Wide or Tall? Character growth.

[pinecone]

Personally I strongly tend to "wide" rather than "tall". But reading posts and puplished materials "tall" seems to be more popular. So I am trying to poll the group and see what the breakdown is.

"Wide" Exp is spent to add new and more in depth abilitys. I ran one game for several years, the old hand characters had 200 exp plus, yet the damage levels never budged.

"Tall" in this senario Exp is spent to improve powers and abilitys, so a experianced character does more (often Vastly more) damage, at longer range, bypasses more defences and the like.

My impression is this style is more common, because there are so many published Villians at gigantic damage and defence levels. In a game I run Doctor D. is a real bad hombre, but he only does 14D6...and 5 years from now he still will, and it will still impress the heros...

[Peregrine]

Assuming a typical "starting" (i.e. rookie) character, I prefer both, up to the limit of "tall" for the campaign.

In general, I prefer to build a "wide" character with better than average "tall" (i.e. not a rookie), within campaign parameters for "tall".

[Alibear]

ID say about a 50/50 spread.

[Killer Shrike]

I favor Wide in the sense that I like to cover up any weakness my PC's have other than deliberate ones that are specifically part of the shtick and also have a focus on making my PC's as relevant to the campaign as possible, and I favor Tall in the sense that I like for my PC's to be taken seriously and also I have a focus on reliably wringing the most effect from each action both singly and in aggregate.

As a GM, I allow the needs of the plot to drive whether a particular NPC is Tall or Wide or both.

[Trebuchet]

I generally prefer adding new Skills or Maneuvers (even non-combat ones) rather than increasing damage or defenses. For one thing, I think tactical flexibility in combat has its own advantages. Can't hurt him with your trusty Offensive Strike? Then try the NND Nerve Strike or do a Legsweep so the team brick can clobber him while he's Prone. You don't have to be able to defeat the bad guy by yourself to have a major impact on the fight.

I think the terms you were looking for are "breadth or depth" :)

[Kal'El Wayne]

Wide, definitely. Having a 500 point character who is very, very powerful at what they did when they were 250 points feels like I just have the same old character, as though he hadn't improved, just that the game has been made a bit bigger. On the other hand, adding a dozen new spells, at a decent level, to my Sorcerer Supreme makes me feel like he's really improved. He's not just casting the same spells over and over till they become rote, he's practising manipulating his powers (in this case spells, but it applies to almost anything) till he can take advantage of the weaknesses of a broad variety of foes. He doesn't need so much power in his spells, because: for the Mr Freeze types, he has a low level fire burst (or frost for fire types, etc); for the speedsters, he has a floor greasing spell; for the bricks, a mental blast; for the mind-masters, a poisoning spell; and so on and so on.

[steamteck]

Definitely wide. all of my group doesn't increase their power level but their skills and versatility .

[ghost-angel]

I go for "wide" and expand capability. I might increase a signature Attack, or bring up some defenses if I don't think I'm taking hits well enough - but I don't like Escalating Arms Races in campaigns so I don't increase Attack levels all that much.

I will increase a few Skills to very high levels if I want a character to be "the definitive expert" on a subject or capability.

[Hierax]

I prefer to think of it as depth (tall) vs. breadth (wide).

I like a balance of both but relative to how most Hero Characters seem to be build I'm definitely very much on the wide side of things.

[Vondy]

It depends?

In general, I prefer horizontal rather than vertical growth. Often, fictional protagonists remain relatively static in terms of abilities, or you slowly learn they can do new and interesting things without them pushing the envelope in terms of their world's "bell curve of power." This tends to be the kind of game I run. Characters end up with more skills, perks, and power tricks far more often than they end up with more damage classes and the like. The one exception is skills - characters often have a shtick in this regard that gets bought up to the skill maxima. This isn't universal, of course. There are various kinds of story arcs calling for rapid character growth, or sudden increases in power. Its just, I don't usu. run them, or enjoy reading them.

[pinecone]

Thanx for the reply(s)...I guess I'm not as alone as I feared. I sounds like many people go for "wide" as a goal, and many others go for a little of each.

I usually advise "Build a awesome combat monster, that gives you the freedom to spend all your Ep's on things that help the game".

