Meta-game activities

[atlascott]

How do you guys handle these meta-game thinking/acting problems?

 

1. Speaking 'in character' and then claiming that the insult or joke or challenge just uttered was 'out of character' when there is some foreshadowing that it was not well received;

 

2. When using minis to map out complex combat, using 'bird's eye view' to decide what actions to take, rather than relying on actual character perception. WHile this is allowable in a war game, in an RPG or 'real life' no one can take in a whole mass melee as if one were a casual observer...

 

3. Interspering joking around (always welcome at my table) with formulating a plan for minutes and minutes (not welcome in a surprise situation).

 

4. Using personal knowledge not defined as knowledge in possession of the character (either from personal background or information that is generally known to PLAYERS ina campaign or scenario, but not their CHARACTERS). (For example: GM: You get a cell phone call from your brother to come over to his house right away. Player: Ok, Im going to get a suitcase and put all of the knifes in the kitchen drawer in there, and Im going to go out to the garage and bring the chainsaw, as well. And my handgun...").

 

I am interested in how others deal with this stuff. I usually just disallow it by explaining metagame activities...

[lemming]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

1) Had to reread the question. Depends if it really would of been out of character or not. Sometimes as a player, you can't help some "witty" comment. Generally if it was entertaining, I let it stand. If the PC really would of had some inkling that it wouldn't be a good idea, then it could be retracted. Really depends on the situation.

 

2) With some of the extra powers that can be tossed about, the bird's eye view may be more accurate.

 

3) Heck, we sometimes talk way more than actually game. Sometimes while formulating a plan. Though if it's in the middle of combat, as long as they take their phase, I'm fine. Otherwise I try to move things along.

 

4) I call the player on it.

[atlascott]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

"2) With some of the extra powers that can be tossed about, the bird's eye view may be more accurate."

 

That's the problem--a ground-based character cant see what's behind the building, but he moves with the perspective he has, not the perspective of the character. This really prejudices the flying characters, or those with enhanced senses who CAN see behind the building...

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

I can really only comment on the first one. We had a major problem with a Shadowrun game, where people would joke and laugh and kid throughout the game, and we had a hard time separating in-character chatter with OOC chatter. So the rule was, if your hand was up, it was OOC. Otherwise, it was assumed you were in-character. It's kind of high school, but you might want some kind of separation so you can tell this player, "You were in-character when you said it."

 

2 and 4 both look like problems with players not differentiating between in character knowledge and OOC knowledge. Point out the difference to your players, and set consequences for crossing the lines. For instance, "Each time you transmit OOC knowledge to your characters, I dock an experience point. Do it three times, and you sit out the rest of the game and I NPC your character."

 

As an extreme example.

 

But the most important thing to do, first, is talk to these players about these behaviors and explain why it's annoying. Or at the very least, bad roleplaying.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

I can really only comment on the first one. We had a major problem with a Shadowrun game' date=' where people would joke and laugh and kid throughout the game, and we had a hard time separating in-character chatter with OOC chatter. So the rule was, if your hand was up, it was OOC. Otherwise, it was assumed you were in-character. It's kind of high school, but you might want some kind of separation so you can tell this player, "You were in-character when you said it."[/quote']

 

If it's a significant problem and the group agrees, a simple "all conversation is considered in character" rule can be adopted. If two players in your Fantasy game are blabbing about the football game, tjheir characters are chatting about the gladitorial matches ("How 'bout them lions, Sir Kyooitous").

[Herolover]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

1) Usually, when the campaign starts you have to let the player get away with this. However, as the campaign goes on the GM should get a sense of the "character's voice." If it could have been in character I make the player make an EGO roll. If he fails his character said it. Nips it in the bud.

 

2) If you think the player is using OOC knowledge ask him how his character knows what is going of. If it is possible or questionable have him make a perception roll.

 

3) This is just the way it is. Gamer's talk and joke. We get together only one time a week so have to get caught up. It is the nature of the beast to talk and joke more than playing. Never seen a group where it doesn't happen to one degree or another.

 

4) Yep, call the player on it. How does he know? Many players will use the excuse, "Well, I always do XXXX?" In your case carry around major weapons. Here is how I nip it in the bud quickly:

 

a) Have them go loaded for bear and when they get there the brother wants help putting some shingles on his roof. The would look really stupid walking up armed to the bear.

