Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

[Galadorn]

Do people think that lower powered player characters lead to more roleplaying? Do you think that having a standard competent normal player character starting point or a low powered character starting point in superheroic games, leads to more characterization, backstory development, and relationship building in roleplaying?

I get the feeling that the lower powered, I make starting characters in my campaign, the more the players put effort into; developing their characters personality, roleplaying their way out of trouble, and developing the cultural norms of their society of origin.

Short of it is...less skills and powers, more characterization and roleplaying, rather then powerplaying. I think Forgetten Realms in Dungeons and Dragons is a good example of how to roleplay, rather then powerplay, with it's detailed magic item histories and appearances as one example. Though, Forgotten Realms has it's own powerplays of a sort.

What do people think?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Galadorn
Do people think that lower powered player characters lead to more roleplaying? Do you think that having a standard competent normal player character starting point or a low powered character starting point in superheroic games, leads to more characterization, backstory development, and relationship building in roleplaying?

I get the feeling that the lower powered, I make starting characters in my campaign, the more the players put effort into; developing their characters personality, roleplaying their way out of trouble, and developing the cultural norms of their society of origin.

Short of it is...less skills and powers, more characterization and roleplaying, rather then powerplaying. I think Forgetten Realms in Dungeons and Dragons is a good example of how to roleplay, rather then powerplay, with it's detailed magic item histories and appearances as one example. Though, Forgotten Realms has it's own powerplays of a sort.

What do people think? I wouldn't have used Forgotten Realms as an example of a campaign to role play from. I find its obnoxious need to have every niche filled by NPCs annoying, and the exceptional number of powerful spells and items that NPCs hoard seem to point to a powerplay of a GM sort.

I have found that very powerful characters often mean that there is little to do but roleplay. The fights don't often last too long so there can often be more subplots and the conflicts with master villains can often be seen as battle of wits as opposed to a sort of "bug hunt." The advantage of low powered games is that it is easier to relate to the kind of role playing you do. These characters have more mundane hassles but often require adventures where they must respond, wait, respond. High powered games are more Wagnerian in scope. These characters are often dealing with weightier issues than we can relate to easily and they can sieze the initiative - making it more difficult for the GM to pace the game. The role playing challenge of high powered games really isn't for the players but for the GM who must come to grips with a greater lack of control over events. In a sense, High Powered Games require GMs who can react quickly and don't run out of ideas very often.

[dbsousa]

Games filled with role-players lead to more role-playing. Although I always preferred low-level games to high level games, I think the level of roleplaying depends on the players and the GM.
The key to bringing more role-playing to high powered games is to let your players own more of the world. Nothing is more stifling to role-play than character who can only affect his world by smashing it. If your PC's can change the course of mighty rivers, give them the opportunity to change the course of politics. In my last Good Guys Incorporated game, Golden Eagle the filthy rich owner of GGI came across a home in Harlem where the tenants lacked basic neccesities, after the team gathered clues in the basement, Golden Eagle bought the building to restore it to a livable condition. I gave him the opportunity to do so, and have developed a series of encounters that depend on his actions to beautify this neighborhood.
I think the most extreme comic book example of this is the Authority. Cosmic Powers lead to Cosmic Responsibility.

[white peregrine]

in general, I would probably agree with you. my experience has been that people put more thought behind a character with fewer points. I myself have also been a victim(?) of this little wrinkle no matter what system you use.

although on the other hand I also belief the roleplaying aspect has a lot to do with the individual players and gm themselves. characters have nothing to do with roleplaying if BillyBob at the end of the table wants to have the super charismatic character resolve everything with their fist vs their mouth which would be much more likely.

the thing is, this is not necessarily a bad thing. of all the gaming groups I have been in through the years each has it's own "flow". the trick, especially if your the gm an new, is to figure out what style of game the players like. HackSlash - Roleplay Intensive or some combination of the two....each style has its inherent strengths and weaknesses.

