Watch the Footage

Dearest fellow TVTropers,

Touring the Roleplaying board often, It has come to my attention that the characters posted by the people from TVTropes, people supposedly against Mary Sues and Gary Stus are posting such overpowered characters. I’m rather appalled by this, and though I’m not going to throw names out here, I believe that at least most of us know who I’m talking about. I would also like to restate here that Mary Sues and Gary Stus do not have to refer to special-snowflake characters, but also characters that are overpowered beyond reckoning. Or just overpowered in general.

I may be completely new here, but I believe that gives me a better position to say this, as, having just about no connection to anyone here, I can better say this from a third-person perspective instead of one who’s been on the forum for perhaps months. I have also helped out balancing weapons, characters, and other items of note for a few games before, so I’m sure I know what I’m talking about.

Step 0: Re-read and redo your character
Just read your character again. If it even sounds like it wields vast quantities of power that the others can’t, redo it. You can keep your backstories, etc, but redo what your character is able to do. Don’t complain that you wrote paragraphs after paragraphs about it. Don’t say you’ve spent a long time working on your character concept, or that you think it’s the other guys that are underpowered.

It’s your fault, after all. Redo it.

Step 1: Compare your character to everyone elses’
So your character was trained since birth to use a weapon or hack or something. That’s great, but what can the other guys do? You were trained to be able to shoot an arrow such that it hits that guy a quarter-mile away right between the eyes, or you were one of the king’s best elite swordsmen. Sure. Check out what the other guys have first before hitting that ‘Post Reply’ button.

Step 2a: Check for the following facts, in your character’s Point of View:
a) I cannot take down more than one guy in my party at once
b) I cannot take down my entire party single-handedly
c) A monster that’s way above a friend’s level is not at my level.
d) I cannot ‘always lose because…
-…I never try’.
-…I fight with only a bit of my power’.
-…[whatever other various reasons]’.

If any of these are false, then go back to step 0.

Step 2b: Ask yourself the following questions:
a) Can I justify the need for my character’s powers?
bi) Is my character unneeding of healers?
bii) Is my character super-fast?
biii) Is my character a Stone Wall?
biv) Is my character able to deal out loads of damage in frontline combat?
bv) Is my character able to be very stealthy when needed?
c) Am I unsure if my character is overpowered or not?

And the most important question:
d) If this RP is a video game where power matters, would someone NOT pick my character, given everyone’s power level?

If the answer to is yes to more than 2 of the questions in b), go back to step 0.
If the answer to c) is Yes, PM your GM. Ask him/her if they're alright with it.
If the answer to a) or d) is No, go back to step 0.

Sure, you can bend reality to your whim, or create explosions where you want. The other guys in your party are just regular folks who know how to do things - your character’s overpowered. Your character can be lazy, abrasive, selfish or have a myriad of other different character/mental/psychological problems, but it doesn’t change the fact that your character can do almost everything your party can, and then some. He's just overshadowing everyone else now. No one likes being overshadowed.

Note that none of this post is concrete, as much of it changes with the context. The golden rule to follow, of course would be "If the GM allows it, then roll with it".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific examples:
-Manipulation of [anything here]

Unless the [anything here] is something really specific or nonsensical, like glasses or cows or whatever else, your character is overpowered. I think we all get the Touhou reference. You could justify it by saying that just about everyone in Touhou can manipulate something, but you forget that that specific universe fights with non-lethal, declared-during-battle, forced-to-be-fair spellcards that they have to create with the main character, Hakurei Reimu, regulating it. Not with killing of the other guy using their powers.

-‘My weapons allow me to…’
Maybe it’s not even you that has the power, but your weapons. Perhaps you can’t even use your powers proper, but with your weapons you can. Or perhaps you’re just an average John who knows how to use said weapon.

Unless you like your GM throwing things at you that try and get your weapons away from you every other night in the tavern, forget it. It’s overpowered. Just because it’s your weapon that does it does not make it not overpowered, just like how any game’s super-strong weapon having a long reload time doesn’t make it any less overpowered.

-‘It references A/It’s the end boss of B’
Sure, it references that series. Sure, it’s balanced there. But you forget that it’s a completely different universe where that character/weapon comes from. It’s like bringing Jack Rakan to a zombie apocalypse, or a solar-powered plasma rifle to caveman times.

What may be considered balanced in a specific universe may not be balanced in another. Check your character.

-‘It is unknown about...’
Stop right there. Don’t do things like this. It just fills your character with faux-mystery only needed in lore and wiki pages, not in character sheets. If you don’t want other players to know something, PM the GM. Saying that ‘her actual skill is unknown’ or ‘his actual power level is unknown’ is just plain Mary Sue-ish.

Unless your GM specifically puts a portion in your sheet there asking your character’s age or ability strength, don’t do this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s it for this post. More edits to come.

And remember that your grammar and spelling being absolutely flawless doesn’t make your character any less of a Mary Sue.

Check for balance.



Dr. J. H. Watson

Dear Mr. Watson,

I am writing this to speak with you about your guide. You see, while I may agree with you that some characters are in fact, overpowered, your arrogance and condescension are misplaced.

