Overpowered or underpowered characters?

[Tiergan]

The above is why it's super hard for me to RP Lurial 75% of the time, because she's supposed to be super smart and I'm super derp. :V

[Chris Ganale]

The above is why it's super hard for me to RP Lurial 75% of the time, because she's supposed to be super smart and I'm super derp. :V

 

QFT. Chao may be a magitek genius, but I am halfway technologically inept.

[Magellan]

I have yet to come across a good OP character. I'm not saying its impossible, but things can (and often do) become such an epeen measuring contest, because there is no 'authority' (read, DM,) who can settle who does, in fact have the stronger character in a combat situation. You can settle on /random rolls, though that might be a little too basic for some people.

 

On the whole, I actually try to avoid combat rp altogether, unless I am on my underpowered characters. Then, I know my characterbis gonna lose anyway, and I can have fun with it. On my stronger characters, however, well... people tend to act like their characters have never lost a fight in anything, and it can quickly escalate in a dragonball z episode, which is not a show that ever interested me.

 

Npc'd OP characters, however, can be very fun. OP player characters, not so much.

You say that, but I don't know. What would you define as OP, then?

 

I'd like for my character to have credibility for RP purposes, but /random just hates me and she's never won a single fight using it. That's just bad luck, but it definitely stretches the plausibility of her having trained her entire life to beat people to death with her bare hands. I don't really care about her being the strongest, but I'd like people to at least have IC reason to take her seriously, lol.

See, and there's a problem there (bolded part). Not on your end; its certainly plausible for you to construct a viscious killer (and/or just strong, capable fighter), but there are not too many people out there who seem willing to let their PC's die, or get their butts handed to them. In order to build up the plausability of your characters fierce veracity, you'd almost have to have her attack npcs just to show what she's capable of. I agree the dice system can be too simplistic, and those of us prone to bad rolls (such as yours truly) can get nowhere with it.

 

I had a character who was supposed to be an excellent hand-to-hand fighter, a skill she tried to train others on. Only, she kept losing every sparring match because characters who had had zero training in this combat style were pulling off moves that'd put Jason Bourne to shame. And that smacks of OP; implausibly giving your characters skills they simply don't have cuz: Nope. I don't lose fights.

 

There are enough of these sorts out there that I only combat rp with close, trusted friends. Even if two characters fight that are equally trained, there's not really a good system in place to determine the outcome, so OOC trust between combatants is key.

[LadyRochester]

I kind of wander between the two. My alt is severely underpowered. She can't find physically or aetherically. She's a damn fast runner though, and she can easily slip away from situations.

 

My main character is more complicated. Based on her knowledge with magic and skill, she should be OP, however, due to a condition she was born with, it makes her aetherial management quite unreliable, in the sense that, if she's unstable, she cannot cast magic because either she loses control (and it backfires), or she simply doens't have the energy to, and would have to resort to using her life force to fight, SEVERELY putting her life at risk. There have been several instances where she was unable to cast magic due to her condition and got attacked when nobody was around to protect her, and many times, these led to her nearly getting killed. She is very physically weak as well, at least, against a common brute who would seek to fight her. If she is lucky enough to be aetherically stable, and IF she is in a place where she can safely cast magic, then yes, I usually make her as OP as my opponent allows me to make her (without going over to the "primal destroyer demi-god." side), and of course, even then, she can get hurt.

 

In other words, I think a character will always be balanced if their weaknesses are as big as their strengths.

[Berrod Armstrong]

I see a lot of different types of roleplay. I was wondering which type appeals more to you. Do you like playing powerful characters? How do you keep it interesting? Or do you enjoy regular joes, how do you make mundane life interesting in roleplay? Both types are needed in stories It's what keeps things moving. More interested in which is more fun to play and why.

 

There is a door in front of you, it is locked.

 

Adventurer 1 is a powerful Captain of Everything, born half demon/ half angel/ half primal/ half key so they pushed the door open with ease. They see Ifrit, who says "Dear gods not again." Afterward they go to the quicksand and cant find a seat so they drink in a dark dank corner and brood while the other half voidsent/ half potatoes ask "Did you kill primals today?".

 

Adventurer 2 is a young refugee with no particular skills in trade. He is attempting to break in to the room of a famous thief and prove himself to be worthy of his attention. He has no skill in lock picking and just realized the key was lost in the long travel through a freak flash storm. It was with luck a courier from Gridania had crossed their path, seeing as the boy struggled with the lock. "Just what are you trying to get from that shack boy?" The courier would only see the eyes of desperation. She took pity on the trembling figure who reminded her of her son at home. With a novice's understanding of carpentry she took an awl and mallet to the hinges of the door. A crack of wood, creak of rusted metal, the door found it's way to the floor. Beyond the cloud of dust was a small table with single wooden box. Inside, was the spare key and a parchment with a laughing face inscribed in charcoal. The spectacle caused the courier to laugh at the boy's misfortune. The thief was a clever one who would not be found so easily. She took him back to Gridania to fill his belly by the fire, in the company of a few friends who might have some meaningful work with plenty of room to teach in exchange for the boy's humorous tale of misadventure.

 

In my opinion: Viva Adventurer 2, the bringer of laughs and endless entertainment.

I'd agree with Franz's view that these seem a bit polarized, and add that there seems to be a specific emphasis on making Adventurer 2 look better. If you've seen many different types of roleplay, then you know that there are many, many more types than Adventurers 1 and 2, and that many of them bring a healthy balance to the two. 

 

There's really nothing stopping an overpowered character from having a mundane life -- and still being interesting. It becomes all about the character themselves, and how they're written. I don't like either of those examples listed because they force the character into a mold (one of which is brief and empty for the apparent purposes of demonstration!).

 

I'll use my own character to demonstrate. Looking at his wiki alone, Berrod seems overpowered. A skilled monk, open chakras, leader of a free company? Oh goodness! Very little of that actually comes into play when I roleplay with him, though. My screen time on Berrod tends to emphasize on his stresses, his insecurities, and his fight to adjust to a role that was forced upon him. It shows his struggle with his relationship, his sexuality, his finances and his self-image. I enjoy placing him in awkward and comedic situations that test the limits of his meagre social graces, and people are probably fed up of seeing him plod into the Quicksand just to drop off leves for Eustace every day. 

