Ordinary vs. Extraordinary - the origins of characters

[Stormonu]

This is not an attempt to espouse that one is greater than the other, this is, more or less to find out what you prefer, and perhaps insight to why.

When you are either running the game, or running a character in the game, do you tend to assume that your character was an "ordinary" person thrust into extraordinary circumstances or that the character was always, in some way, extraordinary and is simply coming to terms with his extraordinary abilities? Or do you mix and match based on system, class, background or other factors?

An example of the two might be comparing the characters of John H. Miller (Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan) and Luke Skywalker. Luke is certainly extraordinary - being the son of Darth Vader and strong in the force like his father. Though he starts from humble beginnings and is thrust into a larger arena somewhat unwillingly, it very much seems Luke has a date with destiny and his successes are in no small part aided by the force and supernatural help from Ben and others. The things he does (blow up the Death Star, become a jedi knight) are things no other individual could hope to achieve no matter how much skill and practice they put into their efforts.

On the other hand, John Miller is very much an "ordinary joe" forced into unusual circumstances (World War II). His heroics are a mix of luck, skill and daring. There is no greater cosmic force controlling (beyond the script writers) directing his ultimate fate or secret powers upon which he can or will draw.

So, with those two (likely flawed) examples - how do you tend to see starting characters? Are they "average joes" who become notorious through skill and luck or are they demigods of sort - with skills and abilities beyond the normal man but not yet versed in their use?

I think this is an important question to ask, and it helps to drive how you play and see the game. Older D&D versions often tended to allow for mixed approaches; 1E/2E warriors and theives could very well be "average joes", but it was fairly clear that wizards & priests were a little something more. 3E seemed to allow approach from either direction for all character types. 4E seems to be built on the idea that you must be "above the curve" of everyone else (there's something that makes you stand out from the commoner on the sidewalk) and does not seem to support the "ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances" model very well at all.

 

[Crothian]

Depends on the game. Usually we play games were the character start better then average but not always.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted for the mixed option. While I don't see them as anything more special than a common man or women, they are the focus of the game and thus would probably qualify for the extraordinary by being wizards and trained warriors.

But then if I'm running a game like Call of Cthulhu or All Flesh Must Be Eaten all player characters are average joes and nothing special. I guess it depends on the game system.

 

[Herschel]

Extraordinary. Stat line "normal" human attributes were listed as 9-11. A 15-16 INT was a genius and 14 strength was really strong. Paladins, Rangers and Druids were simply exceptionally gifted beings.

 

[Oryan77]

I prefer 'ordinary people with ordinary abilities'....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWJJBwKhvp4]YouTube - Heroes--Zeroes Trailer1 DON'T MISS EPISODES 1 thru 4![/ame]

 

[Nifft]

Both, mixed, typically in reaction to each other.

After playing the seventh son of the seventh princess of the lost ancient blah blah rightful heir blah blah, it's time to play a dirt-farmer who really likes dirt, and just wishes these damn greenskin bastards would go find their own dirt, man.

Cheers, -- N

 

[billd91]

I'm OK with a little bit of extraordinary in the mix, but I prefer most of the PCs that I play and in games that I run be ordinary. Too much extraordinary and they're no longer extraordinary, but hum drum or just plain pathetic.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I voted "mix," but I did assume a fairly liberal use of the word "ordinary." For example, I assumed a young veteran (1st level fighter) to be pretty ordinary.

 

[Celebrim]

Virtually every mythic hero story begins in the same way.

1) The hero possesses abilities which are unrecognized or unfulfilled, however, the basic core of goodness, courage, and honor are made known to the audience.
2) The hero faces some extraordinary difficulty.
3) The hero finds the means to overcome this difficulty.

I believe the fundamental question is flawed.

Almost all heroes are both ordinary and extraordinary. It's virtually impossible to find a hero story that doesn't deal with some combination of the heroes ordinary nature and ordinary challenges and the heroes extraordinary nature and extraordinary abilities. This is inherent to the whole concept of heroic ethics that resonates so powerfully with people. If the hero is merely extraordinary, then the hero is not someone that can be related to your present position. A purely extraordinary hero is too remote to be idolized and his problems (if he has any) are too alien to see in them solutions to your own difficulties. A purely ordinary hero is not worthy of emulation and does not inspire the audience to strive for a more heroic mode of living their own life.

To me, the real question is not, "Is the hero ordinary or extraordinary", but, "Where in the hero journey do you begin the game?" The D&D model generally assumes that you begin the game at the very beginning of the hero journey. A model like M&M general assumes that at least the first steps of the hero journey - the attainment, fulfillment, and recognition of extraordinary power - have already been completed. It might sometimes be interesting to start a D&D game with individuals who are already heroes with much of their journey in their backstory (higher level characters), or to start a M&M game with PL 3-5 characters who have yet to undergo the transformation from heroes to superheroes. But these aren't the default starting states of either game.

Personally, when I play most games, I like to start 'at the beginning': "Once upon a time, far far away, the King's youngest son, the Miller's heir seeking his fortune, the orphan farm boy, the rogue with the heart of gold, and the young cinder wretch..." If I can manage it, I like to have the full journey. That isn't to say I can't see the point of truncation from time to time and cutting to 'the chase' for some specific end, but on the whole I like to start as seemingly ordinary individuals with extraordinary destinies. Now, whether the ordinariness is a skin deep covering of something extraordinary, or whether it lies hidden at the heart of someone superficially extraordinary is for me a more interesting question.

 

[Mallus]

I voted "mix".

These days, I don't cotton much to all that Campbellian 'heroic journey' claptrap. I just want to play interesting fictional characters which --hopefully-- amuse myself and my friends. Sometimes that means starting off a humble dirt farmer, other times, an heir to the throne.