...soo....do weaker characters lead to better roleplaying? sometimes, but this is not always the case dependant on who we game with.

[Trebuchet]

My experience in this regard has been mixed, but in general I think the players make a much bigger impact on role-playing than the number of points the character has. Low powered characters have a tendency to spend every point they have on combat skills and abilities, but players with enough points to build their characters with the "fluff" abilities they see as giving their character personality and depth can play those characters rather than cut down versions. (When our campaign jumped to 5th Edition and added another 100 points to each character, nobody's combat abilities improved. Most of us just bought more "fluff" skills or bought down Limitations. And this is in a campaign with no active point caps.)

As an example, in my current Champions campaign set in modern Europe, my character can run over 200 MPH but I bought her Riding (Horses) to reflect her skill at horseback riding, and I intend to buy her Animal Handler soon as she learns how to train horses. It's not her job (She's an executive assistant to a billionaire), it's her hobby. Another character on our team, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, paid 3 points to be a skilled piano player. That kind of stuff leads to role-playing, because as a character's personality diverges from the player's own and the player has to stretch his mind and learning to play the character well, it necessarily becomes role-playing more and more. To play my current character, Zl'f, a Russian super-gymnast, I've had to learn something about women's gymnastics, Russian culture and language, her native city of Petrograd, etc. Playing yourself with superpowers seldom leads to real role-playing. (My first Champions character, Ranger, was essentially me in powered armor. Ranger was powerful, but I never really role-played him; he was me.) YMMV.

[Ndreare]

I have found that the amount of role playing I get out of a group is determined by the players and the me (The GM) alone. I am currently running three games with two different groups.

1: First Group; 650 point characters 2 genetically engineered to be the pinnacle of human ability one has TK the other Telepathy, the third player is a 612 wizard. The campaign is based on the Rifts “Roll” playing game. These players are in a world of such extremes that they can easily annihilate 98% of all challenges with their raw power (little to no tactics needed) yet the have backed down from a town mayor that was completely normal and we spend 90% of the night talking and role-playing.

2: First Group; Players are Mercenaries running a black operations type game. These guys are smart yielding to tactics almost always even when their fighting skills are what I wanted them to use sometimes. (I like the play style)

3: Second group that actually has the one shared player. Group one considerers him gung ho group two considers him contemplative. ; Standard 350 heroes (witch is questionable) these guys know how to do nothing but attack. The first reaction to any perceived slight or disrespect is to attack. When the players see the Uber Bad Guy who just got out of his forty year prison sentence fly by they attacked instantly knowing he has done his time and they were breaking the law (I told them twice). It is the players who set the pace and the game master who allows it. (I don’t mind as long as when I go in I know what I am going in for.)

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Ndreare
Second group that actually has the one shared player. Group one considerers him gung ho group two considers him contemplative. ; Standard 350 heroes (witch is questionable) these guys know how to do nothing but attack. The first reaction to any perceived slight or disrespect is to attack. When the players see the Uber Bad Guy who just got out of his forty year prison sentence fly by they attacked instantly knowing he has done his time and they were breaking the law (I told them twice). It is the players who set the pace and the game master who allows it. (I don’t mind as long as when I go in I know what I am going in for.) Sounds like this group is well on it's way to being a vigilante or even villain team. In a still-running campaign I used to play in many years ago, we had a character named Ferret (A Wolverine clone) who literally disemboweled an innocent landlord who would not let the characters into a suspect's apartment. Only the fact that we had a character with Healing saved the man's life. Half the team just ignored the incident, while the two "law and order" types on the team, Ranger and Double Eagle (Run by myself and Mentor respectively) promptly tried to arrest him for aggravated assault and attempted murder. The character ended up quitting the team and going rogue as a supervillain.