 

Ask him to reduce a boulder to gravel, he can do it! That doesn't really define him as a character though. Even with all his abilities, during a fight or a similarly trying adventure, the decisions he has to make regarding what challenges he faces can be explored in a deeper sense than "Hoho! I shall punch it into the sun! BECAUSE I CAN."

 

Therein lies the balance, and why neither of those examples feel 'real' to me. 

[Gaspard]

from my own experience, rpers in general tend to think of things in real simple, concrete terms. in many cases, not only do they think in concrete terms, they focus solely on physical aspects i.e. what their imaginary person can beat up and how totally cool their imaginary character is for being able to beat things up!

 

if any thought is given to what goes on in the character's head, it's often just as concrete and measured in terms of "my character is THIS strong". i have seen many, many characters that are "intelligent" solely because the player says they are. they don't demonstrate any knowledge beyond what the average joe has (emoting reading a book doesn't count), they don't say anything profound or wise, they don't show cunning or wit. these "intelligent" characters often just use their VAST cognitive ability to throw bigger fireballs, say really condescending things and various other forms of dickwaving (in other words, their intelligence is really just another ability that helps them beat things up). it's a power fantasy of the mind.

 

i hold the belief that it is the player's responsibility to prove, through action, their character's personal strengths and weaknesses. it's all well and good to tell people about your character and what they can do, but nobody should be expected to simply take what's told to them about someone else's character at face value. a self-described "badass" character is almost invariably not badass in the slightest. the player just desperately wants the character to be seen that way without doing anything for it. other people decide if you're badass, not you. similarly, a self-described witty and sarcastic character is probably neither witty nor sarcastic but pretty likely to be annoying as shit (and not in the funny way either).

 

thankyou for reading my opinions have a good night god bless 8-)

 

While I agree with most of what you said, one question remains for me;

 

How do you define intelligence? Obviously you seem to have a standard you're comparing these examples to that they need to reach to be considered intelligent, wise or witty.

[K'nahli]

I thought I replied in this.

 

 

Anyways, I've always been wary of overpowered characters because I don't understand how they are supposed to meld well together with regular characters who lean more toward realism. Like, take for instance someone who, in previous scenes, used to drop numerous enemies like flies and now they find themselves in a situation where 2-4 people are surrounded by 4-5 Amalj'aa and are treating it like a very threatening situation... what is the OP character supposed to do? Stay true to his character and clean them all out swiftly and easily? Or downplay his character so that it doesn't eliminate the sense of tension/the scene in general for the others - in which case it just stops being a character's trait and more of a "I am OP when I can get away with it" card?

 

from my own experience, rpers in general tend to think of things in real simple, concrete terms. in many cases, not only do they think in concrete terms, they focus solely on physical aspects i.e. what their imaginary person can beat up and how totally cool their imaginary character is for being able to beat things up!

 

if any thought is given to what goes on in the character's head, it's often just as concrete and measured in terms of "my character is THIS strong". i have seen many, many characters that are "intelligent" solely because the player says they are. they don't demonstrate any knowledge beyond what the average joe has (emoting reading a book doesn't count), they don't say anything profound or wise, they don't show cunning or wit. these "intelligent" characters often just use their VAST cognitive ability to throw bigger fireballs, say really condescending things and various other forms of dickwaving (in other words, their intelligence is really just another ability that helps them beat things up). it's a power fantasy of the mind.

 

i hold the belief that it is the player's responsibility to prove, through action, their character's personal strengths and weaknesses. it's all well and good to tell people about your character and what they can do, but nobody should be expected to simply take what's told to them about someone else's character at face value. a self-described "badass" character is almost invariably not badass in the slightest. the player just desperately wants the character to be seen that way without doing anything for it. other people decide if you're badass, not you. similarly, a self-described witty and sarcastic character is probably neither witty nor sarcastic but pretty likely to be annoying as shit (and not in the funny way either).

 

While I'd agree in the case of self-proclaimed beautiful/pretty characters, funny characters, wise and witty characters, I'd draw a line at intelligence. I don't see any good reason why someone needs to be intelligent and very well-versed in the lore because they want to play a particularly smart character. Is it nice if they can live up to the title? Sure... but that's a pretty big expectation of them otherwise. In the case of personality quirks then they seem far more necessary because they rely a lot more on delivery and reception whereas people can conclude that someone is knowledgable or smart and perhaps OOCly help their character come up with ideas or offer advice for an IC scene if they struggle otherwise.

[Caspar]

Edvyn and Magellan:

I'll definitely admit to having way more success in characterizing Virara's social retardation than her skill in combat, lol.

But I think that it's fine to have a goal in mind as to what sort of character you want to play, and to what impression you should give. Maybe I'm spoiled from pbp and bbs rp, where others only have your writing to go off of, but there's plenty of reason why playing an expert in something is not out of the question and should be respected. The kind of story I want to tell demands that level of skill. There is no reason for me to play the character otherwise. If that is not something another rper can respect, that's less my problem and more theirs, I feel. If you do nothing more complex than tavern rp with an expert, sure I'd say it was a waste, and just there to bloat the player's own ego, but to me rp is group writing, not acting, and my character has a purpose to fulfill in the narrative. Besides, I think it's fair for people to want to write a character that doesn't resemble themselves. I'll let the most airheaded rper play a genius if they give enough ic reason for me to respect them, background wise, even if I think their writing ability doesn't communicate it well. God knows I've played dozens of characters who were scientifically or mathematically inclined and I have the worst track record with those things. Not by choice either, I often got pressured into that role by friends or forum members who expected me to do so, a kind of OOC typecasting, lol.

 

But say that the character had no background in burger flipping or whatever, and yet made the best burger anyone has seen when it was time to have a cooking competition. Then I'd question the narrative purpose of them just being super good at it suddenly. The example Magellan gave is pretty good for understanding why people are afraid to play an expert; given background, it's easy to respect an expert, but without it the player is just trying to look cool...

