Should strong players have an advantage?

[delericho]

To a certain extent, this ties in to my thoughts on merits and (especially) flaws in games. I have no issue with merits in various guises being in games, but there tends to be an issue with flaws - people will take mild or easily-ignored flaws and use them as a trade-off for yet more advantages.

So it is with Charisma in a point-buy system (or even an "arrange to taste" system) - they assign a low stat to Charisma and then generally ignore this in favour of "winning".

IMO, a better approach would be to allow players to select flaws but not use these as a trade-off against various merits. Instead, when the flaw comes up in play and only if it impedes the character, the player is awarded some benefit - more XP, or an Action Point, or a reroll token to be used later, or something.

The major advantage of this is that it moves the motive for policing them on to the player's side - sure, they can ignore their flaws, but if they do then they don't gain the corresponding benefit. It also removes the use of flaws from the power-gamers arsenal, since they can't trade them off against fixed advantages and they only gain the benefit when they are actively hindered by the flaw. And, finally, it makes the flaws strictly optional, which is always nice.

(In 4e terms, I would probably handle this by using the point-buy system, but starting all stats at 10 rather than 8 (you can remove 2 of the starting points or not, as you wish). The player then has the option to reduce one or more stats to 8, but does not gain any extra points for doing so. In play, all the modifiers apply as normal, and with no adjustment. However, if the player takes steps to properly roleplay the weakness (by deliberately antagonising NPCs, or passing up on good ideas, or ignoring the solution to puzzles, or whatever), the player is given a token. This token can be traded in at any time for a +2 bonus on any single d20 roll, with only one token being allowed for any one roll. (Possible alternative benefits include: automatic removal of any one condition, or an extra immediate saving throw, or an Action Point. I'm sure there are others - simply set the power level to taste.))

 

[Umbran]

The DM may unconsciously reward her with with NPC responses that the poor guy doesn't elicit.

I'd call that a flaw in GMing style that could use some work. Yes, it can happen - the GM should watch for it, though, and try to adjust if there's real inequality.

There's also a question of group structure here. Why do you have two lead singers in your "5 man band" to begin with? D&D has classes with niche protection, so typically the situation is pretty obvious - you've got two bards why, exactly?

If the GM's going to allow those characters in, it is then their responsibility to make sure there's enough social challenges of the right sort so that both those players get a chance to do their thing.

If she's not stealing the thunder mechanically, she's still outshining him narratively.

Once the group and adventure structures have been addressed, it becomes an issue of etiquette. Broadly generalizing - everyone wants to have fun at game, right? Let us call a packet of fun a "pony". Everyone wants a pony.

If this were a competitive game, the idea would be for you to corral as many ponies as you could for yourself. But it isn't a competitive game. It's a cooperative game, and the GM can only provide so many ponies per unit time. If you grab up too many ponies, then the other players are deprived of ponies, and that's not fair. The players should be working together to make sure they each get ponies.

I mean, really, it's that "sharing" thing they taught you on Sesame Street.

Once you've gotten your allotment of ponies, your moment in the spotlight, it is time to step back and let others take theirs.

 

[vagabundo]

In my mind it would only be cheating if there was some competitive angle to the game. I suppose you could play it that way, but if this person's extra charisma is contributing to everyone's experience then that's a net gain in fun for everyone. It can also spur on other people and gets everyone in the RPG mood.

Such players should be treasured not censored...

 

[LurkAway]

D&D has classes with niche protection, so typically the situation is pretty obvious - you've got two bards why, exactly?

Or a 3E high Cha sorcerer and a bard -- not impossible.

What if there's two fighters in the group with similar Int + Wis. One player is very sharp and much better at tactics and strategy than the other. Should the better player dumb down their tactics as to not outshine the other player?

I mean, really, it's that "sharing" thing they taught you on Sesame Street.

Once you've gotten your allotment of ponies, your moment in the spotlight, it is time to step back and let others take theirs.

