Overpowered characters- Is it ever ok?

[BumblingBear]

The only real liability in having an overpowered character is in the way it might impact the screen time and niche value (which is also screen time) of the other players.

DFRPG has less of a focus on "niche protection" because, with the right imagination, every character can contribute meaningfully to every conflict through the use of Maneuvers. As for screen time, if the GM can ensure that everyone gets it - whether by winging it, or by pulling on each character's Aspects by turn - then it won't be a problem. Especially if the bearer of the ostensibly overpowered character is secure enough to let others have the spotlight from time to time.

I do not mean to say that one should allow or encourage a disparity in actual "character level" (whatever that ends up meaning in a given RPG). Even if one person is allowed a super-efficient build, then the other players should at least be in the same ballpark. RPGs which give you the choice of playing either "Buffy" or one of her associates still tend to have some mechanism to even things out, and it generally comes down to having more Action/Drama/Fate Points than the leader.

I think it's really hard to have an "overpowered" character in this game.  What is overpowered?

Generally, due to the way the skills are organized, if a character is awesome in the social arena, they will probably be lacking in combat.  If they're awesome at defense, offensive will be lacking.  There is give and take.  I really think Evil Hat did a great job with the system.

I think rather than "power level", the deciding factor of whether everyone will have fun or not is the player interactions and what kind of game is being played vs what kind of game the players (and the GM) wanted to play.  If there is a large disparity somewhere in there, it can make playing seem like work.

As a GM, if I had a player who completely pulled out the min/max card and went pure artificer with 700+ shifts of power riding around in items all the time, I would give the group lots of random attacks by low level monsters or force the group to get through a screen of mobs in order to find an item or clue.  That dissipates charges, and it also can cause collateral damage that gives great compels.

On the flip side, that artificer will probably be rubbish in social interactions, so another character will have to step up to the plate and deal with that.

Really, I think in this system everyone can have fun as long as a GM compels properly.

One of the most common complaints I hear about this game from people posting in the forums is that they either don't know how to use compels effectively, or they don't feel their GM is using compels like they should.

Compels and the FATE system in general seems to be the hump that everyone has to get over  - players and GM.

Once that is accomplished, players and GM can have a lot of fun.

[toturi]

Why are you trying to assign blame? Isn't the objective of the game for everyone to have fun?

I am saying that everyone should be responsible for having fun, especially their own. The objective is for everyone to have fun, but I feel that we should each do our own part to contribute towards that objective.

[Remy Sinclair]

In any game, it is possible to manipulate the rules in order to give you better abilities. In the Dresden Files, this can be done through rebate manipulation- and, at least in my opinion, isn't always a bad thing.

As a GM, if I know the way someone plays in general, and know they can responsibly handle a character that would, in some people's hands, be gamebreaking- I would be all right with that.

They would, of course, have to abide by a few rules, such as structuring the character so they could not steal the spotlight from other players, and making sure they aren't going to go berserk on anything that would be detrimental to the game.

What about you guys?

I ran a Mage: The Ascension game for nearly 2 years. This is game is nothing compared to Mages with Aretes of 3-5 and my group was 5 players.

I ran Dresden for a few months but the game ended because of scheduling.

It takes a GM to be creative. Hell look at the source material, Dresden Files Novels. How often is Harry challenged and by what? He cannot handle everything by himself. If you as a GM are being a push over and not being creative of course you bitch about Power Gaming.

Oh yeah and I ran a Champions Game for 2 years with a group of 4. So  Power Gaming gripes mean nothing for me. It is easy to come up with ideas it just takes time. Bring up the nastier stuff and do some research. GMing for Dresden takes planning not just tossing a game together like you do in D&D.

Games like Dresden, Mage: The Ascension and Champions take a lot of planning and do not forget to use the player character flaws against them as in Dresden their Troubled Aspects or Aspects like Chivalry is Not Dead Damn it!

