Should strong players have an advantage?

[Morrus]

This is kind of a summation of the Should X Players Have an Advantage? threads.

Opinions are divided in those threads. So this question goes to those who hold the position (and I'm not saying it's right or wrong - I'm more asking how it's different to this) that a player's natural advantages should translate to gameplay advantages rather than roleplaying the character itself. Usually this argument is phrased in terms of Charisma and Intelligence.

But let's take another ability score. I have a player who is a pretty big guy. He's definitely stronger than all the other players. Should he have an advantage in combat? Should he get some kind of damage bonus because the player is physically large? Should he play his character as a large, strong, intimidating type because those are his own traits?

I say no - he is playing a character who is weaker than he is, and uses the character's ability scores, not his own. But then, shouldn't a charismatic player play down his natural abilities in roleplaying situations; shouldn't a non-charismatic player be able to perform better in roleplaying situations if his character has a higher charisma than the character of the low-charisma guy? Otherwise why have the ability scores in the first place? Just play yourself.

I'm not trying to say it's all that important. I don't suggest penalising a player who solves a clue that his character wouldn't - that's just pendantry too far, and is no fun for anyone; I wouldn't dream of doing that. But as a curious debate topic:

How should ability scores be reflected in the way a character plays his character?

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I have to say that my opinion is I don't care if a player is more attractive, smarter, faster, stronger, or any other physical/mental attributes which the player has should translate into the game. This is role playing. A 300 lb burly bodybuilder can play a gnome chick and role-play that character the same as a 90 lb slip of a girl can play a 300 lb barbarian in the campaign. It's about the characters and not the players, and players should be playing their characters to the specified attributes/classes/races that they picked for them or rolled up.

That being said, of course there is some meta-gaming going on with any/all campaigns as a PLAYER figures out something that his/her character hasn't yet, but that's when they have to actually get into character and figure out a way to have the character figure it out as well.

The same should be said for the DM, he/she should be DM'ing situations based on the in-game stuff and not favoritism because his brother or wife are playing with the group, or one of the players is better looking or whatnot.

 

[cattoy]

How should ability scores be reflected in the way a character plays his character?

I'm gonna assume you mean how should ability scores be reflected in the way a player plays his character...

We call them Role Playing Games, but really, they aren't. Games have winners and losers, and ideally, RPGs shouldn't be about winning and losing, they should be about shared experiences.

If you're convinced that RPGs should be about winning and losing, then you're going to have to set up a sort of chess-like ranking system so that you don't have to put up with low ranking novices at a table dominated by masters and grandmasters...

Not a scenario I particularly endorse, but having said that, I prefer gaming with experienced, mature gamers who can be trusted to play 'properly'.

By properly, I mean by respecting the limitations imposed by their characters. If their characters are dumb, I expect them to let the smart characters drive the solution of highly technical or intellectual problems. If their characters are socially inept, I expect them to let the party 'faces' handle important negotiations with NPCs. And if they insist on playing against their characters strengths, I expect they will handle their failures with maturity. I tend to play games without random chargen, so if they're playing dumb or uncharismatic characters, it's likely they chose to do so.

There is a difference between player knowledge/ability and PC knowledge/ability. It cuts both ways. Our PCs can do things we can't, we can know/do things our PCs don't/can't.

 

[S'mon]

The strong player can't actually use his strength to his advantage in a tabletop RPG, unless he's intimidating the DM! The question only arises with attributes that can actually be used by the player. It might be relevant in a LARP, eg the player could strike faster in melee, possibly giving him an advantage.

 

[Morrus]

There is a difference between player knowledge/ability and PC knowledge/ability. It cuts both ways. Our PCs can do things we can't, we can know/do things our PCs don't/can't.

This is a given, and is obvious. Perhaps I should try to phrase the question better, rather than encourage people to post obvious truisms.

How about this:

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?

 

[TerraDave]

Smart players are rewarded.

In terms of making characters, in tactical choices, in figuring out clues and puzzles, and yes, in playing out social situations.

As for the later, I don't know if real "charisma" factors in (but what is that, anyways?) but roleplaying charisma does, which is something else. Just like playing out good tactics is rewarded, even if you would pee your pants in a real fight.

