Question about Metagaming

[icefractal]

When the table rules are that the GM can fake die rolls, we generally call it "fudging", not "allowed cheating". So that's what I'd call it for the players as well - fudging. GM-only fudging is a lot more common than "anyone can fudge rolls", but there's nothing inherently invalid about the latter.

But that said, I don't think I like the idea of "some players are allowed to fudge, others aren't told that it's an option". Like, I don't think it needs to be announced every time, but if fudging is ok then that should be part of the house rules that the players are informed about.

Because really - how do you know that the player who you gave permission to fudge was the only player who wanted to do so? Maybe one of the other players was also having a bad time and would have rather fudged a roll, but thought that doing so would be a betrayal of the group. By making fudging a stated thing rather than a secret agreement, they would have known it was ok.

That does leave the case of "What if I have one player who wants to fudge rolls, and another player who's against doing so on principle?" To which I'd say - that case is a problem waiting to happen anyway, and it's probably better to get it hashed out at the start instead of exploding later.

[Quertus]

@Quertus. I'm just going to say that you are still contriving absurd cases in order to support your idea that cheating doesn't spread to other players at a table.

I’m not “contriving absurd cases”, I’m reporting what I’ve experienced irl (filtered with poetic license to make it match the “we’re playing twin Rogues, and you’re cheating your rolls” scenario), to ask you the question you keep dodging: what part of that should have enticed me to cheat?

GM-only fudging is a lot more common than "anyone can fudge rolls", but there's nothing inherently invalid about the latter.

Whereas I’m still trying to promote, “only non-GM players can fudge rolls”.

I don't think I like the idea of "some players are allowed to fudge, others aren't told that it's an option".

And where are you even getting this idea from? If anyone’s suggested it, I missed it.

[Tanarii]

When the table rules are that the GM can fake die rolls, we generally call it "fudging", not "allowed cheating". So that's what I'd call it for the players as well - fudging. GM-only fudging is a lot more common than "anyone can fudge rolls", but there's nothing inherently invalid about the latter.

Seriously tho, DM or Player "fudging" is it's almost never a table rule. It's just something that do, and usually try hide. So yeah, agreed it needs to be explicit.

If a DM told me there was a DM or Player fudging rule, I'd probably want to know the details when it was acceptable, mainly to get a horrified look into the mind of how such a person thinks, and also expect to see that yes in fact they hadn't really thought it through and didn't have any such details. And then I'd thank them for warning me so I could never play at their heavily house-ruled table.

[kyoryu]

It's funny because, as usual, 95% of the conversation about fudging comes down to "character death bad."

So why are you playing in a system where character death is a product of dice rolls, rather than being something that at least one person has to opt into?

If you're having to bypass the dice, there's some level of system mismatch.

[Reversefigure4]

I’m not “contriving absurd cases”, I’m reporting what I’ve experienced irl (filtered with poetic license to make it match the “we’re playing twin Rogues, and you’re cheating your rolls” scenario), to ask you the question you keep dodging: what part of that should have enticed me to cheat?

The old childhood axiom: Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you!

I'm the Cheating Rogue, you're the Straight Rogue. Anything you accomplish, I can also do, but better. While I'm fighting off all the orcs single-handedly, you go off to seduce the Princess. But then I can run across the castle - because I'm cheating, and have declared my movement speed to be 20x yours - reach her first, and seduce her better with my +700 Diplomacy skill. If there's treasure, I'll find it, not you. If there's an NPC to talk to, better let me do it, since I have +900 Bluff to your +2. In a combat, I will kill 300 Orcs before you can finish damaging 1 to death, since I roll 400 average damage each time. If I feel like it, I'll let you kill that 1 orc so you can feel like you did something, but it's pretty obvious I could have taken him too.

My game is entirely proactive. I can accomplish anything. There's nothing you can do to stop me. Your game is reactive. You need to stay out of my way, or just cheerlead me from the sideline. You don't get to define what happens unless I choose to allow you.

