When you run a campaign — using any RPG, in any genre — do you see a correlation between the PCs’ starting power level in mechanical terms and the amount of non-mechanical character development that happens during the game?
In other words, if the PCs start out fairly wimpy in terms of stats and abilities, does that lead to more or less development of their personalities, relationships and interactions with other characters than if they begin the game at a higher power level?
In all honesty, it depends on the nature of those relationships and interactions. They might have a powerful patron (i.e. – Lady E. in the published Eberron adventures). In my campaign, I gave some of the players certain connections specific to their character background, which is a great way to reward good PC background stories that integrate well into the setting.
It also sets up a non-mechanical method for them to become more socially powerful as they gain a reputation from their adventures, whether it’s becoming a high-priest of a church, becoming a military officer, or becoming an agent of an organization. In fact, D&D has a system for organizations and which resources are available as a member of various levels.
I think it is less dependent on game system than it is on setting and GM. If the world the GM creates (and I’m not talking about the detail specific things, but how the GM portrays the world and the possibilities in it) has opportunities, or the GM makes the player feel like they have opportunities, then the players will try to raise in power and in character development.
I’ve also seen it work the opposite way. The GM didn’t give enough opportunities, and the players tried to trump him with the book. Thankfully I wasn’t the GM in this case, but one of the downtrodden players.
The Game system becomes important in allowing a player to feel like he has choices, based on its progression dynamic. Something like DND, with a very set progression dynamic, has players chomping at the bit when they reach a new level to take their new spell or feat.
I don’t really consider this character development though. It is character advancement, and buying new powers. I consider it character development when the cleric of life has seen enough combat that he decides he is a little scarred, and buys customized armor, and then plays out his bitter nature. Having the framework of the system there can allow for that though. The player wants something new and cool that he sees in the book, then he has to decide how and why his character who go for that. The GM then figures that out and helps him get there in Game, hopefully. It all depends on play style and what is available.
In my experience, players who start with weak characters spend more time min/maxing in order to survive than those that start a little more powerful. (This is assuming a campaign setting with risk of death.) Players often set aside their pre-play concept when faced with inability to succeed in the face of challenges in front of them.
Obviously, it’s very relative. In some campaign worlds, 1st level D&D characters are already heroic, while in others they can barely survive.
I’ve been playing GURPS for a long time, and I’ve seen a general tendency for low starting point characters to create a character concept to justify their min/max buys, rather than start with a well-developed character concept and build off of that.
In my experience, not enough to matter.
When compared with things like player personality, gaming style, danger level of the setting, and the influence of the rest of the group, something like this is pretty negligible.
In my experience, yes. When characters are weaker, they have to think more. They have to rely on external resources (contacts, NPCs, each other) more often. And that results in better roleplaying.
Unstoppable god-tanks don’t need to think, interact, or roleplay to any significant degree. The better gamers will try to anyway, but there’s less incentive.
I’m with the majority… it depends. Time seems to be the most significant factor involved in developing a personality.
I’ve enjoyed games at both extremes. After a couple years of play, I believe that Kogor and Draifen could interact for hours without a GM prompt. They grew from 1st level D&D characters.
On the other hand, I believe Jimmy and Ethan could talk for hours without an external prompt… and they’re Mage: The Ascension characters, who start off very competent and grow moreso very quickly.
In my group, I´m experiencing something similar. I´ve always given then low level characters, so they would have to learn how to survive.. which they barely did until 5th level or so.
Now that I´ve given them the option to start from 5th level already with lots of money and with the option to buy whatever magical item they like, they have built “god-tanks” as mentioned in a previous post.
Some players have to understand that although it´s fun to kick every Monster´s arses, I wanted them to try new stuff, experience the option to be powerful, but with responsabilities… and they are not! So, they will have to face some consequences right? As uncle Ben said once “With power comes responsability!”
