Unlimited Potentials: Why?

This question has come up very often relating to FB. It was even a criticism delievered by Sparrow, the GM of Power Struggle. Of course, there are good arguments against allowing characters unlimited power. However, I have some general responses and some responses pertaining specifically to FB.

My major point is about allowing characters from different systems to compete. Very few will honestly defend the position that Spiderman could take on Goku or one of the Lords of Magic; even within the Marvel continuity, Spiderman is not king, not to even begin on the vast power level differences between these various systems. But, in FB and other games, all of these beings must coexist. A huge amount of the appeal of FB was in the fun involved in playing as your favorite characters and seeing them develop. FB was designed to be open to all types of strategies and characters. The entire system was designed to allow someone with an obscure character who they just adore to be able to insert them and get rocking. If I had limits to power, how could I manage this? I'd have to make the limit equal to the highest power level in existence. Which, by the way, is probably unlimited, so it's circular logic. The only other way I could accomplish it would be to say that some characters are "weaker" or "inferior" to others, and that would be distasteful to me as a GM and eclipse the appeal of FB.

Of course, this doesn't mean limits don't exist even in FB. All characters ARE roughly equal; they can have vastly different moves, abilities, and attributes, but in the end, strategy and smart play determines the winner. But most people peak. First of all, some of people's favorite characters have very limited life spanss; Whistler from Blade has cancer, Master Roshi is merely very old, and so on. Of course, this can be overcome with immortality treatments. Second, without a real enemy or goal to strive for, someone's competitive drive diminishes. You see this between sagas in DBZ; the character's power levels don't expand so much. They have no real reason to keep up the 100% dedication. And, of course, levels become increasingly few and far between when power levels become enormous; this is just part of the syndrome I just cited. With no real enemy to fight and develop against, the person must fight against weaklings or each other, limiting their educational opportunity.

Also, just think about the real world here. Of course I know that in the real world people do have limits. But, think about it in comparitive terms. When you're a boxer or a debater or a football player, you always know that eventually you will meet someone better than you. Hands down, that person can kick your ass. So you always must be striving to improve your skills, as there will always be someone tougher or meaner than you. In game terms, this means that another enemy is always waiting around the corner. This is the way to keep an RPG going: continually inserting tougher and tougher enemies to keep people striving. Of course, eventually this does get old. So, you always want to have plenty of weaklings to remind players that yes, they are some of the biggest fish in the pond. There is a very good article about this in the Rifter #6. To sum it up, Siembieda states that players will get sick eventually if EVERY NPC they meet outclasses them incredibly. They just will feel impotent: I see it happening, and you often have to give players perspective. The easiest way to do that is to allow them to defeat enemies that were formerly powerful, but compared to them, are nothing. That way, you remind them of the tremendous power and responsibility they hold.

Now, I want to strongly urge against dissing other people's RPGs because they don't fit your concept of playing. Because there IS such a thing as a power gamer. I love getting power in RPGs too, and I'm good at it. But a lot of that comes from my talent at political intrigue and in-character playing. GMs don't just want someone who can pimp the rules; they want someone who earns their power fairly, honestly and with hard work and brilliant playing. That's the entire point of this venture. Different GMs have different tastes and desires for the power setting of their RPG. Furthermore, I've found RPGs to be lucid, fluid things (I will write another essay on this, as soon as I find an appropriate thesis.) Their cant is not solidified; it changes according to personal changes in the GM (i.e. he may watch a new show or read a new comic book that changes his views), and the way players play the game. Every GM wants to give players what they want, and every GM wants to spur creativity and good play. If a player's "power gaming" serves to spark creativity and fun, then GMs will slowly change their view. However, it requires patience, goodwill and determination on all sides to make sure that the advantages gained by a particular player serve to further the fun in the game and not stultify or stagnate it.

To sum up: I believe, for a number of reasons, that characters should not have a maximum level of power that they can reach, or if they do, make it reasonable and fair, and justify it on grounds of "reaching your peak" and so on.