If I'm not an asshat, I'll allow you moments to shine in your own way. But if I am an asshat who is allowed to cheat, you're only permitted to play a very specific kind of game - the kind I allow. And your character is always redundant, since anything you can do I can do better. You're a warm body. It doesn't make any difference if you're a Rogue or a Wizard or a Barmaid or a Potted Plant, since I can sneak, cast better spells, and bartend better than you anyway. It's possible you're happy with that sort of game, but most people are going to wonder why I'm allowed to declare whatever numbers I like and they aren't. Most games don't centre around Amazing Man and the sidekick who is allowed to carry his torch.

You might start cheating in response. Most likely, you'll just stop playing with me because I'm an asshat. Or we'll change to a narrative system with no dice to cheat from, or some sort of systemless game where we get to declare one fact true every 10 minutes of play. Or we agree that we're all OK with a system where I'm Incredible Rogue and you're my bumbling sidekick, dragged through the adventure by my sheer brilliance - but most game systems and campaign structures are not set up to play that sort of thing.

Thor and the Potted Plant is an exception, not how games are default expected to work. All characters are supposed to have mechanical and narrative competencies, contributing to whatever the game's story is in a vaguely equal fashion. If my niche is 'Fight Guy' and I kill everything in the combat, and your niche is Rich Guy, and you hobnob with the nobles to get the King's blessing, that might be narratively and mechanically of similar weight. But not if my fight scene takes 3 hours of gametime, and your hobnobbing takes 10 minutes, or viceversa. But if half the session is social and half of it fight, that's probably fine.

Cheating throws out that balance entirely out the window, however, since with a few pencil marks Fight Guy shows up at the King's Ball with social skills far higher than Rich Guys, and 1 million spare gold pieces in his pants.

[Quertus]

because I'm cheating, and have declared my movement speed to be 20x yours

If there's an NPC to talk to, better let me do it, since I have +900 Bluff to your +2.

These (plus many others) represent a failure to remember (or notice) context. For reference, the context at this point was identical Rogues, and cheating on die rolls. So your response really isn’t relevant to whether cheating on die rolls will entice others to cheat, even if the players are playing identical Rogues.

[False God]

It's funny because, as usual, 95% of the conversation about fudging comes down to "character death bad."

So why are you playing in a system where character death is a product of dice rolls, rather than being something that at least one person has to opt into?

If you're having to bypass the dice, there's some level of system mismatch.

Well sure in a world with infinite choice and perfect knowledge we can always find tables playing the game we want with people who also play the way we want. But realistically most people are making compromises on their perfect table to find some kind of gaming at all and the players they're playing with are an unknown.

Also the primary TTRPG on the market is seemingly hell-bent on leaning as far into LOLRANDOM! as possible, particularly at low levels.

[NichG]

Well sure in a world with infinite choice and perfect knowledge we can always find tables playing the game we want with people who also play the way we want. But realistically most people are making compromises on their perfect table to find some kind of gaming at all and the players they're playing with are an unknown.

Also the primary TTRPG on the market is seemingly hell-bent on leaning as far into LOLRANDOM! as possible, particularly at low levels.

Also there's an OOC risk/reward trade-off in GMing, where there's interesting gaming to explore as experiences get more intense and as players get more invested, but the margin between great and terrible becomes narrower and it's more likely that things the GM doesn't or can't know can determine what side of the edge you land on. So remembering that the game isn't the important thing becomes more essential as well. Attaching stigmas to people using release valves in such cases is something I'd be very careful about.

[Tanarii]

It's funny because, as usual, 95% of the conversation about fudging comes down to "character death bad."

Fortunately this attitudes is finally starting to ebb after it's D&D 2e high. But the idea that DMs can and should "fudge" still seems to hold sway with more DMs than it doesn't. It can make finding a table for those who want to let the dice fall as they may rather difficult.