My "batclone" the Nightowl has something like 210 exp by now, but he does no more damage than ever...But he has a cool base, more cool vehicles, more gizmos in his belt...

But his utility belt went from Multi(30) to Multi(45), not a huge increase, but it did come to carry more powerfull thingeys. The Big "power up" came when I went from 4Th to 5Th. He had always been Spd 4, but in 5Th high speed was so ubiquitus that he had to jump to spd 6 to stay in the hunt.

Being a martial artist with Gizmos who does small amounts of damage with a wide span of sfx just was not making it...but boosting to spd 6 let me go back to using tactics and smarts.... He main attack power is Find weakness: All (11) so a utility belt holds some bad mojo indeed...

[Trebuchet]

Actually, it's pretty universal in our group. Almost every character in our team has opted to broaden their abilities exclusively; IIRC the single exception has been the team brick who has added several more levels of Density Increase only because the other players requested it (and still added new Skills as well).

Well, our team sorcerer upped his VPP from 10 to 15 points, but I'd hardly consider that a significant increase in power (though it's certainly added a lot more versatility).

[Greywind]

I maintain normal human proportions of the character as they grow.

[BNakagawa]

It depends on the size of the group.

In a small group, I prefer wide, to cover deficiencies and blind spots.

In a large group, I prefer tall, so as to leave room for other people to develop.

[SteveZilla]

I maintain normal human proportions of the character as they grow.

:D

This was my first thought as well, until I fully read the first post.

[Greywind]

:D

This was my first thought as well, until I fully read the first post.
So did I.

As characters progress, I prefer a more organic form of growth, rather than "I'm going to pump this up until I hit the caps. Then, I'll do this..."

I had characters pick up skills during play that didn't fit with their concept, but made sense through play and exposure.

[SteveZilla]

It depends on the size of the group.

In a small group, I prefer wide, to cover deficiencies and blind spots.

In a large group, I prefer tall, so as to leave room for other people to develop.

This is a good point, BNakagaw, and one that I didn't recall until you voiced it here.

In the characters I have player, I will usually first "fill in" any shortcomings I had to take to get the concept to fit within the points available. This would qualify more often as "breadth/wide" development, as I try to start with one attack that is at campaign max DCs. Often it is in increasing skills, buying some (penalty) skill levels, buying down a Disad, or buying off a Limitation, and maybe buying up defenses a bit.

Once I have the character "balanced" per its concept by doing the above, I slowly expand him in overall power level (but staying within limits imposed by the GM).

[ajackson]

I trend towards 'both'. More experienced characters have generally broadened their abilities, either because it's a reasonable thing to have learned, or because it's something that makes sense for the character's special effects but was left off the original sheet. However, it also makes sense that practice will improve power or control.

[DocSamson]

I maintain normal human proportions of the character as they grow.
If you want to grow wider but not taller I suggest Growth (Every 15 Points Of Growth Gives The Character x2 height and width) + Shrinking (For every 10 character Points, the character gets x½ height) in a 15 to 10 ratio. The net result is an increase in width plus a few corresponding benefits.

[Kraven Kor]

Depends on the character.

My old Brick, Hardcase, started out Wide (built him with lots of secondary and "flavor" powers; he was a cyborg so some stuff you just have to buy), but as I got XP he went for mostly "tall" - more strength, bigger defenses, etc.

While my Empire Rifleman in a WarHammer Fantasy HERO conversion went for tall all the way - total combat monster; skill levels, ranged and melee martial maneuvers, and an insane DCV.

My Avariel (D20, not HERO) Paladin is all about wide. Paladin to 5th, Cleric to 5th, Avariel Prestige Class to 10th, feats spread out between combat, caster, and flavor feats, etc.

I tend towards versatile characters, but not always.

[Kraven Kor]

If you want to grow wider but not taller I suggest Growth (Every 15 Points Of Growth Gives The Character x2 height and width) + Shrinking (For every 10 character Points, the character gets x½ height) in a 15 to 10 ratio. The net result is an increase in width plus a few corresponding benefits.

Methinks someone didn't read the OP, or just wanted to post this regardless :D

(I came to post the same thing until I read the OP...)