Both Ranger and Double Eagle ended up quitting the team shortly thereafter because the other team members were not acting like heroes. Even the ninja character I introduced to replace Ranger eventually quit because she was too straight for the team as it had become. It's pretty bad when a ninja is the law and order type on a superhero team. :rolleyes:

[Ndreare]

One thing I hate though is when the players lie to you as new GM “I like mostly role play with a little combat here and there. So what type of heroes should we make?” then they turn out to be blood thirsty killers and you are wondering what the hell happened to my game.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Ndreare
One thing I hate though is when the players lie to you as new GM “I like mostly role play with a little combat here and there. So what type of heroes should we make?” then they turn out to be blood thirsty killers and you are wondering what the hell happened to my game. That's always annoying, but it's easy to deal with. As the GM, you have more points that any (or all) of the characters. So just build unstoppable killing machines and let them turn the characters into hamburger a couple of times. It's amazing how much having their characters being killed 2 or 3 times will focus the players' minds back on role-playing.

(A good place to start is with a nice big 4d6 RKA, NND (Defense is being NPC or normal human), Does BODY, No Range Modifier, Area Effect 1 hex Accurate, Megascale 1 hex = 1 km. For more fun, add Autofire. Just have the opponent sit back about 1000 klicks away, say from Cancun, and shoot the heroes from his lounge chair while sipping on a margarita.) :D

"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Flight Officer Ellen Ripley

[Vondy]

In my experience the answer is: the power levels do not impact the quality or quantity of role playing. Its all dependent on the players and game master.

I have had 500 point fantasy hero characters negotiate with a local baron (whose keep and men they could have decimated without breaking a sweat, or getting up from their tea) because it was "in character" for them to do so.

That same band spent entire evenings role playing the social scene in the major city, and generally attempted to find clever tactical solutions over brute force tactical solutions. This was a heavily blooded group (and dangerous), but their level of play was excellent.

I've had the same story with some fairly powerful supers. Sure, they brawled, but they usually tried to come up with other solutions as well.

I've also had 50 point fantasy characters who decided (suicidally enough) that they were going to power through evey obstacle. They got cured quickly enough.

Its not the points - its the players - IMHO.

[BNakagawa]

Obviously, each group is going to have their own style. However, even the same group will tailor their tactics to the power level of the PCs.

If a group is handed PCs with massive amounts of power, expect them to seek out unilateral responses to threats more often than if their characters are weak compared to their opposition and environment.

$0.02

[Peregrine]

The question almost sounds like a rant against high-powered play, but the answers given here are good ones.

My $0.02 is much like what's already been said. You can have good roleplay at any power level, and you can have poor roleplay at any power level. It depends on the players, not the characters.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by dbsousa
Games filled with role-players lead to more role-playing. Although I always preferred low-level games to high level games, I think the level of roleplaying depends on the players and the GM.
The key to bringing more role-playing to high powered games is to let your players own more of the world. Nothing is more stifling to role-play than character who can only affect his world by smashing it. If your PC's can change the course of mighty rivers, give them the opportunity to change the course of politics. In my last Good Guys Incorporated game, Golden Eagle the filthy rich owner of GGI came across a home in Harlem where the tenants lacked basic neccesities, after the team gathered clues in the basement, Golden Eagle bought the building to restore it to a livable condition. I gave him the opportunity to do so, and have developed a series of encounters that depend on his actions to beautify this neighborhood.
I think the most extreme comic book example of this is the Authority. Cosmic Powers lead to Cosmic Responsibility.

Well said, I think, thank you.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Ndreare
One thing I hate though is when the players lie to you as new GM “I like mostly role play with a little combat here and there. So what type of heroes should we make?” then they turn out to be blood thirsty killers and you are wondering what the hell happened to my game.

Oh well, put them in a situation with a character who can trash any of them, and they have to talk their way out. ;)

[nexus]

"arise my undead minion and stalk the forum once more!"

I'd say that lower powered character don't let to more "role playing" if you define role playing as character interaction, introspection, romance and just shooting the breeze. That's up to the players and being relatively powerful in the campaign world holds as many opportunities for such things as being relaltively weak. You could even make the argument that being relatively weak subtly encourages min maxing and "game" oriented behavior since most players don't like to lose characters for various reasons, but that's not my point. I enjoy games at all power levels, though I lean towards lower powered ones.

