Bashing the "Uber" characters

[Arnabas]

I was reading the "worst book" thread and also the one on Spellfire and was just wondering why everyone is so quick to jump on characters like Elminster?
Each and every one of us who games likes to build a character and see him grow stronger. Just look at the Neverwinter Nights forum, where everyone is waiting for an expansion that will allow levels above 20, or the BG forums where people want to find a way to advance past level 40. We all like to think of our hero as tough, powerful and cool-as-hell. The guys who write the books also are fond of their characters and want to show them in a good light. After all, your character is in many ways your "child" and you want him to do well.
Sure, I personally like playing in the range of levels 5-8 or so. Some people like being around level 15. Many others would happily be level 80 if they could. So why not let them?
And there are many myths and legends of mortals challenging the gods and sometimes even winning. So why complain when a modern writer tells the same tale?
Just curious.

[ 12-03-2002, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Arnabas ]

[Morgeruat]

actually I prefer playing in the 0-3 lvl range (0 level characters are damn hard to play, but when you recive a class, ie no longer a 0 lvl fighter, it's such a huge moment in your character's life, and guarantees that the character will be a favorite, also being forced to run from 6 orcs is one of the greatest thrills in the game, they're weak, and you know it, but you are also as weak if not more-so.

but of course a guy running that character in a book wouldn't be all that exciting (look at the "against the giants" book which novelizes the series of modules, the main character is a lvl 1 or 2 human teamed up with fairly high level adventurers and much time is spent on him bemoaning how useless he is compared to them) of course you can always go to the other extreme, look at Elminster, and as Memnoch has recently posted, Gord the Rogue in the later books, Drizzt is too cliche, and even Raistlin is fairly munchkin, although through good storytelling he still has several prominent weaknesses that make him a realistic character.

[Timber Loftis]

A good story is about a good conflict - be it internal or external.

Uber-characters have no real (or so it seems) chance of losing - a very frustrating thing. It's especially that way when you write for an audience that demands you adhere to the rules of the game. Drizzt takes an arrow dead-center in the chest by a lucky shot from an Orc. Assume it's a Natural 20, which it would likely need to be anyway, and assume a critical hit. Great. Drizzt takes 2d8 damage + strenght (maybe) + magic. Big deal.

I always thought on this point that games that kept hit points relatively the same were more condusive to believable stories. In Ars Magica, an arrow through the chest basically slays you, no matter who you are.

Okay, I'm going off-topic I guess. But, the stories for HL characters just get too fantastical for my tastes. Check out the ancient red wyrm Artemis, Drizzt, Jarlaxle, & Co. beat up on in (I think) The Silent Blade [edit: no it's Servant of the Shard]. Plus, how many times can I read about Drizzt parrying 5 incoming daggers before it becomes trite. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

I think most of us like playing lower level characters with just a bit of power. Levels 4-10 are common favorites. That's because you are just powerful enough to get yourself constantly into hot water.

Maybe the HL characters wouldn't be so bad if we had not read 15 books about them already. At some point, enough is enough. People live on and experience dull or not-so-dull days. But, a story is a holistic universe in and of itself. True, the same characters can have other stories, but I think it's best at some point to call it a wrap.

Plus, let's not forget that many HL books are just written by exceedingly crappy writers - like Greenwood. Salvatore has his moments as well, but his mediocrity is something he'll never truly escape. These things also detract from these stories, don't forget.

[ 12-03-2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Luvian]

I agree with my fellow G.R.R. Martin fan.

If only one novel/game was made featuring a extremly high level character, it would be good, but now it's the norm. You see a Wizard of the Cheese novel, and you can expect it to include a level 1 character becoming level 40 in a month. That's so boring...

It's like the old Rambo movies... Watching him dodge bullets and missiles is only fun for a while...

[Arnabas]

Hmm. I understand what everyone is saying, but still nobody complains when the character THEY play becomes level 40 in basically a year or so game time (BG) or reaches level 20 in a few months (NWN).
Personally, I hate hitpoints. When we were playing D+D, we had critical hit rolls. By rolling a natural 20 you had a chance to instantly kill someone. I hated the fact that a high level fighter could be stabbed with a dagger about 30-40 times before he had to start worrying. Or maybe he'd run across the battlefield with 20 arrows sticking out of him.
We now play with our own rules, which has health levels for everyone. Non-human characters have up to 3 extra health levels, but basically, everyone is about the same. A high constitution allows damage to be resisted better, but nobody gets extra health. We had a character that had been developed for a very long period and was a real monster in combat until he got cocky and an assassin that he failed to see stabbed him once from behind, ending his life. The player was sad, but recognized it as more realistic and admitted that he'd lowered his guard and deserved what he got.

[Thoran]

It's not so much that HL players can't be killed, it's more that there's always someone in the party with the ability to ressurect him. If you take away the ability to bring people back from the dead (except as a Liche perhaps) then things get a LOT more interesting when you're High Level party decides to take on a demigod or something along those lines. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Arnabas]

I allow resurrection in my game, but it always comes with a cost. It is always a long, involved quest and also usually requires a great sacrifice to be made on behalf of the dead character.

[Morgeruat]

Arnabas, your hit point system sounds alot like the white wolf system, there are 7 health levels (or hit points) and each one causes a diferent effect, even the highest level werewolf or vamp still only has as many health levels as a brand new character, granted they would probably be able to resist more of that damage (aka "soak" it through stamina checks) but they HP's are the same for everyone in the game

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Arnabas: Hmm. I understand what everyone is saying, but still nobody complains when the character THEY play becomes level 40 in basically a year or so game time (BG) or reaches level 20 in a few months (NWN). Personally, I hate hitpoints. When we were playing D+D, we had critical hit rolls. By rolling a natural 20 you had a chance to instantly kill someone. I hated the fact that a high level fighter could be stabbed with a dagger about 30-40 times before he had to start worrying. Or maybe he'd run across the battlefield with 20 arrows sticking out of him. We now play with our own rules, which has health levels for everyone. Non-human characters have up to 3 extra health levels, but basically, everyone is about the same. A high constitution allows damage to be resisted better, but nobody gets extra health. We had a character that had been developed for a very long period and was a real monster in combat until he got cocky and an assassin that he failed to see stabbed him once from behind, ending his life. The player was sad, but recognized it as more realistic and admitted that he'd lowered his guard and deserved what he got.

People don't complain about gaining levels very fast in a computer or video games, because it's the goal of the game. The game is balanced so that your character level very fast. But novels and P&P games should be differents.

I agree 100% with you about health. I also came up with my own rules limiting health, and I removed all resurections spells. I really like the Shadowrun and White Wolf rules a lot more than D&D when it comes to health.

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Luvian: I really like the Shadowrun and White Wolf rules a lot more than D&D when it comes to health.

Although Shadowrun doesn't take mass into consideration when dealing with speed damage, ie a car going 20MPH will do less damage than a bicycle doing 25 if both were to collide with you... just some interesting food for thought...