Should strong players have an advantage?

[Zelda Themelin]

Characters are characters players are players unless it's live-acting. However there always seemed to be trend that people wanted to show how physical combat stuff looks in real life. Especially after not-physically apt guy had argued about some cool ninja-stuff.

Interestingly these face-offs tended to translate into gaming too and into character relationships. However, victory-status tended to be often vague.

Or haven't your gaming sessions ever turned into wrestling matches? Like ever? Mine have, good times.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A role-playing game is a mental and social activity, so those attributes of the players are "tested" by the game. It is wholly appropriate for players with prowess in those areas to use them to succeed, even if their character is less smart or charismatic then they are. Charisma and Intelligence have a place in determining certain mechanical characteristics of a character (number of henchmen, number of languages/spells known, etc.), but not as "saving throw vs. social situation/puzzle." The mental and social ability of the player is paramount.

This is *not* true of physical abilities like strength, agility, hand-to-eye co-ordination, etc. The play of the game is not a test of physical attributes, so these attributes of the players have no bearing on success in game, either positive or negative.

A man in a wheelchair can play the fiercest warrior in the world in a role-playing game. That is at the heart core of the game-form.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

In instances where this is true for a LARP, it is my firm opinion that the game is no longer a role-playing game when physical characteristics impact success. It becomes more a sport.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

If this is true, then LARPs are not actually role-playing games.

 

[Gentlegamer]

It's the way I prefer to play, because I don't care for the metagame nature of relying on the player's inherent ability.

What is commonly called 'metagaming' in RPGs is really just 'gaming.' Otherwise, the game-form requires a type of double-think that is impossible to regulate fairly.

The only 'metagaming' (using information or abilities from 'outside the game') that is cheating is when players peek at the DM's notes.

 

[Hussar]

What is commonly called 'metagaming' in RPGs is really just 'gaming.' Otherwise, the game-form requires a type of double-think that is impossible to regulate fairly.

The only 'metagaming' (using information or abilities from 'outside the game') that is cheating is when players peek at the DM's notes.

Now this I do not agree with.

I've got a reasonably decent knowledge of chemistry. Given a bit of time, I can make gunpowder from scratch. Should my 5 Int barbarian be able to do that?

After all, according to you, it's not cheating at all. It should be perfectly acceptable to use any and all of my knowledge in game. I've been gaming for about thirty years now. If we play a 3e or AD&D game, I've got a reasonable chance of knowing the stats of your monsters and their weaknesses just from memory. Not perfect, mind you, but a pretty darn good chance.

Certainly a hell of a lot better chance than my 5 Int Barbarian does.

Yet, when I automatically switch to certain weapons against certain monsters, that's perfectly acceptable? When I know how to kill Green Slime (cure disease works a trick), it's perfectly fine for any of my characters to suggest that to the cleric?

That's one way to play I suppose, but not a way I want any part of.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What is commonly called 'metagaming' in RPGs is really just 'gaming.' Otherwise, the game-form requires a type of double-think that is impossible to regulate fairly.

The only 'metagaming' (using information or abilities from 'outside the game') that is cheating is when players peek at the DM's notes.

Nothing wrong with playing this way but I think that is pretty outside how most people think of it. Ever since I can remember metagaming has been discouraged by rulebooks and by most game groups I've played with. This usually includes playing your character's attributes accurately.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Now this I do not agree with.

I've got a reasonably decent knowledge of chemistry. Given a bit of time, I can make gunpowder from scratch. Should my 5 Int barbarian be able to do that?

Feel free to assemble the chemical components. I'll let you know what the result is. [physics may not be what you think they are in my fantasy universe]

After all, according to you, it's not cheating at all. It should be perfectly acceptable to use any and all of my knowledge in game. I've been gaming for about thirty years now. If we play a 3e or AD&D game, I've got a reasonable chance of knowing the stats of your monsters and their weaknesses just from memory. Not perfect, mind you, but a pretty darn good chance.

Feel free to pull upon any player experience you have at my table. I would expect an experienced D&D'er to have such knowledge. At the same time, I reserve the right to alter the stats of monsters in a way that may hinder your ability to metagame them based on past D&D games you played in. Be sure to use information available in-game before taking any potentially risky actions.

Certainly a hell of a lot better chance than my 5 Int Barbarian does.

I'd rather you play the game intelligently, and not "play dumb." There's no way I could police you playing dumb, any way, since I'm not the Thought Police.