Dresden's Aspect System is great and you can force things on the player or if they say no on that, they have to spend a Fate Point which could hurt them later. Remember no matter how powerful they are. These characters are human and have flaws. If someone is playing a character that is not acting human IE nothing effects me. He is not the player for this game.

I had no issues running my Submerged game but GMing Dresden is not for everyone. I admit my Superhero GMing and Mage: The Ascension and Mage: The Awakening background helped me a lot with running my game.

However, GMing something like Dresden Files is not for everyone. Just because you like the game does not mean you can run it.

[sinker]

However, GMing something like Dresden Files is not for everyone. Just because you like the game does not mean you can run it.

I respectfully disagree. Running YOUR kind of Dresden files game might not be for everyone, but I'd say that most gamers could definitely use the DFRPG and enjoy it.

[BumblingBear]

I respectfully disagree. Running YOUR kind of Dresden files game might not be for everyone, but I'd say that most gamers could definitely use the DFRPG and enjoy it.

I kind of agree with both of you.

I think that if a player enjoys how a GM runs his or her games, they would enjoy the DFRPG as well.

RPGs aren't magic - personalities and how they mesh have to be taken into account.  While I don't believe the DFRPG is any harder to run than any other, whether a player enjoys playing or not has a lot to do with the personalities involved. 

Just imho

[stabbald]

I am saying that everyone should be responsible for having fun, especially their own. The objective is for everyone to have fun, but I feel that we should each do our own part to contribute towards that objective.

I would agree that some degree of responsibility lies with the player to create a character that will be fun to play. That said I subscribe to the "Communist" style of roleplaying, in which every player and the GM also has a responsibility to help make sure the game is fun for everyone.

It can be fun to break systems and create characters with huge numbers, but unless all of the other players are willing to play background roles or have equally powerful characters you should probably rethink it.

[Chris_Fougere]

Heh..powergaming.  Wonder how many people here have played Scion:) 

In the end, if everyone at the table is having fun, then power levels and character optimization doesn`t matter.  Everyone is there on a Saturday night (or what have you) to be entertained and it is everyone`s responsibility to not only make sure they`re having fun but so is everyone else.  The Cortex Plus books (Smallville and Leverage to date) have very clear and very good guidelines of the responsibilities for both players and GM and I tend to use them a lot.

[Remy Sinclair]

I respectfully disagree. Running YOUR kind of Dresden files game might not be for everyone, but I'd say that most gamers could definitely use the DFRPG and enjoy it.

What do you mean my kind of Dresden Game? Dresden with many concepts is about power and depending on the level run you can get extremely powerful characters.

I have never had an issue getting players for my games. People love how I run. I am story first and system second. Always have and always will be. I like extensive backgrounds and Dresden System covers that in CC.

Now not all GMs no matter what their desire cannot run some games. Sometimes it just is not their style.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

One of my buddies could run the hell out of a Werewolf:TA and D&D game. He had two very successful long run games, however, whenever he ran something like Champions, Star Wars or Shadowrun. He could not do it. He loved the books and had them all but no matter what he did his games were never successful.

He would go back to his D&D or Werewolf: TA games running new campaigns he was fine and he had long games once again.

Someone else (me) came in and ran Champions, I was extremely successful. However when I tried running D&D, I failed. D&D. I would go and run Mage: TA or Star Wars and I was successful again. Yeah, I cannot run D&D to save my ass. So laugh but it is true. I also never had a successful Werewolf: TA game unlike my friend the other GM.

In my friend's games his D&D and Werewolf: TA, I did great and had a lot of fun in the games he ran. When he ran something outside of what he was good at he would fall on his face. He played great in the games I ran but could not GM them.

Why everyone has strengths and weaknesses as a GM. Some people are stronger and better run one game than they are another. It sucks but it is true.

Just like players cannot play every game genre and game system either.

I believe to my core that some games are not for all people. Some can play them. Some can GM them. Some can do neither. Some can either just GM or run a game genre.