You have run into a simple issue. Your post, while well written and with impeccable grammar, has forgotten one simple thing. Balance. You see, although you can speak without bias, being a new forum member, you have neglected to see us for who we truly are.

Writers are, in fact, a strange breed. By nature we are loners, and seek out solitude to further our work. Some places, like TvTropes or even this forum, act as a safe haven for us. A place we can come to, and practise innate skills. RP’s are, by definition; a collective, collaborative effort. It’s very existence challenges lurkers and loners to branch out and show their work. An RP is never perfect, it should never have that requirement. It simply exists for the fun of writing, as well as the friendships such a venture can accrue.

The criticisms you gave were unnecessary and unwarranted. We are writers, we can write what we wish. Your lack of understanding has, unfortunately, been this guide’s downfall. I trust you will be more comprehensive in your research in the future, and I hope you have a lovely day.

Yours in Fiction,
eli_gone_crazy

Dear Mr. Watson

Now I don't mean to sidekick you in any way, but I feel you have approach this topic with the wrong manner of interpretation. While you have approached the idea of Roleplaying in a realistic and strict manner, most of us here approach the topic in an idealistic and spiritualistic manner, which has caused a divide between you and the rest of us over what warrants good in an RP. Frankly however, I notice (based on your attitude) that you don't care what we think about the issue.

Now I am not gonna go all detective on you and point out every flaw in your guide, instead I will give you this. Roleplaying is not some game of shadows where writers hide behind there characters and strive for perfection; roleplaying is a form of expression, found in the creation of characters to use as a form of storytelling. This isn't Call of Duty, where every single thing is balanced and proper.

While I understand that your guide was for a good purpose, your outright rude manner of speech and arrogance in your writing will only infuriate the people here more than you know (believe me, I know what it is like to anger the people here and you do NOT want that). So I hope in the future, you understand that roleplaying is taken in a different manner here than where you are used to. Then again, who am I to talk? Its not like I am Sherlock Holmes or something...

Dear Mr. Watson,
I am lazy and do not feel like reading a lot of long posts right now, but I do feel the need to warn you that if there is one thing our forum friends are good at it is answering length with length.

You may be in trouble.

Thank you all for your replies thus far, and I sincerely apologise if my first post sounded arrogant, or condescending, as that was not my purpose in writing it. I was simply annoyed by the fact that certain characters had a wide gap in power relative to the rest, and wished to change that.

I understand that as writers, you are allowed to write what you want, and as roleplayers, you only wish to let yourself get immersed into the world you GM's made for you, but my point was simply that, as others are enjoying the world with you, I do not see the point in making yourself have so large an advantage to start your adventure in the world, relative to the other players.

Do note that I do not mind the long backstories, the descriptions of the characters and whatnot - In fact, I like them. I am just rather annoyed by the (what I feel are) unnecessarily large gaps in power level between one or two characters and the rest. To be honest, many of the characters here are fine. It's the few that need to be called out.

Again, thank you for your replies, and I apologise again, if I may sound belittling, or arrogant. I truly seek all your understandings in this matter.

Dear Mr. Watson,

When I read something I don't enjoy, I stop reading it. I don't write a letter to the writer detailing how I would like the work to be changed to suit my preferences. I find something I like, or I write it myself.

You may be prepared to argue with this point about "how sane people respond to things" with a comment that roleplaying games, due to their interactive nature, may call for more 'intervention' for some kinds of writing than a regular novel would.

Don't worry, Mr. Watson, I have you covered there. In roleplaying games, it is the role of the GM to intervene if a character is imbalanced. It occasionally falls to fellow players to comment if they feel another player's character has been interacting unfairly with theirs, whether by beating them in a mismatched fight or by killing more than their fair share of common enemies. Rest assured, Mr. Watson, that in such cases, the GMs of our various games are quick to step in with sanity, sensitivity, and sternness.

You, however, are not the GM of any of our games. You are also not a fellow player. You are an observer, and an uninvited one at that. I do not mean to suggest that you are not welcome to read what we post here; it's a free internet, after all. All I mean to suggest is that your sense of responsibility is misplaced. If you do not like how we write what we write, then don't read it. It's as simple as that, because until you are playing the game, or running it, you have no right to judge the choices we make.

Good day to you,
Qara-Xuan Zenith

As a foreword... Connor warned you.

You see, your primary mistake was assuming such form of public and global criticism was wanted. See, criticism is something best given privately, in such a manner that it's focused in solving specific points. What you did, in crude terms, amounts to saying: "You don't know how to write properly, here's how you do it."

Add to that the fact that you're not an active member, who never once talked to us in the chatroom. Nor an active player or GM in any of the active RPs. Ultimately, these matters should not concern you at all. And this is disturbing, it means someone we don't know is telling us what to do. No wonder we're less than happy about such sudden instructions.

Now, I wouldn't post at all, unless sure that you were following the thread. And more than that, it wouldn't do to ignore your points, so, since you proposed a model, it's only fair for it to be analyzed.

As far as redoing the character goes, it's a fairly obvious point. As long as your're not satisfied or there is a problem, if pointed out by the concerned players who would share the setting or the GM, then it's obvious that some tweaks are necessary. This is already done regardless.