What's really crazy to me is this holds true even in WotC 5e official play. In which house rules aren't supposed to run rampant, and the game is heavily designed so that character death is unlikely without serious player mistakes. And in some seasons, dying just means not get rewards for the current session. (Dying in homebrew CaW is much easier than WotCs CaS official play.)

[Reversefigure4]

These (plus many others) represent a failure to remember (or notice) context. For reference, the context at this point was identical Rogues, and cheating on die rolls. So your response really isn’t relevant to whether cheating on die rolls will entice others to cheat, even if the players are playing identical Rogues.

So we're positing that Rogue A freely cheats on his dice rolls, claiming 20s whenever he feels like, but that the table is fine with this because he'll never cheat any further than this, for some reason? He's decided any dice changing is fine, but that faking, say, his hit points, is morally wrong?

That does reduce some of the niche stealing, since he'll never be able to cast spells and take the Wizards stick... But in most systems, it's hard to not be outshone by some who can generate the highest dice value possible freely. While he won't be casting spells, most versions of DnD will see the Rogue auto hit every opponent, outshining the Fighter (as well as out-saving-throwing the Monk, out skilling characters until they reach high enough level skill points outstrip the dice). In a system like Call of Cthulhu (% roll under), our dice cheat can succeed at any given roll in the game, meaning other characters in the Investigator team can achieve only those things he allows them to succeed at. In Savage Worlds, exploding dice can generate infinitely high results. In Fate, PC skills often go from 1 to 4, with dice results between -4 and +4 with a heavy average towards +0, so a dice cheat will equal skill experts on his amazing constant +4 dice alone.

[Quertus]

So we're positing that Rogue A freely cheats on his dice rolls, claiming 20s whenever he feels like, but that the table is fine with this because he'll never cheat any further than this, for some reason? He's decided any dice changing is fine, but that faking, say, his hit points, is morally wrong?

That does reduce some of the niche stealing, since he'll never be able to cast spells and take the Wizards stick... But in most systems, it's hard to not be outshone by some who can generate the highest dice value possible freely. While he won't be casting spells, most versions of DnD will see the Rogue auto hit every opponent, outshining the Fighter (as well as out-saving-throwing the Monk, out skilling characters until they reach high enough level skill points outstrip the dice). In a system like Call of Cthulhu (% roll under), our dice cheat can succeed at any given roll in the game, meaning other characters in the Investigator team can achieve only those things he allows them to succeed at. In Savage Worlds, exploding dice can generate infinitely high results. In Fate, PC skills often go from 1 to 4, with dice results between -4 and +4 with a heavy average towards +0, so a dice cheat will equal skill experts on his amazing constant +4 dice alone.

Cheating at die rolls is the exclusive type of cheating under discussion; I’m not a licensed therapist, nor do I play one in an RPG, so I’ll not hazard a guess as to why a player would cheat exclusively in that way. But that’s the example that was given, that’s the context for this conversation.

For the rest, my response is pretty much, “Yes, and?”. For context, I’m a grognard who hails from the days when level 1 characters and level 20 characters adventured together in the same party.

I’ll admit that CoC and Fate are more vulnerable to die cheating than D&D (where the Rogue should outshine the Fighter in combat, even without cheating). But, still, so what? My character isn’t “the pilot” or “the Fighter” or some similar definition by niche, he’s Batman, orphaned millionaire who hates guns and scares and beats up criminals as an obsessive hobby. He’s Batman, regardless of who you are. If you’re the pilot of the party? Great. If you’re Superman? Great. I’m still Batman.

(I’ve intentionally ignored talking about investigation, as that’s often Player skills… and also the big reason why, actually me, maybe my character isn’t Batman. So bad choice, maybe. Shrug.)

