Worlds of Design: What Defines a RPG?

It’s a daunting task to try to define and characterize a segment as large and diverse as tabletop role-playing games in just a few words. But here goes.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
​

“Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.” Helen Keller​

Some people won’t be happy with my definitions--which is my opinion, drawn from experience. But the purpose of such exercises is (aside from encouraging people to think) to narrow down something so that we can talk about it intelligibly.

Defining the Undefinable​

There are two ways to define something: 1) specific (as in a dictionary), but this usually leads to dispute even when what’s being defined is a single word; or 2) describe typical characteristics, even if it’s possible that some will not have all of those characteristics. I’m trying the latter, being general enough to think all the characteristics are necessary.

What makes an RPG a tabletop hobby RPG? An RPG, as we talk about them in the hobby, is a human-opposed co-operative game. There are four characteristics:

• Avatars,
• progressive improvement,
• co-operation, and
• GMed opposed adventure.

Simple enough, but in defining a concept it’s sometimes easier to explain what it isn’t.

What RPGs Are Not​

Role-playing games, as defined by the last word, are games and therefore require opposition. An RPG is not a puzzle (with a correct solution); an RPG is not a means for the GM to tell a story (reducing player agency immensely); an RPG is not a storytelling mechanism, whether for players to tell each other stories, or for the GM to tell a story. These things all exist, but to include them in the definition goes far beyond the realm of game. A game is a form of play, but most forms of play are not games.

Not Just Role-Playing​

Technically, a role-playing game may be any game where you play a role – which is a LOT of games, tabletop and (especially) video. It even includes some business simulations. I’m more interested in what makes a game a hobby RPG, a game played frequently by hobby game players. So I’ll discuss role-playing in terms of avatars.

What’s a “Pure” or “Real” Avatar?​

• A single thing/entity that represents the individual player, most commonly a humanoid
• All the player’s actions in the game emanate from the avatar
• The “pure” avatar is fully subject to risk: if it dies/is destroyed, the player loses (at least temporarily)

An avatar could be a spaceship, a tank (World of Tanks) or other vehicle, even a pizza-shape (Pac-Man). In video games, the avatar typically respawns. In hobby RPGs, the avatar is a creature, usually human or humanoid. (For more detail, read "The most important design aspect of hobby RPGs is the Pure Avatar".)

Avatars sometimes have a separate developer-provided “history” and personality (Mario, Sonic). Sometimes an avatar is a blank slate so that the player can more easily infuse his/her own personality or fictional character background into the avatar.

In many games, a "kind-of-avatar" is not the source of all action, nor does the game end if the avatar is killed. That’s not an RPG.

Progressive Improvement​

This can happen in many kinds of games. But in what we call RPGs, it’s some variety of:

• Gaining experience to rise in levels, and the levels give more capability (though the term “level” might not be used)
• Gaining skills/feats/features (which give more capability)
• Collecting magic or technological items (which provide extra options, defense, offense, etc.)
• Acquiring money/treasure (which can be used for lots of things)
• No doubt there are some RPGs with other ways to improve, for example via social standing if that is formally tracked

Does it need levels? No, but that's typically (conveniently) how increase in capability “without employing the loot I've got” is expressed.

So a game where the hero(es) don’t progress in capability – or only a little – might be an interesting game, but it’s not an RPG. Many of you can think of board, card, or video games of this kind. Well-known heroes in novel series rarely progress significantly in capability, for example James Bond.

You can have avatars without progression, you can have roles without “pure” avatars, you can have progression without avatars, but those are not what we categorize as RPGs.

Co-operation, Adventure, and a Gamemaster That Controls the Opposition/Enables Adventure​

• Yes, opposition. It’s not a game (I use the traditional sense) without opposition, though it might be a puzzle or a parallel competition
• I don’t see how there can be significant opposition without a GM/referee; unless you go to computer programming
• If there’s no co-operation, if it’s player vs player, it’s more or less a board/card game in concept

I include Adventure, because the stories coming out of the original RPGs would be called adventures. In the 21st century we do have novels that don’t seem to have any particular point other than describing everyday life, and I think that’s leaked over into so-called RPGs as well. Whether adventure is necessary is a debatable point (surprise), though I’m certainly not interested in RPGs without Adventure.