However, you definitions are considerably misplaced. You defend that a character shouldn't be able to defeat his whole party on his own, that an enemy superior to a party member must also be superior to the character, that your character can't be handicapped by laziness or some manner of limitation in order to keep balance.

Simply put, that's bullshit. If you'll forgive the strong wording. A take a classical adventure party, the Barbarian can easily take down his whole party alone under a rage, unless specifically countered by some manner of disability like a paralysis spell. He is, simply put, stronger than everyone else in such direct confrontation. That same barbarian can face opposing monster types such as Lizard Folk or Minotaurs that would easily overpower a Cleric or Ranger without GM-placed terrain advantages.

Now, you'd most certainly agree that the Barbarian is balanced by being unable to use spells, or use stealth, or such other skills. That would be accurate, but it essentially counters your point about not being allowed to "Lose because Lazy". DnD uses a numerical system, it has mathematics to ensure verifiable balance. We do not. Psychological and narrative restrictions such as a carefree personality, ennui, power limiters and other such reasons are our mechanic for power balance. What difference does it make, in the long run, if my character is only capable of killing 5 opponents, to my character only killing 5 opponents because he can't be bothered to do more?

That point contradicts itself if applied to our context. Which is certainly a word I'd like to underline. I intend to use plenty of times yet.

You then outline a few supposedly key questions that would define whether a character is overpowered or not... But you forgot to ask if, regardless of the results, "Is this character acceptable in this setting?" Ultimately, in any honor system game, the choice of balance is the GM's personal preference. Regardless of the character's sheet, if it is accepted, it means it's within acceptable parameters.

To a particular concern; whether I can justify my character's powers or not, is it necessary for the purposes of this game? Again, some context is involved.

What if nobody would pick my character? Why would that matter when, again, that won't happen? More than that, proper video game design tends to offer both options, with characters or weapons that are numerically superior but not necessarily the most interesting choice for an experienced player. But these are still there as a helpful option for a less experienced player. Granted it not always works that way and breaks the game, but that's besides the point. Mainly because these are measured numerically. They have some verifiable superiority. In a honor system context, this is not the case.

Why? Because the weakest character can be hideously broken beyond recognition by a skilled enough writer. Mundane Made Awesome comes to mind, for example. Having powers doesn't obligate you to use them, and it says nothing about being able to. And not having powers doesn't mean you are "balanced" in any way.

As to your specific examples, I certainly feel like you lean towards the First RP very heavily. And in that context, I have to say you're completely missing the point. You see, the First RP's prompt is "Use whatever is in your avatar right now and let's go blow things up."

There's no restriction to the setting. Overpowered means being stronger than the acceptable, or perceived acceptable, level. In the First RP, there's no such thing.

Manipulation of (Sabrac's existence), My weapon (Marisa's Mini-Hakkero), and It's the end boss of (Alice's usage of Nyx Avatar) are all applicable to that same First RP, and in that context, there's no such thing. If it's necessary to compare to the other player characters, I did a Sliding Scale of Mass Destruction vs Concentrated Destruction in the discussion thread a while back that would out line just how the power levels are aligned. Just because the Cleric can't out-brawl the Barbarian doesn't mean they're useless, their strengths are just better applied elsewhere.

Power level unknown is also interesting, because while you state that it is an absolute no-go, it seems perfectly fair to me given certain situations, for instance, a new character that you just thought about and haven't delved too deeply into his usage of his skills. That's certainly a meta justification, but hey, that's a fairly common word around here. And as a GM I'd much rather a player tell me "I don't know how far i'm going to push this power." than setting an arbitrary limit somewhere and then being frustrated that his newly thought application can't be used because it goes over what he said before and all the subsequent issues that rise from that.

Ultimately, the goal of any game is that the players have fun. And while different players have different preferences, the actual question to ask is if one player's preference spoils another player's fun. That is the key for a game that runs in honor systems. Not how much power one wields. You seem to be very geared towards mathematical balance, but in the context of all our current RPs, said mathematical balance is substantially less important than the opportunity to practice our writing skills.

So, my main point is purely context. You certainly said a lot, and given your overly formal writing style and the unnecessary signature it certainly gives a very condescending tone. But in the end, it's not something really applicable to us, because as it seems, you don't understand the purpose of our games or how they're structured.

My own reaction to your first post was less than appreciative, and I'm certain the others would share that with me. But I'm glad you apologized for it's tone. So, may I suggest you try to be less absolute in the future? Stirring conversation is certainly more helpful than simply making a statement.

Pixel has some points there, and I would like to also mention that a lot of the other power level unknown stuff comes from things like the situation in Ship of Spies, where the powers are known to the GMs, and sometimes other players, but secrecy for the sake of plot twists for everyone else is maintained. Obviously, the GMs are always aware of what the actual power ideas are, and they have a choice of whether or not to allow any of them.

Thanks for the reply, Pixelmage, though I would like to raise a few points.

Pixelmage wrote:You see, your primary mistake was assuming such form of public and global criticism was wanted. See, criticism is something best given privately, in such a manner that it's focused in solving specific points. What you did, in crude terms, amounts to saying: "You don't know how to write properly, here's how you do it."

...

