Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesendeja
I've always believed that characters should be within a reasonable power dynamic with each other.
|
I think that's key. Perhaps surprisingly, my reasons have zero to do with not hurting feelings or other social dynamics. They have entirely to do with making my job as GM easier:
I dislike having to fiddle with challenges to make sure everybody from low person to high person on the power scale "fits in."
Am I good enough GM to do that? Yes. I've run games for 43 years, for so many players that I've lost count, across dozen
s of game systems, in pretty much every genre, at a huge range of power levels. I am entirely capable of it.
But I don't
want the extra work. The GM's job is already a complicated, many-faceted one. One thing being an experienced GM has taught me is that a
good GM minimizes their workload – sometimes through efficiency, sometimes through transferal to players, sometimes by cutting nonessential tasks – so that they can be more "in the moment" with their players and more
fun. Frankly, matching challenges to a broad spectrum of power levels is a nonessential task.
So . . . I don't use character points as a system of rewards and prizes. I use them as a timescale: a measure of how far the campaign has come from its starting point. More powerful PCs let me play with more challenging foes and situations, which is
fun for me and keeps me "in the moment" with my players.
And
that all means I just keep the PCs at around the same power level, whether they're originals, late joiners, or replacements, and regardless of roleplaying level. Obviously, I prefer good roleplaying to bad, and any roleplaying to none, because that's
also fun. I can't honestly say that I've ever had players who don't try to roleplay, though. Most complaints from GMs who claim they have that problem sound like, "My players are having hurting wrong fun because they don't roleplay
the way I would."