How important is it to you or your players for characters to feel "overpowered"?

[FitzTheRuke]

I care nothing for "overpowered" but I do think that it's important for characters to feel "competent". However, I feel the same way about the 'bad guys'. They ought to feel competent as well. (Aside from the occasional bumbling NPC or interesting flaws in PCs or NPCs).

But OP? Nah.

 

[schneeland]

Either way and all between, I think that players want their characters to feel competent.

Agreed. My default assumption is that my character is competent in the things associated with the archetype - e.g. I expect a barbarian to be good at fighting and strength-related feats, a ranger to be good at tracking, hunting and archery, etc.
I'm fine if there's a bit of a ramp up phase - e.g. I don't expect a DCC level 0 character to be very competent - but I don't want that to last "forever".
That being said, I'm personally not a big fan of the steep power curve in D&D, and steamrolling through enemies - be it through the general design or hyper optimization is also not a thing I enjoy too much.

 

[aco175]

How important is it for you or your players to feel their characters can basically rtflpwn enemies?

I tried to Google RTFPWN and it came back with nothing.

 

[Deset Gled]

Either way and all between, I think that players want their characters to feel competent.

I will argue against this. Sorta. Kinda.

I don't want my characters to be incompetent. But I don't want a low level character to feel complete, either. If my character is supposed to eventually be a great wizard, I don't want them to feel like a fully competent wizard at 3rd, 8th, or 14th level. I want them to feel like a novice, apprentice, or scholar. Competent to a certain point, but also definitely incompetent in certain regards.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I tried to Google RTFPWN and it came back with nothing.

RTFL = Rolling on The Floor Laughing
PWN = An act of dominating an opponent

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted “Neutral”.

After playing most of the conventional archetypes, these days I’m less concerned about “overpowered” vs “underpowered”, and more with “is this a character I want to play”, with their relative power being a side effect.

This has resulted in fallen angels, glass cannons, situational supermen, average joes, bizarro protagonists, eternal second bananas, ticking time bombs, heroes done the hard way, and so forth, in addition to PCs following bog-standard tropes.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I will argue against this. Sorta. Kinda.

I don't want my characters to be incompetent. But I don't want a low level character to feel complete, either. If my character is supposed to eventually be a great wizard, I don't want them to feel like a fully competent wizard at 3rd, 8th, or 14th level. I want them to feel like a novice, apprentice, or scholar. Competent to a certain point, but also definitely incompetent compared to others.

That's something like me and I put down "somewhat important". It's basically feeling good at key skills but not a dominator.

 

[Tonguez]

My favourite character is a elderly gnome alchemist specifically because he is physically weak and hides from combat. Nonetheless he is a competent - he gets lots of utility outside combat and can also help with an incendiary grenade or a tanglefoot bag.

So yes I want my characters to be competent at what they do, but that doesnt necessarily mean theyre overpowered

 

[Wolfpack48]

I'm curious about the large number of folks voting "It plays no role whatsoever." Can you elaborate?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Overpowered = not at all. That is a problem that wargame rpgs suffer....

Now "competent" IS important. So if they write up a "doctor" then the character better be able to perform their medical duties with competency. And complications or interference better be meaningful...