When is a character too OVERPOWERED

Stoic

Stoic

M̷̵̧͜è͘͘͜m̡҉͞͞b̵̴̷e͟r̕͟
Truth is I only came to thread because I heard if I started posting I would get approved faster
HOWEVER this is a topic I've been curious about and would like the opinion of people. Now
I don't particularly have A problem with most OP characters, I liked Train from black cat
and Saitama's power though played for laughs is incredibly awesome.

But I know In RP and stories even when there were some great examples of amazing character
like Henderson who was difficult not to cheers for and Edgardo who was also difficult
not to cheer for I have heard that there are many others who make powers up
on the spot or change the universe to suit their demand. I guess my question is how would
you make a character that's just good enough to still be incredible while wanting to
root for them.
And balance being an awesome character without for lack of better term being a Mary Sue

P.S. I hope me saying Mary Sue doesn't offend anyone it's just the only word I know for
an overpowered, power fantasy character sorry really.
 
For me, if it's not your RP/universe then I find that it's more about respecting the person that created it. If you're creating a character for someone else's RP and just changing things from the original sheet, it can lead to arguments and killing the fun for people involved. When I see an RP I want to join, so I'm not creating a character that's wrong, or over powered, I always ask the GM for more information if it's not all that clear. Discuss things with other players that have already joined etc. Communication helps a lot, I find. Especially if there isn't something on the character sheet and it's spawned as an idea later on from the plot. That is what the OOC is for mainly. :D

But yeah, I'd say the most important thing is communication, so you know the boundaries of that RP for your character. It also means that the GM can understand what you want to do.

I'm sure there are other things, especially as I don't really play in a fantasy setting. I'm just going on stuff based from my RP's and the ones I've been in lol.
 
Each roleplayer wants to be, in some way important to the story. If their contributions or impact is less in comparison to another character's, they're just that. They feel less important. In roleplay, people want to feel equal to each other, so their characters have to be more or less equal in terms of being of equal impact, because their character's contribution is their contribution. Additionally, challenges have to be relatively homogeneous. Because roleplays thrive on interaction and characters working together to overcome challenges. So everyone needs to be able to contribute to solving the same problems. So you cannot tell Saitama to close the business deal while telling Hello Kitty to fight the Zombie Horde because this separates them which beats the purpose of roleplay.

As for rooting for a character in general, give them a proportionate challenge. It's the demi-god principle. Stronger than the average man to idolise them, weaker than a god to empathise with their struggle. Classic mythology wrote books on this.
 
Similarly to the demigod principle @Ouverture mentioned, I think one of the most importnat thngs to keep in mind when trying to create a character people will see as badass or powerful is the need for a balance between their actual powerful skills/talents/abilities and their flaws or weaknesses. I've often found that the difference between a badass character I care about and one I despise is the sort of challenges they face. If it's relatively easy for them to achieve their goals, then the story becomes less about conflict and more about how amazing the character is, but if they're immensely powerful yet can't seem to get even a small victory here and there, it's a little too much angst and struggle.

One thing I've noticed that helps me when creating characters like this is making a sort of pros-and-cons list for each of their positive traits/abilities and each of their negative ones. That way, if my superhero character has super strength and is a brilliant strategist, those two qualities are balanced out by, say, no actual fighting experience or training and a habit of spending too much time planning and not enough time acting. And, a quick aside: since the latter two traits relate to the first two, it's a good way to ensure that the character's struggle somehow connects to their strengths.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you really have to put it in perspective. Bringing a gun to a knife fight is definitely taking it too far. In a war, however, you get all different types of guns that serve various purposes that they may be more suited to. Can't clear rooms with a rifle almost as tall as you are, you need a shotgun. You can't carry a second assault rifle as a side-arm, you want something more compact like a pistol. Think in those terms; it's all perspective whether or not a fight is balanced.
Situation is often key; if someone can win regardless of the circumstance and often does, well, yeah, that's just unfair. If you want things to be FAIR, that's another matter; not necessarily important in regards to your question, though.
What the reader cares about, and what makes it interesting to them is WHY the scene is unfolding in front of them.

If you have a guy clearing a room full of unarmed guys with a machine gun at twenty paces, you're going to find it hard to believe he's going to lose, right? You can still care about WHY you want this individual to get away with this, or why you want them to die.
Maybe these guys did something unspeakable to the gunners family, or maybe they bullied him out of his profession and stole his lifes' work. Maybe he was a scientist that invented something that would've benefited society as a whole but his corporation quashed it to maintain their profits, and he wants revenge on the board for it.
Maybe he's just a sociopathic jackass who's in the middle of a psychotic breakdown in a war they don't understand and just committed an act of violence that sends them spiraling further down their path of self destruction.

That's what makes an interesting character you'd care to see the struggles of.


If you have an overpowered lunatic who's going around bullying other characters with - and this is the key - no good reason, that's the only time I'd ever want someone to get out.
 
Honestly when i think of op i think of superman. Because there are op characters that do exist but every character should have 2 or 4 weaknesses. My views of op abilities would be teleporting. I try never to use that ability because it can easily turn to over powered I've seen it happen before.
 