 

Anyways, I've always been wary of overpowered characters because I don't understand how they are supposed to meld well together with regular characters who lean more toward realism. Like, take for instance someone who, in previous scenes, used to drop numerous enemies like flies and now they find themselves in a situation where 2-4 people are surrounded by 4-5 Amalj'aa and are treating it like a very threatening situation... what is the OP character supposed to do? Stay true to his character and clean them all out swiftly and easily? Or downplay his character so that it doesn't eliminate the sense of tension/the scene in general for the others - in which case it just stops being a character's trait and more of a "I am OP when I can get away with it" card?

That's actually sort of a good point. I have to be wary of these things because my character suddenly gained the ability to punch through cobalt when sufficiently enraged. I mean I'm fine with that, lol. It's just that it was a totally unexpected result of an inconclusive rp fight, and not even something I wrote myself. I just wrote "she hit really, really hard" in purpleprose like I always do, but the result on the defender's side was broken armor... So now I do have to consider, well, this really wouldn't be a challenge for Virara, and try to figure out a way to either communicate this to other players so the challenge is appropriate, or otherwise come up with an excuse to explain why it is. Not to mention some people like fighting at a level of rather mundane swordplay or martial skill. (In a world where people fly around and shoot fireballs, but whatever floats their boat, I guess.) So I have to tone down what my character can do for them. If I say "she's literally so fast that she can't be seen for a moment," that would be unfair, so I would say "she's almost too fast to follow with the naked eye." The wiggle room offered is pretty important, IMO. I can't just assume they're weaker because they're essentially playing a different game.

[Hyrist]

I thought I replied in this.

 

 

Anyways, I've always been wary of overpowered characters because I don't understand how they are supposed to meld well together with regular characters who lean more toward realism. Like, take for instance someone who, in previous scenes, used to drop numerous enemies like flies and now they find themselves in a situation where 2-4 people are surrounded by 4-5 Amalj'aa and are treating it like a very threatening situation... what is the OP character supposed to do? Stay true to his character and clean them all out swiftly and easily? Or downplay his character so that it doesn't eliminate the sense of tension/the scene in general for the others - in which case it just stops being a character's trait and more of a "I am OP when I can get away with it" card?

This question may have been Rhetorical, but the true answer is reliant on the character.

 

The tension for the 'overpowered' character comes from the lingering question of whether or not this powerful character, while being powerful, be able to defend others from harm while doing it.

 

I'm going to use Lin again as an example. She may be able to deftly kill multiple enemies on her own, but much of her tactics require her to be highly mobile or have personal space to do so, as she's a Dragoon. That does not lend itself to protecting others very well, and she's suffered the consequences of that before.

 

There's the risk of harming someone inadvertently when swinging wide with her spear, or over focusing on one opponent when the others focus on a 'weak link'. For Lin, that's a major trauma point because she's lost people that way so there's a matter of whether or not she even has to focus to behave with the same efficiency she does solo. So the tension in that confrontation remains.

 

I'd imagine situations could be made to maintain that situation for many of the characters. A mage may be able to handle perhaps a single small group of enemies with a Sleep or Bind spell, but some of the more destructive forces are liable for Friendly fire issues in RP.

 

A skilled tank, such as a Paladin or Warrior, however, may be able to fend off multiple enemies, (using flash as a great opener) as is their design, but finishing opponents deftly would take a secondary objective than protecting others.

 

So even with powerful characters, the base premises can still keep situations intense in those circumstances. Again, it's all in the execution which, honestly, comes with expierence and care. 

 

Most of the arguments here against power characters fall more in line with characters that lack depth, and honestly, that applies on the whole spectrum. A shallow character is a boring and often frustrating character to play with.

[FreelanceWizard]

Stay true to his character and clean them all out swiftly and easily? Or downplay his character so that it doesn't eliminate the sense of tension/the scene in general for the others - in which case it just stops being a character's trait and more of a "I am OP when I can get away with it" card?

 

Do what's best for the story, is what I'd say. If you subscribe to the "everyone at the same tier has the same level of power" superhero comics logic, then if the story says that small group of Amalj'aa are a real threat, then they are. It's up to the player to decide how best to achieve that, whether it's by external circumstance ("they're wearing corrupted crystals -- my spells can't affect them"), internal conflict ("I was abused by Amalj'aa -- I just can't do this"), or pure bad luck ("I tripped and fell, losing my staff"). A key part of playing a powerful character in situations with less powerful characters is that you have to share the spotlight by only asserting the level of power necessary for the story in which you find yourself. That's one of the characteristics that separates a well-played powerful character from the "super-power wish fulfillment solves every problem" nightmare that everyone's seen far too many times.

 

With that said, it can often be difficult to combine the stories of powerful characters with those that aren't powerful. The Avengers just aren't operating on the same level as the Runaways, for instance, and putting them into the same story requires the narrative chicanery outlined above to ensure that the Avengers just don't resolve the issue themselves. This is another reason why cross-FC or world-spanning plots tend to have issues -- with legitimately varying takes on the average power level of characters in the setting, it's almost impossible to write a plot that lets everyone participate in the manner they feel is appropriate for their character. You don't have these sorts of issues in "hangout RP" or events like the Grindstone where the dice specify the narrative and part of the RP challenge is making that work.

 

I may be somewhat cynical in this regard through experience, though.

[Sounsyy]

A lady who is a highly skilled and power soldier from participating in so many wars and battles might be struggling with some serious PTSD.

 

/cry

 

 

My RP tends to be heavily influenced by the rules of screenwriting I learned when it was my major in college. I view character arcs in that same episodic way over the course of their lifetime. Backstory creates your character baseline, and then everything afterwards is growth from the baseline. Like screenwriting, you're very often writing with a team of other writers and each of you has something to bring to the episode's plot. In roleplaying, I translate this into every individual RP scene/session and each of the writers is attempting to advance their player's storyline. What's important to remember is that even though an ensemble of important characters will appear in every TV episode, every character may not get equal representation in every episode for the sake of cohesive story telling. The scene comes first, in other words, and every character will get their opportunity to shine sometime that season.