In almost any normal system, so long as the GM is even half-way competent (so, maybe half the GM’s I’ve had?), it doesn’t matter what your character does (*cough* Angel summoner *cough*), I still get the same amount of time / number of turns / whatever to take actions, and, in those actions, if I’ve built the character correctly, and can play the character correctly, I’m Batman. Regardless of who anyone else is.

And, yeah, this holds true when you replace “Batman” with any other character… especially or, at least, any character *I* can actually play.

[Reversefigure4]

Cheating at die rolls is the exclusive type of cheating under discussion; I’m not a licensed therapist, nor do I play one in an RPG, so I’ll not hazard a guess as to why a player would cheat exclusively in that way. But that’s the example that was given, that’s the context for this conversation.

For the rest, my response is pretty much, “Yes, and?”. For context, I’m a grognard who hails from the days when level 1 characters and level 20 characters adventured together in the same party.

I’ll admit that CoC and Fate are more vulnerable to die cheating than D&D (where the Rogue should outshine the Fighter in combat, even without cheating). But, still, so what? My character isn’t “the pilot” or “the Fighter” or some similar definition by niche, he’s Batman, orphaned millionaire who hates guns and scares and beats up criminals as an obsessive hobby. He’s Batman, regardless of who you are. If you’re the pilot of the party? Great. If you’re Superman? Great. I’m still Batman.

(I’ve intentionally ignored talking about investigation, as that’s often Player skills… and also the big reason why, actually me, maybe my character isn’t Batman. So bad choice, maybe. Shrug.)

In almost any normal system, so long as the GM is even half-way competent (so, maybe half the GM’s I’ve had?), it doesn’t matter what your character does (*cough* Angel summoner *cough*), I still get the same amount of time / number of turns / whatever to take actions, and, in those actions, if I’ve built the character correctly, and can play the character correctly, I’m Batman. Regardless of who anyone else is.

And, yeah, this holds true when you replace “Batman” with any other character… especially or, at least, any character *I* can actually play.

So we're playing Savage Worlds superheroes. You're Batman, I'm Superman. I spent all my points on powers - flight, super strength, eye lasers, super breath, etc. You spent all yours on skills.

I have a d4-2 (untrained) in Stealth, Intimidation, Perception, and Athletics. Because you want to be a tiny bat god at big things, you maxed them (d12s). It's possible, but unlikely, for me to outroll you, because the system used as exploding dice (when you roll as high as you can, roll and add another die, which might also explode...). In a normal campaign, Superman might outsneak Batman once or twice by sheer fluke.

In cheat land, I beat you every time, because you roll an average on 6.5, and I roll 8 explosions for routine totals of 20+. Superman can outsneak, outfight, outclimb, outflip, outthrow your Batarangs, and generally do everything Batman does but better, because I ace every roll, guaranteed. And I still have laser eyes, flight, and superspeed, because I didn't waste my points building for skills. Why would I, when it's ok to cheat whatever dice result?

Some aspects Batman I can't take away for you. You're always be an orphan (narrative). You'll always be rich (requires a feat, not a dice roll). But cheating Superman will outdo Batman at being Batman. The sorts of challenges Batman could accomplish can be done better by cheating Superman, who can succeed on anything with a dice roll.

It's possible you are quite happy with this and not inspired to cheat so that your stealth focused ninja can actually do some stealth focused ninja stuff. You're happy playing B-grade Batman while Superman proves to actually be the World's Greatest Detective, as long as you get to brood loudly. But I doubt that's the common experience. Most people want their character to be able to achieve things within their field of expertise, things that aren't overshadowed by their cheating allies.

[Quertus]

But cheating Superman will outdo Batman at being Batman.
It's possible you are quite happy with this and not inspired to cheat so that your stealth focused ninja can actually do some stealth focused ninja stuff. You're happy playing B-grade Batman while Superman proves to actually be the World's Greatest Detective, as long as you get to brood loudly. But I doubt that's the common experience. Most people want their character to be able to achieve things within their field of expertise, things that aren't overshadowed by their cheating allies.

