Should PCs Be Exceptional?

[Campbell]

Well, there is certainly another level to the discussion. Does the player want to take the journey to being exceptional, or do they just want to start after it’s been achieved? I’m of the former mind but do expect to arrive at some point.

As a player and GM, I'm much more partial to the latter, largely because I have experienced so many times where we play to get to the experience we actually want and never quite get there. Easier to just start where we really want to get to.

 

[Lord Shark]

It's like, if you want to play a superhero, play a superhero game. I've no interest in running a game for murderhobos with the power to level whole villages.


Here's the thing about Conan, Elric, Imaro, Kane, Jirel, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, and Morgaine - they all fail in the course of their adventures. Repeatedly. Conan is crucified, loses his kingdom, Imaro fails to gain the acceptance of the tribe that raised him, Jirel realizes only too late what her quest for vengeance has cost her. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser get cocky and fall victim to hubris on multiple occasions (ah, do I love "The Two Best Thieves in Lankhmar").

They are powerful, but not so powerful that the dangers of the world become inconsequential. I'll warrant that Kane comes close to that, which is why the best Kane stories are the ones that aren't "and Kane was stronger and smarter than everyone else and won, the end."

And even superheroes fail as well. Doesn't mean they're not exceptional. Is Spider-Man less super because he failed to save Gwen Stacy and has been repeatedly beaten bloody by villains?

I have no interest in running a game for peasants who barely know which end of the sword to hold and who cringe in terror at the sight of hostile housecats. Give me heroes, thanks.

 

[Reynard]

Well, there is certainly another level to the discussion. Does the player want to take the journey to being exceptional, or do they just want to start after it’s been achieved? I’m of the former mind but do expect to arrive at some point.

I think it is more common in modern (post 1970s) epic fantasy for characters to start out as "normal" and grow into power. Rand al'Thor is probably the quintessential example.

But I think most genre stories (and RPGs are a variation on those, most of the time) establish characters as special (even if not experienced) from the jump. Spiderman is the perfect example here: her is completely out of his depth, but he is still superhuman. Characters like Doc Savage or Elric are different: their stories start at a point when they are both exceptional and experienced.

In the end, I think a lot of the time spent in "zero to hero" is wasted and less interesting than stories about already exceptional characters.

 

[payn]

As a player and GM, I'm much more partial to the latter, largely because I have experienced so many times where we play to get to the experience we actually want and never quite get there. Easier to just start where we really want to get to.

Yeah as a long campaign type GM and player I can dig that. For some reason I just enjoy that journey and feel a little cheated without it.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, there is certainly another level to the discussion. Does the player want to take the journey to being exceptional, or do they just want to start after it’s been achieved? I’m of the former mind but do expect to arrive at some point.

I think there is a difference between "exceptional in potential" and "exceptional in competency/capability", and I think it is important that we are talking about the same thing.

When I was a kid like many kids I was told "You can be anything you want to be". There is a kernel of truth in that encouragement in that we are filled with potential and each of us certainly probably could be or could have been more than we are if we applied ourselves better, but there is also a great lie in that well-meaning statement in that each of us has natural talents and natural deficiencies and becoming our "best" or most "successful" self involves leaning into those natural talents. Not all of us can achieve "greatness" in everything and indeed few of us can achieve "greatness" in anything. I was never going to be a great marathon runner or great fencer on any life path. I probably was never going to be President of the United States on any life path. Heck, even though this was a far more realizable goal for me in the sense that I am in fact exceptional in a few areas, I was unlikely to be a National Spelling Bee winner or Teen Jeopardy Champion on any life path.

A truly realistic and gritty game that was fully simulationist and fully fair would not involve characters who were extraordinary in potential much less extraordinary in capability.

I am curious if anyone is really arguing that PC's shouldn't be expectational in potential.

 

[Celebrim]

I think it is more common in modern (post 1970s) epic fantasy for characters to start out as "normal" and grow into power. Rand al'Thor is probably the quintessential example.

Rand al'Thor was NEVER normal. Rand just thought he was normal. Rand's story arc is about figuring out just how not normal in any respect he really is - not normal birth, not normal origin, not normal spirit, not normal potential, not normal life, not normal anything.

 

[payn]

I think it is more common in modern (post 1970s) epic fantasy for characters to start out as "normal" and grow into power. Rand al'Thor is probably the quintessential example.

But I think most genre stories (and RPGs are a variation on those, most of the time) establish characters as special (even if not experienced) from the jump. Spiderman is the perfect example here: her is completely out of his depth, but he is still superhuman. Characters like Doc Savage or Elric are different: their stories start at a point when they are both exceptional and experienced.

In the end, I think a lot of the time spent in "zero to hero" is wasted and less interesting than stories about already exceptional characters.

Reading and viewing perhaps (if I never see Spider-Man get bit by another damn spider as a nerdy teen again it will be too soon) but the RPG experience for me is all mine and all original. I very much want that ride.

 

[Reynard]

Rand al'Thor was NEVER normal. Rand just thought he was normal. Rand's story arc is about figuring out just how not normal in any respect he really is - not normal birth, not normal origin, not normal spirit, not normal potential, not normal life, not normal anything.

It has been a while since i read it, but in my recollection we spent A LOT of time with Rand be essentially useless. About 100 pages into Book 1 he finally got to cast burning hands or soemthing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And even superheroes fail as well. Doesn't mean they're not exceptional. Is Spider-Man less super because he failed to save Gwen Stacy and has been repeatedly beaten bloody by villains?

I have no interest in running a game for peasants who barely know which end of the sword to hold and who cringe in terror at the sight of hostile housecats. Give me heroes, thanks.

It's a shame that PC exceptionalism only has those two poles and nothing in between.

 

[Celebrim]

It has been a while since i read it, but in my recollection we spent A LOT of time with Rand be essentially useless. About 100 pages into Book 1 he finally got to cast burning hands or soemthing.

But that's only because Rand doesn't know he can cast "burning hands". The first time Rand crosses blade with in a Heronmark, he levels up to a Heronmark in like 45 seconds just because he always has been, he's just forgotten that he is. The guy starts out, "This guy is a fraud" and before the fight is over Rand might as well be toying with him.

Probably the central scene in the first book is when he accidentally climbs the castle walls, and the captured male channeler is watching him laughing hysterically because Rand is their shining like midday sun and everyone else in the parade can't see that their doom has arrived.