Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

[Mike W]

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

 

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]

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

 

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]

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

 

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 ... 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`]

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

 

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. 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]

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

 

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]

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

 

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!

 

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 .

 

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]

Re: Do 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.

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]

Re: Do 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.

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]

Re: Do Lower Powered Player Characters Lead To More Roleplaying?

 

I have to disagree with you here' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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.

 

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, 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." 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.