 

So while (using my character as an example) Sounsyy may be that veteran soldier who's been in every conflict to date since the fall of Ala Mhigo, that fact isn't always essential to the story at hand, and can't be really, if RNG is involved like Grindstone. For some reason, Sounsyy has garnered a lot of respect from a lot of people at the Grindstone as an able gladiator, but definitely not by winning, since she rarely makes it past the first round and has only once made it past the second. So I don't think winning is so much the important part, it's giving a good show. Make a tense, cohesive fight that lets your character shine as well as leaving an opening for your opponent to shine, and you'll go far in combat RP, even roll-based combat. People will notice your character. Sure, it can be disappointing when your losing roll is to something that you don't think your character would feasibly lose to, like getting elbowed in the face when Sounsyy was wearing a cobalt facemask. But then it's up to getting creative for the sake of the scene. Well, Sounsyy's nose got broke last week, so I'll have it re-break. Check!

 

All that said, I don't really consider Sounsyy a powerful character. She's experienced and that's about her only edge. Her story is more about her losses and how she keeps going despite them. For every major loss, there's the hope of some small victory. That's the kind of story I want to tell with Sounsyy. And almost every character I've RP'd with seems to respect that determination as her "power level." I also give Sounsyy a lot of visible and believable weaknesses to enhance her strengths (experience and determination) like alcoholism, PTSD, playing injuries out, actually acknowledging she's sorely outmatched by a super-speedy monk or ninja. For example, when she got a spear through her shoulder, I roleplayed with her sword arm in a sling for about a month, even doing a Grindstone in that condition and just one-handing her matches with a shield. Of course the spectators were like "she's only got one arm of course she's going to get her ass handed to her" which she did, but I think the fact that she went through with the matches anyways won her some respect.

 

So TL;DR: 1) It's about what you do, not what you say you did. And 2) The best scene is where the most characters get something out of it. There will always be another scene where your character can shine, but sometimes you need to try to win the Oscar for best supporting actor instead.

[K'nahli]

This question may have been Rhetorical, but the true answer is reliant on the character.

 

The tension for the 'overpowered' character comes from the lingering question of whether or not this powerful character, while being powerful, be able to defend others from harm while doing it.

 

I'm going to use Lin again as an example. She may be able to deftly kill multiple enemies on her own, but much of her tactics require her to be highly mobile or have personal space to do so, as she's a Dragoon. That does not lend itself to protecting others very well, and she's suffered the consequences of that before.

 

There's the risk of harming someone inadvertently when swinging wide with her spear, or over focusing on one opponent when the others focus on a 'weak link'. For Lin, that's a major trauma point because she's lost people that way so there's a matter of whether or not she even has to focus to behave with the same efficiency she does solo. So the tension in that confrontation remains.

 

I'd imagine situations could be made to maintain that situation for many of the characters. A mage may be able to handle perhaps a single small group of enemies with a Sleep or Bind spell, but some of the more destructive forces are liable for Friendly fire issues in RP.

 

A skilled tank, such as a Paladin or Warrior, however, may be able to fend off multiple enemies, (using flash as a great opener) as is their design, but finishing opponents deftly would take a secondary objective than protecting others.

 

So even with powerful characters, the base premises can still keep situations intense in those circumstances. Again, it's all in the execution which, honestly, comes with expierence and care. 

 

Most of the arguments here against power characters fall more in line with characters that lack depth, and honestly, that applies on the whole spectrum. A shallow character is a boring and often frustrating character to play with.

 

That's certainly a good point in perhaps most cases ^^  However, I still don't think it erases the problem entirely. I mean, imagine if you were playing an immoral character who cared little for harming innocents and somehow wound up in that situation with people he/she didn't know. Would they really not solve the situation(by their standards) right away in order to break character and look out for people they couldn't care less about?

 

(That's a lot of ifs and buts of course, but I just mean that they're the things that would always be at the back in my mind were I to find myself in a similar setup).

 

 

What it really comes down to for me is... to keep it simple, let's say everyone involved is a melee combatant. What if X was really good and taking on several opponents at once whereas Y and Z could just about manage one or two at a time. Doesn't it somehow feel like Y and Zs contribution is heavily mitigated if they spend the best part of the scene dealing with 4-5 enemies between them while Z needs at least 10+ to do justice to his skill level?

 

Stay true to his character and clean them all out swiftly and easily? Or downplay his character so that it doesn't eliminate the sense of tension/the scene in general for the others - in which case it just stops being a character's trait and more of a "I am OP when I can get away with it" card?

 

Do what's best for the story, is what I'd say. If you subscribe to the "everyone at the same tier has the same level of power" superhero comics logic, then if the story says that small group of Amalj'aa are a real threat, then they are. It's up to the player to decide how best to achieve that, whether it's by external circumstance ("they're wearing corrupted crystals -- my spells can't affect them"), internal conflict ("I was abused by Amalj'aa -- I just can't do this"), or pure bad luck ("I tripped and fell, losing my staff"). A key part of playing a powerful character in situations with less powerful characters is that you have to share the spotlight by only asserting the level of power necessary for the story in which you find yourself. That's one of the characteristics that separates a well-played powerful character from the "super-power wish fulfillment solves every problem" nightmare that everyone's seen far too many times.

 

With that said, it can often be difficult to combine the stories of powerful characters with those that aren't powerful. The Avengers just aren't operating on the same level as the Runaways, for instance, and putting them into the same story requires the narrative chicanery outlined above to ensure that the Avengers just don't resolve the issue themselves. This is another reason why cross-FC or world-spanning plots tend to have issues -- with legitimately varying takes on the average power level of characters in the setting, it's almost impossible to write a plot that lets everyone participate in the manner they feel is appropriate for their character. You don't have these sorts of issues in "hangout RP" or events like the Grindstone where the dice specify the narrative and part of the RP challenge is making that work.

 

I may be somewhat cynical in this regard through experience, though.

 

 

....having said what I have above, this is a pretty reasonable and easy workaround for just about anything, haha. I guess the best solutions are often the most simple! ^^

 

Thank you both for your replies ~

[Hyrist]

 

What it really comes down to for me is... to keep it simple, let's say everyone involved is a melee combatant. What if X was really good and taking on several opponents at once whereas Y and Z could just about manage one or two at a time. Doesn't it somehow feel like Y and Zs contribution is heavily mitigated if they spend the best part of the scene dealing with 4-5 enemies between them while Z needs at least 10+ to do justice to his skill level?

