Is it better to start with Low Point Characters or High Point Characters.

[Gauntlet]

To the GMs out there, which do you prefer: to start campaigns with High Point Characters or Low Point characters, and why.

 

I prefer myself to start with low point characters, that way there is more creation done in the campaign, but I am sure not everyone agrees with me.

[Duke Bushido]

Been doing low points for over 40 years. Tried high pounrs a few times during that for specific campaigns, but none of us really cared for it.  We just prefer to - for lack of a better word, "grow" our characters in the shared world through actual gameplay.

 

Nothing wrong with starting at the top, I suppose; it just wasn't for us in the 80s, and even with several new groups over the years, we never found the same joy starting at the top.

 

 

For what it is worth, growing through play seems to result in characters that just "fit" into their world.  Starting at lower points levels also seems to discourage the "psychotic loner" character type: having a few teammates for the well-established threats has an appeal beyond just making friends when Spider Dude goes up against Galactic Planet Eater Man...

 

 

 

[Gauntlet]

One thing I definitely have noticed is that in low powered games the characters get a hell of a lot more effective when they go up in points then they do when simply starting with those points. Most likely because they utilize their points based on what has happened to them rather than just making a character type.

[Lord Liaden]

I've become a proponent of the advice in Theron Bretz's article from Digital Hero #3, Pointless Champions.  Forget about point totals and limits, just build your character to concept. The GM makes sure that each character has a specialty that is theirs alone, and that each character gets their turn to be the focus of the game. Instead of XP, characters get tangible rewards such as Perks, Bases, or Vehicles; intangible rewards like expanded relationships or positive changes to the campaign world; or metagame rewards like re-rolls or good/bad Luck effects.

[Gauntlet]

22 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I've become a proponent of the advice in Theron Bretz's article from Digital Hero #3, Pointless Champions.  Forget about point totals and limits, just build your character to concept. The GM makes sure that each character has a specialty that is theirs alone, and that each character gets their turn to be the focus of the game. Instead of XP, characters get tangible rewards such as Perks, Bases, or Vehicles; intangible rewards like expanded relationships or positive changes to the campaign world; or metagame rewards like re-rolls or good/bad Luck effects.

 

That looks great as an idea but it does have a tendency to not work well in real games. While the lower point heroes may be able to do well in a movie they find themselves unable to do much in a game. I mean if one player has Thor (800 points) and someone else has Hawkeye (400 points), the Hawkeye player gets bored rather fast.

[Lord Liaden]

Not in the comics.

 

The article in DH goes into detail on how to deal with that, and I've found its advice very applicable. The free sample from the article that I linked to reprints a sizeable part of it, and will definitely clarify Theron's approach.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I prefer low point campaigns but there's no one right answer to this.  It depends on the campaign you want to do.  Do you want to do MCU defenders or MCU Avengers?  Do you want characters with lots of room to grow, or start out with the growth and face bigger challenges?

 

It is my, an other GMs experience as stated here, that a 200 point character with 200 points of experience is very different from a 400 point character.

[LoneWolf]

I think it depends on how long the campaign is intended to run.  Starting low on something that is going to go on for a long time allows the characters to grow and reach what their concept is.  But if the campaign is not going to last that long starting higher seems to be better.  It also depends on how low you are starting.  Some concepts cannot be done in low point games.  

 

No matter what it is nice to have some variance once in a while.  Always starting low or high can get boring if that is all you do.    

[Durzan Malakim]

Lower point characters have the advantage of buying improvements that are relevant to the game world they are in. Higher point characters are often guessing what elements are going to be in the game. If you guess wrong, then those points are essentially wasted. Not to mention that higher point characters have to face even more higher point foes, or literal hordes of lower point foes. I would only start at higher points with a GM that I've played with a lot and could trust to accurately tell me what game elements I should prepare for.