The GM also allows the players to try to do “anything” that could be done in the current situation. Some regard this freedom-of-action (extreme player agency) as the defining aspect of RPGs, and it’s certainly vital; but think of a story RPG where the linear plot (typical of stories) forces players to do just what the story calls for. That’s not freedom of action. Yet story form may be the most common form of tabletop RPG.

And consider games like Minecraft. You can try to do almost anything there, too, but it's not an RPG.

Where does this leave computer RPGs? There’s not exactly a GM, though the computer tries to be. There’s certainly not as much freedom of action as with a human GM . . . But my goal was to define hobby tabletop RPGs.

Your Turn: What’s your definition of a role-playing game?

 

[Aldarc]

I read it and I got a distinct feeling of smug wankers engaging in some gate keeping BS. I'm glad to see that Cook, at least, was able to grow a little and look back at the decision deliberately include obfuscation in the rules writing and realise it was a poor one.

I'm not sure if it's necessarily smug gatekeeping anymore than learning how to improve your knowledge and skill in a game is, whether that is MtG, poker, or something like Call of Duty, though I do agree that Cook does wish that they had made it less Ivory Tower design or been more forthright about their design intentions. However, I think that the emphasis here is far more benign than the nefarious gatekeeping that it's being made out to be. IMHO, the 3e team was not aiming to gatekeep, but, rather, to promote a psychologically rewarding sense of a system mastery and player skill when it comes to character building: the ah-ha! moment when you figure something out. I do not doubt, however, that a gatekeeping culture can form around this (e.g., "What sort of n00b takes Toughness?!"), but I don't think that's the intent or actual tone being conveyed by Cook about 3e's design.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know that I'd enjoy running Rolemaster these days... but it was the least susceptible to mastery of them three.

I ran RM almost exclusively for about 19 years. I think it can be quite a complex system from the point of view of resolution. But PC build is mostly about getting big numbers in the skills you want, and about picking the spell list that will let you do what you want. It's not really combo-based in the way that modern D&D is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

They may be bad options, although cross class skills can be a very worth while investment depending on the skill. But they are not 'trap' options, in the way Magic the Gathering uses that term. Picking them will not result in a bad character.

You're comparing competitive MtG to a casual 3e game. There are absolutely build choices in 3e that can result in significant difference in effectiveness just like in MtG.

Take for example the Alertness feat, which gives a +2 on Listen and Spot checks. Arguably any feat that just gives 4 extra ranks in skills is a bad feat, because a character gains plenty of skillpoints each level, and only a new feat each 3 levels. Feats there for are a very valuable power increase, and should not be wasted on gaining extra ranks in skills. The only reason one should even consider taking this feat, is if it is a requirement for another feat.

But a bad feat is not by definition a trap. Picking the skill will not break your character build, or make you a whole lot less effective than your other party members. Character builds in 3e do not require optimization the way a deck in Magic the Gathering does.

Trap cards in MtG are called such not because they reduce your deck to uselessness, but because their actual function is different from their initial appearance of function. They aren't necessarily bad cards, but you need system mastery to understand how they actually work -- just like your Alert example here, it's fine if it's a pre-req to something that justifies it's cost.

Magic the Gathering, and the MMO Guild Wars (which borrows the design principles of MtG, and which I am VERY familiar with), focus a lot on build synergy. In GW, the player has only 8 skills (much like a hand of cards). So picking skills that work well together is paramount for making a strong character. Character building in 3e is not like that. There is far less focus on feat synergy in 3e's design. It isn't like Magic the Gathering at all. There are no trap options.

If you want to make a strong character in 3e, it does help to specialize in something that builds upon the strengths of your class. Turning your squishy caster into a front line fighter is probably not a good idea. But turning your fighter into a tank, by picking lots of feats that increase his AC, will easily make you excel in that one thing. Other things you can specialize in are damage, critical range, mobility, attacks of opportunity, ranged combat, etc., to name a few. But despite all of the character build options, building a character in 3e never goes that deep as Magic the Gathering or Guild Wars. You will never end up with a character that picked the wrong skill or feat and now sucks. It is not that kind of system.