 

 

There's a slight error in that logic - because it assumes all of the enemies are at the same skill level to each other. Perhaps the one that the Overpowered character is facing is also above the norm as well? That would be absolute most simple answer to a simple question, similar to what Freelance has said.

 

In this way the group can decide, does the 'OP' player duel with the sub-boss? Or does the other players team up on them while the 'OP' player handle the adds? Working with what feels more comfortable to everyone, will insure that players will all feel included.

 

And it's ok to discuss and weigh in on these individual instances back and forth. This kind of discussion is healthy. It's how we learn to balance things on a case-by case basis instead of just paint with broad strokes. Again, not everyone are going to be able to play either an under-powered or overpowered character correctly. And while it's easier to maintain engagement in a casual 'bar' setting RP, it can stagnate quick for some. (I'm 31, I began RPing online when I was 13. The bar scene does kinda wear thin after so much of it.)

[Edvyn]

things (i couldn't get the quotes to work right)

 

you need only read a good book or watch a good TV series with intelligent characters in it to see the divide between many of the intelligent characters found in fiction and the characters played by roleplayers that im criticizing. crime fiction, in particular british crime fiction (poirot, sherlock holmes, miss marple whatever), typically does a good job of presenting characters that are clever without resorting to them spouting meaningless technobabble or having their intellect shown by simply telling other characters "I AM VERY SMART".

 

this, in a way, goes back to the show don't tell thing everyone learns (or should have learnt) in english class. i need more than "this character is very smart" for me to accept that they are, in fact, very smart. they should do something within the story that proves it. say something insightful, come up with a master plan, solve a complex puzzle, bring up their wide general knowledge (or specialist knowledge if they're an expert in a particular field) in a situation where that knowledge is relevant, helpful and solves a genuine problem. that is how i can truly tell if a character is intelligent or not.

 

in cases where a player is really struggling with their character doing intelligent things, i would have to ask a few questions, chief among them:

"is intelligence vital to the character's concept or story, or is it another embellishment intended to make them better in comparison to others?"

 

if the player's motivation is to beat other characters or to live out their fantasies of being someone who isn't stupid, they'd probably just be better off not making intelligence one of their character's defining traits. if their character concept needs the character to be intelligent but the player just can't play that convincingly for whatever reason, it's up to the player to do some homework, or to negotiate with other players to set up situations where their character's intellect shines. if you can provide insight that could benefit that player's writing (maybe you know about the thing their character's meant to know about), you might be able to give that player some helpful hints. or you can just reprimand them. if a problem can be easily fixed, i see no good reason to accept that problem existing. 8-)

[Imo]

Ah, the endless problem with power levels in RP. On one hand we have people who demand absolute realism (in a Final Fantasy game), will scoff at you for playing a character who's not completely mundane, and expect every aspect in which it goes above the capabilities of an average sellsword to be explained and justified and balanced with a million flaws. On the other hand, we have DarkMasterX1999, whose half-demon voidlord dragonrider makes Sephiroth looks like a wimp and will poweremote you with every line if you're foolish enough to RP with him. I'm not a fan of either approach.

 

I take the controversial approach of using my character's level as its power baseline. If the character did something in the game proper, then it's probably powerful enough to do the same IC as well. In Imogene's case, that means she doesn't have the Echo and isn't a chosen one or anything like that, but she did do things like fight against the Primals, participate in the assault on the Praetorium, and explore Crystal Tower (because all of those were IC accomplished by a large group of people, not a single hero or just a few of them), and can do all the fancy borderline magic swordplay a high level paladin can do. I sometimes break out of this mold, but when that happens, I always power my characters down, never up - that way DarkMaster's realm lies.

 

I'm perfectly okay if other people roleplay their characters as 100% mundane Average Joes, not heroes. Just please, don't expect the same from everyone else. Some of us like to play heroes. That doesn't make us powergamers.

 

Side note on IC characters fights and power flaunting: first, I'd like to say that I'm personally not a fan, because in my opinion most of the time it's little more than e-peen waving. But there's something I noticed and found very annoying, which didn't happen in FF14 yet (good riddance), but did in other games; sometimes, when my character is just minding her business, it's approached by another character, trying to pick a fight. But I'm very high or even max level, while the other character is level 4 or 5. For me, this is not an even fight; it's an upstart trying to jump up to a much stronger opponent who can beat it effortlessly. Surprising nobody, those people tend to get annoyed when I point it it out them. The way I see it, if you want to play a strong character, you have to earn the right; either level to the point where your character can be considered one, or do something smart or amazing that will make me decide "okay, for you I can make an exception because you're a good RPer". Or better yet, both. Also, don't play characters whose sole reason is to pick fights with others, that's just rude and annoying.

 

i hold the belief that it is the player's responsibility to prove, through action, their character's personal strengths and weaknesses. it's all well and good to tell people about your character and what they can do, but nobody should be expected to simply take what's told to them about someone else's character at face value. a self-described "badass" character is almost invariably not badass in the slightest. the player just desperately wants the character to be seen that way without doing anything for it. other people decide if you're badass, not you. similarly, a self-described witty and sarcastic character is probably neither witty nor sarcastic but pretty likely to be annoying as shit (and not in the funny way either).

 

This is an excellent approach. Want to show that your character is badass, or cool, or smart, or funny? Prove it through your RP. In the end it's other players who decide if your characters live up to the labels you give them. And if they're worth RPing with, or are just piles of annoyance and ego.

[Gaspard]

things (i couldn't get the quotes to work right)

 

you need only read a good book or watch a good TV series with intelligent characters in it to see the divide between many of the intelligent characters found in fiction and the characters played by roleplayers that im criticizing. crime fiction, in particular british crime fiction (poirot, sherlock holmes, miss marple whatever), typically does a good job of presenting characters that are clever without resorting to them spouting meaningless technobabble or having their intellect shown by simply telling other characters "I AM VERY SMART".

 

this, in a way, goes back to the show don't tell thing everyone learns (or should have learnt) in english class. i need more than "this character is very smart" for me to accept that they are, in fact, very smart. they should do something within the story that proves it. say something insightful, come up with a master plan, solve a complex puzzle, bring up their wide general knowledge (or specialist knowledge if they're an expert in a particular field) in a situation where that knowledge is relevant, helpful and solves a genuine problem. that is how i can truly tell if a character is intelligent or not.