Maybe you get dumber when (zombie) Einstein walks into the room, but I don’t. I’m still a genius, even if I’m in the same room as Einstein. Batman doesn’t change when he’s teamed up with Super Ninja Man - he’s still Batman, not “B-grade Batman”. Anything he could do before, he can still do. Regardless of whether someone else can do it better.

1st level Quertus was still 1st level Quertus, even if there was a 20th level Wizard in the party. Batman is still Batman, regardless of whether he’s teamed up with Robin, Alfred, Superman, Super Ninja Man, Spider-Man, or Aunt May.

And I’m telling the story of Batman.

[JNAProductions]

“I personally don’t care, so clearly it’s not an issue.”

Have some empathy for others. Even if you’re accurate in your words, your position isn’t one shared by most of the rest of the player base.

[Reversefigure4]

1st level Quertus was still 1st level Quertus, even if there was a 20th level Wizard in the party. Batman is still Batman, regardless of whether he’s teamed up with Robin, Alfred, Superman, Super Ninja Man, Spider-Man, or Aunt May.

Certainly if you routinely play at tables with vast narrative and mechanical power differences between the PCs with no problems, then dice cheating will be far less of an issue - it's no more of an issue than having epic characters at the table with 1st level ones, or having Superman and Dirt Farmer both as PCs. If you're already accepting characters can be made and played with vastly different power levels, then "my dice always roll max" is just another power.

But this doesn't represent a standard table, or most systems. If you want this sort of thing, then more narrative systems like Cortex Plus might serve better (designed to have Superman and Jimmy Olsen contributing to the story equally).

Would you agree that for the average table and average system, one player cheating is a problem?

[Quertus]

Certainly if you routinely play at tables with vast narrative and mechanical power differences between the PCs with no problems, then dice cheating will be far less of an issue - it's no more of an issue than having epic characters at the table with 1st level ones, or having Superman and Dirt Farmer both as PCs. If you're already accepting characters can be made and played with vastly different power levels, then "my dice always roll max" is just another power.

But this doesn't represent a standard table, or most systems. If you want this sort of thing, then more narrative systems like Cortex Plus might serve better (designed to have Superman and Jimmy Olsen contributing to the story equally).

Would you agree that for the average table and average system, one player cheating is a problem?

In my 40 years of experience? No. In the borrowed existence of others? Yes.

That said, the reasons why others have a problem is, afaict, because they lack the skills to make it not a problem. They cannot conceptualize how to contribute or have fun when there is any power disparity whatsoever, and blame their lack of fun on the lack of “razor’s edge, perfect to the nearest micron” mechanical balance, not realizing that numerous factors, like player skill, genre savviness, knowledge:GM, and just dumb luck might be responsible for throwing balance out the window, rather than Monk being OP.

And then, because they’ve no experience with responding to a problem by building themselves up, they explode childishly whenever anything doesn’t go their way, and try to tear everyone else down.

Sounds like Talakeal’s Table? Maybe I wasn’t describing the average. (Although, with the number of times I’ve heard about Talakeal’s Table, maybe I was.) Any guesses why I’m bothering going through such effort to advocate the opposite approach?

“I personally don’t care, so clearly it’s not an issue.”

Have some empathy for others. Even if you’re accurate in your words, your position isn’t one shared by most of the rest of the player base.

No, first I have to prove how I didn’t have an issue, and how many tables I’ve been at didn’t have an issue, to the incredulous masses. Then I can ask them, “why would you have had an issue with it?”, couched in “why do you think I would have had an issue with it?”. Which, of course, got completely ignored. Because no one has been interested in having a productive conversation.

[JNAProductions]

Why is it problematic?

Let's use Reversefigure's example. One player is Superman-loaded up with lots of superpowers, but unskilled at most things. The other is Batman-no superpowers at all, but highly skilled.

