How Special Are The PCs?

[Reynard]

I am currently preparing a convention game in which the player characters are superheroes in a aetherpunk/magictech city (using Daggerheart) and one of the key conceits is that the PCs (and the villains) are the only "superpowered" characters in the setting. Basically, the PCs will be 5th level, which is tier 3, and some villains might be Tier 4, but generally speaking regular folks, guards, etc will all be tier 1. Or, to be more generic about it, the PCs and villains are supers and everyone else is a normie.

This got me to thinking about the specialness of PCs (and their opposition) in general. So I thought I would put out the question to ENWorld: in general, do have a preference for how unique, special, competent or "super" the PCs are in the games you run (as appropriate for the particular genre and lieu, of course)? Does it depend entirely on the game in question, or do you always like either underdog PCs or more powerful and competent ones? As a player, what is your general preference? And if you have a general preference -- as a player or GM -- where do you enjoy exceptions?

I think in general I prefer PCs to be a step above the regular folks, but not so much that there aren't relatively common examples of peers in the setting. Even in supers games, by and large I place PCs in the middle ground of supers -- that is, there are certainly supers less powerful than they, but there are also supers more powerful than they.

I actually don't like games with steep power curves, in regards to leveling or whatever. This is, of course, despite having run various forms of D&D for 40 years. I like it when characters stay within some identifiable range of power relative to the rest of the world even as they level.

I take a pretty similar attitude toward PC importance in the setting, but closer to the extremes of the range. that is, either PCs never get particularly important in the grand scheme of things, or they become central figures in the doings of the scope of the campaign.

What about you? Where do your preferences generally lie for PC specialness, competence, importance, and/or power level relative to the world at large?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

It really depends on the game.

I like gritty, low power games where the PCs have to consider all fights to be potentially lethal. I like high power games where the PCs are virtual demi gods.

The one caveat I have is that the main opposition has to be able to stand up to the PCs. Whether in combat or the social sphere or whatever arenas the conflict occurs in.

 

[Reynard]

It really depends on the game.

I like gritty, low power games where the PCs have to consider all fights to be potentially lethal. I like high power games where the PCs are virtual demi gods.

The one caveat I have is that the main opposition has to be able to stand up to the PCs. Whether in combat or the social sphere or whatever arenas the conflict occurs in.

But what about how they compare to a broad cross section of the NPC population?

 

[MGibster]

The PCs are the stars of the game. They're the most special characters in the whole wide world. The whole campaign literally revolves around them.

Like @DrunkonDuty, I'm going to have to answer that it really depends on the game. Though I personally prefer games that are a bit more grounded and thus the PCs aren't gods among men. When I'm running a game like Cyberpunk 2020, Deadlands, or Hell on Earth, the PCs are typically better trained and better equipped than the average corpo security guard, cowpoke, or wasteland survivor. But even these PCs can get an unlucky shot in the face that kills them. And there's always someone else better trained and better equipped.

But what about how they compare to a broad cross section of the NPC population?

At least in the games I run, the PCs tend to be experts in whatever area they choose to specialize in. If an Investigator in Call of Cthulhu is a boxer, he's going to mop the floor with the average NPC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am currently preparing a convention game in which the player characters are superheroes in a aetherpunk/magictech city (using Daggerheart) and one of the key conceits is that the PCs (and the villains) are the only "superpowered" characters in the setting. Basically, the PCs will be 5th level, which is tier 3, and some villains might be Tier 4, but generally speaking regular folks, guards, etc will all be tier 1. Or, to be more generic about it, the PCs and villains are supers and everyone else is a normie.

This got me to thinking about the specialness of PCs (and their opposition) in general. So I thought I would put out the question to ENWorld: in general, do have a preference for how unique, special, competent or "super" the PCs are in the games you run (as appropriate for the particular genre and lieu, of course)? Does it depend entirely on the game in question, or do you always like either underdog PCs or more powerful and competent ones? As a player, what is your general preference? And if you have a general preference -- as a player or GM -- where do you enjoy exceptions?

I think in general I prefer PCs to be a step above the regular folks, but not so much that there aren't relatively common examples of peers in the setting. Even in supers games, by and large I place PCs in the middle ground of supers -- that is, there are certainly supers less powerful than they, but there are also supers more powerful than they.

I actually don't like games with steep power curves, in regards to leveling or whatever. This is, of course, despite having run various forms of D&D for 40 years. I like it when characters stay within some identifiable range of power relative to the rest of the world even as they level.

I take a pretty similar attitude toward PC importance in the setting, but closer to the extremes of the range. that is, either PCs never get particularly important in the grand scheme of things, or they become central figures in the doings of the scope of the campaign.

What about you? Where do your preferences generally lie for PC specialness, competence, importance, and/or power level relative to the world at large?

Well first of all, a narrative-based supers game? I can't imagine a campaign with a better excuse for PC specialness. 100%!

Secondly, you know where I stand. My preference is that the only differences between PCs and NPCs is that the former have a player at the helm, and our attention at the table is pointed in their direction. Now in practice most PCs are going to be above average in some way, but still within the range of their folk in any given metric. A PC wizard and an NPC wizard are not treated differently in the setting due to the presence or lack thereof of an "N" in their title, and I never assume PCs are inherently better in any way. Any PC specialness in my game will have to come from in play, via the players actions through their characters. No one's handing them a gold star without earning it.

 

[Deset Gled]

But what about how they compare to a broad cross section of the NPC population?

I believe a level 0 PC should be basically level with the NPC population, not accounting for bonuses due to favorable stat generation. Which means a level 1 PC with +1 to hit is approximately 5% better at attacking, and moving upward from there. I don't think a PC spellcaster should really be an accomplished wizard until ~10+.

This works very well with 3e, a bit less well in 5e, and generally pretty badly with superhero games. I believe most current TTRPG gamers prefer/expect a more "special" PC than I do.

 

[payn]

What about you? Where do your preferences generally lie for PC specialness, competence, importance, and/or power level relative to the world at large?

I prefer a lower power RPG than most I imagine. One thing I noticed during discussions is how folks view the concept of being "heroic". For some it means being "special" having powers or abilities beyond the average person of the setting. I couldnt be further from that expectation. To me "heroic" means facing dangers courageously at peril to oneself. Im far more interested in adventures the characters are going on and being part of, then I am exploring a being that can fly or shoot lasers out of their eyes. So, yeah im that gamer often taking human when there are other options on the table. Im more interested in solving mysteries, exploring amazing places, navagating political intrigue, as the average person in the setting. Accomplishments feel more grand to me this way.

I do like my characters competent. If they are a detective, or a hunter, or hacker, I expect they can actually do those thigns from the start. So capable in talent and education, not capble because of having super powers.

So, naturally I stay away from Supers as a genre. I enjoy Supers as film and comic novels, but its not an RPG interest for me. When I do a fantasy game such as D&D, I tend to stick to E6 or levels 1-10. My Sci-Fi game is Traveller 'goose 2E so its definitely more on the hard side. Culthulu is great, I love exestential dread and being in way over the character's head. I've enjoyed a cyberpunk game or two on occasion as well.

I prefer my stories contained to the characters. Their adventures are larger than life, but not world threatening. If they fail, life goes on. There is nothing particularly special about them other than they decided to do what ordianry folks dont. Risk life and limb going on an adventure and looking to make their mark on a world thats down to Earth.