My experience be damned, eh? I've built they thematic chatacter with skill focus in Intimidate, only to have the bard character be much, much better at it without trying solely due to synergy bonus from the skills he did pick. Even trying to have a fighter/rogue be good at intimidate was a trap option because a bard will bury you without effort, thenatics be damned. (By the by, for oldtimers here, the bard was played by Hypersmurf.)

There are tons of trap options on 3.x. So far, the counter to this is a vague handwave that assumds a completely casual game where all players are choosing these options.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure if it's necessarily smug gatekeeping anymore than learning how to improve your knowledge and skill in a game is, whether that is MtG, poker, or something like Call of Duty, though I do agree that Cook does wish that they had made it less Ivory Tower design or been more forthright about their design intentions. However, I think that the emphasis here is far more benign than the nefarious gatekeeping that it's being made out to be. IMHO, the 3e team was not aiming to gatekeep, but, rather, to promote a psychologically rewarding sense of a system mastery and player skill when it comes to character building: the ah-ha! moment when you figure something out. I do not doubt, however, that a gatekeeping culture can form around this (e.g., "What sort of n00b takes Toughness?!"), but I don't think that's the intent or actual tone being conveyed by Cook about 3e's design.

I think this describes most gatekeeping -- it's emergent culture that's based on some form of system mastery, where system isn't limited to RPGs but to any complex interaction.

I've recently delved back into chess, for instance (right before Queen's Gambit came out, actually, although that did catalyze me to a higher level of effort, if only to understand the games played). I bounced off of it as a younger man, largely due to my access to the "club," which would only really talk to you if you decent already. The difference today, with the number of platforms, free lessons, and youtube community, is huge! There are people making chess accessible, and while I still don't know why GMs play a4/h4, I can (mostly) follow the commentary.

The gatekeeping before, though, wasn't really malicious so much as a culture that grew up due to requisite system mastery. You still need that mastery, but the culture as changed dramatically.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just going to lead with "this is all so odd" (that we aren't in agreement on this).

@Imaculata et al. I'm just going to pour out a bunch of stuff and you can respond as you'd like to it.

1) I invoked "gatekeeping" in this conversation not in any way that relates to the question we're entertaining here. I did it as an ironic aside (because some folks were all about gatekeeping in the past...pedal to proverbial floor...but are seemingly "anti-gatekeeping" now. Its interesting...). I do NOT think that the practice of game designers embedding skilled play at the build stage of their games (whether you're building a deck or a character) is in any way, shape, or form "cultural gatekeeping" (as used in common parlance). I mean, if that constitutes gatekeeping, then any game or activity that distills skill (and thereby rewards "system mastery" and stratifies play and players by it) would have to fall under the umbrella of gatekeeping. If that applies, then abolish the word from gaming lexicon because it holds no useful information.

2) How can someone take all of the following things together and draw the conclusions you are drawing(?):

a) "Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones."

• build choices were designed to be deliberately better and worse than others.
• "good" and "poor" choices exist. They were encoded into the game.
• their purpose is to reward system mastery.
• because of this we were vigilant to not design away these disparities (4e, as we know, did).
• players figure out the encoded disparities and are rewarded.

3) An unparalleled (to that point), robust CharOp community accreted around 3e just like it did MtG. See (2) above for why. This CharOp community uses the same lexicon that MtG Op community does/did.

4) The development of a robust Class Tier system was an emergent property of all of the above.

5) The game is extraordinarily sensitive to intraparty imbalance and party : obstacle imbalance. The only "solve" for this is a progressive regime of heavy GM curation of content and/or heavy application of GM Force.

6) The last game I ran in 3.x started at level 4 and ended at level 20. This was 2006 when it ended. There were multiple other characters that did not survive contact with the enemy, but the 3 that survived that 16 level span was:

• Shapeshifting "Ursine Swarm" Druid.
• A mega-fragile, Skill-Monkey mega-Nova/Shadow-jumping Rogue.
• A F/M/Bladesinger that could out-duel anyone and trivially and routinely get its AC to gajillion along with other defensive measures.

