Inherent PC Superiority?

[JamesonCourage]

When I run my game, I don't have the PCs as inherently superior. They begin on the low side of average (1st hit die, in this case). They have average attributes when compared to NPCs (although they could potentially spike above average, since I roll stats).

I know that many people play games with the idea that "the PCs are superior" or "the PCs are destined" or "the PCs are heroes" and that's awesome. I've played many of those games, and they are a ton of fun.

When I run a game, however, I like to differentiate the PCs by their actions, rather than by a mechanical advantage to NPCs. Now, this is personal taste for myself and my players. It's definitely not right for everyone (or the majority of people, I'm guessing).

What I'm curious about is, how do people feel their game should be run? By that, I don't mean "what is the best type of game" or anything else that cannot be objectively decided.

I mean, basically, at your table, as a player or GM, what do you prefer, subjectively? Should PCs be destined for greatness from the beginning, separated from the large majority of NPCs in terms of power and capabilities? Should PCs be just like everyone else in terms of power and capabilities, and never have much of a chance to rise above that, instead being separated by actions they take? Or, instead, is there some preferred middle ground that you like to see take place?

There are no right or wrong answers, just preferences. I'm curious to see what other people like. As always, play what you like

 

[Crothian]

It depends on the needs of the game. We are running Kingmaker right now and there we are destined to be the rulers of this kingdom we make. But in one of my Thieves World games then the PCs are no better and usually worse then many of the other characters.

 

[chaochou]

... I like to differentiate the PCs by their actions, rather than by a mechanical advantage...

I think what you're touching on here is the key point - what does it mean to be 'heroic'?

I don't see heroism as simply saving the day. If defeating the bad guy or saving the city or capturing the enemy general was easy, it wasn't heroic in my eyes. I think for something to be heroic it has to include an element of loss or change - if you come through something and can happily continue as you were before, it wasn't really very heroic.

The way I like to play heroism isn't about stats, it's about choices and what you're prepared to lose in order to achieve something.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

While I can certainly see that one is more heroic if the challenges are tougher, I just saw WAY too many characters who had numbers instead of names at early levels because being average ment they were most likely to die early in the 'good ol days'. So I prefer, as a player and GM, that characters be advantaged at first level. Hopefully, this will encourage them to be played in a more heroic fashion instead of spending most of their early career worrying about survival. YMMV.

 

[Guest 85555]

In D&D I usually have the PCs as exceptional, but in out Network games the premise is the PCs are like everyone else. They are rolled up the same way as NPCs and they die just as easily.

 

[Gilladian]

I don't treat my pcs as being any different than anyone else in the world, but I do give them a very slight mechanical advantage at first level. They get max HP. However, they do NOT get any plot protection or other special benefits.

I like my players to feel like they fit into the world. If they're too much better than everyone else, they feel detached and don't bond with their surroundings. But if they die at the drop of a hat the same thing is true.

 

[The Shaman]

Every roleplaying game doesn't need to be a bildungsroman, hero's journey affair.

Adventurers may begin powerful and remain such, superhero games being the obvious example. Adventurers may also begin as experienced and competent and change only very gradually, if at all - Traveller follows this model.

Of the games I've played in the last year, most of them include rules to make the adventurers at least average and often a bit better. Top Secret characters get a bump to their ability score rolls to make sure that even if you roll 01 on d% six straight times, your character is average in all abilities; Boot Hill does the same thing. In most cases, characters from both games will be above average at start, vis-à-vis an average person.

Adventurers in Flashing Blades roll 3D6 in order to generate their ability scores, but the sum of all the scores must be equal to or greater than fifty-four (54) and the player may move points on a two-for-one basis to bump up a particular score. Characters may also begin with a noble title, up to and including duke (or, by house rule in my campaign, prince), filthy rich, or with a very powerful and influential contact up to the king himself.

The only game I've played in the past year without any rules for insuring the that starting adventurers are at least somewhat above the norm in terms of ability scores is OD&D.

Even by-the-book 1e AD&D offers a plethora of methods for character generation which give the starting adventurers above average - often considerably above average - ability scores.

In my experience, mechanical adventages relative to the average non-player character of the game-world don't detract from the adventurers distinguishing themselves by their actions, and in no way does this mean they are destined for anything.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For the style of game I'm currently running, I have PC ability scores set at a modifier total of 11, which I find is a great number for heroic adventuring. I posit that the PCs are destined heroes and are exceptional, but their exceptional opponents are built off of the same platform.

For other game styles, I use lower stats. I don't think it makes any sense to roll 3d6 ability scores for D&D because those characters would realistically be in NPC classes and would not take up adventuring. It is possible to do interesting work with modest, average, or even below average PCs, however.

 

[Krensky]

I'd say it somewhat depends on the system and setting.

In my current system of choice the PCs are by definition exceptional. Their average stat is a 13 rather then a 10 and they're Special Characters with their own Action Dice pools.

 

[carmachu]

I think what you're touching on here is the key point - what does it mean to be 'heroic'?

I don't see heroism as simply saving the day. If defeating the bad guy or saving the city or capturing the enemy general was easy, it wasn't heroic in my eyes. I think for something to be heroic it has to include an element of loss or change - if you come through something and can happily continue as you were before, it wasn't really very heroic.

The way I like to play heroism isn't about stats, it's about choices and what you're prepared to lose in order to achieve something.

So basically, saving the city from an invasion ISNT heroic unless the PCs lose something, or take a loss themselves? Or unless they have some change? Saving all teh people isnt heroic then?

Thats silly.