Variable Character Power Levels: Opinions

[Nugan]

Oh, I agree with you on all of that.

Although, I don't think you need a set outline beforehand, so much as you need to remember to keep your adlibs consistent.

Fir example, if for some reason one of my characters had to sing, I'd decide then and there whether or not they were talented (chances are they would not be), then from that point onward if that character had to sing again, I'd try to remain consistent with the first time.

 

[Kathryn_aka_Kat]

I can see how the discussion morphed to one of character sheets or not, since having a character sheet implies that you aren't going to adjust the power level. So we're still a little on topic.

On this, after playing very free-form for 4 months I'm now coming to the opinion that (1) if it's possible for you without buying expensive manuals, and (2) you play with enough different people to make it worthwhile, that making up a rough D&D or similar style character sheet is useful.

The reason is that there are too many other players who do play stricter D&D rules and they get frazzled when faced with a total freeform char. Sure, they should just deal with it. But in a sudden situation, it's a lot easier to do a little research ahead of time and tell them "well, think of Kat as about a 6th level bard without an instrument" then to say "she not totally low level, kinda good with weapons, no she's not a thief, yes she can read off a scroll if needed, she's very persuasive, etc, etc."

Mostly it's a lot easier to explain a strict D&D char to a freeform player, than the other way around? Even being able to relate freeform spells to specific D&D spells can help make things smoother. Again, yes they should deal with it anyway, but I'm talking about making things easier, not what's required to play.

 

[Eidrog]

My 2¢

*Blinks*

Wow it's been a very long time since I've ranted about situations in the ISRP, (Any one remember "Eidrog's Big Rant About Everything?" lol) I hope I can keep this somewhat short. But those familiar with my writing style know that it can take me several paragraphs just to clear my throat.

Any way, my personal opinion about combat situations is that each player should allow equal opportunity for his opponent to win. Why? Well, the easy reason is because I can't stand people who put their nose up in the air and assume their character is better than every other character! I don't care if a character is a 1000 year old vampire who's gained omnipotent powers by defeating a God in a best 2 out of 3 thumb war! When he's fighting a farmer with a pitchfork I expect the vampire's player to be courteous to the farmer's player, and allow the farmer to hit him a few times! I also expect the same from the farmer's character.

Now then, just because the players are being courteous to each other doesn't mean that their character's should be friendly! The vampire should be calling out all sorts of curses to the farmer and the farmer should be, oh I don't know, begging the vampire not to suck the blood out of his cows because taking care of vampyric livestock is very difficult and it scares away the neighbors! . . Ok, maybe that's a bad example for dialogue. My point is, however, that although the players are being courteous enough to allow the other player to have fun - their characters still have the right to be mean to each other! And of course they should be mean, they're trying to kill each other!

As for changing power levels. . . I think I know what Tharivious was trying to get at, and it's something I do all the time! I don't alter my characters' power so much as I alter how much effort they put into the fight. When my rogue fights another rogue, he'll fight smart and try to hit the other rogue. When my rogue fights the Demon Lord of Death, his efforts will go up ten-fold just to keep from dying! It seems like a good, in character way to keep fights fair and that's why I use it!

Too add to that example: How many of us have read a book or seen a movie where an extremely powerful character is defeated by a less powerful character for underestimating the less powerful character's abilities? Hmm?

(Ahem-* Ok, my throat's clear!)

Basically, my message is that combats should be kept balanced! It makes them more fun for both players and it's so much more interesting than, "I hit you! I hit you again! I hit you yet again! Oh no no no, you didn't hit we with that attack! But watch! I hit you again! Ha ha haa! Aren't we having fun?"

I mean, what's the worse than could happen if you let someone successfully attack you? It might give them a sense of accomplishment and make them feel good about their character? . . Oh wait, no no - we can't have that.

If you've made it this far congratulations! You get a cookie! :cookie:

Now everybody share, there's only one!

Eidrog

 

[Jardel_Karabella]

The wonder of power levels.

While I agree that freeform combat should be about who does what, not who rolls what or who has what power level I think it's ridiculous to go with the "equal odds of winning" theory.

The reason being I've seen to many "fights" of a rookie vs a veteran (in terms of character skill, not roleplaying) where it's been laughable that supposedly this kid who's never held a sword before is beating an expert. If you want your character to be powerful, play them as powerful, if you want them to be weak, play them as weak. This "well they're powerful but equal to everyone" is bad situation.

Really the focus for the roleplayers shouldn't be winning, but just the fighting. I've got characters of varying levels, some of them kick butt, some of them get their butts kicked, others just avoid combat. Generally I only fight with other people's chars to the extent I trust them (I don't let someone I've never seen before come in and start a fight to the death with a cherished char).

Every character I have fights in a completely different manner and has varying skill levels for in character reasons. Thala is very primal, she hates to kill people and hse's relatively new to fighting. She gets her butt whipped frequently 'cause she's hampered in many ways. Jardel has spent his whole life learning to kill people, years of experience, no compulsions about fighting dirty or hurting people, he's good for those reasons.

If Jardel and Thala were to have a serious fight, then Thala would have to do something exceptional to win. Simply because Jardel has the experience and the skill to outdo her. Thus as it should be, it's the point of having a strong or a weak character.

Otherwise there's no point in bothered to decide how good your character is at combat and then you lose a big aspect of the adventurer type characters and reduces a lot of tension from encounters. Where's the excitement in watching the wimp try to stand up to supervillian if the reality is it's a 50/50 odds?