In a game without cheating, Batman will routinely be able to better use skills than Superman. Batman will sneak better, investigate better, deduce better, etc. But Superman has access to things like flight, super strength, and laser eyes-things Batman simply cannot do at all. Occasionally, flukes of the dice will allow Superman to equal or even surpass Batman at whatever skill is most appropriate-but by and large, Batman gets to be strong where they invested, Superman gets to be strong where they invested. Player choices are rewarded appropriately.

In a game with cheating, Superman might not always outskill Batman, but whenever the chips are down, suddenly Superman is just as skilled as Batman-while still being able to fly, while still being super strong, while still having laser eyes. Superman gets to have the same rewards as Batman, plus more, despite not having invested where Batman did.

I'm not saying you HAVE to be upset that the game is, in this situation, incredibly unfair. But your implication that people should just deal with it and shouldn't be upset that they're routinely outshone by someone who didn't invest their expertise is pretty callous.

[kyoryu]

In a game without cheating, Batman will routinely be able to better use skills than Superman. Batman will sneak better, investigate better, deduce better, etc. But Superman has access to things like flight, super strength, and laser eyes-things Batman simply cannot do at all. Occasionally, flukes of the dice will allow Superman to equal or even surpass Batman at whatever skill is most appropriate-but by and large, Batman gets to be strong where they invested, Superman gets to be strong where they invested. Player choices are rewarded appropriately.

Quertus,

Talking about razor-edge balance is a strawman here, as this is the real issue.

In general, RPG character creation gives you the opportunity to say "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I don't care about being good at."

So if you're creating a "big fighter" type character, you expect to be good at giving and taking hits (I think that's a horribly limited view of fighters, but we'll accept the simplification for now).

The wizard invests in "doing cool stuff" and "making big booms infrequently", to again oversimplify.

So what I expect is that when it comes to "hitting with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "getting hit with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "making big booms" the wizard should do it better, as well as "doing general crazy stuff".

Looking at just one category (getting hit with a stick), it doesn't matter as much how much better the fighter is. But he should be better. It's not a matter of "well, the wizard is taking 52.4% of the damage the fighter is, and should only be taking 52.2% of the damage. That's ridiculous.

What does matter, to a lot of people, is if the wizard is taking 200% of what the fighter is.

And, especially, since one of the standard unspoken agreements of tabletop games is "you don't cheat your dice rolls, unless maybe you're the GM and you do it for the good of the party" (though some would disagree strongly with the latter part of that).

But it's not about micro-thin levels of balance. That's a strawman that nobody claimed. It's about macro-level balance at the core. So please stop claiming people are making that argument.

[JNAProductions]

I... I don't think I was talking about precise balance.

Like, the example was two characters with vastly different foci. Going off Reverse's post, Supes is rolling 1d4-2 for most things, while Bats is rolling 1d12. Max values explode, but to even hit a 6, Supes would have to roll a 4 twice, for a 1/16 chance of meeting the lower side of Bats' average.

[kyoryu]

I... I don't think I was talking about precise balance.

Like, the example was two characters with vastly different foci. Going off Reverse's post, Supes is rolling 1d4-2 for most things, while Bats is rolling 1d12. Max values explode, but to even hit a 6, Supes would have to roll a 4 twice, for a 1/16 chance of meeting the lower side of Bats' average.

No, I'm agreeing with you. What you're tlaking about is the point. "Precise" balance, as defined by Quertus, isn't. I'll edit to make that clear.

My apologies for the confusion. I just quoted you because I thought you had said it extremely well.

[JNAProductions]

No, I'm agreeing with you. What you're tlaking about is the point. "Precise" balance, as defined by Quertus, isn't. I'll edit to make that clear.

My apologies for the confusion. I just quoted you because I thought you had said it extremely well.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarity. :)

[Talakeal]

In general, RPG character creation gives you the opportunity to say "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I don't care about being good at."

Or, in my players case, "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I insist will never come up or I will assume the DM is out to get me and react accordingly."