 

They are pulled over by the Police. (They got a tip the cars was smuggling drugs {some kids made a joke call}) Exactly why do they have all these weapons in the car? Umm...the police take a dim view of this kind of thing.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

1. Speaking 'in character': I rarely have a problem with this. After a while I develop an ear for the PC voices. Whenever I'm confused or someone says something I think is out of character I'll ask for clarification. Since I'm in the habbit of doing this, I can ask before mentioning any consequences without suspicion.

 

2. using 'bird's eye view': I typically don't have a problem with this. There are far too many coincidences in the comics and films concerning how characters are arranged. Though a character might not know about the agent hiding behind the corner, if I've placed it on the map I've told the players they can account form him being there any way they choose, but can't target him for attacks, direct or indirect, until they have made LOS. If I don't want to allow this for some reason, I don't put the mini on the map, and let the players know one at a time when they make LOS.

 

3. Interspering joking around: I can't help this much in my group. Every one of us, myself included, is a comic/comedian and joking around is what we do. For us, it's part of the game experience for us. Those times it causes a problem or distraction and prohibits the game, I try to call the group on it (I try not to point a finger at any one player, as it's often just as much my fault as anyone elses, but sometimes I can't help it) and get the game moving again.

 

4. Using personal knowledge: I don't allow this, and when I catch a player doing it I call them on it. The only exception is when I specifically give information to the player to influence his desicion. If I haven't given them the info, the only info they can use has to be info the character possesses.

[spaceprincessecho]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

I find that my Axe of GMing handles most of these problems nicely.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

They are pulled over by the Police. (They got a tip the cars was smuggling drugs {some kids made a joke call}) Exactly why do they have all these weapons in the car? Umm...the police take a dim view of this kind of thing.

 

When these things happen, the cop (or whoever else makes trouble for the character) should be named. SOmething like Gary Miller, Gina Masterson, Greg Mullett, etc. See how long it takes the player to figure out what the initials mean

[Guest taustin]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

On #4, I've run characters for whom that would be perfectly ordinary behavior. Assuming they weren't just lounging on the couch, eating Cheetos, with 15 guns stashed on their persons.

 

But suspect that's not what you were talking about.

[Blue]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

1. Speaking 'in character' and then claiming that the insult or joke or challenge just uttered was 'out of character' when there is some foreshadowing that it was not well received;

 

Let it slide. But if it was good I will say, "Are you sure? That sounded like something he'd say!"

 

2. When using minis to map out complex combat, using 'bird's eye view' to decide what actions to take, rather than relying on actual character perception. WHile this is allowable in a war game, in an RPG or 'real life' no one can take in a whole mass melee as if one were a casual observer...

 

I'll draw the walls but I don't give the interiors until they can see them. And then just one room at a time. It's usually improvised anyway.

 

3. Interspering joking around (always welcome at my table) with formulating a plan for minutes and minutes (not welcome in a surprise situation).

 

Let it go. But then I'm one of the compulsive jokers. But I'm a "counter puncher", so if nobody is giving me something to joke about it doesn't happen. Eventually someone will chime in and say 'Can we just get to it' and that situation handles itself. No prodding on my part needed.

 

4. Using personal knowledge not defined as knowledge in possession of the character (either from personal background or information that is generally known to PLAYERS ina campaign or scenario, but not their CHARACTERS). (For example: GM: You get a cell phone call from your brother to come over to his house right away. Player: Ok, Im going to get a suitcase and put all of the knifes in the kitchen drawer in there, and Im going to go out to the garage and bring the chainsaw, as well. And my handgun...").

 

"Oh, I know this, but how much would my character know?" It's a common question and each player in the group knows to raise it. Some will still metagame, but everyone else there knows their characters wouldn't know that that and they play accordingly. I've had GM's say to players "There's no way you'd know that", and everyone abides. So I have no problem doing that to the group.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

We actually have an odd variation on the first one.. several characters in one game are of the wise-arse variety and would say several potentially damaging and disrupive things in otherwise sensitive situations..

 

We also have a Mind Link with IPE on it for the group, so we often DO say those things in character through the Mind Link.

 

Our problem arises when we try and figure out what occured through the ML and what was said out loud... we've spent an hour untangling a conversation before.

 

Oof.

 

The rest of them, epsecially that last one, I toss into the Bad Roleplaying catergory and personally look down on it, usually with rude remarks to the players invovled. But I'm a jerk sometimes.

 

Though occasionally that's just the mood of the night and I go with it. If every once in a while a session just degrades, so be it. As long as it's not a constant thing with every session I can live with it.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

How do you guys handle these meta-game thinking/acting problems?

 

1. Speaking 'in character' and then claiming that the insult or joke or challenge just uttered was 'out of character' when there is some foreshadowing that it was not well received;

 

In one group we had a clause for "statements of intent"...if you said it and it sounded like you meant it....you did it. Applied to actions and words.

 

2. When using minis to map out complex combat, using 'bird's eye view' to decide what actions to take, rather than relying on actual character perception. WHile this is allowable in a war game, in an RPG or 'real life' no one can take in a whole mass melee as if one were a casual observer...

 

not a big deal

 

3. Interspering joking around (always welcome at my table) with formulating a plan for minutes and minutes (not welcome in a surprise situation).

 

I egg them along....there is a time limit for this stuff

 

4. Using personal knowledge not defined as knowledge in possession of the character (either from personal background or information that is generally known to PLAYERS ina campaign or scenario, but not their CHARACTERS). (For example: GM: You get a cell phone call from your brother to come over to his house right away. Player: Ok, Im going to get a suitcase and put all of the knifes in the kitchen drawer in there, and Im going to go out to the garage and bring the chainsaw, as well. And my handgun...").

 

I am interested in how others deal with this stuff. I usually just disallow it by explaining metagame activities...

 

Expressly not allowed...the character must justify his out of character actions or be denied them

[David Blue]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

If a player seems to be using out of game knowledge, I'd rather call them away from the group and ask questions, starting by assuming the player does have a sensible reason for what they are doing, before or preferably instead of calling them on it.

 

I may be wrong about what they have in mind, or what information the character may be working from, and I'd rather not have a public confrontation that revealed the dark secret that I too can miss the point. I have been wrong in the past. Even if it seems I can't be wrong this time, I don't want to get into any bad habits. It does no harm to stick to my method.

 

On the other hand, if the player has slipped up, a quiet private talk makes it much easier to back away from the flawed character action without losing face. I hate it when a player loses face. That shouldn't happen if the game is going well.

[David Blue]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

"1. Speaking 'in character' and then claiming that the insult or joke or challenge just uttered was 'out of character' when there is some foreshadowing that it was not well received;"

 

I hate this as a player and a gamemaster. As a gamemaster, I'm harsh on it, and have often made the player character live with what they said, even when I have sometimes realised later that it might have been wiser to let it go.

 

Say, did you want to know what other people really do, or what they say you should do?

 

"2. When using minis to map out complex combat, using 'bird's eye view' to decide what actions to take, rather than relying on actual character perception. WHile this is allowable in a war game, in an RPG or 'real life' no one can take in a whole mass melee as if one were a casual observer..."

 

I've never had a problem with this. Maybe I'm just not sensitive to it being a problem. I haven't used miniatures often anyway. They're good, but space has often been limited, lugging gear around is a pest, and I'm lazy.

 

"3. Interspering joking around (always welcome at my table) with formulating a plan for minutes and minutes (not welcome in a surprise situation)."

 

I've never had a problem with this. Good players reduce the gamemaster's problems.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Meta-game activities

2. using 'bird's eye view': I typically don't have a problem with this. There are far too many coincidences in the comics and films concerning how characters are arranged. Though a character might not know about the agent hiding behind the corner' date=' if I've placed it on the map I've told the players they can account form him being there any way they choose, but can't target him for attacks, direct or indirect, until they have made LOS. If I don't want to allow this for some reason, I don't put the mini on the map, and let the players know one at a time when they make LOS.[/quote']Bingo. If you don't what the players or characters to know about the presence of something, don't put it on the map. It can be useful to have a small-scale map behind the screen to keep track of objects that are there, but the characters don't know about.

[Mortuorum`]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

1. I have a particular problem with this with one player; he's also my best role-player and a good friend. My solution has been to give my players one "freebie", where they can say "just kidding" and I warn them that -- from now on -- I'm going to consider remarks like that made in-character.

 

I liked owl wife of SS' "hand-raising" solution (Rep to you!) and plan to start using something like that.

 

2. I subscribe to the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" philosophy on this issue. RPGs come from wargaming roots, and Hero doesn't fall far from the tree. If a player character would not be able to perceive an opponent and the player uses metagame tactical knowledge, then I explain that they can't act on knowledge their character doesn't possess and they're OK with that. If an opponent is as-yet unperceived, I make a mental note of where they are and don't put their figure on the board until a PC is aware they're there.

 

3. This is really two separate issues: non-gaming chatter and inappropriate discussion of tactics.

 

Non-gaming chatter doesn't bother me. In any given evening, we spend about 3/4 of our time gaming and 1/4 goofing around. It doesn't bother my players and it doesn't bother me; we're all friends and gaming is as much a pretext to get together as it is an end in itself.

 

OTOH, tactical discussion bothers the heck out of me. I strictly disallow any tactical discussion "on-the-fly", unless a character has Tactics skill. If that's the case (and they make a successful skill roll), I will allow the player of the character with tactics to give brief instructions to the other players. The pretext for this is that the tactician has called out something like "Maneuver Omega-13!" and that the other characters will know what that means.

 

4. This usually hasn't been a problem for my players. When it does happen, I say "nope" and we all soldier on.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

1. Depends. If it is clearly just for a laugh, they won't get called on it. By and large, we are there to have a laugh: the game is just our excuse.

 

I have had people over this occasionally ,though, when I have felt that it is not conducive to the overall experience. Unless it is disruptive and messing with other people's experience I'd let it go: every group will be different though, this is very much a judgement call.

 

2. AND 3. The GM has the same advantage, so so long as the players are not taking the piss I'd let is go. Having said that, I went and did a live role play in a place called Chiselhurst Caves: real eye opener. I mean you had no idea where most of your companions were, let alone what they were up to. After that i tried a couple of sessions where the players caould not talk at all: they had to pass written notes to me as to what they were doing: strictly one or two line affairs, and with only as long as it took to write it.

 

Result: chaos. The carefully crafted plans they had used fell apart and they got in each others' way and, well: chaos.

 

We did not keep this up, as it really is not that interesting beyond a bit of a thought experiment, but I do like to feel that we all learned a lot from it: combat is all about snap decisions, some work and some don't. i'd advocate gining it a go, even if only for a single combat: the players will be far more understanding of the 'fog of war' afterwards, believe me.

 

4. OK, again: depends. If the personal knowledge is how to do something technical: translate a language, operate a computed, create an explosive, easy enough: do not allow it unless the character has the relevant skill, and be bloody careful now that you know the player does.

 

In the example you give, I'd discourage indirectlty. Either have the police do a random stop check and then arrest the PC for carrying concealed weapons so he never gets to the brother OR have the brother really pissed off that the PC came around loaded for bear when all he needed was half an hour's baby-sitting. Sometimes you need to manufacture situations to head off meta-game thinking. What if the brother just wanted a chat about his failing marriage (caused in part by his support for the PC) and the police stop-check the PC putside the brother's address and discover all the weaponry, and he is arrested in fromt of the irate wife, who then files for divorce...

 

If the brother really was in trouble, I'd allow some sort of PER roll to detect it, probably rolled in secret, and give out clues accordingly.

 

I have to say though, most meta-game thinking is as a result of the GM style: the players get used to the way you do things. We had one GM who would always have an important clue hidden in the trash somewhere as a previous group always searched the trash: both player and GM can be guilty of this. Shake it up occasionally - I'm not saying just act randomly, but confound the players' meta-game expectations. Remain as consistent as you can, but be willing to adapt the immediate scene if the player appears to be thinking outside the game world.

 

Good luck.

[JamesG]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

OTOH, tactical discussion bothers the heck out of me. I strictly disallow any tactical discussion "on-the-fly", unless a character has Tactics skill. If that's the case (and they make a successful skill roll), I will allow the player of the character with tactics to give brief instructions to the other players. The pretext for this is that the tactician has called out something like "Maneuver Omega-13!" and that the other characters will know what that means.

 

I like this idea except I think the Teamwork skill should play into it. Maybe all the characters involved need to have the Teamwork skill, the 'instructing' player needs to make a Tactics roll (with Teamwork being complimentary) and the player(s) following the instructions need to make a Teamwork roll to follow correctly. Using your example, the Tactics roll means the tactician realizes that "Maneuver Omega-13" would be a good move, and the Teamwork roll by his teamates means they remember what ""Maneuver Omega-13" is.

[Blue]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

The thing about strategizing and HERO has always been that since soliloquay is unlimited, you could shout all kinds of instructions to one another.

 

But I'm liking the application of Teamwork skill to that. Or possibly Tactics.

 

If you are communicating via speech, then all the villains can hear it and adjust. If you make a teamwork roll, you might be able to convey tactical information to someone else who has teamwork (and makes the roll) without having to exclaim it.

 

I've got to think about this some more. But it's interesting.

[atlascott]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

Most posts have been right on point, and offer great advice. Some are bizzare, or respond to something other than what I wrote.

 

Overall, laughing and joking, as I wrote, is always welcome, and I agree that it is integral to the game, until it disrupts roleplaying and any discernible progress in the 6 hour game session. Usually, I joke around with the others, and a PLAYER will refocus the group, and get the game moving. Occasionally, we joke around too much and never get much done, of which other players in the group have complained bitterly. Some, with work, family and other responsibilities, only get to game once per month, or their gaming session is the one opportunity they have to get out with their friends, so they want to make real progress in the game. I agree that its a balance. Its ludicrous not to enjoy yourself, but if all you do is joke out of character and make snide comments, then there is no real roleplaying going on, and it is impossible to have anything but a straight dungeon crawl--no suspense, drama, etc., because so and so is just joking all the way thru it. That's the real danger of being too jokey at the game table. A boring experience is the other end of the spectrum. Neither is ideal.

 

I was really surprised at some of the responses regarding mass combat mapped out using miniatures. SOme guys said it didnt matter. One fellow suggested it was ok for players to use their knowledge instead of a characters to 'offset the GM's advantage.' Well, the way I GM, I compartmentalize what my NPC's know--in fact, I am probably TOO strict and impermissive with what I assume NPC's know and can perceive. That's the key difference between a war game and a RPG. Perspective. I think you really lose a key element of the game by ignoring it. I lord no'advantage' over my players--because my goal is our mutual enjoyment.

 

I really wanted to hear how others dealt with these problems, whether others have them, and what 'ideal' solutions we might come up with. Thanks to everyone for sharing your ideas, and keep em coming!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

I like this idea except I think the Teamwork skill should play into it. Maybe all the characters involved need to have the Teamwork skill' date=' the 'instructing' player needs to make a Tactics roll (with Teamwork being complimentary) and the player(s) following the instructions need to make a Teamwork roll to follow correctly. Using your example, the Tactics roll means the tactician realizes that "Maneuver Omega-13" would be a good move, and the Teamwork roll by his teamates means they remember what ""Maneuver Omega-13" is.[/quote']

 

I kinda like this and the Tactics post that inspired it. I'd have to tinker with it a bit.

 

I really don't think that the Teamwork Skill would be needed to know what a certain maneuver or tactic is, or to remember one. Those sound like aspects of INT not DEX. Maybe just an INT roll or just assume that if the character has Teamwork and has worked in the team they know, or allow a Tactics Roll to take a guess as what the maneuver is and does (villains in my games will try this agains the PCs to counter to counter their tactics).

 

One of the things I love about the Hero System is the solliloquy. They're great, so long as they are used as such. A solliloquy is just a dialog by a single character that gets no response or feedback directly related to it. If it's used like that, I'll allow it. Otherwise talking, discussing, informing and such needs to be brief, no more than a single statement made up of small words. The big exception to this is Post Segment 12, where I allow open discussion of anything between the players (in a Champions game). I feel this simulates those times when the group has been fighting, and they "fall back" and give a few suggestions, state observations, or the leader barks his new orders.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

The thing about strategizing and HERO has always been that since soliloquay is unlimited, you could shout all kinds of instructions to one another.