As a player, I prefer to have in my hands a very powerful(maybe not powerful, but PC with a handful of options) so I don´t necessarily have to put them all in use! It´s not just because you found a strong almighty magic sword that you have to give up being a monk or try to kill every single thing that moves!
example: Jack Sparrow fights well with a sword, but he doesn´t do it often… speaking is funnier and “safer”, savvy?
(ScottM) I’m with the majority… it depends. Time seems to be the most significant factor involved in developing a personality.
Ditto on the majority part — I tend to agree that there are lots of factors that influence character development.
With enough time, I’d guess that the starting point doesn’t make much of a difference (that factor loses importance in inverse proportion to time played). But right out of the gate, I can see this making a difference.
In skill-driven games (GURPS, etc.), for example, I have any easier time developing a strong personality for my character when I can be an expert in one or two things from the start. That might just be me, though.
Calybos and Dan: You both referenced D&D — have you had similar experiences with other systems?
Martin, I know that it´s truly possible to have the most interesting character development in games like D&D.
I have some experience playing Storytelling and other system(GURPS not included) and they seem to be less heroic, thus giving room to personality development of the character. Something closer to reality maybe? I´ve never thought about it properly…
Well, It seems that character development is related more to the players. The problem is: Most of them think they are playing some COMPUTER “RPG” GAMES… Where you just gather money, XP and better gadgets! No room at all to character personalities! If they roleplayed GANDALF, they would certainly enslave all Middle-Earth, destroy all the lesser things as the hobbits and detroy all evil that is: anything that you can burn with his staff!!!
I’ve never seen anything as bad as Dan has portrayed … but because I DM primarily for teens, I have found some truth in that.
Min-Maxing and XP counting really forces other aspects of character development into the backseat, and like Dan, I think the computer games are the reason why.
I’m not sure what the cure is … except when they see someone memorably portray a character that isn’t as blessed in the stats department.
To be fair, though, it’s a tough sell, getting the players to develop a background and a personality first — and let ability choices follow naturally. Their instinct is usually to do it in reverse order.
(Dan S.) Martin, I know that it´s truly possible to have the most interesting character development in games like D&D.
I agree. In some ways I think it takes a bit more work than with other types of RPG, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s not doable.
(Carolina) To be fair, though, it’s a tough sell, getting the players to develop a background and a personality first — and let ability choices follow naturally. Their instinct is usually to do it in reverse order.
Part of why this is — and this also ties my reply to Dan’s comment — is that the vast majority of RPGs put stats and stuff in front of the section about personality and background.
There’s often a sentence or two about coming up with a personality kernel before diving in, but that’s quite different than emphasising the non-mechanical aspects of character creation.
And at least for me, there’s definitely value in starting with stats (after the personality kernel) sometimes. It provides a nice bit of direction as to what the character would be like, and bouncing back and forth between the mechanics and the fluffy bits tends to work best for me.
After all that was said…
something started bugging me…
Is is really possible to play a character with beliefs or personality far too alien to the player´s?
Isn´t that directly related to how players develop their characters?
for example: a computer rpg driven player will prefer to max her fighting power while the “actor” will try to perform a living character, often forgetting about the fighting skills of her character.
I always mention that someday I will play a Villager/Farmer with a pitchfork!
One of the most interesting character my friend has ever created was an old retired warrior that had sworn never to lay hands on another sword in his life… when his family is killed, he seeks revenge only with his shield! neat….
(Dan Shiro) Is is really possible to play a character with beliefs or personality far too alien to the player´s?
Absolutely. I think this comes down to a mix of player skill and mental flexibility. I’d have trouble playing a PC with completely alien beliefs (I’m not a great player), but it would be interesting to try.
I’ve always wanted to try playing a Red Talon garou in Werewolf: The Apocalypse for exactly this reason. The idea of trying to see the game from the perspective of a wolf in a human world — and a wolf who’d rather there were a lot fewer humans in that world — would be a challenge.