I have seen someone take a Game System no one says could be run and turn it into a beautiful game that we all enjoy. I have seen GMs put together great games but the players themselves could not handle it. I have seen GMs falling on their face as the players are all doing a great job. I have seen the whole thing fall apart even on a game that is suppose to be easy to run.

It takes the GM and the Players not just the System.

For Dresden Files RPG, my gaming group in Aurora could handle it, because we were that kind of group. We were together for over a decade.

My group in Kingman was more a hack n slash group that just did not like in depth character creation and would never have sat around to build the city the game was taking place in. They would not have understood the game yet we had many great games we played!

My current group in the Gallup/Grants area, we are so into building the City of New Orleans that we are having another game session to finish it up! We are all very into it. I am actually a player in this one ( a rarity because all my friends keep pushing me to run). We already cut our teeth on my old campaign and now we know what we are doing this time around.

The Dresden RPG does change a lot of the traditional ways of building a game and for the better.

[sinker]

I just don't understand how a GM can "Fail." Games fall apart sometimes. That happens regardless of anyone's ability. But in my twenty+ years of gaming (as a player and as a GM) I don't think I've ever seen anyone "fail." If you understand your players you can always create a story that they will enjoy, regardless of the system/setting you're using.

Simply saying "some games aren't for some people" is an attitude that bugs me. It's giving up. It's much better to understand the person and find the part of the game that fits them. All games are varied and expansive enough to allow people to pick parts that they want to emphasize and parts they want to downplay. As an example I love white wolf's settings. I think they have a lot of depth to the story. I hate actually Larping. I'm uncomfortable enough in day to day social settings that it makes it hard. So I run Wraith (for example) as a tabletop game. My players and I still enjoy it. Have I "failed"?

[DFJunkie]

I just don't understand how a GM can "Fail." Games fall apart sometimes. That happens regardless of anyone's ability. But in my twenty+ years of gaming (as a player and as a GM) I don't think I've ever seen anyone "fail."

I think at this point we're getting into semantics.  I've been GMing regularly for about a decade, and I'd say that about 1/3 of my campaigns were indeed outright failures.  There was a GURPS Fantasy game in particular that really shit the bed.  If everyone at the table is bored at best or angry at worst, the game is a failure.

Simply saying "some games aren't for some people" is an attitude that bugs me. It's giving up.

Yes, it is, and some times giving up is smart.  My group is composed of people in their late twenties and early thirties.  They have full time jobs and relatively little time for learning rules and reading settings.  More complicated games with in-depth rules sets and character options are not for them.  It's just a fact.  

Now, when people use the phrase "some games aren't for some people" as a veiled insult, insinuating that a poster lacks the maturity or intelligence to grasp the game under discussion, then yeah, it's a crap statement.

My players and I still enjoy it. Have I "failed"?

Of course not.  Everyone having fun is the definition of success.  However, if success is a meaningful concept then failure must be as well.  If no one has fun the game has failed.  

On further reflection if you mean "there is no objective external definition of failure," to refute arguments along the lines of "all you did in your W:TA game was splatterpunk, you fail as a storyteller even though your entire troupe (yech, I hate whitewolf's starbucks speak) had fun" or similar obnoxious bullshit, then yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Remy Sinclair]

How is some games are not for some people and insult? Nor is it veiled insult.

I am stating my opinion based on GMing and playing for 20 years. Some people have difficulties dealing with some games and have difficulties running them. No insult nothing veiled. Hell I even toss in examples of my own failures and others successes.

I don't think everyone can do everything. It is my opinion and I stated examples of what I have seen and experienced over the years of 20 years of storytelling.

If you disagree with me that is fine. That is your opinion. I am stating my opinion. We do not have to agree, but saying someone is insulting another because you disagree with their statement is wrong. 

This whole thread is asking our opinions. We all come from different backgrounds and have different beliefs. No one answer is for everyone. Someone is asking our opinions so we state them.