 

in cases where a player is really struggling with their character doing intelligent things, i would have to ask a few questions, chief among them:

"is intelligence vital to the character's concept or story, or is it another embellishment intended to make them better in comparison to others?"

 

if the player's motivation is to beat other characters or to live out their fantasies of being someone who isn't stupid, they'd probably just be better off not making intelligence one of their character's defining traits. if their character concept needs the character to be intelligent but the player just can't play that convincingly for whatever reason, it's up to the player to do some homework, or to negotiate with other players to set up situations where their character's intellect shines. if you can provide insight that could benefit that player's writing (maybe you know about the thing their character's meant to know about), you might be able to give that player some helpful hints. or you can just reprimand them. if a problem can be easily fixed, i see no good reason to accept that problem existing. 8-)

 

I see. Well, I agree with this to a good part, 'however', when it comes to Intelligence, I find the term too subjective; What I mean is this;

 

Intelligence comes in various shapes and sizes, such as Emotional intelligence, logic, abstract thought, communication, memory, problem solving etc. Intelligence in the end is an umbrella term describing a plethora of things, and  therein creating or upholding a 'standard' isn't as clear-cut and easy as "show me, don't tell." They might already be displaying their particular degree of intelligence, you may just not see it because your personal/subjective interpretation of it doesn't corellate with theirs.

 

To give an example ; you could have someone who seems like an overall ditz, knows more or less nothing of value in logical processes, someone who could by all means be described as an 'Idiot', and still have him be the perhaps most importantly intelligent figure in the group. What I'm reffering to is emotional intelligence. You can be dumb as bread in the educational sense, yet still exhibit the profound ability to recognize emotion, know how th cheer particular people up, or motivate them into action that someone you would call 'academically intelligent' would never be able to do.

 

Which brings me to the following term ; "Fach-Idiot" which is german. It roughly translated into Professional/Categorical Idiot/Moron, and is an entirely negative word describing the phenomena where someone has been groomed/trained in a very specific are (Let's take accounting), and all of his theoretical number shifting and 'min/maxing' approach he's been taught and is now trying to bring to a company might be 'intelligent' in a math sense, but utterly moronic considering it will destroy your workers overall morale, create an atmosphere of fear for their jobs, and eventually cost the company more then it stands to gain from this min/max approach because the quality of production and efficiency will go down with the unhappiness of the employers, and therein the so calleds 'Fach-Idiots' intelligent approach to this is anything but as he's actually achieving the opposite to what he wanted to achieve. 

 

Another example of the so called fach-idiot would be someone highly knowledgable in one field, but a complete dunce when it comes to 'knowing life'. Such as interpersonal intelligence, societal intelligence and emotional intelligence. Someone who can code you the meanest programs or hack something in twenty seconds flat but can't participate in a social conversation without making it intrinsically awkward through his lack of experience alone. His intelligence is restricted to a specific field, outside of which he's a completel dunce otherwise.

 

 

This is more or less my point to Illustrate that you cannot just 'show/define' intelligence in a way where you could simply look at something and call it intelligent. Intelligence is too illusive of a word to hold it to such a standard. And Intelligent doesn't equal successful / productive either. A construction worker who, beyond simple math, who can't really grasp 'writing' or language properly can still be more successful and productive then a highly intelligent person. He may contribute to the creation of several homes, houses and buildings, earn good money and so on wherein the Intelligent person who just graduated from law school might find himself, due to economical circumstances, have no job, or a rather poor paying lawyer gig. 

 

Now, who's smarter? the dumb construction worker that earns more, factually speaking contributes/creates more and is able to feed and nurture his entire family plus help a friend here and there, or the Lawyer who, with his vast intelligence doesn't amount to anything because the particular economic field has no 'use' for his brand of intelligence?

 

 

 

Intelligence in my opinion is too illusive of a subject where 'show me, don't tell' doesn't apply. Often times, your character may not have a chance to exhibit / show his particular brand of intelligence, or expose it to the roleplay. Same goes for any other presumed trait to a character such as strength, cunning or street-smarts. If your characters narrative is restricted to social meetings in pubs or bars, you have no viable way of 'showing' your characters traits, and, infact, making it a habit to 'prove traits by showing' can actually be detrimental as you then propel your character into a bit of an attention seeker who is basically going 'Here! look how intelligent I am by stating this!, or doing that!'. Though I will admit that this argument here is pretty 'meta' in nature. I do agree that there's probably players out there that simply spout intelligence as just another notch in their belt, as another 'awesum trait' to make their characters feel special, and that that is what you've more or less have taken as an example to your point;

 

However 'proving' or denouncing intelligence on a subjective interpretation of what the other person shows through their roleplay doesn't really work, unless they where as specific to say 'My character is a brilliant conversationalist' and then his way of talking / discussing topics is anything but. At most, you dispute/disregard very specific claims to intelligence like that, if what the player is doing stands in stark contrast what he claims their character to be. Otherwise, you can't hold people to a simple standard and go; "He's behaving like a moron in this example and/or i've only been exposed to his stupid tendencies, therefore the character is stupid and not intelligent."

[Jana]

Like' date=' take for instance someone who, in previous scenes, used to drop numerous enemies like flies and now they find themselves in a situation where 2-4 people are surrounded by 4-5 Amalj'aa and are treating it like a very threatening situation... what is the OP character supposed to do? Stay true to his character and clean them all out swiftly and easily? Or downplay his character so that it doesn't eliminate the sense of tension/the scene in general for the others - in which case it just stops being a character's trait and more of a [i']"I am OP when I can get away with it"[/i] card?

 

Being an adventurer with the Echo (which is already enough for people to point and shout "overpowered!" apparently), while Jana may be on the higher end of the power spectrum among player characters, the situations she finds herself in simply don't play to her strengths that often. And when they do, something always has to be out of her control to go wrong; she's strong, not omnipotent. Natalie's death was a good wake-up call for her, since Jana assumed that a tough gal would be able to recover from the kind of injury that killed her.

