How do you define character "weakness?"

[Smackpixi]

Lots of options, none of which is “inability to advance the story/game.” Some of these could be symptoms of that, but don’t address the main weakness disease.

 

[payn]

The only one that stood out to me was not being cable or hard to succeed within their profession.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Lots of options, none of which is “inability to advance the story/game.” Some of these could be symptoms of that, but don’t address the main weakness disease.

Don't think of that as a system thing, but sure. "System ignores player agency" could work.

 

[TiQuinn]

Lots of options, none of which is “inability to advance the story/game.” Some of these could be symptoms of that, but don’t address the main weakness disease.

This feels like something that falls on the GM rather than the system.

 

[Wolfpack48]

So it's interesting so far -- the top results are:

• I'm rarely hitting enemies at all
• It's hard to succeed in checks in my profession
• I lose agency in this game frequently
• Smart planning doesn't reward enough bonuses to offset the other weaknesses
• Smart planning doesn't reward any bonuses or advantage
• System ignores player planning and agency (sorry for the double item!)

These all sound reasonable to me as items that could be agreed on as overly weak characters. Basically, the game isn't giving the player enough tools to do fundamental things the character should be "good" at.

Coming in the next tier are:

• It's too difficult to defeat enemies
• I have a chance at being "one-shot" by an enemy
• I'm taking a lot of damage in our combats (critically hurt)
• Too many things outside combat could hurt or kill me

This next tier is damage focused, and it's really telling that players feel their characters are so easily hit or damaged by things in the world, such that they might as well just "stay home where it's safe." Finding that sweet spot of challenge vs discouragement seems to be the key.

The last tier of less frequently voted on items could possibly be construed as things that actively skew toward more character power - where players are expecting more of a fictional hero that can't actually be killed or hurt too badly and system powers that give them a distinct advantage over their opponents. I think it's here where the current discussion before starting might need to happen. These are questions designed to really get at the power level question before diving into a system or game.

 

[Osgood]

One of my groups just got out of a Pathfinder 2 game after almost a year, while one (the guy who managed somehow to dominate in combat) enjoyed it, about half had lukewarm feelings about it and the rest despised it. The overwhelming feeling of being underpowered was a big complaint, but also meaningless choices (mostly feats that were to situational to matter). I’d say most folks hit less than half the time and enemies failed save maybe a quarter of the time. We were nearly TPK’d by what appeared to be a gang of random street thugs. So those top responses make a lot of sense to me. I certainly think that even at mid level (we were 9th by the end) failure should be a real risk, but that seems ridiculous to me.

 

[payn]

One of my groups just got out of a Pathfinder 2 game after almost a year, while one (the guy who managed somehow to dominate in combat) enjoyed it, about half had lukewarm feelings about it and the rest despised it. The overwhelming feeling of being underpowered was a big complaint, but also meaningless choices (mostly feats that were to situational to matter). I’d say most folks hit less than half the time and enemies failed save maybe a quarter of the time. We were nearly TPK’d by what appeared to be a gang of random street thugs. So those top responses make a lot of sense to me. I certainly think that even at mid level (we were 9th by the end) failure should be a real risk, but that seems ridiculous to me.

Yeap, I have encountered the same. A lot of that has to do with the tactical teamwork aspects. In tougher fights, the mage is more likely to simply slow the enemy down while the fighter takes it out. A reverse of the typical fantasy RPG experience.

This also results from a very tightly bound system which makes gamematering also different from typical experience. The CR is very accurate and much less horseshoes and hand Hand gernades that 3E/5E tends to be.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Here we are selecting the element that make your player feel so "weak" that you don't wish to continue the game/system.

In regards to the part above....
= Any game system that thinks a 'competent skill' of the character is below 70% chance of roll success base.

Don't waste my time with characters who can't roll a success to do their designated job...

Unless the character is punching meaningfully above their ability/skill/danger set, rolling should be to see how things get interesting, not to see if nothing happens...

 

[Wolfpack48]

In regards to the part above....
= Any game system that thinks a 'competent skill' of the character is below 70% chance of roll success base.

Don't waste my time with characters who can't roll a success to do their designated job...

Unless the character is punching meaningfully above their ability/skill/danger set, rolling should be to see how things get interesting, not to see if nothing happens...

Yep, "It's hard to succeed in checks in my character's profession" covers this one.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

oohhhh... I want to see a thread on this one! = "Smart planning doesn't reward any bonuses or advantage"


So... I am old fart and have been playing games for 30+ years. And one of the biggest complaints, across soooo many peoples = "I hate the tactical planning part of a game".

And I mean they hate this by a BIG amount.

Players complained 100% of the time that "before we go into the orc camp, we debate for hours on how we could do this, and what each character should do, and all the possible side cases." and it got worse for big dungeons, and big campaign areas.

When we switched to the Blades in the Dark model of "jump right into the first challenge, and flash back to any preparations the characters may have done when they encounter a block" = we thought angels had come down from on high and gifted us with super powers of gaming!

Never, not even once, was any dungeon crawl, orc camp, castle raid, dinner soiree, king's ransom deal, etc etc = anywhere near as fun as it is now that we do this.

I can't imagine the pain and misery of going back to "let's argue for 2 hours , then the GM just sidelines our ideas with their own clever points" junk..

....

Now some may say "Well, what about being clever in the moment?". "I see a problem and I attempt to overcome it in clever way, give me +1!" = why don't some systems do this?

Good question!

I dunno the answer.

My initial gut reaction is = "because most of the time its a player trying to be a rule/bonus weasel and not really embracing the roleplay." but , then again, maybe not. maybe the player is just being clever. But in that case I still say, "ok, but the rules assume that is always the case, thats why you get to roll at all. You are just being extra in your description of your action. No bonus deserved." again, dunno... not sure on that either..