I think keeping in mind a few things help. One is that whatever happens should feel like a natural progression. There are a few times when a sudden, surprising revelation may be necessary, but more times than not, it is just distracting and worthy of eyerolls. So any power or ability ought to fall into that natural-feeling category, where the reader really has no need to question its appearance.
Second, weaknesses are important. I remember reading a series where a mage was incredibly powerful in terms of his magic. However, in order to become that powerful, he gave up almost all of his physical strength and had to continue his life in that condition. While this particular thing could be abused in rps (defeats all enemies but faints constantly and everyone has to take care of them, but yeah, they're still super powerful), the point is to maintain a balance with abilities and weaknesses that makes sense. And if there is healing from a weakness involved, please don't pull an Eragon and have it all convenient and sudden. One of the great opportunity of a weakness is showing how the character interacts with it, struggles with it, and maybe even overcomes it. That is an interesting story. On the other hand, no weaknesses, or theoretical weaknesses that aren't actually, really aren't interesting.
Third, maintain the collective story. The rp isn't all about one character. It can be fun to have our own characters in dangerous situations or being badasses. However, because rping is a community thing, the light cannot and should not always be on one character. Everyone should be involved, interacting, and progressing in a way that makes sense in context.
 
To me, an overpowered character is one that has not earned their powers, but simply had them thrust upon them with no rhyme or reason.
Now, there are a few conditions to this in which I am able to bend my opinion.
If the character uses their powers sparingly, thinks about possible consequences, tries to find other ways to resolve conflict besides power use, or handicaps themselves in fights simply because they know that they would overpower their opponent when going full out: That is fine to me.
Now, if the character uses their powers without abandon, flaunts them simply because they can, uses them to simply crush opponents, even when the opponent is far under their level, or uses them without pondering what negative effects they might have, then that to me is overpowered.
I understand that some villains might have powers in the over category, and that is completely understandable. This power must be tempered with a weakness though. Villains are meant to fall to the heroes, unless specifically designed otherwise, and to ignore this rule by giving them power over what the hero can handle is a criminal injustice.

In summary, temper the power of villains with weaknesses. When possible, have the hero grow into their powers, humbling them and showing that they had earned what power they have. Make sure a 'good' character limits their abilities when dealing with those weaker then themselves. Make sure they understand the full scope of any negative effects using their powers might cause, and make them care about those effects. In fact, temper the Hero's powers with weakness as well. All things come with consequences, no one can escape them.
I quote, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
That is a life rule and should be treated as such, even in regards to fictional characters.

To me, a character with any of the negative traits or tendencies listed would qualify them as an overpowered character.
Thank you for listening
~WimsyWillow
 
I definitely agree with you, Willow. I don't think I could have put it better myself.

If a character is developed and balanced, I don't think there is any such thing as overpowered. If we take Harry Potter as our example, we can see two exceptionally powerful wizards in Dumbledore and Voldemort. We know that Dumbledore is exceptionally powerful even though we don't see him in a fast-paced scenario until Order of the Phoenix. I think this lack of action is part of what makes Dumbledore's power interesting. It's dribbled through so that in the first few books his power is expressed as whimsy which makes him appear harmless. It's the sort of thing where because he doesn't show up and pop a few fireworks, he's a character instead of a gargoyle. When he does show himself to be incredibly powerful, it's under the handicap of being weakened by the Horcrux. That's how we know exactly how powerful Dumbledore is even though it's only ever alluded to. It's also a testament to Rowling that Dumbledore's backstory comes after - not before - his show of power. His backstory is used as a map to understand the character rather than a justification for his powers.

On the other side of the coin, there's Voldemort. He progresses similarly in that whilst he's certainly powerful, we never once see him at full strength, or at least full confidence. The Philosopher's Stone sees him as a parasitic but malicious entity, making him the right level for an 11-year-old to face, and in the Chamber of Secrets, he's a shadow of himself. Subsequently, the diary horcrux is destroyed, taking a sliver of Voldemort's soul and confidence with it for the remaining novels. Additionally, Voldemort's power is tempered by Harry's (or Lily's) power. He's at his strongest in Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, but a combination of Lily's love, Priori Incantatem and Harry having straight up good social links means that he can't achieve his goals.

As such, Dumbledore and Voldemort have such terrifying powers because of - rather than in spite of - the fact that we only ever see their powers as shadows of what they could be.

As for more realistic settings, the very talented characters often have something to counter their brilliance. I'm going to use a UK medical soap called Holby City as my example here. The sometime head of Holby's Cardiothoracic ward, Jac, is known in the show for being an amazing heart surgeon. However, she has also been on the show for over 11 years, meaning that she's had ample time to develop. In addition to that, she's also seen in a variety of roles in which she isn't amazing. In the professional sphere, the most striking example is her failure as clinical lead. She's consistently presented as a rude character, which made ward management difficult. Additionally, her arrogance saw her take on a surgery when she was supposed to be at a funding meeting. As such, she was fired. Jac is an effective character because she's a brilliant heart surgeon, but career progress is limited for her because she's cold and blunt, meaning she can't handle the people aspect of her job well.

