Super, over-powered characters.

[call me rae]

@Idea I'll have to respectfully disagree about a GM setting limits being a negative. I don't know if you've seen the AEGIS thread by @welian but the thread had a very multi-tiered process for powers that were a HUGE boon to the character application process.


I think its all in how you interact with others. If you come across as super nitpicky and controlling where you nag people about every aspect of their character until it becomes basically you creating the character not them than of course your not going to get many applicants.


But if you set limits and perimeters and just stick to them than that's not going to back lash on yo at all.


Welian had a system of points for her roleplay every power fell into a level and each level had a set number of stat points that you could use.


For that matter in character all the more powered characters had to wear limiters that but them at the same level as the weakest characters.


So that way people couldn't create over powered characters just for the sake of it. Because it would t matter how powerful your character was they would still be at the same basic level as anyone else.


And I cnt think of anyone in that case who got shirty about the limits. Mostly because it was for everyone and written into the rules so if you didn't like it you didn't have to apply.

 

[Idea]

@Idea I'll have to respectfully disagree about a GM setting limits being a negative. I don't know if you've seen the AEGIS thread by @welian but the thread had a very multi-tiered process for powers that were a HUGE boon to the character application process.
I think its all in how you interact with others. If you come across as super nitpicky and controlling where you nag people about every aspect of their character until it becomes basically you creating the character not them than of course your not going to get many applicants.


But if you set limits and perimeters and just stick to them than that's not going to back lash on yo at all.


Welian had a system of points for her roleplay every power fell into a level and each level had a set number of stat points that you could use.


For that matter in character all the more powered characters had to wear limiters that but them at the same level as the weakest characters.


So that way people couldn't create over powered characters just for the sake of it. Because it would t matter how powerful your character was they would still be at the same basic level as anyone else.


And I cnt think of anyone in that case who got shirty about the limits. Mostly because it was for everyone and written into the rules so if you didn't like it you didn't have to apply.

please note that I didn´t say it was a negative, but rather it was seen as such. Experience tells me it is, and I have been the target of much criticism and a lot of awkward moments on that regard.

 

[call me rae]

@Idea forgive me I missinderstood. Although I still don't think that having limits and sticking to them would be seen as a negative in a GM if anything I have problem normally in the opposite direction where GMs have limits but don't enforce them or just let players do whatever.


But that's not particularly relevant to the conversation. Although I will say this much: holding people accountable is a great way to keep them from being over powered or just making characters that aren't consistent in general. And if people have taken you doing that poorly in the past than I say your better off not playing with those kind of people anyway.

 

[himetoki]

I really don't see the point in a God-Mod character. While it seems enticing in certain series like SAO with Kayaba Akihito, he still was eventually defeated by a glitch in the system and the willpower of an average player.


It makes it somewhat pointless and one-dimensional to roleplay when you can simply just whoop everyone's ass. I'm pretty sure there would be a lack in roleplayers that would enjoy even instigating writing when they know they would simply lose.

 

[Idea]

@Idea forgive me I missinderstood. Although I still don't think that having limits and sticking to them would be seen as a negative in a GM if anything I have problem normally in the opposite direction where GMs have limits but don't enforce them or just let players do whatever.
But that's not particularly relevant to the conversation. Although I will say this much: holding people accountable is a great way to keep them from being over powered or just making characters that aren't consistent in general. And if people have taken you doing that poorly in the past than I say your better off not playing with those kind of people anyway.

the problem is then having to deal with too few RPers. If people keep dropping out because of it, some RPs will just not fly, nomatter how invested the rest are in them. Be it schedules, plot demands, or whatever, attempting to be controlling can be lethal to an RP.


I´m not saying it´s wrong, I´m trying to say that in my experience, it´s not usually taken well when you actually have to hold someone accountable, and that destroys the mood.

 

[Idea]

I really don't see the point in a God-Mod character. While it seems enticing in certain series like SAO with Kayaba Akihito, he still was eventually defeated by a glitch in the system and the willpower of an average player.
It makes it somewhat pointless and one-dimensional to roleplay when you can simply just whoop everyone's ass. I'm pretty sure there would be a lack in roleplayers that would enjoy even instigating writing when they know they would simply lose.

almost everyone would agree with you, even the people who usually make those characters. The issue is that in practice, people do it anyway. The idea of what a "good" character is is somewhat deturped. I would share my thoughts on it further, but I think it would stray a bit much from this thread´s topic.

 

[Grey]

I'll admit a bias, but I always put it down to a lack of proper context, lack of any attempt at representation or simulation of the world, and lack of cohesive tonal direction.

 

[macathan]

Le me comes out of lurking to add my two cents.

Spoiler

OP characters, in my personal opinion, can only be justified if they are a plot device or if they are made in a roleplay with no restricts on them (which is still torturing to watch for the other players). I do not find playing OP characters fun, I also can't stand making character sheets for cut out cookies either, however if it is to progress the actual cast of characters I'd gladly make one, but I would never make an actual character without a flaw.


I feel that when people start making OP characters they want the power for themselves (gee, thanks Cap Obvious), and that is actually understandable to a point. People get too attached and do not know how to kill their own creations, they do not know how to cope with their character losing, and feel like it is an extension of themselves losing. However, that is completely not the reality of it and people should stop pitying themselves and start making their characters properly.


