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

[nevin]

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 starring roles where getting hurt means their "characters (or the system) sucks?"

If you read my other posts. . I said variability is important. Even in say a call of Cthulhu game. Not every goup of cultists should be a death threat. But appropriate level threats should come within that variability. I find even the players that want to be the A-team are usually ok with being that awesome sometimes and crawling through the mud when necessary.

 

[nevin]

The framing of this question is so weird to me. I never want to feel this way, and I never want my players to feel this way. Unless you're just overpowering some hapless mook who's in your way, fights should feel risky, and victories should feel earned.

Stomping enemies is boring.

Stomping enemies every time is boring, nearly losing everytime is boring. But both are fun when you have no Idea whats around the corner. Sometimes things should just go right an easy for the PC's. Not all the time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have. Had a player who just could not handle that his character wasn't the supreme hero of the land... in WFRP 1e... where he rolled a ratcatcher. When I ran AMSH, he wanted to play Modoc... (Rest of the group were reasonable - Spidey, Ironman, She-Hulk.) Totally bad fit for the group.

Well, I suspect if I hit someone like that it must have been Way Back in the Day, and they probably selected themselves out of whatever campaign they strolled into pretty quickly. Even my (pretty heavily power-gaming) friends who leaned a bit in that direction were, at worst, wanting to be Big Damn Heroes in contexts that didn't entirely support that, or as I said, had a different concept of what characters in the described campaign did than I (or whoever else was running) did.

(I do think discontinuity between GM expected power level and player expected power level is pretty common in the hobby, but I doubt most of the latter would see it as being "overpowered". In other words, I kind of agree the framing of this question is a bit odd).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would love it if RPGs would define what kinds of characters are expected for the game.

Do you want me to roll up Captain Kirk or a redshirt?

Some sort-of do, but it doesn't help when the designer, GM and players can all see that definition differently (as can happen).

 

[Thomas Shey]

It would just be sad if people didn't know what hero means. In any context.

Given the way "superhero" is used sometimes (even though in the context of actual superhero stories, they're often up against opposition as or more powerful than them), I think you need to be sad. People's sense of what that word means varies considerably.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is it more about what you roll up, or how you engage with the scenarios based on what you rolled?

I think that's a false dichotomy. You can try to act as heroic as you want, but if you're too far off what's needed to make that work, its going to look bad and just as likely make you look like an idiot as a hero.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn’t it possible to both know what the game is like and roll up a less than effective character?

I'd say that's a good reason to A: Not use random generation, and B: Either know or have someone helping you who knows what does and doesn't produce an effective character in the game system and genre involved.

 

[nevin]

I'd say that's a good reason to A: Not use random generation, and B: Either know or have someone helping you who knows what does and doesn't produce an effective character in the game system and genre involved.

Good idea because just the players can mess this up. A few minmaxers can make that roleplayer feel useless every time the dice come out.

 

[KYRON45]

You tell me then: what's the "common use" definition for hero?

The Oxford Dictionary, Miriam Webster, : a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. Or more simply put....good guys doing good things. Why does it need to be more complicated than that? Other than people on the internet making argument's to argue about.
Oh...it's also a sandwich.

 

[KYRON45]

I think that's a false dichotomy. You can try to act as heroic as you want, but if you're too far off what's needed to make that work, its going to look bad and just as likely make you look like an idiot as a hero.

Who hurt you?