Ultimately, the goal of any game is that the players have fun. And while different players have different preferences, the actual question to ask is if one player's preference spoils another player's fun. That is the key for a game that runs in honor systems. Not how much power one wields. You seem to be very geared towards mathematical balance, but in the context of all our current RPs, said mathematical balance is substantially less important than the opportunity to practice our writing skills.

So, my main point is purely context. You certainly said a lot, and given your overly formal writing style and the unnecessary signature it certainly gives a very condescending tone. But in the end, it's not something really applicable to us, because as it seems, you don't understand the purpose of our games or how they're structured.

I was wrong in these facts, and again, I apologise for it.

Pixelmage wrote:Add to that the fact that you're not an active member, who never once talked to us in the chatroom. Nor an active player or GM in any of the active RPs. Ultimately, these matters should not concern you at all. And this is disturbing, it means someone we don't know is telling us what to do. No wonder we're less than happy about such sudden instructions.

Now, I wouldn't post at all, unless sure that you were following the thread. And more than that, it wouldn't do to ignore your points, so, since you proposed a model, it's only fair for it to be analyzed.

To be honest, the only reason why I never joined the other RPs was because of characters like these. Which was why I only lurked and watched. I understand where you're coming from though, and thanks for pointing it out.

Pixelmage wrote:Simply put, that's bullshit. If you'll forgive the strong wording. A take a classical adventure party, the Barbarian can easily take down his whole party alone under a rage, unless specifically countered by some manner of disability like a paralysis spell. He is, simply put, stronger than everyone else in such direct confrontation. That same barbarian can face opposing monster types such as Lizard Folk or Minotaurs that would easily overpower a Cleric or Ranger without GM-placed terrain advantages.

My point was that the Cleric or Ranger can't out-brawl the Barbarian, but if, for some reason, any one of them were able to, then are they not overpowered? There would then be no reason to pick the Barbarian over the Cleric or the Ranger, and there would be a large gap in power between the two.
Similiarly, in this case, if the rest of the party were level 4, and there's but one person who's decided to make himself a wizard demilich, capable of wielding powers of an of-yet unknown level, then something's definitely wrong somewhere.

Pixelmage wrote:But you forgot to ask if, regardless of the results, "Is this character acceptable in this setting?" Ultimately, in any honor system game, the choice of balance is the GM's personal preference. Regardless of the character's sheet, if it is accepted, it means it's within acceptable parameters.

I never asked that question as the characters are all, non-power-wise, appropriate to the setting. This is better than most places I've been to, and it was why I said I actually liked the backstories and descriptions. I was annoyed by the power levels, that's all. I believe I also said something like that in the first post, where 'something that may be balanced in a specific universe may not be balanced in another'. Just because a character is changed to fit a setting doesn't mean their power levels match.

Pixelmage wrote:To a particular concern; whether I can justify my character's powers or not, is it necessary for the purposes of this game? Again, some context is involved.

The point was actually that if the writer's character is able to bend reality or whatever else only because of something said writer made up, when the other characters are only able to say, shoot small fireballs, then it's essentially the writer's form of 'I can do this because I said so'. I didn't like that.

Pixelmage wrote:As to your specific examples, I certainly feel like you lean towards the First RP very heavily. And in that context, I have to say you're completely missing the point. You see, the First RP's prompt is "Use whatever is in your avatar right now and let's go blow things up."

There's no restriction to the setting. Overpowered means being stronger than the acceptable, or perceived acceptable, level. In the First RP, there's no such thing.

The post wasn't targeted specifically at the First RP simply because of it's prompt.

Pixelmage wrote:Power level unknown is also interesting, because while you state that it is an absolute no-go, it seems perfectly fair to me given certain situations, for instance, a new character that you just thought about and haven't delved too deeply into his usage of his skills. That's certainly a meta justification, but hey, that's a fairly common word around here. And as a GM I'd much rather a player tell me "I don't know how far i'm going to push this power." than setting an arbitrary limit somewhere and then being frustrated that his newly thought application can't be used because it goes over what he said before and all the subsequent issues that rise from that.

This I understand, but simply saying "His skill level is unknown" grinds my gears. Perhaps it's because of all the times I've seen it, the character is then 'allowed' to obliterate the enemy side and then say that he was still just 'going easy'. And then win or lose the next few battles depending if he feels like it or not. Might be just me going to all the wrong places, though.

Pixelmage wrote:So, may I suggest you try to be less absolute in the future? Stirring conversation is certainly more helpful than simply making a statement.

Of course, and thanks for your reply.

Uh huh. I'm sure you didn't want to come off as arrogant and all but.. alright, I'll put out what I agree with first.

Yes. I agree, balancing is important. Sometimes, there aren't exactly the most balanced characters here. I agree, having characters who were "trained from birth in the art of "yadda yadda" can be.. less than optimal, in narrative terms. Yes, overpowered is not exactly the most ideal situation.

In short, I agree with your salient points about the references, the weapons, the unknown power levels (though this one is malleable; Ship of Spies is one situation where it has to be secret because of the premise), yes, I agree with these in principle.

However..

1) I disagree with your definition that Mary Sue can simply be an overpowered character. But that's unimportant, 's just a label.