[kyoryu]

Or, in my players case, "this is what I want to be good at, and this is what I insist will never come up or I will assume the DM is out to get me and react accordingly."

I think we can start discussions assuming your tables exist in some bizarre parallel alternate dimension.

[Talakeal]

I think we can start discussions assuming your tables exist in some bizarre parallel alternate dimension.

What do you mean start?

Glyphstone coined the phrase bizarro world years ago.

[Quertus]

Quertus,

Talking about razor-edge balance is a strawman here, as this is the real issue.

So what I expect is that when it comes to "hitting with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "getting hit with a stick" the fighter does it better. When it comes to "making big booms" the wizard should do it better, as well as "doing general crazy stuff".

What does matter, to a lot of people, is if the wizard is taking 200% of what the fighter is.

But it's not about micro-thin levels of balance. That's a strawman that nobody claimed. It's about macro-level balance at the core. So please stop claiming people are making that argument.

Well put. But wrong on several points. Or wrong several times on one point, perhaps.

So, just in the thread on this conversation, there’s been several comments like this:

I would also suggest that even in class/role based game systems, the sheer abundance of class balance threads out there on the internet, in which the smallest of changes to said balance is discussed and argued about to the nth degree, would tend to disprove Quertus's assertion.

Plus an appeal to discuss the extremely contrived scenario of

Let's take two rogues. They have identical skills.

That is ridiculously unlikely to occur at actual tables, and only makes sense as a theory-crafting example for extreme balance purposes.

So it’s false to say that such hasn’t come up, no?

Then there’s my experiences irl, and my second-hand experiences talking to others, all of which suggest that “balance” is the absolute dumbest thing to… ahem. What I mean to say is, that there is a strong correlation between “extent to which one cares about balance” and “difficulty one has coming up with solutions to this class of problem”.

Which I think agrees with you? I think you could reword it to say, the more one cares about micro balance, the more of these macro-balance problems one will have, as “balance” is highly fragile, and thrown off by… where’s that short list? By

• Cheating makes the character more effective
• Better Build makes the character more effective
• Player Skill makes the character more effective
• Simple Luck makes the character more effective
• Knowledge:GM makes the character more effective
• Adventure Synergy makes the character more effective
• Teamwork makes the character more effective
• Genre Savviness makes the character more effective
• Reading the Module makes the character more effective
• Getting Advice Online makes the character more effective
• Metagaming makes the character more effective
• Not being exhausted after work makes the character more effective
• Aiming for Determinator effectiveness over Roleplaying makes the character more effective
• Planning makes the character more effective
• Preparing makes the character more effective

Oh, and let's not forget, it being something that the character is good at makes the character more effective.

To name a few.

Give me 1st and 20th level characters adventuring together, played by players with the player skill to do the things I’ve been talking about, over modern balance-crazed players with no concept how to make the game work any day.

And note that the 1st level Fighter is looking at 10ish HP (or maybe only 1 HP in 2e and earlier), whereas the 20th level Wizard is looking at dozens of hundreds of HP, protected by magical items, better saves, etc. Which amounts to much more than that “taking 200% of what the fighter is.” that you were so worried about.

So, that’s the level of skill at macro-balance I’m talking about, where your 200% is shrugged off as inconsequential.

If I’m playing… Tanjiro Kamado, starting out? I’m still Tanjiro Kamado, regardless of who I’m working with. That’s the type of macro-balance mindset I’m asking others to evaluate, directly, or indirectly via, “why do you believe I would cheat in this scenario?”

What you’re balancing isn’t “fiddly little numbers”, it’s the bigger ticket items, like, “do I get to tell this character’s story?”, “am I getting to play the game, to make meaningful choices?”, and “am I participating in the group story?”. To name a few.

[JNAProductions]

You should have fun with that, Quertus. If that's what you enjoy, go nuts.
But you should also acknowledge that most people want their character to feel expert relative to even the other PCs, in their areas of expertise.

