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

[Aldarc]

While I'm pretty sure I've never killed a character with disease, I do make them check now and then when they've been wading around in particularly disease-prone areas to see if someone picked up anything nasty. 1e D&D has some obscure rules for this, though I generally just wing it via a roll-under-Constitution; and if someone does get sick and they don't have access to a cure it could mean that character's laid up for a few days (and-or just less effective) which serves to delay the PCs and give their foes more time. The delay could put added pressure on their rations etc. as well in the right situation.

Once Cure Disease or similar comes online, though, disease becomes fairly irrelevant unless for some reason they're starving for spells.

Your character dies of a heart attack. Thank you for playing.

 

[PrunellaUK]

While I'm pretty sure I've never killed a character with disease, I do make them check now and then when they've been wading around in particularly disease-prone areas to see if someone picked up anything nasty. 1e D&D has some obscure rules for this, though I generally just wing it via a roll-under-Constitution; and if someone does get sick and they don't have access to a cure it could mean that character's laid up for a few days (and-or just less effective) which serves to delay the PCs and give their foes more time. The delay could put added pressure on their rations etc. as well in the right situation.

Once Cure Disease or similar comes online, though, disease becomes fairly irrelevant unless for some reason they're starving for spells.

Interestingly, in the Glorantha universe of HeroQuest and RuneQuest, disease is the result of disease spirits, and to succumb to a disease is a battle between the spirits and the PC's own magical power. In other words: disease is its own form of combat, and as brutal and deadly as anything else.

 

[payn]

That's why I periodically kill PCs off with heart disease, dysentery, typhoid, and other illnesses. Just to make the game as real as possible with reality of seemingly randomized deaths. For some reason I also no longer have any players.

 

[Umbran]

We were talking about secondary characters as protagonists in relation to primary characters. That is, players living in a world where Elric exists but not playing Elric himself. Those secondary characters can still be the focus of a campaign and still be competent.

Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry.

I still question the example - I don't think you can take the bridge crew of Lower Decks to be the "primary characters" in the narrative. Yes, they are higher ranked, but they don't get the most screen time, nor is the narrative about those bridge characters. How, then, are they "primary"? (that's mostly a rhetorical question)

 

[Wolfpack48]

Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry.

I still question the example - I don't think you can take the bridge crew of Lower Decks to be the "primary characters" in the narrative. Yes, they are higher ranked, but they don't get the most screen time, nor is the narrative about those bridge characters. How, then, are they "primary"? (that's mostly a rhetorical question)

Well, that show does the neat trick of making secondary characters the focus (PCs) and moving the primary/canon characters (Kirk, Spock, etc) to the background (NPCs). I guess you could argue whether those secondary characters now become primary characters. I was just saying you could, if everyone agrees, take a bunch of secondary characters (or make your own) and make them the focus of the campaign.

This all goes to whether these newly focused characters have the same power levels as any other TTRPG. That would need to be determined by the table. They aren't canon characters, so could they be hurt like any other PC?

 

[aramis erak]

Maybe more like Batman or Aquaman.

Batman varies in power level by timeframe, medium, and writer. The Superfriends saturday morning cartoon, Bats was on par with Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and just behind Superman. With Robin, when used, better than Aquaman outside the water.
Meanwhile, in the 60's Batman was much lower power as a super, and much more potent as a tech head, but always in almost silly ways. Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, he's two super powers - his inventions, and that he heals fast. But he still, despite his healing, is impossibly beat up in the third one.

 

[aramis erak]

If I ever run a canned-setting game e.g. a Harry Potter game or Star Wars game, playing known canon characters would be off the table; they'd be - if every encountered at all - NPCs. Depending on the timing of what we're playing vs the known-canon events those known NPCs might or might not have considerable plot protection (e.g. if our Star Wars campaign is set between Empire and Return then even if you happen to meet Darth Vader you can't kill him but if our HP campaign is set after the Battle of Hogwarts then you could knock off Lucius Malfoy if the opportunity arose as his plot protection has worn off.).

The canon issue is simple: Canon stops for a campaign the moment the dice hit the table. No plot protection. The SWEU has three more "could be the chosen of the force" characters - Leia, Esra Bridger, and Ahsoka Tano. And, perhaps, Kanan Jarus.

Luke kills vader in Empire? Fine. This brings the inquisitors... (Rebels really fleshes out the dark side users. So does Bad Batch.) Or the dark times last longer.

It's easier in Trek, largely because we have huge chunks of missing time AND well defined personalities... TV shows are always easier in my experience, than movie series, and series of movies easier than single movie.

In Supers, It's almost de rigueur to play canon characters - Marvel and DC games come with extensive lists of characters for use.

It's worthwhile to be open to canon characters for one shots - they can make a one shot much easier... even if they can make campaigns a bit harder.

 

[Umbran]

Well, that show does the neat trick of making secondary characters the focus (PCs) and moving the primary/canon characters (Kirk, Spock, etc) to the background (NPCs).

So, I think that's where I am getting hung up. If the NPCs are all "background", then the issue of power differences ceases to be a real concern - they aren't around much, so who cares what power level they are?

Unless you are playing a pretty particular game (like DC Superheroes, and you're Superman), there's a basic understanding that there are apt to be bigger fish in the overall pond, but they aren't here in this narrative.

I guess you could argue whether those secondary characters now become primary characters.

I would. Contrast it to a scenario in which the away team has Kirk, Spock, and Bones in it, and the the thing is mostly about telling the players what those GM-characters do, and the PCs are just hanging around taking small orders or being redshirts. Then the PCs are not primary characters in their own session of play.

But if Kirk, Spock, and Bones are in the background, back on the ship, and the focus is on the away team's actions, that away team are the primary characters of the scenario.

"I would submit that "primary" is not a function of power, but of focus.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh sure. I’d expect any character protagonist to be at least capable. The question is whether it’s possible for those characters to die, and if they can die, whether it must be a “heroic” death. For TTRPGs anyway I firmly say “it depends.”

I’m not of the opinion that RPGs must fully emulate fiction.

I'm of two minds on it too, but its clear many players are uninterested in death (at least that sticks) being on the table, and for some genres and campaign structures it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The answer is: as little as the players will accept.

I'll be blunt: I don't expect that's really true. I doubt seriously, unless you were aiming for a very low combat campaign, that you'd use a system and setup where each combat was a coin flip. I can't see how that would serve even your purposes as you've expressed them.