I states my opinion and giving examples. You can disagree with me I have no issues with that. You can pick me apart and state your own opinion and examples why.

But do not say I am insulting someone when I am just stating my opinion. That is all I have an issue with.

[DFJunkie]

I wasn't referring to you.  I have definitely seen that attitude in action though, so I figured it was worth while to bring up.  Specifically in the mid to late nineties you couldn't swing a V:TM book without smacking some holier than though wannabe-actor who knows that the only way to correctly play a role playing game is to completely engage with tragedy and futility and blah blah blah.

Simply saying "some games aren't for some people" is an attitude that bugs me. It's giving up.

Yes, it is, and some times giving up is smart.  My group is composed of people in their late twenties and early thirties.  They have full time jobs and relatively little time for learning rules and reading settings.  More complicated games with in-depth rules sets and character options are not for them.  It's just a fact.  

I'm pretty much agreeing with your point here.

[sinker]

How is some games are not for some people and insult? Nor is it veiled insult.

Because it's exclusive and elitist. It's saying "no matter what you do, or who you are, you are not as good as me (or to remove the personal aspect if you prefer, you are not good enough for this)." That is how it is a little insulting to others. I went back and looked at your original opinion. If I have it wrong please correct me, but what I got from it is "people who can't deal with power gamers can never run DFRPG." If that is your opinion then I simply have to disagree. That kind of attitude really rubs me the wrong way. But you are right. We can simply disagree and leave it at that.

[ways and means]

I don't suppose someone can give an example of a power gamed character in DFRPG, I have the opinion that you can't really have a min-maxed character (with the notable exception of the 700 shift artificer) otherwise all you have is specialised characters. Specialised Combat characters can de-balance physical combat but then physical combat is less than a third of what DFRPG is about if they always kick ass in physical combat have more social combat etc.

[Remy Sinclair]

Because it's exclusive and elitist. It's saying "no matter what you do, or who you are, you are not as good as me (or to remove the personal aspect if you prefer, you are not good enough for this)." That is how it is a little insulting to others. I went back and looked at your original opinion. If I have it wrong please correct me, but what I got from it is "people who can't deal with power gamers can never run DFRPG." If that is your opinion then I simply have to disagree. That kind of attitude really rubs me the wrong way. But you are right. We can simply disagree and leave it at that.

I am not being elitist saying that. It is the issues I read on boards like for Mutant & Masterminds, GURPs etc as well as people posting a thousand times since this game started we need to power down the game right away.

Dresden Game depending on your group and starting power level can have a lot of power. Some GMs cannot handle that power nor have the background for it. Why I mentioned the games I ran. Hell they even have great suggestions on running games with a lot of power. I also said power level as well in my statement.

I should have said this to be more clear. If you think you cannot handle the power of a Submerged game don't run it run a lower leveled Dresden game. You do not need to be Submerged.

I said there is a lot of planning to do to run this. Dresden is about planning and spending hours working things out. This is not a plug and play system like D&D. (I do not hate D&D). There are not a thousand adventures and a 4 Monster Manuals.  It can be difficult to run if you do not have the experience in high powered genres with a versatile system. It is very tricky and FATE is very open system like GURPs and Champions. Mostly GURPs. I like FATE hell of a lot more than GURPs (which is a system I do not like).

Remember as I said as well. The characters are human and have flaws something you can exploit. Dresden has that happen to him all the time in the novels where even dealing with a simple matter can be hard if one of his Aspects comes into play. Talking to some Dresden GMs I know. Aspects seems to be the part many of them have difficulty running. One GM who did not have an issue compared the Aspects and Fate Point system to Deadlands with how chips are spent and used by both GM and Players.

I might not have been very clear and I apologize. My wife was sick last night and our 3 month old was being fussy as I wrote it late last night. Sadly my personality disorder may bleed through as well. Not my intent. I am trying to word myself carefully and not to offend.

I reread and edit before I post so I do not come off as a jerk. Sadly no matter how hard I try I do sometimes.