Search results

This question obviously applies to main tier games. I even mentioned D&D. If it‘s a God tier or Superhero game, the question doesn’t apply.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that superhero games need to be overpowered. 😉 And to be blunt the players (not all) complaining about underpowered games were younger players. That said, I personally know one player my age who absolutely can’t stand taking even a little damage.

Dragonbane threads.

In my OP I intentionally used “overpowered” instead of “heroic” because several discussions have cropped up recently about players complaining they couldn’t steamroll enemies easily enough. I’m really interested in where the line is for folks, and I may do another poll to drill down into exactly...

See, the bolded is where I think games could do a better job. Smart play is the best offence and defense. If players felt their strategic choices and planning provided a tangible advantage in the system (of course adjudicated fairly), that's where the feeling of power lies. Knowing you are David...

I think where 'fragile' and 'useless' fall is the rub. How many hits should you be able to take to not feel fragile? I'd feel pretty fragile if I took one hit from a giant's maul.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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

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

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

Excellent point -- the extremes on both ends are boring I think we could agree. I guess another question could be, "do your players want to feel like they are playing through a dangerous enough scenario that their characters could die?" Or do they want the comfort of knowing that death could...

I think this is what I'm getting at. It does seem that for some players (based on discussions here), any challenge or adversity at all means "struggling like worms in the darkness." That is, do your players demand that they never experience negative effects, or is their wish to play the A-Team...

Again, then it probably should be on the important side of the scale, not unimportant.

Then you should probably choose that it's important in some ways to you, not neutral or unimportant.

Remember, folks, this isn't a question about basic skill competency, but about power range of characters in relation to enemies they encounter. How easily should characters be able to dispose of said enemies without any planning or special preparation?

For this one, just a simple "what is the average age of your groups?" If you have multiple groups with different ranges, go ahead and select multiple ranges.

So this one seems to be coming up more frequently in other discussions, especially as regards players comparing new games to D&D, so I am going to phrase this very "carefully" :ROFLMAO: How important is it for you or your players to feel their characters can basically RTFLPWN enemies? I say...