+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: When is a character too skilled? (/showthread.php?tid=13278)
RE: When is a character too skilled? - That Guy - 09-08-2015
I'll throw my two cents here since I have another hour before my next class and refuse to be productive.
I always ask myself these questions:
Can someone (Who is not an NPC but an actual character played by another person) kick your character's butt on a regular basis? Yes? Then you're good.
Can someone kick your butt through skill alone, not by using some odd weakness? For example a lot of people make the mistake of saying 'my blind character's one weakness is his blindness.' Nope. Got to have something else. A handicap is not an excuse to remove all other weaknesses from your character.
Can YOU beat your character at something? If a nerdy rper can out do some magical fantasy elf from Narnia then you're golden.
Weaknesses aren't a bad thing. Neither is loosing. If your character always won they'd never learn something new and that means no growth or development. If your struggling to think of a weakness try personality flaws! If you're not sure which ones your character would have a really simple thing to do might be to try and take a personality quiz for your character. Might give you some inspiration.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Dante Abigor - 09-09-2015
So basically, in my opinion, a character is too skilled when there is absolutely zero plausible room for another character to exist in their story. Just as the Warrior of Light does not truly have party members or characters that assist them with battles, if your character is so skilled they are not in need of anyone else ever in any way, then that is when they are too skilled, TO ME.
EDIT: Id also like to add that the older a character gets, naturally this line can get harder to maintain as naturally a character in a story might try to cover their weaknesses and bases. So I think having an established character "Existence" is important too, since your character having all of these developments off screen tends to make it less....realistic(?) for many people.
Beware, Rpers be a fickle and critical bunch at times, yar.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - CrimsonMars - 09-09-2015
I tend to have my characters specialist in only one specific area at a time, with a few others fields they can be semi-decent at, and bad at everything else. In which case, Chiyo is technically a monk now with six charkas in her name. She is also fairly good at swinging an axe, and to a lesser degree, daggers and lances, but in terms of combat, that's pretty much it. Even as a monk though, she's barely a match for any real monks from Ala Mhagio if at all, especially if they have unlocked more charka than her, Berrod for example.Â
She's also inexperienced in fighting primals. The only reason she 'defeated' Ifirt aside from having the echo is because her group mostly carried her, and that Ifirt is at his weaker state I guess (we fought him on easy mode).
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Warren Castille - 09-10-2015
The biggest challenge you can run into with time-as-experience is that, even if you've been roleplaying on XIV since day zero and you're around all the time, a random stranger still won't know you from Adam, and all of your actually-roleplayed history and experiences amount to nothing more than "But seriously, she spent sixty years training in the Time Chamber." It's all-but-impossible to "prove" yourself to someone who doesn't believe you should be as powerful as you think if they disagree in the first place, and even if you've got books and books of lovingly recorded RP logs to point them at, in any given encounter with strangers everyone is on equal footing.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - SaintEaon - 09-10-2015
(09-10-2015, 02:58 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: The biggest challenge you can run into with time-as-experience is that, even if you've been roleplaying on XIV since day zero and you're around all the time, a random stranger still won't know you from Adam, and all of your actually-roleplayed history and experiences amount to nothing more than "But seriously, she spent sixty years training in the Time Chamber." It's all-but-impossible to "prove" yourself to someone who doesn't believe you should be as powerful as you think if they disagree in the first place, and even if you've got books and books of lovingly recorded RP logs to point them at, in any given encounter with strangers everyone is on equal footing.
This actually,
When I was still new to the Server my character got into a fight with another in the QS and she tried to "throw" my character. I didn't know who she was, however I did know while being relatively new my character was apart of the Immortal Flames and had been for sometime, he was experienced but maybe not seasoned. So an issue arose when this character I knew nothing about attempted to throw my character because I was bigger, I was in heavy armor, and from what I could tell she was some random blind chick, so being an armored warrior, who's decently trained and experienced in the field I took issue with this character sacrificing my character's physcality by saying she could walk up to him without him defending himself and throw him acrossed a room. A lot of this could be styles, this RPer apparently was more FF style physics where ridicules shit can happen, however I prefer realism so that didn't jive with me, so I took a middle ground I didn't get thrown but I got staggered and nearly fell over.
However this person then said I wasn't RPing correctly and left the RP claiming we were ignoring her messages (ignoring that fighting in the QS invites all the spectators and chat scrolling so it's possible we just missed what she was saying because she was doing so in /say). I then later found out she'd won some server wide fighting tournaments that I didn't even know were a thing and its quiet possible her character was that strong. Was her reaction a little over the top? Yes. Was my reaction to her original throw a little subpar? Yes. However I think you can really state that the cause of the problem was an older more experienced RPer on the server assumed that her strength was known and then got annoyed and made an ass out of herself when it wasn't. The whole thing could have been avoided with a few PMs too, had I known her resume I would have reacted differently, had she asked I could have explained my thoughts on why I did what I did, but her perceived "skill' made it to where she felt she was being treated poorly so she quit.Â
This same critique isn't just valid for skilled characters though, if you can't back up your claims then don't make them. Or vice versa if you want to claim something to set up an RP for later let your partners know 99% of the time they'll be willing to work with you because it helps their character development too. However don't just go around assuming you're a force to be reckoned with, because there's always a bigger fish and finding them can be very tricky.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Oli! - 09-10-2015
The Lots of Powerful People vs. Not As Many Powerful People can be summarized like this:
[youtube]A8I9pYCl9AQ[/youtube]
Ysale, Raubahn, etc. are special because lots of people are not, by definition.