2) It is not necessarily bad that some characters have crazy-ass powers to "wield vast quantities of power that the others can’t". We aren't trying to make a game and then sell it, we roleplay. Of course there has to be some balance, but there are times when it is in fact appropriate or acceptable to have one character be the powerhouse cannon of the team.

3) Your step about considering other characters doesn't actually make sense because if everyone is looking out for each others' characters, there'd be no characters made. Besides, you're playing a role. This is roleplay. You decide the role. Sure, sometimes you can let the pre-existing team influence a few things about your character. But ultimately, this is your own character. If you're playing to fill in holes in the team, well, a perfect team isn't quite as interesting a narrative in my opinion. This is a story, after all, and stories are built on conflict.

4) An RP is not a video game. It is a fundamentally different system which challenges our creativity and narrative strength. I think that should be quite clear.

That's about the main points that I find myself disagreeing with, without delving too deeply and analysing word by word. I'm not a person for that kind of thing.

As for the, ah, method of conveyance. You see, while you being a new person gives you an unbiased perspective, it also means a few things. Firstly, you have no credibility, to put it bluntly. Secondly, you are not able to have a perspective from inside the system, how we regulate the roleplays off the official threads. A lot of things are done in the background. Thirdly, your abrupt appearance and criticism- which, by the way, comes off as a rebuke that we as a community cannot write at all because either we make overpowered (and ergo, from your perspective, bad) characters, or we cannot see that these characters are overpowered, which is just as bad anyway- is entirely unwarranted and unwanted. I remember you from the D&D thread which never took off; you appeared out of nowhere and vanished just as mysteriously.

Regarding your credibility, I must, at the risk of this sounding like an ad hominem attack, say this. You taking on the persona of Watson doesn't help your case in the slightest. It makes you sound pretentious, for one thing and I'm sure you don't want that to happen. This is the forum of an ARG where fictional characters were the focal point of the game. Considering the context, and that the game is over, you taking on the persona of Watson, even going so far as to sign off with that name and putting a picture of that signature, well, to put it in diplomatic terms, you're being a douchebag. My friends here are willing enough and cultured enough to respond in a similar formal fashion of a letter. I am not. This is a forum. Unless this so happens to be a 'letter'-format thread, it only contributes to your pompousness. Perhaps you are a magniloquent person. Perhaps you are simply vainglorious; I don't know. I can only tell you what your affectations convey.

As to your tone, it contributes to the, shall we say, unpleasant impression you portray. Your tone is imperative and commanding, as though you were a teacher talking to your students. Maybe you do see us as stray ignorant sheep begging for enlightenment. I assure you, we do not. At least, I do not and I am willing to bet that my fellows share my view. It is highly, ah, disdainful. One might go so far as to say that you appear to view us with condescension. I'm sure you don't want that to happen. Yes, my tone is somewhat more toward the aggressive side, lending me a degree of hypocrisy. But I'm sure a logical person like you would understand, considering that it seems as though we are the ones being attacked.

If I may ask, why? Why bother? There you are, a singular person out of nowhere coming in, trawling through our forums, taking issue with our writing and bringing your perceived dislikes to us when you are entirely uninvolved with them? If you were playing one of the RPs, sure, I could understand your desire to bring it up, but why? As you say, you are completely new- or rather, a lurker-, and so it does not seem to make sense to me that you would suddenly bring up a list of what we're doing badly, and then propose an alternative method. While I can appreciate your attempt in being constructive by providing an alternative method, it quite frankly comes off as overbearing.

In the habit of TvTropes (or at least, a habit which I have observed, since I myself do not go there- oh yes, please, do not refer to us as 'tropers'. Most of us are, that is true. This is the TvTropes ARG, yes. But we are Metaguards.), laconic:

I agree with most of your points in principle, I disagree with the very fact of your objection's existence, I disagree with the persona you took on, I disagree highly with the tone in which you chose to object.

Personally, got a slight disagreement with Pixel over the bit of "Lose because Lazy", but I do agree that psychological barriers are a primary factor in terms of deciding limiters. I just disagree over 'lazy', because that's not quite a very good barrier, as opposed to say, phobias and such

Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you do decide to contribute more to our forums and participate in the RPs, welcome.

My dear "Mr. Watson".

I don't particularly care about your reasons for not joining any of our RPs; whatever your reasoning, that decision is on you, not on any of us. Deal with it or not, as you choose.

I wouldn't bother to post again in this pointless excuse for a thread, but for one thing: my last response was as a player, wondering "why is he complaining if I don't have a problem with my fellow players?"; your recent post makes me realize that perhaps I should speak to you as a GM.

Yes, I haven't been a GM for particularly long; nevertheless, I do feel qualified to speak about this, and to assume that Ship of Spies is, in at least some aspects which I'll discuss, a microcosm of many of our other games.

First of all-- and this I know is probably not usual for RPs-- I practically begged at least one player to create a very highly-powered character-- to the point that some might call such a character OP. I wanted that-- I also, as I outlined in my character-creation thread, placed limitations on such a character so that overpowered-ness would not be a problem.

You complained about "unknown power levels." As a GM, I actually prefer that. It means that I have more freedom in what I can throw at them; I have enough of a relationship of trust with my players that I trust that when they see the challenges I give them, they can stretch or bend the limitations of their characters' abilities accordingly.