At around level 11, the sensitivity to conflict type and system maths/CR became so pronounced (due to the 3 PCs' extreme numerical disparities, Class disparity, and build choice disparities) that without the most significant GM Curation of content possible, it would lead to extreme formulaic, niche playbook response by the PCs as one could imagine. The homogeneity of the flow-chart (and the homogeneity of the outcomes) was an arms race that I spent endless mental overhead on. Overwhelmingly, the Druid and Rogue solved all obstacles/conflicts. In order to make the Bladesinger relevant, it would have to be one of two things: Knowledge (Arcana) gating a solve, a monster that couldn't be nova'd/swarmed and whose AC/To-Hit/Damage/Multi-attacking numbers were so extremely punishing for the Rogue/Druid that they dared not wade into melee combat.

And this game didn't even involve a high level Wizard or Cleric by a player with significant system mastery (of which I ran games for those players...and the vanilla Toughness, Power-Attack maths-struggling player).

---

So 2, 3, 4, and 5 you deny the reality of and you never experienced 6?

 

[Manbearcat]

That was tried; it failed. 4E Essentials.
Calling 4E D&D with the rather different class abilities was a huge image problem for adoption by prior edition fans.
Including myself, who at one point actually loved D&D Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D 2E...

We're clearly thinking of something very different, because Essential was not remotely what I had in mind. In fact, it skews in nearly the opposite direction (though I don't care to spend the time detailing each point and relitigate that).

And while the RC instruction and handling of Skill Challenges is the pinnacle of 4e noncombat conflict resolution (and honestly, its one of the best instruction manuals for any conflict resolution handling in terms of GMing techniques), the totality of the text still falls short of what I had in mind.

What I had in mind would look significantly more like the focused instruction and structuring of play in Mouse Guard/Torchbearer and Blades more than anything else.

 

[D1Tremere]

It’s a daunting task to try to define and characterize a segment as large and diverse as tabletop role-playing games in just a few words. But here goes.

View attachment 131071
Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
​

Some people won’t be happy with my definitions--which is my opinion, drawn from experience. But the purpose of such exercises is (aside from encouraging people to think) to narrow down something so that we can talk about it intelligibly.

Defining the Undefinable​

There are two ways to define something: 1) specific (as in a dictionary), but this usually leads to dispute even when what’s being defined is a single word; or 2) describe typical characteristics, even if it’s possible that some will not have all of those characteristics. I’m trying the latter, being general enough to think all the characteristics are necessary.

What makes an RPG a tabletop hobby RPG? An RPG, as we talk about them in the hobby, is a human-opposed co-operative game. There are four characteristics:

• Avatars,
• progressive improvement,
• co-operation, and
• GMed opposed adventure.

Simple enough, but in defining a concept it’s sometimes easier to explain what it isn’t.

What RPGs Are Not​

Role-playing games, as defined by the last word, are games and therefore require opposition. An RPG is not a puzzle (with a correct solution); an RPG is not a means for the GM to tell a story (reducing player agency immensely); an RPG is not a storytelling mechanism, whether for players to tell each other stories, or for the GM to tell a story. These things all exist, but to include them in the definition goes far beyond the realm of game. A game is a form of play, but most forms of play are not games.

Not Just Role-Playing​

Technically, a role-playing game may be any game where you play a role – which is a LOT of games, tabletop and (especially) video. It even includes some business simulations. I’m more interested in what makes a game a hobby RPG, a game played frequently by hobby game players. So I’ll discuss role-playing in terms of avatars.

What’s a “Pure” or “Real” Avatar?​

• A single thing/entity that represents the individual player, most commonly a humanoid
• All the player’s actions in the game emanate from the avatar
• The “pure” avatar is fully subject to risk: if it dies/is destroyed, the player loses (at least temporarily)

An avatar could be a spaceship, a tank (World of Tanks) or other vehicle, even a pizza-shape (Pac-Man). In video games, the avatar typically respawns. In hobby RPGs, the avatar is a creature, usually human or humanoid. (For more detail, read "The most important design aspect of hobby RPGs is the Pure Avatar".)

