Character Theory Characters are more than just their powers

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

As a writer, I've gotten sick and tired of seeing people putting more effort on their powers and abilities rather than the characters themselves.

And as a fandom RPer, guys, you don't need nerf Superman. The Blue Boy Scout's personality is a better nerf than taking away his powers.

 

[Idea]

Having been focused on a project to update my older characters recently (meaning I had to go through and try to re-write a lot of stuff regarding those characters), something I noticed was that I was having a much easier time dealing with things like powers or backstory (and even then, easier with powers than backstory) than personality, not even remotely by a close amount. On one hand, even actively attempting to diversify the characters without the constraints of having to make them work for a specific RP I still found myself employing certain concepts repeatedly across many characters. This is because diversity of personality doesn't exist in type, it exists in scales. Everyone has the same "parameters of personality" if you will, just to a greater or lesser extent. For example, everyone fits somewhere between "workaholic" and "extremely lazy", with a more balanced in-between being perhaps "hard working". On the other hand, there are times when I built characters around certain powers I wanted, or maybe I had a really hard to explain power idea or one that required more complexity while I didn't have as much solid ground for the rest of the character.

That said, these reasons are pretty minor and overall apply mostly to me personality. I think there are two much bigger reasons for why some people focus more on powers and abilities.

The first of those is that unlike backstory or personality, people almost universally tend to assume powers have to be established upfront. Indeed from my experience most people also believe backstory and personality go upfront as well, but the simple fact is not all do, and some only partially do. The majority of roleplayers from what I can tell at the very least take themselves to be discovery writers (and I say "take themselves to be" because it seems to be that this trend is more about immediate gratification than it is about what works best for their writing necessarily), this is, they develop the character and story by writing them rather than coming up with them and then writing using that concept. However, even such roleplayers would be hard-pressed to suggest just coming up with their character's powers as they go along. As a result of this, the reason why such a roleplay would not have the rest of character as defined as the powers is because the only already existing part of their character is the powers, and they intend or are used to formulating the rest of the character as they write.

The second reason is that powers are just more immediately exciting than backstory or personality. It's not difficult to see why someone might get excited over coming up with an interesting power and thinking about the cool things that could come out of it- personalities and backstories though, become exciting from how they interact with the story and other characters, and how over time they can build up into spectacular character arcs. The character being stubborn isn't particularly exciting until you learn to see it as an opportunity to create some big mistakes and picture the heart-wrenching time your character has to live with the consequences of it. A character being competitive is at its best when they have a good rival that is competitive like them. Even backstory, usually far more inherently exciting than personality, still has some of this effect as it needs to be woven into the narrative or the character dynamics before its potential can really shine.

Fundamentally the solution to these problems is simply a shift in mentality, to approach character design with more long-term thinking and without cutting corners "I'll figure it out later" style. However, any change of mentality is an unrealistic expectation. A more practical solution would be to encourage the early establishment of character dynamics. A lot of the issues I've been able to identify in terms of the priority of backstory and personality stem from the fact that gratification from them is a long-term thing that requires characters interacting and establishing their dynamics towards each other and in a group first. As such, if you can create those connections early on, it would go a long way to make it more exciting to think about the personalities and backstories, seeing how they can be woven together and play off one another. Involving the group in the character creation, promoting the discussion of character ideas and establishing potential character relations (siblings, friends, lovers, parents and children, coworkers, boss and employees, enemies, rivals, any kind of relations) would be the solution I would recommend.

Either way, I hope this helps. Best of luck and happy RPing!

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

Personally, I find the over focus on powers, as in the whole OMG! THAT'S OP! thing to be rather dull.

 

[Idea]

Personally, I find the over focus on powers, as in the whole OMG! THAT'S OP! thing to be rather dull.

"OMG! That's OP!" in the sense of someone complaining about it, or someone being excited for it?

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

"OMG! That's OP!" in the sense of someone complaining about it, or someone being excited for it?

complaining about immortality. Sorry for not making it clear in the OP, I was multitasking. I say that Immortality isn't really OP of a power since it isn't also invincibility and let's be fair, dying is a mercy at times.

 

[Idea]

complaining about immortality. Sorry for not making it clear in the OP, I was multitasking. I say that Immortality isn't really OP of a power since it isn't also invincibility and let's be fair, dying is a mercy at times.

Ah yeah for sure. Though it does depend on the context- it primary threat in the roleplay is death I think I can understand why immortality would pose an issue.