Most players, when they sit down to play a game, want to play as a party of equals, more or less. They don't want to be a Commoner 2 in a party of a Wizard 18, Fighter 4/Barbarian 1/Various Prestige Classes 12, and a Druid 20. They probably don't even want to be a Fighter 20 in a part of an Archivist 20, Druid 20, and Psion 20; owing to 3.5's bad balance.

There CAN be circumstances where there's large differences in power between PCs. The Smallville RPG, if I recall correctly, is designed more for relationships and drama, so despite Superman being... Well, Superman, someone else playing Jimmy Olsen is perfectly fine-because the narrative impact is similar.

Again-if you don't mind playing as someone who's vastly weaker than the other PCs, even in your areas of expertise, that's fine. Enjoy it. But don't treat your personal experience and preferences as universal.

[Quixotic1]

To address the OP, I think that metagaming is...fine?

I mean. I don't like it. But I think that pretty much any attempt to prevent players from using their knowledge that their characters might not posess leads to situations as arbitrary and cumbersome as those we try to avoid.

I think the D&D troll is a great example. If your players try to break out the fire and acid right away and you go, "hey! Your *characters* don't know that about trolls!", then...what happens next? You force them to go through a couple rounds of combat before you decide they notice their attacks aren't effective, then let them roll or something?
I don't know. If that's what a GM needs to do to keep an encounter challenging, then they need to build more challenging encounters.

It's not worth the headache from any angle. If a player knows stuff, their character can know it, too. It's not a big deal.

But what you describe is just icky. I think it's reasonable to say that the only books at the table are the GMs. Keeps things running smoothly and avoids this situation all together.

[kyoryu]

Well put. But wrong on several points. Or wrong several times on one point, perhaps.

Your entire point is strawmen, ad hominems, and a shocking lack of respect for the agency and boundaries of others.

I think the usefulness of this conversation is other.

[Reversefigure4]

Most players, when they sit down to play a game, want to play as a party of equals, more or less. They don't want to be a Commoner 2 in a party of a Wizard 18, Fighter 4/Barbarian 1/Various Prestige Classes 12, and a Druid 20. They probably don't even want to be a Fighter 20 in a part of an Archivist 20, Druid 20, and Psion 20; owing to 3.5's bad balance.

There CAN be circumstances where there's large differences in power between PCs. The Smallville RPG, if I recall correctly, is designed more for relationships and drama, so despite Superman being... Well, Superman, someone else playing Jimmy Olsen is perfectly fine-because the narrative impact is similar.

Again-if you don't mind playing as someone who's vastly weaker than the other PCs, even in your areas of expertise, that's fine. Enjoy it. But don't treat your personal experience and preferences as universal.

In fact, most superhero RPGs actively try and sell themselves on the idea that System X does a good job of balancing Hawkeye and Thor in the same party without one of them overshadowing the other, so it clearly is a problem that people feel like needs addressing. (The Smallville RPG, which does the opposite, still pitches itself on the idea that Superman and Jimmy Olsen have the same narrative dramatic weight).

RPG systems, of course, don't sell themselves on the idea of "this system works well even if one player cheats madly!", because it's very hard to build any sort of system around that. I haven't seen any that pitch themselves as "Teaches you the player skills you need to play a level 2 commoner next to your level 20 wizard buddy", which does suggest there isn't much of a market for it.

[Anymage]

What you’re balancing isn’t “fiddly little numbers”, it’s the bigger ticket items, like, “do I get to tell this character’s story?”, “am I getting to play the game, to make meaningful choices?”, and “am I participating in the group story?”. To name a few.

Getting to tell your character's story and make meaningful choices within the game are contingent on not being regularly overshadowed, and on not bleeding out during your first combat. Both are closely tied to game balance. It's possible for a group to make a functioning dynamic while the system gets in the way, but that doesn't mean that extra strain on the system is a desirable thing.