Avatars sometimes have a separate developer-provided “history” and personality (Mario, Sonic). Sometimes an avatar is a blank slate so that the player can more easily infuse his/her own personality or fictional character background into the avatar.

In many games, a "kind-of-avatar" is not the source of all action, nor does the game end if the avatar is killed. That’s not an RPG.

Progressive Improvement​

This can happen in many kinds of games. But in what we call RPGs, it’s some variety of:

• Gaining experience to rise in levels, and the levels give more capability (though the term “level” might not be used)
• Gaining skills/feats/features (which give more capability)
• Collecting magic or technological items (which provide extra options, defense, offense, etc.)
• Acquiring money/treasure (which can be used for lots of things)
• No doubt there are some RPGs with other ways to improve, for example via social standing if that is formally tracked

Does it need levels? No, but that's typically (conveniently) how increase in capability “without employing the loot I've got” is expressed.

So a game where the hero(es) don’t progress in capability – or only a little – might be an interesting game, but it’s not an RPG. Many of you can think of board, card, or video games of this kind. Well-known heroes in novel series rarely progress significantly in capability, for example James Bond.

You can have avatars without progression, you can have roles without “pure” avatars, you can have progression without avatars, but those are not what we categorize as RPGs.

Co-operation, Adventure, and a Gamemaster That Controls the Opposition/Enables Adventure​

• Yes, opposition. It’s not a game (I use the traditional sense) without opposition, though it might be a puzzle or a parallel competition
• I don’t see how there can be significant opposition without a GM/referee; unless you go to computer programming
• If there’s no co-operation, if it’s player vs player, it’s more or less a board/card game in concept

I include Adventure, because the stories coming out of the original RPGs would be called adventures. In the 21st century we do have novels that don’t seem to have any particular point other than describing everyday life, and I think that’s leaked over into so-called RPGs as well. Whether adventure is necessary is a debatable point (surprise), though I’m certainly not interested in RPGs without Adventure.

The GM also allows the players to try to do “anything” that could be done in the current situation. Some regard this freedom-of-action (extreme player agency) as the defining aspect of RPGs, and it’s certainly vital; but think of a story RPG where the linear plot (typical of stories) forces players to do just what the story calls for. That’s not freedom of action. Yet story form may be the most common form of tabletop RPG.

And consider games like Minecraft. You can try to do almost anything there, too, but it's not an RPG.

Where does this leave computer RPGs? There’s not exactly a GM, though the computer tries to be. There’s certainly not as much freedom of action as with a human GM . . . But my goal was to define hobby tabletop RPGs.

Your Turn: What’s your definition of a role-playing game?

In general I really like this post, but I do disagree with a few points very strongly (much as the author pre-supposes).

1: "Role-playing games, as defined by the last word, are games and therefore require opposition." As a psychologist who uses gameification in research and education I think we need to examine the definition of game here. In particular, "A game is a structured form of play, usually undertaken for entertainment or fun, and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements...Games are sometimes played purely for enjoyment, sometimes for achievement or reward as well. They can be played alone, in teams, or online" (Wikipedia, January 12th 2021).

The key takeaway from this excerpt of definition and from my own experience is that a game need not include opposition or progressive improvement. A roleplaying game can be entirely cooperative, including the DM. A cooperative narrative RPG where the DM and player simply build a scene is still a game. Even when a game includes opposition I would argue that it does not have to be (and really shouldn't be in my opinion) "GM opposed adventure." The GM can exist purely as an impartial arbitrator who simply informs players of scenario and outcomes, or as a partial agent (either for or against the players). The latter (against or opposed to the players) is my least favored scenario, as it often results in less cooperation and can be responsible for creating issues instead of preventing them. When the GM is an agent for the players he/she can focus on tailoring the game to everyone's tastes and needs, resulting in a much more enjoyable game in many circumstances. That said, if a group prefers an adversarial GM relationship that is perfectly valid as well. I simply argue that this is neither the only, nor the default/best option.