I think low powered games lead to more creative problem solving however. When you don't have much power you have to think your way out of situations and use something other than the bigger hammer approach. If you can't beat the villain down in a stand up fight, you have to out think him and exploit his weaknesses. Creative problem solving, not nesscarily role playing. IMO, of course.

[Sean Waters]

I've seen high powered games where players have seemed to think that having an ability for every occasion is role playing. They were disabused of the notion. :D

I think that having fewer points can make players far more creative both at character concept level and in-game, but that isn't necessarily role-playing either.

The amount of role playing should be a matter for the group to collectively decide, independently of the number of points they play with.

I would go as far as saying that role playing is only important to the extent that the group enjoy doing it. If you prefer wargames, scrap all that sappy character interaction completely: so long as everyone leaves the table feeling happy that is how they spent their evening, how you got there is not that important to my mind. :nonp:

Personally I like role playing, in the sense of advancing the plot and the characters without recourse to dice and rules, and we'll often go several sessions without needing dice, but I don't 'enforce' it. Like anything else some players are into it and some are good at it (and they are not necessarily the same people) and some people aren't. I think role playing can come out in any aspect of the game though, including combat: really all it means is picking and sticking to a role. If your role is as a taciturn combat monster, then, I suppose, not interacting with people except on a purely physical level is probably 'good' roleplaying.

Horses:courses. :)

[CourtFool]

That's always annoying, but it's easy to deal with. As the GM, you have more points that any (or all) of the characters. So just build unstoppable killing machines and let them turn the characters into hamburger a couple of times. It's amazing how much having their characters being killed 2 or 3 times will focus the players' minds back on role-playing.

I have to disagree with you here, at least based on my experience. Maybe I have just had bad gamers (or should I say different style?) but their response to unstoppable killing machines was to become unstoppable killing machines and if they could not, they whined that I was a killer GM.

Personally, I like to see the PCs mop the floor with the opposition. Not always, granted, but they always seem to get a big smile when they do get to flex thier muscles.

[Hugh Neilson]

I have to disagree with you here, at least based on my experience. Maybe I have just had bad gamers (or should I say different style?) but their response to unstoppable killing machines was to become unstoppable killing machines and if they could not, they whined that I was a killer GM.

I think another response to high PC mortality rates is that role playing declines. Players tend not to invest as much time and effort creating a detailed character personality if he has even odds of not surviving the first adventure.

Now, logically, boring adventures with no challenges should lead to more role playing. My Galactic Champion is on the go 24/7 defending against threats against the universe. But the biggest threat my character in Dirt Farm Hero faces is whether his radishes will come up - nothiong to do but role play. :)

Facetious to some extent, but it's very easy to crush role playing out of the group by never alowing any time where the characters aren't faced with an immediate goal they must act to solve wiothout delay.

[Deejmeister]

I think the idea of Low Points = good roleplaying comes from the fact that only roleplayers are usually willing to consider playing a low points game at all. Power gamers usually seek out greener pastures. Problem is, a bad gamer can hose the system with ANY point limit. Give me 50 points or 500; If I want to, I can write up a character who will run rough-shod over the most carefully crafted scenario. You can't use game mechanics to force people be good players.

Personally, I prefer "high" point games as I like to write up complete characters with detailed background skills, talents, power stunts,etc. I find low point games frustrating because all the characters feel the same. Not to mention the fact that I need more than the standard points just to write my real world self up ( and I prefer to play characters that are MORE heroic than I am, thank you very much).

[prestidigitator]

I agree with so many that it is more the players than anything about the game itself that lead to good or bad roleplaying. Well, except that if the game is one that the players feel more able to identify with and step into role-wise then I think the quality of roleplaying tends to increase.