Other characters have power levels unknown on paper, but known to me. This is also helpful to me as a GM. It means that I can work with what I know about a character to create interesting challenges in the future, without it being boring on account of everyone anticipating such an event.

Before I started the game, I PMed back-and-forth-- quite extensively, in some cases-- in order to work with the players to ensure that the characters did have acceptable power levels, and acceptable limitations.

In short: I recognize that some characters in, say, Ship of Spies might look, to an observer, like they're OP. But to be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn, because as the GM, I know that they're just right.

Oh, and one other thing. You're complaining about what you see as poor writing. I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about.

Watson wrote:There would then be no reason to pick the Barbarian over the Cleric or the Ranger, and there would be a large gap in power between the two.

If there's no reason to pick the Barbarian, then whoever's writing the Barbarian is doing something wrong. Because frankly, in a game like this, characterization is more important than "power level". The reason to pick the Barbarian is because he's an interesting character. Take, for example, Floating Castle. Luca is a swordsman on par with Hector, plus he's using magic to make everyone do what he wants. And yet... Hector's still the character we love. We're not saying "let's throw Hector to the wolves, because he's half blind and can't do as much as some people." Why not? Because he's written well.

Conversely:

Watson wrote:if the writer's character is able to bend reality or whatever else only because of something said writer made up

Excuse me? Forgive me for disabusing you of whatever notions you've previously held about writing, but someone has to do it, my dear Mr. Watson: fictional characters can only do anything they do because of "something their writers made up". It goes with the territory of "fiction", my friend. I make up a character. I make up what he can do. If it's not because of something I made up, I really have no idea where he's getting these abilities from. Of course, you've been very good at responding in this thread, so please feel free to enlighten me if there's some strange secret of writing that I've been missing out on all this time.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: you are mixing up "your problem" with "our problem". You feel intimidated by a fictional character's potential powers? That's your problem. If you can't face it, then just. Stop. Reading.

With all due respect,
Qara-Xuan Zenith

agoraoptera wrote:It is not necessarily bad that some characters have crazy-ass powers to "wield vast quantities of power that the others can’t". We aren't trying to make a game and then sell it, we roleplay. Of course there has to be some balance, but there are times when it is in fact appropriate or acceptable to have one character be the powerhouse cannon of the team.

Indeed, it is sometimes better to have people who are above the others in terms of power, but of course, it depends on the context. How powerful is the powerhouse? Do the other characters have large strengths in other ways as well?

agoraoptera wrote:Your step about considering other characters doesn't actually make sense because if everyone is looking out for each others' characters, there'd be no characters made. Besides, you're playing a role. This is roleplay. You decide the role. Sure, sometimes you can let the pre-existing team influence a few things about your character. But ultimately, this is your own character. If you're playing to fill in holes in the team, well, a perfect team isn't quite as interesting a narrative in my opinion. This is a story, after all, and stories are built on conflict.

Again, this depends contextually. A ragtag bunch of misfits can be the perfect team at times, and it can lead to a really interesting narrative. A team in general already implies that one needs the others to cover his back. But if one in the team is far more powerful than the rest, able to do what the rest can and then some, he doesn’t actually need the team. The people in the team may feel left out.

One of the quotes I've always feared seeing in any roleplay: "This guy can do more than what my character can do. What's the use in having my character?"

agoraoptera wrote:An RP is not a video game. It is a fundamentally different system which challenges our creativity and narrative strength. I think that should be quite clear.

Though an RP is not a video game, certain elements, or tropes, remain the same - which is why I pulled up the video game example; because the act of balancing a character or an item remains the same, no matter what form of media you’re in.

agoraoptera wrote:As for the, ah, method of conveyance. You see, while you being a new person gives you an unbiased perspective, it also means a few things. Firstly, you have no credibility, to put it bluntly.

An unbiased perspective is more important IMO, but I understand where you’re coming from.

agoraoptera wrote:Secondly, you are not able to have a perspective from inside the system, how we regulate the roleplays off the official threads. A lot of things are done in the background.

From what I know, not a lot of major things are actually done in the background of roleplaying forums. I may be wrong, though - perhaps you could give a few examples of what does happen?

agoraoptera wrote:I remember you from the D&D thread which never took off; you appeared out of nowhere and vanished just as mysteriously.

Yes, I’ve been waiting for it to start for quite some time. Perhaps I should PM Krika my 4E character sheet. It might be a better idea.

agoraoptera wrote:Regarding your credibility, I must, at the risk of this sounding like an ad hominem attack, say this. You taking on the persona of Watson doesn't help your case in the slightest. It makes you sound pretentious, for one thing and I'm sure you don't want that to happen. This is the forum of an ARG where fictional characters were the focal point of the game. Considering the context, and that the game is over, you taking on the persona of Watson, even going so far as to sign off with that name and putting a picture of that signature, well, to put it in diplomatic terms, you're being a douchebag. My friends here are willing enough and cultured enough to respond in a similar formal fashion of a letter. I am not. This is a forum. Unless this so happens to be a 'letter'-format thread, it only contributes to your pompousness. Perhaps you are a magniloquent person. Perhaps you are simply vainglorious; I don't know. I can only tell you what your affectations convey.