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

Ah yeah for sure. Though it does depend on the context- it primary threat in the roleplay is death I think I can understand why immortality would pose an issue.

well duh. Tho, I still think people can be hyper sensitive about powers and what is or isn't OP

 

[Idea]

well duh. Tho, I still think people can be hyper sensitive about powers and what is or isn't OP

I suppose.

 

[nerdy tangents]

So I think my solution to this is actually more focus on powers ::

1. I look to the world building. How do people gain powers in this world? Are people born with them? Are they given to people? Do people manifest them due to a specific trigger?

2. How does the character use their powers? Not in a moral sense but in a literal sense. If the characters power is say probability manipulation how does it work? Do they literally see probability of certain outcomes and alter them? Do they create energy that manipulates probability according to their wants? Do they cast spells?

3. Lastly once you have specifics down then look at weaknesses. Make sure the weaknesses are outside the characters control. Also if it’s a fighting type world than there must be at least one weakness that other people can use.

No personality based weaknesses unless the power comes from personality. Ex. If Your powers are fueled by joy and your character has depressive episodes that’s fine. But you don’t get to decide when the depressive episodes hit. You can RNG or roll a dice or some other mechanism of randomly deciding when the character gets depressed and just write an in universe reason for it.

I think powers being hyper focused on is a good thing. You want people to put effort into coming up with specific uses and limitations.

The problem comes when people’s focus is not split evenly. If they focus more on what sounds nice and less on how it works. But I find usually just asking follow up questions help. If they can’t answer three simply questions

1. where do the powers come from
2. how do they work?
3. how does my character counter them?

Then you can scrap the power idea and try again.

 

[Crow]

What's the point of calling immortality broken in a roleplay where you're not going to kill anyone off anyhow?

No personality based weaknesses unless the power comes from personality.

I wholly disagree. Traits like pride, honour and being dumb can be good balancers for powers. And yes, even a certain type of morality can be one.

Heck, being dumb is how a lot of broken Jojo characters get balanced.

If a character overcomes these weaknesses, that's just them going up the ladder, a type of development. That's good.

If you've got players that don't know how to play around this or love to abuse power, well... that's on you. Get better players or teach your players to be better.

But yeah, people are seeing characters as more powerlevels lately. That damn Death Battle and Vs Battles Wikis really rot the old noggin.

 

[Idea]

If you've got players that don't know how to play around this or love to abuse power, well... that's on you. Get better players or teach your players to be better.

If you need to get better players then the problem is the players, even if its your responsibility as GM to acknowledge that problem and fix it.

 

[Crow]

There was a thing slipping my mind that I want to talk about.

People seem so against being 'overpowered' to the point where they fail to realise what it can do.

Say you have a setting where being 'overpowered' makes you be seen as a threat to humanity. Nice little premise, sets up for a good plot.

Then someone wants to make a version where characters aren't OP because being OP is baaaad, completely missing the point. What's the threat if everyone has the power scale of a porcupine dude? What's the threat if your character has wind powers equivalent to a ceiling fan? What's the threat if your contact-based abilities can be negated by wearing a thick turtleneck?

I guess at the end of it all, people shouldn't be afraid to go beyond their comfortable power scale if it helps tell the stories they want to tell. At the end of the day - it's a case-by-case.

 

[Idea]

Then someone wants to make a version where characters aren't OP because being OP is baaaad, completely missing the point. What's the threat if everyone has the power scale of a porcupine dude? What's the threat if your character has wind powers equivalent to a ceiling fan? What's the threat if your contact-based abilities can be negated by wearing a thick turtleneck?

Well, the way something is usually rated as overpowered has one of two sources:
1. A relative view: Things are overpowered if the power level is exponentially higher from one player to the rest, or if one player's "build" makes it effectively impossible to "win" against them (with win in airquotes because the actual win conditions are something very roleplay-dependent)

2. A closer to objective view: Something is overpowered if the simple use logical use of that thing makes creating an appropriate challenge/threat for the character too difficult.

Overpowered characters in settings where the character's abilities are supposed to be absurdly powerful will usually take up much more #1 than #2, this is, the abilities will be reviewed as OP or not relative to the other players (at least in theory. Practical application often falls victim to precedent bias [either favoring or being harsher with newer entries, simply due to the GM having already allowed characters in] and favoritism).

Basically the term "overpowered" has different meanings which can range from more objective to more relative in nature, and the intended power level will often determine where the word falls in that scale.

Also, regardless of the setting, some form of cap should strive to be maintained, just to try to keep the pissing contest under control.

 

[nerdy tangents]

Crow i think the easiest way to understand OP character problem is this : It’s when a player breaks the plot.