 

And while "fights gud, sucks at social situations" may be a bit overplayed, Jana's emotional hang-ups will be more than enough to limit her. With your Amalj'aa example, Jana may know she can handle most of them no problem, but being with a group of people whose capabilities she doesn't know or aren't acting confident would be enough for her to proceed more cautiously and lose her rhythm (especially after Nat's death). Doubly so because her reaction to people acting serious about beastman attacks when she tries to shrug them off is... Embarrassment over everyone around her fretting. Shouldn't she fret too? In the end, she'll fret over that.

 

-snip-

 

I think you've gotten a little carried away. Edvyn's complaint seems to be against the kind of player who'd have their character scatter big words into their vocabulary without knowing what they really mean, then claiming they're "smart" for it. Things like emotional intelligence, overspecialized knowledge, or street smarts don't really factor into that kind of player's portrayal of an intelligent character... Which is part of the problem too!

[Gegenji]

I find the biggest issue in trying to portray being smart is when it delves into topics you yourself don't know too well. Chachan is actually a surprisingly good example of this. He's socially awkward and has issues with bigger Eorzean words, but his entire background hinges around his in-depth knowledge of smithing passed down through generations. As such, refining ore and smithing weapons/armor is something he does know plenty about.

 

However, my knowledge on the matter is pretty limiting. It causes an odd disconnect because he, as a character, would know something in a conversation and yet I don't. Which leads to either glazing over it (* Chachanji Gegenji examines the Miqo'te's armor with surprising intensity, noting every dent and imperfection - the armor itself telling him much of both who fashioned it and who wore it...) or I end up delaying my response for a minute or two while I put my Google-Fu to work. It's probably why I jump on folks who actually DO know some stuff about smithing to give me pointers so I can play Chachan more convincingly. :blush:

 

... It also makes the fact that Quki wants him to teach her smithing all the more complex. Since, after all, unless we just glaze over a lot of it and just do a couple "key" moments (Chachan standing over her and directing how to use her smith's hammer, etc.) there's going to be a lot of the instruction practice that I just don't know.

 

That's actually sort of a good point. I have to be wary of these things because my character suddenly gained the ability to punch through cobalt when sufficiently enraged. I mean I'm fine with that, lol. It's just that it was a totally unexpected result of an inconclusive rp fight, and not even something I wrote myself. I just wrote "she hit really, really hard" in purpleprose like I always do, but the result on the defender's side was broken armor... So now I do have to consider, well, this really wouldn't be a challenge for Virara, and try to figure out a way to either communicate this to other players so the challenge is appropriate, or otherwise come up with an excuse to explain why it is.

 

This... uh... this was me, by the way. :blush:

 

The entire fight was really kinda over the top, but in a fun way and even the folks watching it seemed to be having fun with it so I kinda... yeah. I didn't think it'd be so problematic afterward, though. Maybe I should've went with dented? Shows a solid strength but not horrifically so? We could probably get away with retconning it to that (or perhaps a shoddily crafted suit due to his unfamiliarity with Eorzean cobalt?), if needed. Retcons! :lol:

 

I try to play up the other person I RP with as well when I can so that everyone involved has a good time and looks good, but I'm horrifically afraid to take control of another person's character for more than a second due to stuff like that. Attribute something to them they don't have, or forgetting to attribute something they do. It's someone else's character and I'm forever worried about mishandling them in those sorts of situations. Especially since telling someone what their own character did can be horrendously OP in its own right.

[Caspar]

No, I don't mind. I think that playing with that challenge is more interesting than not.

Besides, it gives me ammo to support her freakish strength. I'd rather Virara be stronger than weaker, as explaining the former is harder than the latter.

 

As far as intelligence goes, it's been tougher keeping Virara consistently ignorant without making her come off as too childlike. She has some degree of mental maturity outside of the various things she has no knowledge of. I'm used to playing "the smart one" so playing a dunce doesn't come easily to me and I often misstep. I put on a convincing enough performance of being the brainy one that people on my old forums were less enthusiastic if I wasn't playing according to type. I wanted to get away from that. MMO rp, however, is sporadic and inconsistent, and I can't always remember everything I wrote, so I'm having trouble keeping a baseline "this is what virara is dumb about and this is what she understands."

[Dravus]

OP characters are never fun unless they aren't serious. 

 

I prefer a healthy mix, personally. A lot of the characters that aren't serious just rub me the wrong way since they fall into the same trap, ironically, that many powerful characters are criticised for: namely stealing the spotlight from everybody around them.

 

Characters such as Hildibrand can be amusing in small doses but I typically find them very grating if the interaction extends beyond that.

 

Though that's just my personal preference and opinion!

[Caspar]

OP characters are never fun unless they aren't serious. 

 

I prefer a healthy mix, personally. A lot of the characters that aren't serious just rub me the wrong way since they fall into the same trap, ironically, that many powerful characters are criticised for: namely stealing the spotlight from everybody around them.

 

Characters such as Hildibrand can be amusing in small doses but I typically find them very grating if the interaction extends beyond that.

 

Though that's just my personal preference and opinion!

I feel the same way. There are some characters who I'd consider gag characters, and it baffles me that someone could play them continuously without ever growing bored. But whatever entertains them can't be all bad. There has to be something fun about it. Then again, that might be what alts are for...

[Dravus]

OP characters are never fun unless they aren't serious. 

 

I prefer a healthy mix, personally. A lot of the characters that aren't serious just rub me the wrong way since they fall into the same trap, ironically, that many powerful characters are criticised for: namely stealing the spotlight from everybody around them.

 

Characters such as Hildibrand can be amusing in small doses but I typically find them very grating if the interaction extends beyond that.

 

Though that's just my personal preference and opinion!

I feel the same way. There are some characters who I'd consider gag characters, and it baffles me that someone could play them continuously without ever growing bored. But whatever entertains them can't be all bad. There has to be something fun about it. Then again, that might be what alts are for...

 

Back when I played WoW I had my rogue alt as my comic relief character. He'd get in all sorts of weird situations as it had become something of a running joke. I didn't play him frequently though, since it didn't make a lot of sense to have him show up at every turn.

 

I also knew that he'd risk becoming very stale if he appeared too frequently. Context is important too - it can seriously ruin a scene to have a 'gag' character show up during a serious affair. They may think they're adding a much needed dose of humour to a grim scene but it can severely dampen the impact of the emotional side of things.