As to your tone, it contributes to the, shall we say, unpleasant impression you portray. Your tone is imperative and commanding, as though you were a teacher talking to your students. Maybe you do see us as stray ignorant sheep begging for enlightenment. I assure you, we do not. At least, I do not and I am willing to bet that my fellows share my view. It is highly, ah, disdainful. One might go so far as to say that you appear to view us with condescension. I'm sure you don't want that to happen. Yes, my tone is somewhat more toward the aggressive side, lending me a degree of hypocrisy. But I'm sure a logical person like you would understand, considering that it seems as though we are the ones being attacked.

I have already apologized for my tone, and I will apologize again - it was not my intention to sound like so. I was not specifically trying to attack the community, I simply wanted to point out what I felt was wrong, and perhaps give some advice on how to change it for the better.

agoraoptera wrote:Thirdly, your abrupt appearance and criticism- which, by the way, comes off as a rebuke that we as a community cannot write at all because either we make overpowered (and ergo, from your perspective, bad) characters, or we cannot see that these characters are overpowered, which is just as bad anyway- is entirely unwarranted and unwanted.

…

If I may ask, why? Why bother? There you are, a singular person out of nowhere coming in, trawling through our forums, taking issue with our writing and bringing your perceived dislikes to us when you are entirely uninvolved with them? If you were playing one of the RPs, sure, I could understand your desire to bring it up, but why? As you say, you are completely new- or rather, a lurker-, and so it does not seem to make sense to me that you would suddenly bring up a list of what we're doing badly, and then propose an alternative method. While I can appreciate your attempt in being constructive by providing an alternative method, it quite frankly comes off as overbearing.

I’ve been to many different places, both on the internet and in real life, where characters like this were posted. I only posted this here because I believed that tropers in general would be more accepting of criticism like this, rather than people from another forum.

agoraoptera wrote:In the habit of TvTropes (or at least, a habit which I have observed, since I myself do not go there- oh yes, please, do not refer to us as 'tropers'. Most of us are, that is true. This is the TvTropes ARG, yes. But we are Metaguards.), laconic:

I agree with most of your points in principle, I disagree with the very fact of your objection's existence, I disagree with the persona you took on, I disagree highly with the tone in which you chose to object.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you do decide to contribute more to our forums and participate in the RPs, welcome.

Thank _you_ for making this post. Perhaps I shall participate in the RPs more - depending on what kind of characters appear, of course.

It’s strange, though. I have apologized quite a number of times for the tone of which I used, and stated it was not my intention to do so, yet there are still people blasting me for it. On another note, though, almost all of the people here replying to me aren’t actually the ones posting such characters.

*sigh* OK, I'm calling a stop to this. Whether anyone is going to listen to me is up in the air, of course, but I suppose someone should step in as referee. People keep responding to one post only for someone else to post right before them starting the whole thing up again.

I think that all the people who chimed in here have made their point, and Watson here HAS apologized, people, so let's start cooling this thing down, all right?

Watson, this isn't exactly a normal RP forum in a lot of ways, and we talk to each other a lot over the chatbox and through other methods. So yeah, a fair bit goes on that doesn't show up in the thread. If we didn't do that, we would have umpteen millions of posts in the discussion threads just like how the first RP's topic is right now.

Anyway, let's try and get a civil discussion in here, OK guys? Either side getting angry over this just isn't serving a purpose at all.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:My dear "Mr. Watson".

I don't particularly care about your reasons for not joining any of our RPs; whatever your reasoning, that decision is on you, not on any of us. Deal with it or not, as you choose.

I wouldn't bother to post again in this pointless excuse for a thread, but for one thing: my last response was as a player, wondering "why is he complaining if I don't have a problem with my fellow players?"; your recent post makes me realize that perhaps I should speak to you as a GM.

…

Ultimately, it comes down to this: you are mixing up "your problem" with "our problem". You feel intimidated by a fictional character's potential powers? That's your problem. If you can't face it, then just. Stop. Reading.

First of all, Qara-Xuan Zenith, calm yourself down. You’re probably the only person in this thread angered to this point. I already understood that my tone was wrong, and I have apologized for it several times. Let us discuss this calmly and properly, spare the insults.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Yes, I haven't been a GM for particularly long; nevertheless, I do feel qualified to speak about this, and to assume that Ship of Spies is, in at least some aspects which I'll discuss, a microcosm of many of our other games.

First of all-- and this I know is probably not usual for RPs-- I practically begged at least one player to create a very highly-powered character-- to the point that some might call such a character OP. I wanted that-- I also, as I outlined in my character-creation thread, placed limitations on such a character so that overpowered-ness would not be a problem.

But, you see, this is different. If a character is deliberately made overpowered by a GM, _and then the GM still goes on to limit the power_, then there’s no problem.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:You complained about "unknown power levels." As a GM, I actually prefer that. It means that I have more freedom in what I can throw at them; I have enough of a relationship of trust with my players that I trust that when they see the challenges I give them, they can stretch or bend the limitations of their characters' abilities accordingly.