If a player creates a character that breaks the plot than they are OP. If that character can kill everyone, control everyone, fix all plot related obstacles, etc. than it is OP regardless of actual power level.

And the reason people are against it is obvious, if the plot is broken than it’s a waste of everyone else’s times to participate.

 

[Owlbear]

Say you have a setting where being 'overpowered' makes you be seen as a threat to humanity. Nice little premise, sets up for a good plot.

Then someone wants to make a version where characters aren't OP because being OP is baaaad, completely missing the point. What's the threat if everyone has the power scale of a porcupine dude? What's the threat if your character has wind powers equivalent to a ceiling fan? What's the threat if your contact-based abilities can be negated by wearing a thick turtleneck?

I feel like you're arguing against a point nobody is making. I mean, you can still have balanced characters that are relatively strong and capable of posing a threat.

Edit: Also, just want to add that the reverse of this situation is much more common than the one you have described. Don't think I've ever actually seen someone run a setting on a lower powerscale than it had in canon.

 

[Funnier President]

Well, I mean generally what classifies as OP is like a piece of paper at the tip of a mountain- one wrong blow, and it tumbles down in OP. Its a delicate line between strong and OP, and few people seem to have the ability to make characters that stay in strong.

 

[Jet]

well duh. Tho, I still think people can be hyper sensitive about powers and what is or isn't OP

The community is filled with annoying power gamers who want to be the protag, and have abilities well beyond that of their peers. That breeds resentment in other members (rightfully so) because during combat they're reduced to side characters, who get completely overshadowed.

That doesn't mean everyone should make really strong characters, because weak characters have a place, and a good place at that. This isn't me disparaging weak characters. But if I make a main-line fighter, I shouldn't be severely overshadowed by some broken monstrosity who vastly outclasses my fighter. There should be a vague equality between the strong characters, where wins are decided by match-ups instead of raw power difference. If not, it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

-

Crow

Though some RPs have abysmally low starting points, for the most part, what people want is balance. That means a couple weaknesses and limitations on powers.

For example, the standard super strength character is limited by range. But if someone makes one of them and adds the ability to "flash step" (anime thing) or makes them an expert marksman with a gun, or gives them an extra power like limb extension... That's when there's a problem because the supposed weakness is removed. That's not the best example of being OP, but that's the basic idea. It's about legitimate weaknesses, and ways to lose. If a character doesn't have those, combined with good offense, it's ridiculous to expect other people to be okay with it.

It's also impossible to regulate everything as a GM. A big thing people do is power sneaking, aka they make a power seem balanced on paper and in practice it's OP. There's also the fact that interest checks get random people to join, so unless you have a good group already, you can't know who makes OP characters in advance. You might say "just boot them" but what if they're an active member who constantly posts? What if they're friends with people OOC? What if booting them will shoot your RP in the foot?

The answer is you negotiate with them and make them change, but so many power gamers will work around limits you place on them. I'm not saying it's impossible to regulate them, but it's not as simple as you think.

 

[Phantom Thief of Hearts]

That doesn't mean everyone should make really strong characters, because weak characters have a place, and a good place at that. This isn't me disparaging weak characters. But if I make a main-line fighter, I shouldn't be severely overshadowed by some broken monstrosity who vastly outclasses my fighter. There should be a vague equality between the strong characters, where wins are decided by match-ups. If not, it leaves a bad taste in everyone else's mouth.

Agreed with this 100%. I kinda like having my guys sell for a bit to make the other look good. It helps make a compelling narrative.

It's like wrestling.

 

[Funnier President]

Agreed-

 

[Jules8008]

Funnily, I switched from most of my OCs having powers to having barely any OCs with powers. From my dozen of OCs, only about 4 or so have abilities. The rest are normal everyday character with their own knacks and ticks. Mostly because I put too much effort into their abilities and made it their main selling point.

But personally? I can't imagine giving most of my OCs any powers or abilities. I couldn't imagine giving my profile picture OC, Karim, any abilities. Like...he's just a generic human? He is literally one of my weakest characters and gets called "Twig" by another OC because he is so goddamn basic.

 

[Owlbear]

I disagree, I think it's perfectly alright to focus more on your character's abilities than on, say, their personality. I mean, a character can start off a bit two-dimensional and then grow during roleplay but (at least in my experiences) you kind of need to have your character's powers more firmly developed or the roleplay is gonna end up a mess.

Yes, this only applies to roleplays where combat plays a part but let's be honest that's like 99.99% of all superpower roleplays anyways.