Ordinary vs. Extraordinary - the origins of characters

[JRRNeiklot]

I voted ordinary, but I should clarify. I like my characters to be a bit above average. Maybe on the scale of a professional athlete. He's just a bit better than the college kids, but nothing outrageous.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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.

Just. . . this.

Exactly that, in fact. Nicely phrased, 'n all.

 

[coyote6]

I said "mix", though that depends on just how ordinary ordinary is. I like ordinary like the ordinary heroes of fiction -- who, by being the survivor, aren't actually ordinary at all, if only in luck.

For example, say an ongoing campaign is supposed to be "survive the apocalypse". The PCs can be ordinary people, but I'd like them to be like fictional ordinary characters -- they have a good chance to survive, so they better have some means of evening out the cold equations of survival (e.g., some kind of Luck advantage or hero points or whatever). Otherwise, I'll get bored of a neverending revolving door of new characters.

Another example - John McClane may be an "ordinary cop" in Die Hard, but he's not, really; an actual ordinary cop would ordinarily die really early on.

 

[Mallus]

Nicely phrased, 'n all.

Thanks. I'm feeling faux-folksy today (fauxlksy?)

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I prefer the "ordinary", both as GM and as player, but I voted "mix" because what I actually play/GM really depends on the game: the genre, the system, the other players, and so on.

Besides, as I've gotten older I find I'm more interested in expanding my RP horizons. I'm just no longer satisfied with mere mediocrity; I want to strive for epic mundanity!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Thanks. I'm feeling faux-folksy today (fauxlksy?)

You too, huh? How 'bout that.

And. . . oof.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I said "mix", though that depends on just how ordinary ordinary is. I like ordinary like the ordinary heroes of fiction -- who, by being the survivor, aren't actually ordinary at all, if only in luck.

For example, say an ongoing campaign is supposed to be "survive the apocalypse". The PCs can be ordinary people, but I'd like them to be like fictional ordinary characters -- they have a good chance to survive, so they better have some means of evening out the cold equations of survival (e.g., some kind of Luck advantage or hero points or whatever). Otherwise, I'll get bored of a neverending revolving door of new characters.

Another example - John McClane may be an "ordinary cop" in Die Hard, but he's not, really; an actual ordinary cop would ordinarily die really early on.

I'd label John was extraordinary personally.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Our characters are almost always among the more talented in the world and are in appropriately challenging circumstances.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Another issue is do the genre rules allow supposedly ordinary people to do things that are extraordinary? For example succeed at a 'million to one shot' nine times out of ten. In other words, action movie rules.

Is the power in the person, or is it a feature of the world?

 

[Herschel]

I voted ordinary, but I should clarify. I like my characters to be a bit above average. Maybe on the scale of a professional athlete. He's just a bit better than the college kids, but nothing outrageous.

Um, you do realize what an extraordinarily small portion of the population has the "stuff" to be a major college athlete let alone a professional one, correct?