On a role-playing note, a barbarian is likely to have a better understanding of monsters' (at least wilderness monsters') attributes than a 'city-born' character, regardless of 'intelligence.' Medieval bestiaries for example are full of absurd 'facts' on nature written by the learned that any savage could refute instantly. So this is a case where 'metagame' knowledge may dovetail with 'correct' role-play of a class.

Yet, when I automatically switch to certain weapons against certain monsters, that's perfectly acceptable? When I know how to kill Green Slime (cure disease works a trick), it's perfectly fine for any of my characters to suggest that to the cleric?

Would you seriously keep that knowledge to yourself and let the party die to green slime? Maybe you feel the need to dress up your knowledge in an in-game explanation (Wilderness Lore/Survival check, etc), and if so, that's fine, I'll play along, but I won't attempt to penalize you since it's nothing I can really enforce anyway. The only thing I can do is 'out meta your meta' by changing the specific weakness of green slime to force you to find it out in-game, so exercise appropriate caution.

That's one way to play I suppose, but not a way I want any part of.

As long as you acknowledge it's a way to play, everything's fine. The problem is characterizing the 'metagaming' of using out of all out of game information as a form of 'cheating' or 'poor role-play.'

Since rpgs are a social game, if I joined your group as a player, I would adapt the 'role-play' conventions the group is confortable with, i.e. not using metagame information without at least a pretense of in-game/character knowledge. There's nothing wrong or better about each approach except in light of one's own preferences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A role-playing game is a mental and social activity, so those attributes of the players are "tested" by the game.

I respectfully disagree.

A role-playing game is a mental and social activity, but the "difficulty" of the game, for me, isn't in the test of a player's mental and social faculties.

The challenge of the game comes in using your character's abilities well to overcome the obstacles the DM sets before you.

This can include mental and social components, but, importantly, it's your character's mental and social skills, not yours. Just as it's your character's combat skills, not yours.

The kind of abilities I demand of my players are the abilities to think imaginatively about what their character can do. That's the big thing in D&D for me: imagination. Using your own memory or elegance isn't using your imagination. If any players have an advantage in my games it is the ones who think inventively, creatively, and uniquely. The ones who bring that sort of delightful surprise to the table will always be the ones who, at my table, can accomplish delightfully surprising things.

Of course, those folks with quick memories and honeyed tongues are also welcome, and they'll contribute to the fun in their own ways. They won't, however, necessarily be able to translate that into mechanical success, especially when they're not playing characters that fit their own abilities.

What is commonly called 'metagaming' in RPGs is really just 'gaming.' Otherwise, the game-form requires a type of double-think that is impossible to regulate fairly.

The only 'metagaming' (using information or abilities from 'outside the game') that is cheating is when players peek at the DM's notes.

I'm not talking about cheating, though. As a game with vague-at-best victory conditions, I'm not worried about "cheaters" in D&D.

I'm talking about the breaking of a fragile suspension of disbelief, the concept that you and your character are distinct entities. The same imagination that allows a 98-lb weakling to be a hulking warrior allows a shy person to be a suave wordsmith and the dude with ADD to be a elven wizard with a memory measured in aeons. That imaginary world is broken for me when the Int 5 Barbarian puzzles out the riddle just because their player knows a lot of riddles.

That's the essence of D&D's "fun failure:" when you fail at something because your character would, it's a lot more fun for me than succeeding at something because you personally would.

It's a lot more harmful to my style of games to have someone wreck the shared lie that there is this fantasy world that we are imagining into existence than it is to have someone check my notes. My notes are half-forgotten quarter-truths as it is. That world, though, that's important. That's why I play D&D, and I brook nothing challenging it from the outside, including Peter's own extensive education or Sally's own skillful persuasion, or Arthur's own work-out regimen.

 

[gamerprinter]

I've got one player, who has some background in metallurgy, and I think he played a character years ago, where he gave him a serious background in smithy and uses these skills to create exotic weapons and magic items based on his personal knowledge. However, he just can't let that go. Every character he has played since has this same esoteric knowledge and he is constantly talking about making alloys, etc. I always stop him to say - its not on your character sheet, you've given me no background story that suggests you're smith-trained, where is he getting this knowledge? Then he claims his bard, wizard or whatever he's playing at the time was smith-trained as a child...

Anymore, me and the other GMs involved just say "no" and usually ignore this. If it were just one specific character, we might allow it, but every one? He's an utter pain in the ass.