character concept.

I don't penalize bad role play or give prizes for good role play. It has nothing to do with experience points in my mind. I like good role play, and I respond to it when running a game, but I don't give XP for it.

And, similarly, should that apply to mental attributes?

I feel a player should play his character's intelligence, not his own. So if he is a genius but playing a guy with INT 6, he is going to have to stifle his intellect in order to play the character effectively. Usually this isn't a problem. The challenge is usually when you play a character more intelligent than yourself. Obviously it is going to be easier for a smart person to play a smart character.

Again, I state that I do not believe so. I'd prefer that players accurately play their characters, but I'd never go so far as to force them to. For me the question is simply: is everyone having fun? If yes, they are playing correctly.

I agree with this. I've just been describing my preferences and what I like to see at the table. But I don't tell my players how to play. Also I tend to adapt to the overall style of the group. So while I have my own prefered style of play, I am happy to adjust to what the players like.

 

[billd91]

One problem I'm having with these threads is if PCs shouldn't benefit from their players' abilities (primarily mental), then isn't the person taking that position waving the badwrongfun flag at styles of play that don't strictly adhere to mechanical role playing resolution?

Personally, I do have the players make important interaction rolls based on their PCs' abilities and I offer bonuses for good role playing or ideas as well (that will almost certainly come from their own inherent abilities). But I'd rather not take the position that people who eschew all mechanical RP resolution are playing the game wrong or shouldn't be using a character sheet at all.

 

[howandwhy99]

Should players with good memories have an advantage in the game Memory?

Um.. yeah? What exactly are the players being challenged in anyways? It depends upon the game.

The Olympic Games include some weightlifting and other contests where great strength is really advantageous. Should strength not be an advantage in those games for those players? (whom I will not be insulting in this thread )

So I think personal ability really is dependent upon the game being played. Ones not so challenged, like most physical abilities, except perhaps a well flexed and oxygenated brain, are going to be left out of tabletop games. It's just one of those things. The mental traits in D&D I see as additions or subtractions to player abilities, but the players mental ability still matters - whether that be intelligence or wisdom or charisma or memory or creativity or what have you.

 

[GSHamster]

In an ideal world, a character's performance should not reflect the player's innate abilities.

But this is not an ideal world. It's very easy to separate player physical abilities from character physical abilities, especially with the tactical wargame that is combat. But it's much harder to separate player non-physical abilities from character non-physical abilities.

And I think that the attempts to separate out non-physical performance have damaged the game, have bogged it down and reduced much of the "magic" of role-playing to a dice roll. I think we should ditch or significantly reduce the attempts to quantify and separate out non-physical abilities. It's not fair, but I think it leads to a better, more immersive game.

Personally, I wonder whether a better option might be a game with physical stats, but non-physical descriptors. So a character would be:

Str: 17
Dex: 11
Con: 14
Magic: 5
Traits: Kind, Superstitious, Slightly Gullible

Then play that character. The physical stats are used for the tactical combat, and the descriptors guide roleplaying. Separate out the part of the game where dice rolls and numbers really work, and leave roleplaying free to breath.

 

[Morrus]

I agree with this. I've just been describing my preferences and what I like to see at the table. But I don't tell my players how to play. Also I tend to adapt to the overall style of the group. So while I have my own prefered style of play, I am happy to adjust to what the players like.

Absolutely. We're just talking about preferences here, and that's the most important point. Nobody (to my knowledge) is advocating "badwrongfunning" anyone.

But that doesn't stop us discussing our own preferences.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So I think personal ability really is dependent upon the game being played. Ones not so challenged, like most physical abilities, except perhaps a well flexed and oxygenated brain, are going to be left out of tabletop games. It's just one of those things. The mental traits in D&D I see as additions or subtractions to player abilities, but the players mental ability still matters - whether that be intelligence or wisdom or charisma or memory or creativity or what have you.

I think there is a reason why charisma is often the first ability that provokes this discussion. There are two separate things here, but in these discussions they often get conflated:

1. The player using his imagination, creativity, etc. to arrive at a good plan or what have you--then try to execute that plan with the character abilities.

2. The player falling back on his native raw ability to trump his character abilities.

Now, it is seldom that clear cut in practice (mainly because it would be so transparent). But visualize a player confronted with the need for the party to sneak into a hostile town. Assume his character isn't particularly strong in any mental stats, but isn't awful in all of them. It isn't unreasonable to suggest disguises, posing as pilgrims, merchants, etc. Or more risky, they waylay a messenger and take his place. Or any number of such things, depending upon their exact situation. Then the party tries it. Fine. There are some inherent advantages or disadvantages in the situation based on what they do. If they go the disguise route, and pick something that is common in the town, and easy to fake, then they get situational bonuses. These are appropropriate insights for characters with a modicum of mental ability.

But what I hear usually when the charismatic guy wanted a big bonus was that this party waltzes up to guards, with no thought or preparation, pulls his hood over his head, and the player start talking like said pilgrim, and expects to fasttalk as if he were the next coming of Obi Wan, complete with hand motions.

I doubt anyone has any problem with the former. The latter, while not "bad wrong fun," is definitely something I don't want to waste my time on.

I like clever, insightful, and imaginative play that changes the situation and then the characters deal with the situation as it now is. This to me is the heart of play. I don't like players fast talking their characters out of problems, and I don't much care for the "too clever by half" equivalents for intelligence or wisdom, either.

 

[Janx]

Should players with good memories have an advantage in the game Memory?

Um.. yeah? What exactly are the players being challenged in anyways? It depends upon the game.

So I think personal ability really is dependent upon the game being played. Ones not so challenged, like most physical abilities, except perhaps a well flexed and oxygenated brain, are going to be left out of tabletop games. It's just one of those things. The mental traits in D&D I see as additions or subtractions to player abilities, but the players mental ability still matters - whether that be intelligence or wisdom or charisma or memory or creativity or what have you.

to build on this a bit. D&D pretty much originated as a college kid's game. It's a game for smart people. Not that other people can't play it, but generally speaking, a game built on imagining the whole thing in your head is pretty much smart people demographic.

There's also a disconnect that these INT/CHA numbers measure what we think they measure.

We're all smart people here. Yet we've all done stupid things in the game. Having an allegedly high intelligence and/or wisdom does not actually protect you from making mistakes.

So therefore, why do we assume having a 10 or 18 INT in the game should totally represent how "smart" our character is.

Sliding over to Charisma, it's the same thing. Anybody can talk nice and say fancy words in fancy ways. That doesn't mean it is Charisma. There are people who can appeal to some people. but can not sway others. My current job has me working with CEO's, vice presidents and other folks in high positions. I've seen some of them be very charismatic, others you get that dickish vibe. There's no commonality in their speech patterns. Some talk like gangsters, others can be well spoken. Actual Charisma has less to do with what and how you say something.

So, assuming that the numbers on your sheet truly define your character's behavior (ideas he has, ways he speaks) may not be technically correct as it has may not measure what you think it does.