![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 2nd, 2004 12:10 am*sighs*
I am in an argument with somone over on the BESM game forum. Basically, he says that a game based on a show/movie/comic/etc. is only fun if you can play at the same power level as the main characters. I point out that having one's characters start out at the top isn't as much fun, as you can't see your characters get stronger and grow.
He refutes my post by saying:
1. The numbers on one's character sheet arn't the only kind of advancement. Okay, I can agree with this, but they are the only kind I can control as the GM.
2. Part of the popularity of a setting is the power level. Exact quote:
"If I'm playing in Buffy, I expect to be able to play a Slayer or an Initative Commando or a Watcher. If I'm playing in Star Wars, I expect to be able to play highly skilled smugglers, leaders of the Rebellion, and ancient Jedi.
And if I'm playing DBZ, I want to be one of the strongest fighters on Earth. Because being at that level is integeral to the structure of the show."
Um.. I thought the whole point of roleplaying wasn't to reenact the show?
3. Low power levels are tedious. Exact quote: "A sense of accomplishment? At what, having endured the tedium of low levels so that now the real game can begin? How about players get 10 cp for every time they hit themselves in the head with a hammer, thus saving time in the long run?
Naturally, if your group likes hitting itself in the head with a hammer, by all means, do so. And if they like playing at an artifical power level for a goal that has no actual meaning, likewise."
So, what? Unless my group is taking down the Big Bad, the goals have no meaning? Beign on low levels is tedious? Only if the GM makes it so -- I don't flaunt the fact that my PCs are surrounded by people that are more powerful than they. My players have enough power to take down the problems I throw at them... which is the right level. And they have nevr found beign on low levels tedious.
Am I overreacting on this one?
The full post
I am in an argument with somone over on the BESM game forum. Basically, he says that a game based on a show/movie/comic/etc. is only fun if you can play at the same power level as the main characters. I point out that having one's characters start out at the top isn't as much fun, as you can't see your characters get stronger and grow.
He refutes my post by saying:
1. The numbers on one's character sheet arn't the only kind of advancement. Okay, I can agree with this, but they are the only kind I can control as the GM.
2. Part of the popularity of a setting is the power level. Exact quote:
"If I'm playing in Buffy, I expect to be able to play a Slayer or an Initative Commando or a Watcher. If I'm playing in Star Wars, I expect to be able to play highly skilled smugglers, leaders of the Rebellion, and ancient Jedi.
And if I'm playing DBZ, I want to be one of the strongest fighters on Earth. Because being at that level is integeral to the structure of the show."
Um.. I thought the whole point of roleplaying wasn't to reenact the show?
3. Low power levels are tedious. Exact quote: "A sense of accomplishment? At what, having endured the tedium of low levels so that now the real game can begin? How about players get 10 cp for every time they hit themselves in the head with a hammer, thus saving time in the long run?
Naturally, if your group likes hitting itself in the head with a hammer, by all means, do so. And if they like playing at an artifical power level for a goal that has no actual meaning, likewise."
So, what? Unless my group is taking down the Big Bad, the goals have no meaning? Beign on low levels is tedious? Only if the GM makes it so -- I don't flaunt the fact that my PCs are surrounded by people that are more powerful than they. My players have enough power to take down the problems I throw at them... which is the right level. And they have nevr found beign on low levels tedious.
Am I overreacting on this one?
The full post