Much of what you said was based on trust, an honor code. It may work for games you run, but from what I seen, it mostly doesn’t go far. Plus, a system of trust is a completely different system altogether, and I specifically did not write anything about it. If you and your players can trust each other to not go over each other's limits, then I envy you, as your group is better than a lot of other groups out there.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Other characters have power levels unknown on paper, but known to me. This is also helpful to me as a GM. It means that I can work with what I know about a character to create interesting challenges in the future, without it being boring on account of everyone anticipating such an event.

I have said something like this in the original post. “If you don’t want other players to know something, PM the GM.” Saying it’s unknown makes your character like a wildcard in battles, winning or losing whenever he wants.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Before I started the game, I PMed back-and-forth-- quite extensively, in some cases-- in order to work with the players to ensure that the characters did have acceptable power levels, and acceptable limitations.

In short: I recognize that some characters in, say, Ship of Spies might look, to an observer, like they're OP. But to be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn, because as the GM, I know that they're just right.

If the GM says it’s fine, then hell, go ahead and run your campaign. The problem here is that many players I’ve seen do not PM. They create a character, think it’s fine, then just go right ahead to play without considering the others. From the looks of it, if you already go to such lengths to setup a campaign, then you’ll do well.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Oh, and one other thing. You're complaining about what you see as poor writing. I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about.

Watson wrote:There would then be no reason to pick the Barbarian over the Cleric or the Ranger, and there would be a large gap in power between the two.

If there's no reason to pick the Barbarian, then whoever's writing the Barbarian is doing something wrong. Because frankly, in a game like this, characterization is more important than "power level". The reason to pick the Barbarian is because he's an interesting character. Take, for example, Floating Castle. Luca is a swordsman on par with Hector, plus he's using magic to make everyone do what he wants. And yet... Hector's still the character we love. We're not saying "let's throw Hector to the wolves, because he's half blind and can't do as much as some people." Why not? Because he's written well.

You’re missing the point. If a Cleric, in hand-to-hand combat, can best the Barbarian, no one would pick the Barbarian to fight a battle. Everyone would pick the Cleric. My post was specifically about the power levels of the characters – I have stated that I actually liked the backstories and character descriptions of characters posted here. There may be reasons to pick the Barbarian if he was an interesting character, but that’s not the point. Assuming the Barbarian and Cleric are equally interesting character-wise, everyone would pick the Cleric because he can both heal and battle better than the Barbarian. Which is when the GM should step in and reduce the Cleric’s fighting ability.

Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Conversely:

Watson wrote:if the writer's character is able to bend reality or whatever else only because of something said writer made up

Excuse me? Forgive me for disabusing you of whatever notions you've previously held about writing, but someone has to do it, my dear Mr. Watson: fictional characters can only do anything they do because of "something their writers made up". It goes with the territory of "fiction", my friend. I make up a character. I make up what he can do. If it's not because of something I made up, I really have no idea where he's getting these abilities from. Of course, you've been very good at responding in this thread, so please feel free to enlighten me if there's some strange secret of writing that I've been missing out on all this time.

You’re missing the point again. You can’t just create a character far more powerful than every other character with no links to the setting’s lore just because “he was born from a god” or “she was trained since birth”. It’s just a glamorous version of “Because I said so”. If, with the GM’s permission, the supreme power was given to him by a god in the GM’s lore, then roll with it. After all, everyone’s playing in the GM’s setting. It’s not like writing a story in this case; the world is not the player’s – it’s the GM’s. The player cannot just make up a character with much power just because he wants to.

In the end, it our posts boil down to “If the GM allows it, then roll with it.” If the players and the GM are all fine with it, then go on.

Thanks for your post, but I would appreciate it if you’d calm down a bit. This is not a personal attack; heck, it wasn’t even directed at you. Main post will be updated with the clause “If the GM allows it, then roll with it”.

Ah, I'm a little busy, so I won't be posting a direct response to what you said, but anyway, here's something I realised, seeing the back-and-forths. Maybe the RPs you're used to are different, but a lot of what we do here is an honour/trust system. One thing is the GM rarely has to step in because we're friends. We were friends before the RPs began, see. The ARG was what brought us together; the RPs are what we do now that the ARG is over. We hang out a lot and talk casually as friends do about daily stuff in a chatroom and if anyone has any issue with anything, it's easy to say. Simply, we're a group of internet friends, and do not have to worry about many of the points you raised I'm glad to be a part of this forum, truthfully, and glad that my first experience with RPs was from here. It is rare to begin in a friendly environ. You see of course, that's why there was such a strong reaction initially. Friendship is a powerful thing, of great substance. You've helped me appreciate what I have, and for that, thank you.

Hi, guys. This seems like well-intentioned advice that struck a nerve. I'm sorry that I don't have the time to sort through it all right now, but it looks like apologies have been made and feathers have been smoothed. So I'm going to close the thread down.

In my opinion, and in a vacuum, the advice at the top of the thread isn't bad. I haven't read a word of any of the RP's, so I can't say whether or not it applies here.

Although the advice is good, what matters most is that you guys are having fun. So if you're having a blast, don't worry about it.

Watson, the other players would like to invite you to join their chat to hang out with them here. I'll make them promise to be nice. http://www.neatchat.com/?id=9a68ee6b19e ... 9b99493e6e

I'll reopen this thread if anyone still needs to give a hug or two and say they're sorry, but please no more being upset about this, okay? Go have fun.