OK, I can see that many share that view. I feel I'm playing on Main Street, not Sesame Street. It doesn't have to be cut-throat and Darwinian, it's just not being threatened by other people's thunder. I don't need anyone to hold my hand, and I certaintly don't want to bring down other people to my level. I adapt, find my niche, excel at it, have fun, and don't measure my happiness by comparing my ponies to other people's ponies.

I like what vagabundo says, the advantages that a PC nets for the group should be appreciated, not censored.

 

[Umbran]

Or a 3E high Cha sorcerer and a bard -- not impossible.

No, not impossible. But still easily recognized.

What if there's two fighters in the group with similar Int + Wis. One player is very sharp and much better at tactics and strategy than the other. Should the better player dumb down their tactics as to not outshine the other player?

Well, here's a place where the difference between social and combat encounters typically differ - social encounters usually have tighter bandwidth constraints, if you will. In your usual combat encounter, the GM is running a bunch of monsters/NPCs, and expects many players to engage at once. Social encounters tend to be much more narrow - there's one or two NPCs, and they each take a lot of GM time to interact with each player.

So, the fighter problem can be partially solved by throwing more of the right kind of monsters at the party, so it is clear that both those fighters are necessary and useful. It is usually harder for the GM to do that for social encounters.

And if the sharp fighter really is still stealing the thunder, maybe engaging in more cooperative tactics, rather than solo, would help. And, of course, sometimes making that cooperation such that the less-sharp player's going to be the one taking the big hunks out of the BBEG, while he fights off the goons...

...it's just not being threatened by other people's thunder.

I'm not talking about being "threatened" by other people's thunder (that's a completely different issue), or comparing ponies. I'm talking about how there's only one GM, and only so many hours at the table, such that thunder is effectively a limited resource. Most players won't mind if you get your thunder, so long as they get their fair share.

Imagine that "thunder" is a pot of soup. You can dish it up in bowls and spread it around, but each night there's only so much of it. How much of it do you take? This isn't "hand holding" - this is having a care that the other folks at the table matter, and ought to have their time, too.

The effect I'm talking about is one reason why many people find 1e's long-term balance (fighters are strong at low levels, wizards at high) fails. At early levels, fighters tend to get the lion's share of the thunder, and wizards are dissatisfied for large portions of a session. The situation tends to reverse at high levels.

That may seem equitable in the long run, but in reality, it isn't very satisfying for many players - thunder needs to be more equally distributed over a session, or a small number of sessions, rather than an entire campaign, to be engaging.

 

[LurkAway]

Imagine that "thunder" is a pot of soup. You can dish it up in bowls and spread it around, but each night there's only so much of it. How much of it do you take? This isn't "hand holding" - this is having a care that the other folks at the table matter, and ought to have their time, too.

Gotcha. Well, some people need less thunder soup than others and yet are equally happy. From a player POV, I'm not tallying my share of the thunder. I could wait patiently for a session or two and shine on the 3rd session. I feel fortunate that everyone I've played with I think has felt the same (or maybe when they left the group, they said it was about a baby, but that was just a cover lie

Anyway, the conclusion for me is that: if nobody in the group is doing the high Cha thing, then let the one charismatic player persuade the NPCs to the party's net benefit. If there are two high Cha PCs, then try to learn if the inferior player truly cares or not about his share of the thunder soup (he probably won't in my personal experience, however small). Finally, if there is a problem, then have a word with the player. Tell them that a 10 Cha as a simple gross abstraction doesn't mean you're not charismatic at some things, but overall, you're not as persuasive as you think you are. If the player still doesn't get it, then start to use fictional positioning to counteract the player's charismatic roleplaying. "Ya, your speech was very convincing, but the chef was distracted by your bad teeth, and then you made a comment that he took the wrong way -- so the Soup Nazi said no soup for you!".

 

[Dausuul]

This is why I have come to dislike the whole idea of mental stats. If it were up to me, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma would all go on the junk heap. Replace them with Lore, Senses, and Appearance. Lore gives you a bonus on rolls to dig up information about the game world*. Senses gives you a bonus on rolls to spot, listen, and so forth. Appearance gives you a bonus on rolls to win friends and influence people (functionally similar to Charisma, but without imposing restrictions on player behavior).

