Should strong players have an advantage?

[Hussar]

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.

Just picking this one out.

Yes, absolutely. If there is no way I could reasonably think of that my character would have this knowledge, I would not bring it up at the table. And I would criticise any other player who did so because to do so is taking a very large hammer to the fourth wall.

And I would not be such a PITA player as to force the DM to rewrite every single monster just to "surprise" me. That's not what I'm there for. If me being at the table is going to cause the DM more work, I should be looking for a new table. And any player that hands me more work because he can't stay in character should be looking for a new DM.

I have very little tolerance for this sort of thing honestly. I do think its bad play. I would never, ever recommend any group adopt this style of play. For all the complaints about video-gamey, this one takes the prize. We don't bother actually giving any real personality to our characters, we just play ourselves driving our little sprite around the DM's world.

No thank you. We've spend the last few decades with pretty much every single gaming source telling us that this is a style of play to be eschewed. I honestly thought this type of thing had died out in the early 80's.

Hey, play what you like, but, I'm still going to stand back and say that this is not good role play.

 

[billd91]

No thank you. We've spend the last few decades with pretty much every single gaming source telling us that this is a style of play to be eschewed. I honestly thought this type of thing had died out in the early 80's.

Which is weird because I think it's still probably the most common form of role playing out there... particularly when you consider that I doubt most DMs design any riddles or puzzles to be solved with just a skill roll, most hack and slash oriented games/tactical games tend to be just the players playing tokens on a board without playing a real personality, and so on.

John may be playing a halfling, but he's still playing the way John plays pretty much every other character.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Just picking this one out.

Yes, absolutely. If there is no way I could reasonably think of that my character would have this knowledge, I would not bring it up at the table. And I would criticise any other player who did so because to do so is taking a very large hammer to the fourth wall.

And I would not be such a PITA player as to force the DM to rewrite every single monster just to "surprise" me. That's not what I'm there for. If me being at the table is going to cause the DM more work, I should be looking for a new table. And any player that hands me more work because he can't stay in character should be looking for a new DM.

I have very little tolerance for this sort of thing honestly. I do think its bad play. I would never, ever recommend any group adopt this style of play. For all the complaints about video-gamey, this one takes the prize. We don't bother actually giving any real personality to our characters, we just play ourselves driving our little sprite around the DM's world.

No thank you. We've spend the last few decades with pretty much every single gaming source telling us that this is a style of play to be eschewed. I honestly thought this type of thing had died out in the early 80's.

Hey, play what you like, but, I'm still going to stand back and say that this is not good role play.

I don't think you quite see what I'm saying here. Flip your attitude for a moment, pretend you were a gamer who had no problem using player knowledge for your and your party's benefit. As the DM, how do I stop you from doing so? What is the practical application of my refereeing your play at the table in this manner?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think you quite see what I'm saying here. Flip your attitude for a moment, pretend you were a gamer who had no problem using player knowledge for your and your party's benefit. As the DM, how do I stop you from doing so? What is the practical application of my refereeing your play at the table in this manner?

You have many options, but two leap to mind. One, you can simply say "no, your character doesn't have that knowledge, so you can't use it". Another option is "i don't think your character knows that, make a knowledge roll". In my games it never gets to this point because the other players would roll their eyes and ask the person applying his real world knowledge to the situation to just stop.

 

[Janx]

I don't think you quite see what I'm saying here. Flip your attitude for a moment, pretend you were a gamer who had no problem using player knowledge for your and your party's benefit. As the DM, how do I stop you from doing so? What is the practical application of my refereeing your play at the table in this manner?

and how do you apply it consistently and methodically such that every GM can do the same and thus hold to the same standard?

How do you reconcile that my Barbarian with 10 CHA is still too charismatic for your tastes despite me playing it less charismatically than my other characters.

 

[Janx]

You have many options, but two leap to mind. One, you can simply say "no, your character doesn't have that knowledge, so you can't use it". Another option is "i don't think your character knows that, make a knowledge roll". In my games it never gets to this point because the other players would roll their eyes and ask the person applying his real world knowledge to the situation to just stop.

True, and I think these conversations are getting mired with issues that are inherently dealt with by the skill system.

The rules already do a good job of handling skill checks. If your PC has no smithing skills, then anything smithy the player tries to do will probably fail.