Really, at the end of the day there's no easy way to do it. You just have to decide what your characters can and can't do in advance, then stick to that. Whether your character uses all of this skill and power is entirely up to you, but it's your responsiblity to know your character well enough to ensure they stay at a reliable power level.

One of the biggest problems I see is that people tend to place too much prestige on having a character who's really powerful, the toughest fighter, etc. Then people start to think that to become accepted they have to have their character show off they can fight (everyone else is).

Being a mighty warrior in the chat is kind of like having a cool car in real life. It might help you make a great first impression, but if you can't live up to that first impression then it's not going to help you much.

 

[Eidrog]

And then there was 4¢

First off, I pretty much agree with everything you've said Jardel. I suppose the problem with my prior post is I made my examples too extreme to get a point across. . . my bad.

When you're facing against someone you've never met before, and they make a point of showing you they're not a good fighter, then yes, it makes role-playing sense for you to beat them with little effort. (Hey! you could still at least take one hit!) I mean, you do have to feel out every situation.

. . .my personal opinion about combat situations is that each player should allow equal opportunity for his opponent to win. . .

Guess I shot myself in the foot with this sentence. I should have clarified that I meant for this to apply to 90% of the fights where it's two competent fighters facing each other. Lets do a couple of examples.

1. (1 out of 10 times) Jardel has to fight Leetah, the fragile cleric of Pelor. Through role-playing Leetah has made it quite clear that she's a wonderful healer, but not such a wonderful fighter. What happens?

Leetah loses of course, though she might manage to hit Jardel a few times while wildly flailing her staff in self defense. . . But overall she doesn't stand a chance.

2. (9 out of 10 times) Jardel meets Tyrion, an Elven knight who caries the presence of a master swordsman. What do you do? Both characters are solid fighters! Do you assume your character's better because he's Jardel and has spent his whole life learning to kill people, with years of experience, and has no compulsions about fighting dirty or hurting people? No. . . But then how do you resolve this problem?

In order to be fair, you pretty much have to assume you're opponent is just as skilled as you are. When you slash at him with your sword he's just as likely to take the hit as you are from taking a hit from him! And if Tyrion takes a hit don't automatically assume he's inferior. . . He's still your equal until he gives solid evidence otherwise.

Hmmmm. . . lol. . . I don't know if I'm making things to simple or too complicated. . . But basically - no one should ever assume their character is better until they have solid evidence otherwise. . . and this is where my 50/50 rule came from. . . And I only advertise this because it makes me sick to my stomach when I see one player assume his cherished character is more competent than another player's cherished character. . . They have to be considered equal!

Maybe I'll explain why I'm being so fussy about this. The other day on chat I almost had a confrontation with another character. I received a PM from the player asking me if he could kill my character. I laughed and told him no! I liked my character! He then asked if he could at least turn my character into a vampire. I told him no, but I had no problem enacting a fight between the two characters if he wanted. He then asked me if I "really thought I stood a chance against his 989 year old vampire who was a master assassin" or some such nonsense. I thought forget it! I don't even want to go there!

It's that kind of mentality that annoys me so much. People who assume their character is the best! But I'm quickly getting off topic here. . .

As for adjusting effort. . . I suppose I really only apply that when one of my characters is going against, say, the 989 year old master assassin vampire. In a game of D&D my character is killed in six seconds flat! But in the ISRP where there are no dice rolls my characters fight up to and beyond their limits just to keep from dying. . . This isn't D&D where we all have character sheets in front of us, this is story telling! If characters need to call on more strength to survive then so be it. . . It's not like it doesn't happen in real life. And no, I'm not saying that my character's can go "Super Saiyan" at will. If that's what you think I'm getting at, then you're completely missing the point.

But all of this is just my opinion. I think combats should be kept fair to add to everyone's enjoyment! There are some exceptions to the rule yes. . . but overall I believe in playing fair and making sure everyone has fun.

And I'm horribly misrepresenting myself here, lol. Combat is not really so large a part of chat for me. It's just what this thread is about. I actually prefer role-playing my characters' personality instead of his combat prowess.

Eidrog

 

[Dontella]

*boggles*

Character Levels and Power..

We've heard my thoughts, yes.. I'm not going to adjust mine, and I don't think anyone should have to.. I don't want folks to change just to try and fit it, that's not Roleplaying to me..

But I can understand not wanting to loose a character.. I know, I have my Dontella * hugs the cleric* I don't want to loose her, I rather like her, and as such I'm not going to permit someone to kill her, even if they have more power than she does and clearly could wipe her out..

How do I do this while being true to my character.. simple, I PM the other player, and work things out. The both of us ( or however many are involved ) set up the situation, and establish what will happen, and what consequences we are both willing to accept for our characters..

Does this mean I give up what my girl can do, absolutely not.. it means we both fight to the best of our abilities.. whatever those abilities happen to be, and do so respectfully for one another..

Now in Tabletop, this is never gonna happen * chuckles * but in Free Form, only the player decides a character's destiny, and no one else can change that.

It doesn't mean changing who your character is and what they can do, it does mean open communication between those your character may get involved with, so that folks know what expectations to have.

More communication, less adjustments... NO adjustments.

P.S. I like my character sheets.. *winks* though Conversion to 3e.. le sigh.