In other words, stats should describe those elements a character brings to the table, and not constrain what a player brings to the table. I do like the idea of hindrances that give you benefits when they hinder you rather than at character creation; if the goal is to guide players to roleplay their characters as described, I feel this is a much better approach than arguments over whether a character with Intelligence 10** is smart enough to come up with this particular plan, or whether the character with Charisma 9 could pull off that particular bit of oratory.

[SIZE=-2]*Although this does not entirely resolve the issue, since there is always the guy who knows the Monster Manual back to front and announces that fire and acid are what you need to fight trolls, despite having a Lore of 6 and getting a 1 on the knowledge check.

**In practice, I find players and DMs figure a character with Intelligence 10+ is smart enough that you don't have to "dumb yourself down." Int 10 is supposed to be human average. Not to put too fine a point on it, the typical gamer is a lot smarter than average; given that Int is specifically "book smarts" with intuition and emotional intelligence falling under Wis, I think most gamers of my acquaintance would fall in the 15+ range. If you're not the party wizard, you're probably playing your character "too smart."[/SIZE]

 

[Janx]

I'm a big believer that a player should be trying all the time to play the character that he or she created. That should be the player's goal at all times. To portray, the the best of his or her ability, that character that is sitting on the that sheet of paper.

If that means toning back your personality, then so be it. You SHOULD be toning it back if your character is a 10 Cha barbarian with no ranks in Diplomacy. That's what the character is. Playing beyond that is not actually playing the character in front of you.

As I tried to explain earlier, I regularly meet people who TRY to be more charismatic than they really are. And others who are charismatic despite their lack of attempting to be presentable. People in top leadership positions being a pretty surprising study group.

10 CHA is not a concrete definition of personality and presentation.

So you can't say that my 10 CHA PC is out of character when he tries to speak all fancy to the Duke and I as a player actually give a nice speech.

Because people with average charisma do that all the time. And it works on SOME people. Others, perhaps those outside the social group, class or personality type it fails.

CHA does not define how you present yourself (actions, words used, fashion). CHA defines how others react to you despite your attempts to impress them.

 

[Corathon]

Roleplaying is a mental activity, not a physical one, so it would be ridiculous to grant bonuses in game for the player's strength - unless the DM is afraid that he'll be beaten up

In game, a smart player will choose better tactics and a wise one will do foolish things less often. There is still no mechanical consequence of the player's attributes, but there is (and should be, IMO) an in-game effect. In that sense the game tests the player (rather than the character) and always will unless we take all freedom of choice from the player.

Even in the case of Charisma, if a PC is trying to convince an NPC of something, I won't give a player much of an in-game bonus for how smoothly he presents his arguments - but I might give him a big bonus for a good argument, no matter how unpolished the presentation. How smooth and polished the argument is in game is for the character's (not the player's) stats (and the dice) to decide.

 

[Janx]

Imagine that "thunder" is a pot of soup. You can dish it up in bowls and spread it around, but each night there's only so much of it. How much of it do you take? This isn't "hand holding" - this is having a care that the other folks at the table matter, and ought to have their time, too.

The effect I'm talking about is one reason why many people find 1e's long-term balance (fighters are strong at low levels, wizards at high) fails. At early levels, fighters tend to get the lion's share of the thunder, and wizards are dissatisfied for large portions of a session. The situation tends to reverse at high levels.

That may seem equitable in the long run, but in reality, it isn't very satisfying for many players - thunder needs to be more equally distributed over a session, or a small number of sessions, rather than an entire campaign, to be engaging.

Playing with the Soup a little more...

If Thunder really was Soup, and gaming was the only time you got to eat, then having to play through umpteen levels of wimpy Mage before you got to eat would make you VERY hungry.

It therefore makes sense that everybody get at least a serving of Soup at each session. That might still mean somebody goes back for seconds. But nobody gets left out, or they will die of starvation and leave the group.