 

On the other hand, a super serious and grim character can have the same effect by sucking away the fun from a purposely lighthearted scene. I suppose it all comes down to balance.

[Marisa]

Well, I like to think I'm around to balance out all the superhero-types. Every character I've ever RP'd has been useless to the point of actually being a burden to others. For example, my D&D and GW2 character, Barrett Stormsong, while being a decent swordsman (when sober (never)), had a horribly addictive personality. He had problems with liquor, opium, and gambling. He'd been arrested multiple times for public nudity. On top of that, his dream was to be a minstrel/interpretive dancer, but he'd only dance in front of others while drunk, and his fiddle-playing sounded like an angry hawk. 

 

I freakin' loved Barrett, kinda wish I'd carried him over to XIV... 

 

Now, Ryoko's father is a legendary swordsman, but she's incompetent at life in general. She's currently looking for his lost sword, searching Eorzea much the same way one might search a house for lost keys. Just wandering around, looking under furniture, digging through people's closets, etc. 

 

Underpowered characters are fun. Y'all should try it some time.

[Mercurias]

OP RP is often laughed or snarked at by a lot of people who genuinely don't realize they themselves do the same thing. It's largely not intentional, but Power Creep happens and is a thing.

 

Example: M'sato started off as a largely uneducated tribal miqo'te (Learned very basic reading from a treatise on cultivating fungus and years of asking passing caravaners questions). He was also an untrained Hearer, and stayed that way for a long time, which had a serious negative effect on his sanity (as in, he tended to lose it now and then). 

 

 

Six years of work trying to comprehend the voices and foreign feelings inside of his head resulted in a basic level of Conjury and journeyman-level comprehension of Archanima. He also possessed hunting, martial, and survival skills from having been raised in an environment where one should know how to kick the ass of another male in order to get to make babies with the ladies.

 

 

In the year I began to roleplay him, he explored the ruins of Nym looking to find a cure for the voices in his head and uncovered a fairy (He'd thought from the old pictures that it would be a dragon, which makes sense given they were military mages) and a whole lot of rubbings of old tablets he's still trying to translate. 

 

 

He was also diagnosed correctly as a Hearer and was made to further study Conjury in order to master his ability to commune with the Elementals rather than struggle against them and get into an aetheric slap-fight...Which he always lost.

 

Now at this point, we're looking at a healing ubermage with both SCH and CNJ at potentially high levels. This is bordering on OP. Power Creep. 

 

In order to deal with power creep, I placed limiters. 

 

-M'sato's ability to use Conjury is limited and very slow when healing. It takes little out of him, but he actually has to stop and 'speak' with the elementals and request their assistance, and occasionally they do say no because Sato can be a dick at times. This makes it functionally useless for combat healing.

-M'sato can use Conjury offensively in combat, but he is incapable of casting more than the basics. He is very wary of walking into combat armed thus, and almost never uses it in a real fight when he could fall back on his much more familiar Arcanima.

-M'sato is incapable of learning Thaumaturgy without putting forth more effort than would be feasible for RP timeline purposes. Anything more than lighting candles and making ice cubes (though a handy bar trick) causes him to lose focus and control.

-Sato's martial skills have degraded from lack of use in recent years and due to recent injuries. He's good for hunting, but fighting on par with a trained soldier on a battlefield would probably result in him getting an asswhooping.

-He has very low levels of offensive magic in his repertoire as a Scholar. His focus is on using healing magic and shields to block damage. When he does cast offensive spells, they act primarily to blind or slow the enemy while someone with a big honking sword does the real work.

-M'sato is still learning how to use his Scholar magics. No matter how clever he is, his abbreviated education requires him to take significantly longer to translate and apply what he's acquired from the tablets of ancient Nym into working magic. After nearly a year, he still has yet to fully transcribe all the spells of the old Scholars into a useable form.

-I've also taken away much of M'sato's actual medical knowledge beyond what would be needed to act as the equivalent of a combat medic. He cannot perform complicated surgeries or mix alchemical antidotes of any type. He is forced to rely on magic for complicated healing, which is a significant drain on his aether reserves.

 

What is left is a character with a ludicrous amounts of willpower/stubbornness, a great deal of cleverness, and a varied life experience who, in practical terms, is able to dive into and out of a lot of fights with Scholar magics, but never be the person to actually deal the decisive blow. M'sato is a protector at heart, and his choices have led him to focus on keeping others alive over standing in the spotlight and actually slaying the dragon.

 

In my eyes, no longer borderline OP, but still kinda stronger than I'm usually comfortable working with.

 

Solomon, my most played alt, is a drunken bar manager and former mercenary who is good with sword and knives, but barely knows enough of reading and mathematics to balance the bar's budget. Solomon is thirty-seven in order to accommodate his mastery of weaponry, which he almost never uses unless he's sparring with a member of the bar staff (the clientele is a bit rough). He is horrible with magic, and the booze he consumes is beginning to take a serious toll on his health. He is a man in decline with rusting talents that serve no purpose in his current role. He's also a randy perv who is enjoying his 'retirement'.

 

Soren Walker is a former Ishgardian conscript and current-day airship pilot. Having had his fill of war, Soren left the service of the Holy See without permission and took on any old odd job he could. A goldsmith's apprentice prior to being drafted, he was given basic training alongside most others, but his mechanical aptitude landed him first into the mechanics' division, and then later into the role of pilot. Soren was trained to competency with bow and spear, but these days greatly prefers his self-made rifle, which he named Leanna. Soren's best and greatest skill is running away at speed from the havoc he tends to create just by being himself in crowded spaces, much to the consternation of his much more responsible business partners, Lunera and Ris.

[Dravus]

I have to admit, it feels like a bit of an arms race at times. Graeham was designed to gradually learn how to defend himself over time and currently he's in the process of learning how to use a firearm in preparation for the arrival of the machinist class.

 

Since he's only nineteen and I intend to stick with FFXIV and my character for quite some time I have no issue with his development happening at a leisurely pace. Though I do feel as though other role-players exploit him as a punching bag or refuse to let him put the skills he does possess into play because they'd sooner stand in the spotlight at every turn.

 

It's very enlightening as someone who primarily role-played xperienced soldiers in other MMO's.