2: Progressive improvement is not necessary for it to be an RPG or a game. Evolution (as change over time) is certainly a key component to a game, but it doesn't need to be progressive or an improvement. Change over time can consist of an evolving or devolving series of circumstances. These changes may not represent improvement, or if they do it may not be a lasting improvement. Much of what is considered improvement remains a matter of perspective as well. A player may feel that their character has improved despite becoming less capable at one or more pillars of the game. For example; a player may feel that their character cutting off their hand in order to save a party member or NPC is an improvement, despite the fact that they are now less capable at challenges and have not mechanically progressed.

I would then propose the following change:

• Avatars,
• evolution (subjective and/or objective),
• co-operation, and
• GMed arbitration.

 

[Imaculata]

My experience be damned, eh? I've built they thematic chatacter with skill focus in Intimidate, only to have the bard character be much, much better at it without trying solely due to synergy bonus from the skills he did pick. Even trying to have a fighter/rogue be good at intimidate was a trap option because a bard will bury you without effort, thenatics be damned. (By the by, for oldtimers here, the bard was played by Hypersmurf.)

There are tons of trap options on 3.x. So far, the counter to this is a vague handwave that assumds a completely casual game where all players are choosing these options.

Are you talking about competing with your own party members on who is better at a skill? Why would you do that? And why would you presume the bard is always there to bail you out? The party does occasionally split, right?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Are you talking about competing with your own party members on who is better at a skill? Why would you do that? And why would you presume the bard is always there to bail you out? The party does occasionally split, right?

No, I'm talking about making build choice to be good at a thing, but finding out that such choices aren't even good enough to be close to matching what other chouces did without trying. The bard didn't focus on intimidate, my character did. Yet, the bard was almost twice as effective because the skills they did focus on had side-line synergies into intimidate. The bard was hands down better at a thing my character concept was centered on not because the bard was also, but because of the way character build systems interact to make skill focus a trap choice. I'd have been better off picking up a synergy as a class skill with another feat choice, but then being better at something that wasn't part of the character concept.

In other words, skill focus was a trap choice -- it didn't provide the result anticipated, and failed to do so in a situation where the other character didn't even try to focus on that skill. I only partial understood tge system at that point -- I hadn't looked at the social skill synergy effects and didn't fully understand them. So, I made a character trusting the labels on the tin and was outclassed by someone not trying.

It's very telling that your counter is to suggest that I was relying on the bard when it was a core concept of my character to intimidate others (ie, I didn't want to rely on the bard), and that the second offer was to buck up -- my deck (character) will do okay when the other deck (character) isn't being played.

 

[billd91]

No, I'm talking about making build choice to be good at a thing, but finding out that such choices aren't even good enough to be close to matching what other chouces did without trying. The bard didn't focus on intimidate, my character did. Yet, the bard was almost twice as effective because the skills they did focus on had side-line synergies into intimidate. The bard was hands down better at a thing my character concept was centered on not because the bard was also, but because of the way character build systems interact to make skill focus a trap choice. I'd have been better off picking up a synergy as a class skill with another feat choice, but then being better at something that wasn't part of the character concept.

In other words, skill focus was a trap choice -- it didn't provide the result anticipated, and failed to do so in a situation where the other character didn't even try to focus on that skill. I only partial understood tge system at that point -- I hadn't looked at the social skill synergy effects and didn't fully understand them. So, I made a character trusting the labels on the tin and was outclassed by someone not trying.

It's very telling that your counter is to suggest that I was relying on the bard when it was a core concept of my character to intimidate others (ie, I didn't want to rely on the bard), and that the second offer was to buck up -- my deck (character) will do okay when the other deck (character) isn't being played.

So the bard was better--was your character still good at intimidation? Was your character better at it than he would have been without the feat? Would the bard have been even better at intimidation if he took the feat Unless those are "No", then it's not really a "trap" is it? It's just, potentially, not as good a route as another one that another character happened to have open to them.

Does it really matter, in a cooperative game, that another PC is a bit better at something than your character? Is that player actually encroaching in on your fun by taking away your opportunities to play out an intimidation of an NPC? If they are, that's a separate issue from the mechanics of the system because it's an interpersonal problem rather than a mechanical one.