I think very low-powered games tend to encourage roleplaying, and very high-powered games do too (unless the players really get a kick out of just running around destroying things). Note that when I say low- or high-powered, I don't mean raw points; I mean how powerful the PCs are compared to the NPCs/general challenge level of the scenarios.

I just find that when you are likely to die if you put a foot wrong, you tend to get very creative about getting any possible advantage, and this can be imaginative and interesting enough to add a great roleplaying element. If you are likely to succeed even when you screw up quite a lot, you tend to concentrate more on how your character does something rather than just that (s)he succeeds at it.

[prestidigitator]

I think the idea of Low Points = good roleplaying comes from the fact that only roleplayers are usually willing to consider playing a low points game at all. Power gamers usually seek out greener pastures.
Hah! Good point!

[Metaphysician]

In a word: no.

If the players want to RP, they will, whether they are 0 point incompetents are 10000 point gods.

If they do not, and simply want to beat things up, they will. The power level will merely determine who.

[Ki-rin]

... It's amazing how much having their characters being killed 2 or 3 times will focus the players' minds back on role-playing.

(A good place to start is with a nice big 4d6 RKA, NND (Defense is being NPC or normal human), Does BODY, No Range Modifier, Area Effect 1 hex Accurate, Megascale 1 hex = 1 km. For more fun, add Autofire. Just have the opponent sit back about 1000 klicks away, say from Cancun, and shoot the heroes from his lounge chair while sipping on a margarita.) :D

"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Flight Officer Ellen Ripley
ROTFLMAO... nice!

[David Blue]

"Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?"

No.

Or "more" but often worse. Not better, which should be the point.

I've done the whole low-powered legend in his own mind thing, many times from days of old, and burned out comprehensively on it.

Not only do low-powered characters not lead to better roleplaying, but they often leads to worse roleplaying, in a variety of ways, including and not limited to:
* Low survival expectations, often soon justified in the event.
* How much roleplaying are you going to do with a knocked-out character?
* Low-powered characters receive less respect from other player characters, non-player characters and the gamemaster. This may result in your not even getting your soliloquies and actions in. (Eg.: if combats are ended when the high-powered player characters win or lose - taking out any remaining trash after that, either way, is not an issue. Very reasonable, but how does it make a wimp a superior platform for roleplaying?)
* Actions required by the campaign or the adventure would be reasonable if only strong characters were called on - but why is my quadriplegic alcoholic going to keep hunting Great Cthulu? (Because that's horror: the challenges aren't done till the character is dead. But that's another issue.) You just have to suck it up and march - or crawl, or wheel - into the monster's mouth when the gamemaster and the scenario require it, thus what is good roleplaying for other characters may be out-of-character for yours.
* Lots of character concepts shatter when it's clear the character is useless. "With great power comes great responsibility!" With pathetically inadequate power comes - what?
* With a low-powered character there's a constant tendency to over-play. It's the opposite of the Clint Eastwood approach, where you get better results by holding back on the expressiveness of the character a little, at least till the time comes. Characters who aren’t good enough often get virtual books written on them. It's too much, too soon.
* There's also a constant tendency to become comic relief, which - depending on character conception - is often horrible roleplaying, even or especially when everybody who has no idea what the character was supposed to be about thinks it's good. Yeah your "dumb brick" act may draw laughs and even get you a +1 experience point every so often - but is that why you originally built a character with a bought-up INT, a Ph.D and some pretty deep motives? Way to stay in character, dude! Mugging for laughs effectively and amusingly, because your character has become mere comic relief and you might as well, is still just mugging. It's "more" but worse roleplaying.

Examples with famous characters:

(1) Orion (New Gods), a tragic hero with a taste for dark ironies like his father Darkseid, joined the Justice League where he was limited and out-powered, and became a buffoon notable for drooling, seemingly being unshaven, striking useless belligerent (typical team psycho) poses and getting slapped into line by Wonder Woman. It's such a trap - when the character is boring if they just try to do what they should do and would do except that they are out-powered/un-needed, they become a joke. And once you become a joke by mocking yourself like that, it's hard to recover. The same happens in games.

