System/Mechanics Do you prefer item/power based advancement?

[The Great Sage]

Do you measure the growth of your characters in terms of ability, power and prestige?

Would you be happy to play a character that gets weaker over time?

Do you consider powerful or unique items to be part of the character, or do you only really count innate skill and strength?

I'm very interested to hear your opinions about this.

 

[Idea]

Do you measure the growth of your characters in terms of ability, power and prestige?

Well, I consider the personality aspects of a character and the power and skill aspects of a character to be separate. This is a matter of classification first and foremost (a character flaw and a character handicap are two different things at a fundamental level), though in RP in particular (as opposed to a regular story such as from a book) this also takes the role of helping in balancing characters. A lot of people have a lot of trouble keeping a consistent or well-defined personality in RP (if they even bothered to have one at all) and the convenience of ignoring character personality in favor of making that character look good/not get in trouble/whatever other thing that is good for the character or plot is something which takes a level of discipline to learn to put aside. A level of discipline which, at least as far as my experience goes, most people do not have (if they don't actively fight against the idea of discipline in a hobby from the ground up).

So balancing a power with a personality flaw may work in a novel, but in a roleplay it can be a big risk.

But digression aside, yes, I do measure character growth in terms of ability, power and prestige (mostly the first two), as well as their growth from a personality/behavior perspective. However, I do not lump those two things together. A character growing from a personality perspective is not related to a growth in power nor vice versa so it shouldn't be counted in the same category. Of course there's systems or specific characters where this doesn't apply, but it is a rule of thumb.

Would you be happy to play a character that gets weaker over time?

In 99% of cases, no. This is both because A) Growth in power is often a reward for one's efforts, to grow weaker over time would be as though I am getting punished for sticking with the RP and B) because if my character grows weaker and the same does not apply to the other characters I may stop having the ability to keep up with them and become relegated to a side character...or less.

Nonetheless, there is that 1% of cases where it could happen. What are these cases like? Well, here's the conditions:
------> The story has to be dramatic, so that the dramatic exploration of the weakening (which yes, would itself be a requirement for me) is not out of place nor do I become excluded in the overall tone of the narrative.

-----> The weakening character needs to have a past significance so great that even if they are weakening they don't end up blending into the background. This does not mean they have to have been a great person like a king or a mighty hero. They can, but at times if the actual important thing is negleted it can actually be a detriment. No, the important thing is their importance to the other characters. I could see myself playing a hero who saved lives and is now scorned as the powers granted to them to save the world slowly leave their body, or I could play an orphanage director weakening with age but who is still cherished by the people they helped raise. I could happy with those roles, but that significance of the character is paramount. If the feeling of reward and accomplishment from power is gone, then it falls to their legacy to take up the mantle.

----> The other player(s) need(s) to be sufficiently story-oriented and preferably willing to plan things out. As I mentioned lingering significance of the character and the tone of the narrative are very important for the enjoyment of a character like this. Neither of those can be brought out to full capacity by someone who is unable to be mindful of foreshadowing, pacing, scene structure. Naturally I don't mean you need professional studying on that, heck I don't have that myself, but a very basic sense for "in this scene, we just met someone very significant to that other character, so it's the appropriate time to give them room to show new sides of the character and let them mull over this".
Without fellow players who can think in such terms then even if you have the other two things on paper, you will be hard pressed to have their benefits in actuality.

Do you consider powerful or unique items to be part of the character, or do you only really count innate skill and strength?

Unless it's like, a mechanical modification of their body or some soul projected item or whatever, I wouldn't consider an item a part of the character at all. It's still part of the character's power as far as balancing and rewards are concerned, but classification-wise it's definitely not a part of the character itself.

'm very interested to hear your opinions about this.

Hope you like what you see

 

[The Great Sage]

Idea , a well thought out and intelligent response. I don't think you've said anything that shocks me too much, which is good since it says to me that I'm thinking about things properly.

 

[Silanon]

Do you measure the growth of your characters in terms of ability, power and prestige?

Partially, but it feels more like a means to an end than the goal itself. In dice rp's like Pathfinder and DnD, for example, it's nice to roll more dice, get new skills, and get access to special gear because someone of the higher society fancies the work of my group; but the real question for me is usually: What new thing does this allow me to do? Not in terms of the skills itself, but in terms of "how does this change my character"? Does it allow my paladin to jump forward and save someone who would've surely died a level ago because I wasn't strong enough? Does it mean that my hacker can get closer to unravel the secrets she's after? Does it even matter for my character? I've had characters who became stronger in theory, but never really changed because of it. And they still grew in their personality, became wiser, cared about different things, came closer to their goals. So - yes, it's some form of measure, but I'd usually not ask "did I get more abilities, get stronger, and get new connections?". Instead, I'd ask "did my character change because of it, and how did they change?" And that's what matters a lot more, to me.

Would you be happy to play a character that gets weaker over time?

It depends. The question I'd ask is: What do I get in return? Does it get my character somewhere? If I just gradually lose strength, and that's it - then there's no point why I'm losing my power. As an example: If I'm playing a desperate man, willing to do anything to free his wife from hell - and he's making a pact that leaves him weaker, but gets him one circle of hell deeper, and thus closer to the goal; then maybe we're talking. Maybe he's sacrificing power again and again, until he can't be sure if it's still enough. Maybe the simple battles he fought at the beginning become long and draining, and maybe the group around him slowly loses hope just like he does, but it's too late to turn around. Then there's a story in that, and maybe the characters lose their strength, but their growth in personality might make up for it tenfold.

So: If there's a good reason for it, and if the right people play together, meaning that the developments between the characters are such that the personalities really make a difference - then maybe. If you can tell the same story without the power loss, then let me grow my powers - it means that I get new things to do, new things to try, new ways to let my character grow. See, if i gradually lose power - then the story on its own has to offer me plenty of ways to let my character develop over time - constantly, because there's never a point where I can say: "Story be damned, folks, but look; I can throw fireballs, now!" That's a tall order, I'd say. It' s hard to tell a story that always allows all the characters to grow.

Do you consider powerful or unique items to be part of the character, or do you only really count innate skill and strength?

Again: It depends. Does the item tell a story that's so interwoven with the character that they'd be different without it? In one of my games, I'm playing a particular swordsman. He tried to become a paladin once, and failed. A surgery gave him inhuman strength, but in return he slowly goes insane. Later, a dying paladin gave him his sword so that he could slay a mighty demon. By now, the demon is dead. He still has the sword. He'd rather die than to give it away. It stands for all he tries to be, for as long as he can. That sword - I'd consider it part of him (and I probably did a very poor job at explaining why). He has another sword, too. He earnt it as loot. It's good. I'll probably pick up two-weapon fighting to make use of it. But it's not the same. It's fancy, unique and has a nice backstory as well, plus a great ability; but for now, it's just a tool. If he loses it - nothing would change. I'd find another blade eventually. The first one - it's irreplaceable.

It's hard to draw a line. Let me just say that in all the different rp's I'm in, this sword is probably the only thing I can think of that qualifies. Likely because I designed my character around it, pretty much. And I've found tons of cool unique items in all different kinds of worlds. So maybe the the answer should be "no, but there has been this one, weird exception".