Just because you want something does not mean your character should have it. Just because a dramatic backstory for your character would shed a grain of sand onto reasons for your selfishness does not mean you make a unnecessarily sad tragedy as a bio.


My favorite example is the thirteen years old prodigy.


But I really can't speak further due to much needed sleep.

 

[call me rae]

[QUOTE="Lilah Tunth]My favorite example is the thirteen years old prodigy.

[/QUOTE]
Precisely I personally call it the thirteen year old boy demographic but that is a perfect illustration of what I mean.


I think not only are you correct in all the points you made but I would add that these kind of people don't know how to think in terms of the long game. They are so busy trying to come up with ways to get what they want RIGHT NOW that they fail to consider the consequenes of their actions to a long term story.


As I stated previously : say you do get accepted as some super powerful mega awesome ninja god. Say you beat all the bad guys and "win" the roleplay in the first few posts.


What will happen? Realistically you will be kicked out for being a selfish douche and your character will be written out of the narrative.


I think these people somehow have this idea that if they win the roleplay that makes them a good guy and everyone will think their character is a hero.


And in actuality depending on how they win their character will either be ostracized for being a mass murder, or they'll be distrusted for being a glory hound.


Either way winning would not get you any brownie points in or out of character.


But again because they have what I call this "thirteen year old" mentality they don't think of things like that. They don't think of how their character will be perceived for ruining the story of the roleplay. They just want what they think will be the glory and admiration of immediate victory.

 

[deadpool42]

A character's perceived "power," whether high or low, can serve some function in combat, but if that's the first thing you leap to, then you'you're considering things all wrong.


First and foremost, it's an aspect of who they are as a character. A character's power influences their personality, how they interact with those around them, and how they tackle conflicts. Not all conflicts are necessarily combat-oriented; for all his strength, Superman is no better equipped to talk a person down from suicide than anybody else, and he is no better at grappling with the guilt from his mistakes.

 

[call me rae]

A character's perceived "power," whether high or low, can serve some function in combat, but if that's the first thing you leap to, then you'you're considering things all wrong.
First and foremost, it's an aspect of who they are as a character. A character's power influences their personality, how they interact with those around them, and how they tackle conflicts. Not all conflicts are necessarily combat-oriented; for all his strength, Superman is no better equipped to talk a person down from suicide than anybody else, and he is no better at grappling with the guilt from his mistakes.

True but sadly some people do begin and end their character development with : he can shoot lazers out of his eyes and cheat death.


Like there's nothing else to the character.

 

[Sohisohi]

Meh, I've always been involved like a GM/DM. So if it fails, I normally can only blame myself. That being said, I just saw a roleplay that had characters of all power levels and its still going pretty well. So, I know it can be done at least.

 

[Keyfall]

I often times feel like playing weaker characters or at least characters that aren't extremely powerful can be more fun, whether it be from growth in a long-term RP or just any wacky situations that would come from it.


I used to roleplay a character outside of RPNation who was a lich that couldn't quite control his powers, meaning he often ended up casting the wrong spell and would often lose parts of his own body. Because of this, he couldn't really fight and usually had to resort to either running away or getting lucky with the right spell. In the short time that I roleplayed him it was a lot of fun, and thinking back on some of my other RP characters the best ones seemed to be the ones that forced me to think of new ways for them to get out of situations.

 

[DAngelo]

I always find, for me, are about your fairly regular people overcoming the obstacles. How relatable the character is, is key.

 

[Krogenar]

I guess in the end it comes down to the age-old question of whether you are in RP as a character or as a storyteller.

This. Exactly this.


You can be both, but usually its the former -- where someone writes purely for their own satisfaction and joy. Which is fine! But if you can do both, and consider the fact that you've got an audience, then that's far better. If you can manage it. To me a lot of writers (roleplayers) find some of their inspiration from a personal place, so that's kind of a blind spot. They don't want anyone to be critical of something so personal. But to be great storyteller (as the OP points out) you have put your audience above (or at least on the same level) as yourself.


Not easy to do.


Kudos to OP for putting it so succinctly.

 

[Krogenar]

I always find, for me, are about your fairly regular people overcoming the obstacles. How relatable the character is, is key.

I agree. Look at some of the best characters on television, for example. Look at the character of Carol from The Walking Dead. Why do people love her character so much? It's the character's arc. Yes, she's an apocalyptic badass, but she wasn't always. Her character started as a browbeaten housewife cringing from her abusive husband. And over the course of multiple seasons of the show she changes into her diametric opposite in terms of character.


She goes from weak to powerful. Audiences love to see a normal (conflicted, flawed, weak) character develop into something better. That's what most audience members want for themselves, to be better.


If you start your character out as powerful, right from the start, either you're telling the story in reverse (how they got there, through flashbacks) or you may have no where to go narratively. Maybe the story is about how this super-powered character falls, and that would be fine. But if there's no real character arc then a character who starts the story as super-powered just isn't going to be (as DAngelo points out) relateable.


Again -- assuming you're doing this for the sake of an audience. If you aren't, then by all means be Superman.