(2) Useless witticism Beetle, ignored-by-women Beetle, fat Beetle, dignity lost Beetle, expendable Beetle, dead Beetle. This is a classic example of the weaker character slippery-slope. Blue Beetle's original concept and stories were about a hero!

(3) The villain makes a speech about his brilliant plan, and heads to the escape pod. What happens? If it's Doctor Destroyer, he probably gets off his soliloquy and gets away. Foxbat is quite likely to be defined by the gamemaster as standing around ranting when he should be running, with the result that the heroes capture him. Why? Because he's a joke. Player characters also get such first-class vs. steerage treatment.

In some ways a munchkin who gets away with it can do a better job of portraying his character according to its original conception than a stronger roleplayer whose character gets caught on the wimps' slippery slope. This often happens when the gamemaster announces campaign limits or "suggestions" that he or she doesn't really mean. The "bad" roleplayers push, and get on to the "first class" track". The "good roleplayer" builds within the gamemaster's guidelines, and winds up with the wimp. But if the friendly reaction you get from the gamemaster for building a "moderate" character and not causing the gamemaster any problems is the last joy you get in the game - and it often is - then you're not really being a good, effective roleplayer at all.

[HewhoisMatt]

I disagree.

If your players do not roleplay when they are powerfull then I think it highly unlikely for them to roleplay when weak. It all depends on how your players like to game.

I have never understood the need some GMs seem to have to nerf their players. I make a point in my campains to tell people that I give no XP for combat unless they come up with some great plan, tactic, or of the wall attack.

[Mike W]

In my experience, power level is irrelevant to the quality of the roleplaying. It's up to the GM to write stories that allow for good roleplaying and the players to take advantage of what opportunities present themselves, be they in or out of combat. Disparate power levels can work, as long as they aren't TOO different. (I here refer to my often noted 4 degrees of magnitude rule). To me, if the power level is interfering with the roleplaying, someone is doing something wrong, probably the GM(after all, NOTHING should affect the power levels without the GMs say so. So if the power level is having an adverse effect on the game, the GM probably handed out too much experience or allowed someone to buy something they sholdn't have. At least, this could be the case if there is a power level imbalance). On the other hand, if people are just REALLY enjoying the smash and pummel routine(which is basically the Champs equivalent of hack, slash, and loot dungoen crawls), I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I would probably try to throw in some other kinds of adventures just to spice things up.

In my current campaign, we've had a lot of big fights lately. In the next couple weeks, we may fight very little. Lots of roleplaying and investigating.(If nothing else, I just wrote the newspaper article where someone disintegrates the NYSE "big board". I can't wait to see how they react to that one).

[RDU Neil]

Do people think that lower powered player characters lead to more roleplaying? Do you think that having a standard competent normal player character starting point or a low powered character starting point in superheroic games, leads to more characterization, backstory development, and relationship building in roleplaying?

I get the feeling that the lower powered, I make starting characters in my campaign, the more the players put effort into; developing their characters personality, roleplaying their way out of trouble, and developing the cultural norms of their society of origin.

Short of it is...less skills and powers, more characterization and roleplaying, rather then powerplaying. I think Forgetten Realms in Dungeons and Dragons is a good example of how to roleplay, rather then powerplay, with it's detailed magic item histories and appearances as one example. Though, Forgotten Realms has it's own powerplays of a sort.

What do people think?

Haven't read everyone else's post... but in many cases, I would say "No."

The reason for this... again only IMO... comes when players are low powered, they are more vulnerable. The more vulnerable they are, the more they look for every advantage in a fight... they metagame more, they push the GM and whine more, etc. Essentially... when a character is vulnerable and the player feels outclassed and desperate... that is when they rule play more than role play. Not always, but enough that I've noticed. When the same players have gained EXP and built their characters up to higher power levels... then I see them being much more relaxed at the table... they have a confidence that allows them to explore their character, rather than focusing on getting the next piece of power that can protect them.

