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

[James Gasik]

If I present an encounter and my party stomps it flat within a round or two, I feel like I didn't really do my job of challenging them. But I know it's also important to have that be a possibility, otherwise, what's the point of progressing and gaining new abilities and better numbers?

If the rewards for play only ensure that you are able to keep up with escalating challenges, then it's hard to feel like you're improving at all. Oh sure, you're fighting giants and dragons now instead of orcs and trolls, but if the game feels fundamentally the same, you're just treading water, expending a lot of effort to go basically nowhere.

I don't think it's important to let the players overpower their foes all the time, lol, but at least some of the time, allow them to see that their efforts are really paying off.

 

[payn]

This is a big divide between 5E and PF2. 5E's bounded accuracy was designed to lower the ceiling between first level characters and their challenges and 20th level characters. The pros of this is it gives a world a more logical sense in why all the thing that live in it can possible exist together. While a high level character is indeed powerful in relation to foes of lower level, those lower level foes can still be a threat in great numbers. While maintaining a high fantasy experience, you also get a bit of simulation play possible. PF2 tosses all that out the window. What is an easy and difficult challenge is entirely dependent on level. When you reach 10th level no amount of level 1 things will challenge you. The idea here is super high fantasy where the PCs are capable of epic power, and the game world just adapts to suit the narrative at expense of any simulation.

So in broader terms, it really depends on expectation. If you are aiming for a realistic (as possible) simulation, then the power level is going to be curbed in the face of quantity. If you are looking to tell a heroic fantasy story, then reality is going to be stretched to the limit and beyond as price of admission. Furthermore, I think style of game is going to dictate this power curve as well. A sandbox where you could encounter anything, is going to be different than an adventure path. In one, you could encounter a thousand gobos if you end up there, in the other you wont because its not part of the heroes specific journey (unless of course that journey is becoming powerful enough to kill a thousand gobos in one go).

Personally, im a bit down the middle. I like adventure path play quite a lot, but I also like a down to Earth character who isnt exceptional in any way, but that they decide to face danger.

 

[Wolfpack48]

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...

Yes, I don't think there's any dispute that a doctor should feel competent in their medical profession. But as regards combat specifically (I guess it doesn't matter in non-martial rpgs), how powerful should characters feel in relation to enemies?

 

[Wolfpack48]

This is a big divide between 5E and PF2. 5E's bounded accuracy was designed to lower the ceiling between first level characters and their challenges and 20th level characters. The pros of this is it gives a world a more logical sense in why all the thing that live in it can possible exist together. While a high level character is indeed powerful in relation to foes of lower level, those lower level foes can still be a threat in great numbers. While maintaining a high fantasy experience, you also get a bit of simulation play possible. PF2 tosses all that out the window. What is an easy and difficult challenge is entirely dependent on level. When you reach 10th level no amount of level 1 things will challenge you. The idea here is super high fantasy where the PCs are capable of epic power, and the game world just adapts to suit the narrative at expense of any simulation.

So in broader terms, it really depends on expectation. If you are aiming for a realistic (as possible) simulation, then the power level is going to be curbed in the face of quantity. If you are looking to tell a heroic fantasy story, then reality is going to be stretched to the limit and beyond as price of admission. Furthermore, I think style of game is going to dictate this power curve as well. A sandbox where you could encounter anything, is going to be different than an adventure path. In one, you could encounter a thousand gobos if you end up there, in the other you wont because its not part of the heroes specific journey (unless of course that journey is becoming powerful enough to kill a thousand gobos in one go).

Personally, im a bit down the middle. I like adventure path play quite a lot, but I also like a down to Earth character who isnt exceptional in any way, but that they decide to face danger.

Is power a factor of the character sheet feats being greater than enemy powers, or it playing your character smart and doing a David vs Goliath? I would argue the latter is more epic and awesome as David given that he could easily be crushed if he just stood there.

 

[payn]

Is power a factor of the character sheet feats being greater than enemy powers, or it playing your character smart and doing a David vs Goliath? I would argue the latter is more epic and awesome as David given that he could easily be crushed if he just stood there.

It really depends. Is the point of the game to reenact David vs Goliath? If so, its not likely David will be crushed. If its the opposite and its likely David will be crushed, but has a tiny chance of winning and does, then that feels right for that game.

 

[Wolfpack48]

It really depends. Is the point of the game to reenact David vs Goliath? If so, its not likely David will be crushed. If its the opposite and its likely David will be crushed, but has a tiny chance of winning and does, then that feels right for that game.

I don't know about the point of the game insomuch as a game's power equity model. I'm thinking more like a game that rewards creative thinking on the player's part and provides advantage for thinking outside the box. In other words, less mathematical stat comparisons between PC and monster, and more bonuses for players coming up with a good plan.

 

[payn]

I don't know about the point of the game insomuch as a game's power equity model. I'm thinking more like a game that rewards creative thinking on the player's part and provides advantage for thinking outside the box. In other words, less mathematical stat comparisons between PC and monster, and more bonuses for players coming up with a good plan.

Sure, classic skill play. Some go for it, some dont. I think the pro is it invites creativity and imagination, the con is its vague and you need to rely on fair rulings. It will come down to how well the system provides support for that fairness.

 

[jian]

It very much depends on genre, doesn’t it? Survival horror PCs can expect to feel distinctly underpowered and desperate, that’s the point. Wuxia PCs can expect to kick the ass of the entire Imperial army if necessary. But even they can expect to hit the Demon Emperor like a car running into a concrete wall.

I think in any genre, characters can expect to feel well modelled - competent or not, challenged or not - for the story, and for the story to contain tension and uncertainty. The Avengers will have no difficulty with a roomful of Hydra goons, and feel a bit challenged by the Masters of Evil - but what are the Masters really after and will they succeed? The Avengers know that fighting Galactus isn’t an option, so how can they prevent him from eating the planet? There’s the tension and uncertainty.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Sure, classic skill play. Some go for it, some dont. I think the pro is it invites creativity and imagination, the con is its vague and you need to rely on fair rulings. It will come down to how well the system provides support for that fairness.

Ideally, I’d make even attempts at a plan, even a bad one, get some kind of advantage. The point (for me at least) is to get the players thinking. A good plan could very well end up RTFLPWNing enemies.

 

[overgeeked]

There's an inverse relationship between PC power and my interest in playing or running the game. The more powerful the PCs, the less interest I have in running or playing that game. Especially in fantasy games. But even in wild genres like pulp and superheroes. Yes, those PCs should be more powerful than your average Joe by far, but there should still exist enemies and obstacles that will challenge them, give them pause, and make them sweat. Without that challenge, the game's boring. "Yay, we easily win again!" is the single most boring style of play.