Other personal traits may also be rewarded. Imagination, patience, and, actually, your social skills with the DM and other players (which again is slightly different then playing a charismatic character).

 

[Mallus]

At its core, actual D&D game play consists of talking and problem-solving (and rolling funny-looking dice).

Actual D&D game play does *not* consist of feats of strength, sprints, actually hitting one another with maces, and/or setting fire to our basements with Greek Fire.

So there really isn't any reasonable comparison between a strong player and one who's clever or charismatic (or both).

Because, again, D&D is played through mental (including social) tests, not physical ones. That's what RPG play *is*. Therefore a player's physical attributes are irrelevant, and their mental attributes are always fair game to use, unless you want to establish a kind of stat-based litmus test for the game's core activities (ie, talking & problem-solving).

 

[Morrus]

The strong player can't actually use his strength to his advantage in a tabletop RPG, unless he's intimidating the DM!

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?

And, similarly, should that apply to mental attributes?

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is kind of a summation of the Should X Players Have an Advantage? threads.

Opinions are divided in those threads. So this question goes to those who hold the position (and I'm not saying it's right or wrong - I'm more asking how it's different to this) that a player's natural advantages should translate to gameplay advantages rather than roleplaying the character itself. Usually this argument is phrased in terms of Charisma and Intelligence.

But let's take another ability score. I have a player who is a pretty big guy. He's definitely stronger than all the other players. Should he have an advantage in combat? Should he get some kind of damage bonus because the player is physically large? Should he play his character as a large, strong, intimidating type because those are his own traits?

I say no - he is playing a character who is weaker than he is, and uses the character's ability scores, not his own. But then, shouldn't a charismatic player play down his natural abilities in roleplaying situations; shouldn't a non-charismatic player be able to perform better in roleplaying situations if his character has a higher charisma than the character of the low-charisma guy? Otherwise why have the ability scores in the first place? Just play yourself.

I'm not trying to say it's all that important. I don't suggest penalising a player who solves a clue that his character wouldn't - that's just pendantry too far, and is no fun for anyone; I wouldn't dream of doing that. But as a curious debate topic:

How should ability scores be reflected in the way a character plays his character?

This is an interesting question but I think it is apples and oranges. A person's physical strength has no bearing on their ability to play a PC effectively or in an interesting way. But a person's intelligence and social abilities directly impact their ability to do things like combat tactics and diplomacy. You can level the playing field by adding in social skill rolls and designing combat so tactical choices don't matter, but for a lot of people that ruins the entire experience. So I am in the camp that says there is a certain amount of skill involved in roleplaying a character or running an effective character.

At the same time you are playing a character, not yourself. If you are playing a charsmatic character and happen to be a smooth operator in real life, then use that at the table. But turn it way down if your character has a CHR of 7. Same thing goes for combat.

I am all for using social skill rolls when a player has trouble playing his character effectively. I also try to overlook actual performance and get more at the heart of what the player is attempting to do anyways.

This isn't the only approach, it is just how I like to play. Maybe it is because I used to be involved in competitive sports and I am dragging some of that into the game.

 

[Janx]

The strong player can't actually use his strength to his advantage in a tabletop RPG, unless he's intimidating the DM! The question only arises with attributes that can actually be used by the player. It might be relevant in a LARP, eg the player could strike faster in melee, possibly giving him an advantage.

And a LARP is an example where your physical skills have the same impact as your mental skills. Faster, stronger players have an advantage over weaker out of shape players.

And in that situation, how do you handicap the strong players over the weaker players. Would you really make them do some physical conditioning tests and apply modifiers based on their physical ability such that a strong player vs. a weak player yields a 50:50 match?

They don't do that in LARPs. And as such, stronger, faster players probably survive more combats and earn more XP (imagine 2 fighter PCs, one a healthy strong player, the other a couch potato). As such, the stronger player probably levels faster and thus improves his in-game situation over his lessors.

If you can't handicap it or force it through a consistent rules funnel that only utilizes the game score and negates the player's actual ability, then your game design probably needs to accept and embrace it as a fact of life.