Again, not always... and really some players more than others... but enough for me to notice over the past 24 years.

[ghost-angel]

Going to have to jump on the Me Too bandwagon ...

a good roleplayer, or roleplaying group/session is not born of the point level. It is the players and the GM that create the roleplaying environment.

Example being the two most recent games I've been in.

1st is a high powered save the universe from other-dimensional invaders type... that we only manage to fight about every three to four sessions. We've taken an entire night and focused on interacting with what was supposed to be a background flavor-walk on-around for one scene-NPC for an entire night and then incorporating them into our world as a recurring character (much the GMs occasional frustration that he is suddenly creating a complete history for a person he didn't even intend to give a last name to). We spend more time roleplaying than not, going entire sessions without even breaking out the dice.

2nd is a standard super hero group where most of the players are some odd combination of powergamers and rulemongers who would prefer we play GURPs and have managed to create Player Characters that seem like walk on parts, much less how they treat NPCs - even major ones get brushed aside. They managed to utterly ignore one of the game worlds more powerful and important NPC with little more than a 'whatever' at one point :stupid: ... that was my last session with that group.

So, it seems the lower powered group rollplays more and the high powered group roleplays more.

Kudos to the GM for being the GM of both on that one though... at least with group 2 his walk-ons stay walk-ons.

Yeah .. power level probably has little to do with it.

[Mortuorum`]

Lower-powered characters do not automatically make for more or better roleplaying. That said, a GM has more tools to encourage roleplaying in a lower-powered campaign.

A team of lower-powered character perforce must cover for each-others' shortcomings. This leads to teamwork. The challenge then is to encourage the teamwork to be roleplayed.

With some groups, this is not necessary. When you have a group of capital-"r" Roleplayers at the table, this follows naturally. However, many players would rather take the quicker but (IMO) less-desirable approach of making plans and discussing tactics out-of-character. :stupid: This is a perfect opportunity for the GM to encourage the players to take the conversation in-character.

This approach can be used for reconnaissance, breaking into an enemy base, combat or just the characters ordering a pizza at the end of a busy day.

Also, in my experience, in a high-powered campaign, players tend to assume that combat is the answer to everything. In a lower-powered campaign, the players are more likely to consider a roleplaying solution. To an extent, this is an example of metagame thinking, but it would make sense that the characters would be as aware of their limitations as the players and behave accordingly.

This is not to say that the GM of a cosmic power-level campaign cannot occasionally throw an encounter at the players that they cannot beat just by coordinating energy blasts, but in this type of campaign, the results of such bad judgment are more likely to have world-altering consequences that the GM must be prepared to deal with.

[Guyon]

Do people think that lower powered player characters lead to more roleplaying?

Definitly!
I did an actual test may years ago where I let the players be as powerful as they wanted. I mean anything they wanted they could have. To balance it out I just designed many of the scenarios to be figuring out things in order to win with some combat of course.

The result was they ended up falling over each other trying to use there incredible powers to win the game instead of role play, talking to NPC's and communicating as a heroic team.

Because I actually did it, I am totally convinced that less powerful characters are more likely to role play.

[Storn]

I've had success as both GM and as player in all types of games... high or low power.

But what is very important is a understanding between GM and players what kind of game it is going to be. I don't mind a grim, gritty game if I'm forewarned and I can build a concept to that world. If we all at the table know that life is cheap (re: cyberpunk or dark, low magic fantasy), then we KNOW to play as smart as we can... not that this means whining and looking for unfair game mechanic advantage... but understanding that the stakes are high, the characters might die..