So, in short: power needs to be tempered by something, or you've got a static character with no room for personal growth.
 
Depends on setting. Depends entirely on setting. Take a space marine out of Warhammer 40K and he will literally stomp on anything in a World War 2 setting. Also depends on the objective of the narrative. Being overpowered could very well be the point, such as in a parody, or a power fantasy. Master Chief from Halo can literally ride pieces of metal through the atmosphere of a planet and survive--nobody cares though, because the point of his fantasy is to be an unstoppable armoured murder hobo in space.

Rule of thumb is as such: If it destroys your believability in the setting, it doesn't belong there. Done.
 
My belief is that a character STARTS out with as many strengths as they do weaknesses. As they progress, their number of strengths can possibly increase, but they must still have at least three main weaknesses, in my opinion, and characters who start out strong must have reasonable flaws too.

For example - I can create universes! I am power! I am light! But if people stop worshipping me, I fade away and die. I cannot show my true form to anyone else without making them go insane. Also, I'm infertile. Also, I get tired after making a certain amount of stuff and sleep for millennia.

Etc, etc.
 
There are factors, such as the setting of the world and how powerful an 'average' combatant is. There's also how many weaknesses, no matter how simplistic, complex or specific they are.

It all boils down to how a character is played.
 
I would say a character is too overpowered when the character has... alot of power in terms of the RP and quantity.

Being in a survival RP and being immortal is an obvious example, but having too many various powers such as power to make fire, telepathy, control darkness, etc. and much more could also be considered overpowered in my opinion, since it makes the character so versatile they can literally do anything without the assistance of others.
 
If somebody can play a character who's usually seen as OP like say Superman or Accelerator in the confines of the RP without ruining the fun for anybody else(say they have their PC wipe out the enemy hordes and so on, that's not any fun. what's left for the others to do? provide moral support and clean up the mess?)then there's no 'OP/unplayable in an RP' so far as I'm concerned anyway. If you can make him work within the RP that they're in then brownie points to you.
 
I think as long as the character doesn't exert excessive power over the role play, making it impossible for other players to have any wiggle room, then it can be done. Also, the character has to have SOME kind of weakness or a way to be defeated. The most important thing, to me, is communication between the players. Like, "Hey, not trying to control the whole rp or anything, just gonna make this character kind of ridiculously powerful for a bit but definitely not for long."
 
Natalya Rostova said:
I think as long as the character doesn't exert excessive power over the role play, making it impossible for other players to have any wiggle room, then it can be done. Also, the character has to have SOME kind of weakness or a way to be defeated. The most important thing, to me, is communication between the players. Like, "Hey, not trying to control the whole rp or anything, just gonna make this character kind of ridiculously powerful for a bit but definitely not for long."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can get behind something like this.

As long as the person playing the perceived 'OP' character doesn't go out of their way to curbstomp/solo enemies that were clearly intended to be taken on as a group and thus allow everyone in the party to get a crack, then it's all well and good. But if some reminders are needed here and there to not go overboard, frequent communication between that player and the GM might be helpful as well.
 
In my opinion, a character becomes OP when they are disconnected from society, or have an otherwise tasteless character. Someone like Superman, who does better than most superheroes in my mind, is still a dangerously borderline OP character, because of his immature view on the world. He loves his parents, his girlfriend, the people of his adopted planet, amd that's typically as far as his interaction goes. He is not conflicted with the complexities of society. He has a 2D world view that makes interaction with him difficult. He is unphased by the moral dilemma.

I'd say this is why someone like Batman is not necessarily OP. His limitless intellect and bottomless utility belt aside, I'd much rather debate BM about the intricacies of criminal ethic then beg SM that my cause is just and proper. Batman often entertains notions in the grey area. But maybe this is because I've just seen more of him.
 
NujabesLives! said:
(say they have their PC wipe out the enemy hordes and so on, that's not any fun. what's left for the others to do? provide moral support and clean up the mess?)
Click to expand...

Are you implying moral support is not an important if not essential part of roleplaying? I feel people might be incredibly shallow without an equal amount of moral support to balance all this killing.
 
A character becomes too powerful when what's in their pants becomes the primary focus of the RP.

That and if they are capable in handling most of the conflicts of the RP by themselves or without the need of any of the other players/characters help.
 
It honestly depends. In a story, an overpowered character has to be handled sparingly, typically their the main bads so that it seems all the more impressive when the hero actually manages to beat them, they're also the heroes master, etc. Making them over powered shows that the hero of your story has a long way to go, and it also serves to make the master, and the antagonists all the more impressive in comparison. Stuff like One Punch Man, gets away with having an Over Powered main protagonist by not focusing too much on him for most of the run time, because you won't get any tension from him. Which is the joke. Saitama is meant to be ridiculously broken in whatever setting he is in, and with how the story handles it, it works.

For an RP? An Overpowered character, unless it is the main character or someone not apart of the party should be avoided at all costs. Everybody in a group should have a specific purpose, and ability. When one player starts to replace the needs of the other players, let's say that a healer becomes an even better mage than the mage himself, this effectively renders the mage to be less important than the healer as the healer is capable of everything he can do, but also with the ability of healing. That's my stance on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top