If exceptions are rules, then they can't be exceptions anymore.
It's a meta-issue, but it's still an important meta-issue that ties right back into the original topic. After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Aaron - 09-10-2015
"After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"
I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.
Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Oli! - 09-10-2015
(09-10-2015, 06:19 PM)Aaron Wrote: "After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"
I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.
Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.
That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means.
We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is subjective, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Ashe - 09-10-2015
Hmmm, depends on the RPer and their style of RP.
If someone is a powerful mage or a famous warrior who is "like an ox on the battlefield" or some bs...then that's fine....but when someone who is maxed out  OOCly with all their jobs tries to tell me that they are ICly all of those jobs AND MORE I'm like...."Okay, good luck with your life."
.....
I would think there are people who would think Ashe is OP...but I've had him felled by plenty of people >> I don't think he's won any fights against anyone he's fought actually >> ICly he uses black mage to make up for the fact he's a shitty mage at risk of
....A lot of people assume that he is straight up a mage because it's....funny xPPÂ
.........
I guess the long story short is be sensible? If you are ICly the character you run the MSQ with and have defeated Titan a bajillion times then Imma question your life decisions....but if you are like....a reasonable person >> whatever.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Aaron - 09-10-2015
(09-10-2015, 06:23 PM)Oli! Wrote:. . . . you do know what fallacy means right?(09-10-2015, 06:19 PM)Aaron Wrote: "After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"
I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.
Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.
That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means.
We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is relative, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything.
What you said was in fact a logical fallacy. I quoted because I found it weird how people kept using that phrase.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Warren Castille - 09-10-2015
When everyone is too skilled, no one is.
When everyone is able to handle any problem that comes their way, no one needs help. People aren't exceptional anymore because every person can do everything. I don't need to call an electrician because I can do all the stuff I need myself, so nobody is an electrician anymore. There's no such thing as a specialization when everyone is special.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Aaron - 09-10-2015
Yeah that's called being normal, which falls outside the bubble of being too skilled.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Warren Castille - 09-10-2015
Not exactly, but it'd be arguing semantics now. That's the point though. When everyone is capable of everything, no one stands out and it kills excitement and the point of compelling fiction.
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Aaron - 09-10-2015
If I want to debate semantics then gawddammit Warren let me debate semantics !!!
You don't see me ruining your fun when you do it ;_;
RE: When is a character too skilled? - Oli! - 09-10-2015
(09-10-2015, 06:51 PM)Aaron Wrote:(09-10-2015, 06:23 PM)Oli! Wrote:. . . . you do know what fallacy means right?(09-10-2015, 06:19 PM)Aaron Wrote: "After all, if everyone is too skilled, then is anyone too skilled?"
I'd like to politely state that the above is a logical fallacy.
Everyone can be skilled, that doesn't make no one more skilled than the other (did I just double negative?), that just makes that group of skilled people normal. Being too skilled by definition means you can do something that most normal people cannot.
That doesn't make it a fallacy, you just logically explained what the phrase means.
We've also established throughout this thread that "too skilled" is relative, so the second part also doesn't really relate to anything.
What you said was in fact a logical fallacy. I quoted because I found it weird how people kept using that phrase.
You're agreeing with the phrase by arguing it. Warren explained it much more elegantly, but what it boils down to is this:
Let's replace Skilled with, say, Special, herein defined as Having a Unique Quality (similar to someone being Uniquely Better than Everyone Else contained in the original argument.)
We then say, that "Everyone is Special, therefore No One Is."
This is not a fallacy, because it explains that Everyone has a unique quality that sets them apart from everyone else, therefore making "being special" a uniform trait within a population. Because it is then a uniform trait, No One has the Unique Trait of Being Special. Therefore, no one is Special, and the word becomes meaningless in this context.
If Everyone is Too Skilled, the word "too" implying that they are more skilled than everyone else, then the word loses its relativity, because Everyone possesses that quality.
It can be distilled further into this phrase: If Everyone is <X>, then having <X> quality is Normal (Normal being defined herein as something possessed universally).
If everyone is Highly Skilled, being Highly Skilled is Normal.
If everyone has Red Skin, then having Red Skin is Normal.
If everyone is Special, then Being Special is Normal.
The phrase is, therefore, not a fallacy. It merely states that if everyone can claim to be a cut above the rest, or otherwise distinct because of their skillset, appearance, or otherwise, then no one is a cut above anyone else, or distinct because of their skillset, appearance, or otherwise, because these are things that everyone has. If everyone is Highly Skilled, "Highly" being a relative term which relies on someone who is Lowly Skilled for comparison, then, relatively speaking, no one can have any higher skill than anyone else, because no one has a Lower Skillset for comparison.
The meaning of the phrase, and the argument that you put forth, are indistinguishable.