If your PC has a low CHA, then any convincing the player tries to do, will probably fail if the GM applies a skill check.

These are such non-issues and are effectively NOT what we're talking about.

We're talking about the problem areas.

Can my PC answer the riddle of the Sphinx, because the player has?

Is it in character for my 7 CHA PC to spout charming lines of poetry to the ladies? I think the skill system resolves this one, but some past answers in these threads have implied that a 7 CHA PC wouldn't be played that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Janx, I think part of the problem here is people are being a bit rigid about playstyle, as if it were a political ideology (it is always about playing the character, it is always about the challenge of the game, it is always about the story, etc). In my opinion, even though I feel playing a character accurately is the heart of Roleplaying there are conditions where the fun arises from the player, not the character being challenged. I run lots of mysteries. In these I want the players to play well defined and interesting characters. But when they get to the riddle of the sphinx I want the players to solve it because it is meant as a challenge for them not the characters. I still exPect them to weigh their attributes and skills (a player with low INT may request an INT check before anouncing his solution if he wants). But I tend to be less concerned about it in those circumstances.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Can my PC answer the riddle of the Sphinx, because the player has?

Is it in character for my 7 CHA PC to spout charming lines of poetry to the ladies?

Riddles, in my games, fall under the purview of Intelligence checks. Heck, I've gone so far as to occasionally add a "Cleverness" skill keyed off of INT used to solve riddles, connect clues, and basically solve SAT test questions.

Of course, you could use other skills. Any "knowledge" skill (Religion, Nature, Dungeoneering, History, Streetwise, Percpetion, Insight, etc.) works well in this capacity, and spreads it out over more ability scores, giving more characters a chance to know it (the Sphinx's riddle, for instance, might be governed by Nature, in which case a dull barbarian who knows his flanks from his hindquarters might have a decent chance to puzzle it out!).

Charming lines of poetry are handled by Charisma checks. Even without a Perform skill, there's Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate -- all of which can be used to seduce a target in different ways.

Just because you've read some ancient greek myths doesn't mean your character has. Of course, to enhance immersion, I'd probably try to come up with a riddle that the table hasn't heard before, and give hints to those who make the right skill checks, but even if someone HAD heard it, or figures it out easily, they can't just answer. Their character needs to do it. It doesn't matter if they do it or not.

 

[Janx]

Riddles, in my games, fall under the purview of Intelligence checks. Heck, I've gone so far as to occasionally add a "Cleverness" skill keyed off of INT used to solve riddles, connect clues, and basically solve SAT test questions.

Of course, you could use other skills. Any "knowledge" skill (Religion, Nature, Dungeoneering, History, Streetwise, Percpetion, Insight, etc.) works well in this capacity, and spreads it out over more ability scores, giving more characters a chance to know it (the Sphinx's riddle, for instance, might be governed by Nature, in which case a dull barbarian who knows his flanks from his hindquarters might have a decent chance to puzzle it out!).

When I say riddle, or puzzle, I assume it's represented as a problem for me the player to solve. I am a problem solving guy. I would HATE that all problems are resolved by an INT check that I roll and you tell me what solution my PC implements.

 

[Mallus]

Of course, to enhance immersion, I'd probably try to come up with a riddle that the table hasn't heard before, and give hints to those who make the right skill checks, but even if someone HAD heard it, or figures it out easily, they can't just answer. Their character needs to do it. It doesn't matter if they do it or not.

Help me out here -- I'm having trouble parsing this.

First you state: "(you) give hints to those who make the right skill checks."

This implies it is the player who provide the answer to the riddle.

But then you go on to say: "(if a player) figures it out easily they can't just answer. Their character needs to do it. It doesn't matter if they do it or not."

This implies the player doesn't provide the answer. The riddle is solved through a skill check -- and if this is the case, why are you giving out hints?

What you wrote seems to say the skill check means two different things, depending on whether the player already knows the answer. If the player doesn't know, then a successful check results in a hint, and regardless of the result, the player can still answer correctly.

But if they player does know the answer, then the check directly determines whether the correct answer is given.

And after you give the player a hint, can they answer then? Or do they need to roll another check to see, at this point, if the character now knows what the hint-receiving player just figured out?

This is confusing.