do you want your character to do 1 thing well or multiple?

[dugfromthearth]

While I enjoy making decisions during character design I am much more interested in making decisions during play.

So I want my characters to have several choices of things to do and I choose the best one for the situation.

But I have found other people want to make all of their decisions during character creation (in BASH and other games) and playing is just demonstrating how good their design is. They do not want to make choices during play - they want to show how the choices they made during design made their character cool/great.

So when do you want to make your decisions? How many options do you want your character to have in combat?

I want a minimum of 3 truly different options: damage, heal, daze, sort of thing.

[kevperrine]

I want a minimum of 3 truly different options: damage, heal, daze, sort of thing.

I find that I like playing the more "simple" characters with power in the areas I enjoy. THEN during play I come up with "unlimited" options!
Meaning... I don't look at options in the way you're describing them. I don't "need" a damage, heal, daze, etc... set of option choices. If my character is REALLY good at hitting things, hard... then I do that... in an unlimited variety of ways. I never settle for "I hit it". I consider the environment, the situation, potential team set-ups, non-hitty actions (like saving innocents), picking up dumpsters to smash over heads, or power stunting something if I really find I "need" one of those other powers.

So... while options ARE a great resource. I find that a creative player doesn't need a power list of options to "have" options. Though, if they DO... then their options are compounded even more!

Unlike alot of players I know, simple can be more fun than complex.
-kev-

[dugfromthearth]

Unlike alot of players I know, simple can be more fun than complex.
-kev-

And I can hear that but I can't understand it. Which is a flaw with me with design. I happily add on complexity assuming everyone is like me and wants it.

[kevperrine]

And I can hear that but I can't understand it. Which is a flaw with me with design. I happily add on complexity assuming everyone is like me and wants it.

Hmmm... then my thought for you would be that I find.... at some times with a more complex set of options (for example - the new D&D4 set of power cards) with a larger base to need to think about sometimes *I* tend to get a sort of "blank page writers shock" ... their are so many options that I find all my time is spent considering the abilities that I've tried to engineer into my complex character to find the "right" solution for each situation. Second guessing, etc... INSTEAD of playing attention to the scene, the story, the actions of my teammates, the environment, the pace of the drama happening. Enjoying the narrative.

In my example (D&D4) I would often find myself inbetween turns scouring rules and re-reading my powers to pilfer the best result for the next turn that I end up missing something that's happened. Or at the end of the action (or session) I realize how exhausted I am from the stress of seeking out those wide array of options... and realize I missed the narrative. I missed role-playing.

For a more simple character I find that my "options" are just as broad, however they are inherently IN the scene. I need to pay attention and ask questions and listen to the villain and role-play.... Then on my turn I can very creatively reply with my choice that makes sense in the scene, using anything I've learned to aid my storytelling of my action. And rather than "I hit him" or "blast him" or "paralyze him" or whatever power.... I creatively come up with a new fun in-scene way to use the more limited options my less complex Hero has. Using the breadth of the rules for action, rather than relying on my pre-calculated (hopes) of what might happen to use a larger suite of powers.


Or in a shorter phrase.
I prefer ELEGANT interesting power suite designs over complexity or completeness.


Lastly... One of my pet peeves (especially in Supers games) with some players is the player that doesn't understand that most action heroes in fiction inherently have weak areas.
I take those weak areas and ENJOY the fun of failure in them. Failure in telling the story can be just as fun as success if you take it as a chance to fight back and still try to come out on top in the end.
This is especially true of Narrator villains. Many comic book supervillains are notoriously powerful, covering ally the bases of protection and power. And the most powerful villains sometimes can only be beaten by a fatal flaw.
This shouldn't be taken (by a player) as an out or deus ex machina to "give" the heroes a "win" when the villain's weakness (usually a mental malfunction) rears its head. But rather it's the Narrator giving clues in the mystery of the adversary that the heroes can puzzle out to use very fairly.

[BeardedDork]

Or in a shorter phrase.
I prefer ELEGANT interesting power suite designs over complexity or completeness.

+1

[BASHMAN]

It depends on what I want to play that particular game.

Being a "swiss army knife" character is essentially another way to specialize if you think about it (I'm second best at everything-man).

[dugfromthearth]

In my example (D&D4) I would often find myself inbetween turns scouring rules and re-reading my powers to pilfer the best result for the next turn that I end up missing something that's happened. Or at the end of the action (or session) I realize how exhausted I am from the stress of seeking out those wide array of options... and realize I missed the narrative. I missed role-playing.

I certainly have to admit to finding that happening to myself a lot.

I'm paying attention just to what I am doing and not to what everyone else is doing. The roleplaying and a lot of the cinematics go away.

Enjoying other player's turns is a big part of making a multi-player game fun.

[drkrash]

I think kev brings up some great points. And I have to say that part of my abiding love for BASH is that it hits that sweet spot for me for supers, where I think kev's perspective is right on the money.

The only reason I would mention anything contrary to his point is that certain genres and certain players bring different experiences to the table. My D&D 3.5 game is an exercise in detailed tactical combat that we all love. My own game, Fight, thrives on intricate tactical choices because I wanted the player to feel as awesome as an expert with a controller in his hand without needing that level of actual video game skill.

But supers? I'm starting to love the flexibility of not needing all the options in advance. Coming from Champions, I first saw the possibilities of in-game flexibility in M&M, and now in play, I like the way they work in BASH even more.