I don't mind a high powerful, high politics game either, but I want forewarning so I don't come in with a street level martial arts concept looking for his missing sensei/sifu. Like Neil, I have noticed a relaxed, confidence (overconfidence?) in playing high level characters. The one PC, Vector, that I've taken from 275 to 600+ is not OVER confident. But the way I see it, he is a survivor. He doesn't take losing battles hard anymore (and boy did he used to)... because he wins the wars. Every major foe has been defeated in the 10 years that he has been a super. He has seen it all. And in that level, restraint is the name of the game. Not blowing some poor schmuck in two just because I can. But damn! If there aren't always more challenges ahead! <g>

Neil does a very nice job of not ratcheting up threat levels w/o damn good reason and logic and a lot of times, foreshadowing. So villains that might ahve been a problem 5 years ago are not now. Villians who are on par with Vector (or higher) are inserted with great care. And no matter how powerful Vector and Vanguard are... their lives are highly politicized. Cannot fight entire nations, can't hold ground, can't make people do what you want all the time. Sure can lean on them though <g>.

I prefer running high level fantasy at the moment, because it is closer to the novels that I've read. Most novels are about the BIG characters, doing earth or at least nation, shattering things. I like giving the players lots of impact ability. Their actions matter.

But I also have a smaller impact game in mind set in teh same campaign. One that is up to the players to carve a destiny, because I'm not going to supply one. MOre of a mercenary, building, carvign out their private idaho, type game. But I've tried to be very up front about that with Neil and the other players. So they can build characters to that idea, have fun with it and understand where I'm coming from.

[Galadorn]

Definitly!
I did an actual test may years ago where I let the players be as powerful as they wanted. I mean anything they wanted they could have. To balance it out I just designed many of the scenarios to be figuring out things in order to win with some combat of course.

The result was they ended up falling over each other trying to use there incredible powers to win the game instead of role play, talking to NPC's and communicating as a heroic team.

Because I actually did it, I am totally convinced that less powerful characters are more likely to role play.
You could also keep the active point levels for attacks down, this would force players to spread their points around. You don't have to limit the character points in this case.

[lemming]

Definitly!
I did an actual test may years ago where I let the players be as powerful as they wanted. I mean anything they wanted they could have. To balance it out I just designed many of the scenarios to be figuring out things in order to win with some combat of course.

The result was they ended up falling over each other trying to use there incredible powers to win the game instead of role play, talking to NPC's and communicating as a heroic team.

Because I actually did it, I am totally convinced that less powerful characters are more likely to role play.
I think it matter what type of players you have. It doesn't matter how many powers or how powerful in the games I ran, these guys & gal would rather talk thier way thru it. Granted there was combat, but they've managed to make friends with one character who I had placed on the maybe villian/maybe ally edge. And several other villians are being turned away from that path. It's a shame I haven't been able to run more games.

[DangerousDan]

I have to disagree with you here, at least based on my experience. Maybe I have just had bad gamers (or should I say different style?) but their response to unstoppable killing machines was to become unstoppable killing machines and if they could not, they whined that I was a killer GM.

I have to agree with this. The GM does set the tone of the game. If the GM fills the stage with unstoppable killing machines, the probability that the characters will turn gentle and contemplative is sub-atomically small. :rolleyes:



Personally, I like to see the PCs mop the floor with the opposition. Not always, granted, but they always seem to get a big smile when they do get to flex thier muscles.

I prefer to make them work for it: flex their brains as well as their muscles. Some months ago, in an adventure set in Paris, the team of superheros faced an array of villains bent on turning off technology for the entire world. The team had to separate in order to foil the henchmen and deprive them of their foci before taking on the mastermind. Due to the prophecies written by someone far less cryptic than that hack Nostradamas, :snicker: the PCs had some idea what they were up against. I let the players decide who would would face what villain and looked forward to seeing what happened. Some match-ups would be much harder on PCs than others. More than once, I heard a player say "there's no way we can handle this." :angst: But they did find ways, and they did prevent a dark age from being forced upon the world. When the last villain had escaped, every single technology draining crystal remained in the heros' control. When they'd done enough damage to turn off the powers, and the lights slowly started coming back on in Paris, they knew that they had earned every bit of the experience I awarded them. Everyone is looking forward to the next thing that I throw at them. :cheers: