By which I mean acknowledging that players' abilities can be very different to those of their characters.

When you present a logic puzzle in a game it is going to be Phil the PHD who is going to be more likely to solve it than Pete the stoner dropout, even though Phil is playing Gronk the Barbarian and Pete is playing Ingnis the intelligent wizard.

With things of this nature you can simply have people roll (and give them the answer) something which is rather unsatisfying, or you could try and excuse the disparity by attributing the solution to the more intelligent character, even though the more intelligent player actually solved it.  Which is a bit disempowering.

One idea I had for dealing with both social and mental problems of this kind in games.  Rather than simply roll and solve have the degree of skill provide a number of clues, clues toward the solution in puzzles, clues toward the motivations and desires of the NPC in social situations.

This removes the dice rolling aspect from such contests but would provide a way to acknowledge and incorporate the metagame that goes on with player abilities.

Quote from: GRIMWhen you present a logic puzzle in a game it is going to be Phil the PHD who is going to be more likely to solve it than Pete the stoner dropout, even though Phil is playing Gronk the Barbarian and Pete is playing Ingnis the intelligent wizard.

True, but IMO at the end of the day I'm running my game for Phil and Pete not Gronk and Ingnis.

So it's not a problem for me. I only ask that they play in character. Perhaps Phil suggests the answer to Pete, or Phil just remains quiet, or Pete runs a character more suited to his abilities, or I selectively pitch the right mysteries to the right player, or a combination of all these.

What's in the Meta-game stays in the Meta-game.

Quote from: gleichmanTrue, but IMO at the end of the day I'm running my game for Phil and Pete not Gronk and Ingnis.

A very good point, Mr. Gleichman.  

I tend to tailor my games to my players.  Another method that could be employed would be to separate Gronk and Ingnis and give Pete the kinds of puzzles that he can solve (which may revolve around using his magic in a creative way) while giving Phil a cool puzzle that involves determining a unique and creative method to kill the regenerating hydra.

Let's face it, Phil may be a brilliant PHd, but he's playing a dumb barbarian for a reason.  I would posit that he likes combat.  So, give him the combat, but also something to exercise his capable brain.

And Pete may not be very intelligent, but he wants to be.  He yearns to be considered a man of wisdom and intellect.  Give him something that lets him shine and strokes his inner ego.

That's how I'd handle it.  

It strikes me that a good way to handle the specific Phil/Gronk the Barbarian versus Pete/Ingnis the intelligent wizard thing would be to encourage the players to work it into a routine, like a sort of comedy double-act if you will. I can imagine a lot of fun could be had with Ingnis puzzling away at things and being constantly irritated when Gronk blurts out the answers to questions that have frustrated him.

I know that this was only a hypothetical, but the point is that bringing the metagame/OOC stuff into the character interaction takes what you can't avoid- ie. the metagame/OOC stuff- and makes it part of the action instead of part of the background chatter.