 

But I'm liking the application of Teamwork skill to that. Or possibly Tactics.

 

If you are communicating via speech, then all the villains can hear it and adjust. If you make a teamwork roll, you might be able to convey tactical information to someone else who has teamwork (and makes the roll) without having to exclaim it.

 

I've got to think about this some more. But it's interesting.

 

Soliloquies are free as that is a genre imperative; the hero always gets to say or think whatever they like so long as it makes a moral point or takes the story forward, or is a bit of a wise-crack. Not the same thing as tactical planning, IMO.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

Soliloquies are free as that is a genre imperative; the hero always gets to say or think whatever they like so long as it makes a moral point or takes the story forward' date=' or is a bit of a wise-crack. Not the same thing as tactical planning, IMO.[/quote']

 

The word 'Genre' is the imperative part there.. in my Cybeprunk games I all but squish them out of existence... Soliloquies just don't belong in that genre IMO. But in our Supers games they run rampant all over the battlemap, as they definately belong in that genre... (have you ever wondered how fast a Superhero can speak to get some of those soliloquies out in combat? Almost a Superpower in it's own right.)

[zornwil]

Re: Meta-game activities

 

As Sean points out, chaos ensues if people aren't clear of their character position and viewpoint. Whether that's just verbal or via mapping or such doesn't matter, clarity is key. Whereas in real life people aren't so clear! But this is heroic fiction, and such begs a clarity unbecoming of real life's muddy, messy, brutal, and fatally punishing conditions. Given such, the advantages of a bird's-eye view really makes sense to me in this genre. To go further, I think it makes sense (mostly) in wargaming because even there we are simulating "how would you deal with this situation" in a GAMING context, and so long as we are in that context the player needs advantages not present to him in a real world situation because he doesn't have the real world training or abilities that military professionals have. Simply put, these advantages help to compensate for a player's real-world weaknesses which aren't befitting a good simulation wherein the player is representing someone at least basically capable of handling the situation on some reasonable level.

 

As to the more general issues represented, someone making a joke while in in-character voice I can easily discount, particularly as we know the characters well enough to know they probably wouldn't say something. Typically I'll ask if unsure of course. One also has to balance that against the character's likelihood of saying such a thing; if a PC is the type who is politically adept and says the right things, it doesn't make sense to penalize a player for what should have been an obvious mistake anyway, even if the player is somehow covering up by saying "whoops, I didn't mean that." Along these lines, I have no problem with someone taking back something if it's obviously out of character and was a mistake; most often, if it's that obvious, I'll point out myself, "does he really say that?" or "that doesn't sound like so-and-so" (unless of course I know the player is playing out something deliberate, we just did a game where 2 PCs were substituted with bizarro versions played by the regular players, so as GM I knew they were doings things that weren't in character but I, unlike the other players, didn't mostly have to stop and ask, though I did use a tone of voice/statement of "so you really do this?" just to drive home the inconsistency in a couple cases).

 

If a PC does something that doesn't seem out of character and the player blurted it out but realizes it's a mistake, I will tend to allow for an INT roll or such if the player and I are looking at each other scratching heads thinking, "Huh, would Golden Boy be dumb enough? Maybe!" I find players mostly volunteer such actions themselves anyway.

 

If it's a situation where the player seems to be clearly taking something back because they realized a consequence I am sure their character would not (most often in combat or a serious conversation among PCs/NPCs) then I will usually say so but most often in the matter of "Oh, why take it back? It sure sounds like Golden Boy!" and encourage it as something more interesting. Heck, most "mistakes" are more interesting than "correct" play! If it's in the heat of combat, especially, and the player either hems and haws or doesn't have a rapid come-back to "what does he do instead, as you just said that you didn't mean that?" then I will be likely to say, "Well, let's just go with what you first said." But I am pretty tolerant of any charater-based arguments that clearly indicate the character couldn't/wouldn't have done "x". I'm a lot more concerned with good characterization and story than whether the PCs seem to "win" too much/too well (naturally, realizing that if the latter is a problem it will denigrate the story, so of course that requires attention, but stating things as a matter of priority).