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

[Wolfpack48]

Though the farther away you get from a show being an ensemble, the less easy replaced some of the central characters are; in some cases you basically have no show if you remove certain characters because there's no clear path to replacing them in a way that keeps the show going. You're more like to see the character stay and them replace the actor (not that that isn't fraught too) in those cases.

Right. So if Harrison Ford becomes too old to play Indiana Jones anymore, you have a choice: end the movies or find another actor that plays that character well enough for the movies to continue. And since we're talking Star Trek, note the Abrams version that keeps the characters with all new actors. Now, that may not be successful, but the characters are still essential and live on in the mythology.

Note that I would not want to play my own TTRPG characters this way. They can die, and that becomes part of the story.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO if overpowered is beating 95%+ of encounters without PC death (seems a fair definition) then I think players like to be overpowered, even if they dont like to believe they like being overpowered. They want the illusion of challenge IMO.

 

[Umbran]

Though the farther away you get from a show being an ensemble, the less easy replaced some of the central characters are; in some cases you basically have no show if you remove certain characters because there's no clear path to replacing them in a way that keeps the show going. You're more like to see the character stay and them replace the actor (not that that isn't fraught too) in those cases.

I think that applies more to actors than to characters.

I mean, look at Babylon 5 - a series with a 5-year story arc that was pre-determined before a single moment of footage was shot. And the character that is most central to what is going on, a plot lynchpin... the actor develops mental health issues so severe he must leave the show.

But, JMS managed to replace him. New actor, new character, fills the same space in the story.

Another character, given specific relevant story in the pilot to make her another lynchpin, has to leave between the pilot and full production. She's replaced, and the new character is given bits to specifically allow her to be that special lynchpin. She has to leave because her marriage to another of the actors goes really bad. She's replaced by... the original character/actress she replaced!

The number of times you really can't do without someone are small. You just have to be open to change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that applies more to actors than to characters.

I mean, look at Babylon 5 - a series with a 5-year story arc that was pre-determined before a single moment of footage was shot. And the character that is most central to what is going on, a plot lynchpin... the actor develops mental health issues so severe he must leave the show.

But, JMS managed to replace him. New actor, new character, fills the same space in the story.

Another character, given specific relevant story in the pilot to make her another lynchpin, has to leave between the pilot and full production. She's replaced, and the new character is given bits to specifically allow her to be that special lynchpin. She has to leave because her marriage to another of the actors goes really bad. She's replaced by... the original character/actress she replaced!

The number of times you really can't do without someone are small. You just have to be open to change.

Babylon 5 really was a masterclass in that sort of thing. I can't praise that show enough!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Avoiding combat unless necessary has always been part of my best practice play, on either side of the screen.

That was true in RQ too, but that didn't mean it wasn't frequently necessary (or at least unavoidable).

I mean, the maths here are not difficult. Unless the PCs can consistently put their thumbs on the scale to make combats easier for them (and if they can do so consistently they're either brilliant or I'm back to suggesting you're still slanting things in their favor, just not mechanically), being generous, a player should be losing a character about every four times a combat comes up. Its got to be an awfully low combat game for that not to be a pretty frequent event by most people's standards.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IMO if overpowered is beating 95%+ of encounters without PC death (seems a fair definition) then I think players like to be overpowered, even if they dont like to believe they like being overpowered. They want the illusion of challenge IMO.

Its common, but as I noted, there are parts of the hobby where a much different ratio there is tolerated. It also tends to change across the time frame of a character's lifespan; both RQ and OD&D players were pretty used to a lot of starting characters checking out early. An irreversible death at higher experience when they had invested in the character more, much less so.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that applies more to actors than to characters.

I mean, look at Babylon 5 - a series with a 5-year story arc that was pre-determined before a single moment of footage was shot. And the character that is most central to what is going on, a plot lynchpin... the actor develops mental health issues so severe he must leave the show.

But, JMS managed to replace him. New actor, new character, fills the same space in the story.

Another character, given specific relevant story in the pilot to make her another lynchpin, has to leave between the pilot and full production. She's replaced, and the new character is given bits to specifically allow her to be that special lynchpin. She has to leave because her marriage to another of the actors goes really bad. She's replaced by... the original character/actress she replaced!

The number of times you really can't do without someone are small. You just have to be open to change.

I'll note that B5 was still primarily an ensemble show, even if it was early planned for both Sinclair and Alexander to have important roles.

On the other hand, there are shows that rotate much more heavily around a single character; in some cases the single character is the only continuing element in the show. Reacher and the Dresden Files come to mind here. (Its not a coincidence these are based on written fiction where there's never really a need to replace the central character(s).

 

[FrogReaver]

Its common, but as I noted, there are parts of the hobby where a much different ratio there is tolerated. It also tends to change across the time frame of a character's lifespan; both RQ and OD&D players were pretty used to a lot of starting characters checking out early. An irreversible death at higher experience when they had invested in the character more, much less so.

Obviously there’s exceptions. But for people playing right now in 2025 what I describe is the predominant trend.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Obviously there’s exceptions. But for people playing right now in 2025 what I describe is the predominant trend.

Just to be clear, are you including D&D5e in that? Because if so, as I've noted before, bringing in 5e distorts any statement about the hobby as a whole by its nature. (This doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong if you aren't including 5e, but with and without that it makes two pretty different statements).

 

[FrogReaver]

Just to be clear, are you including D&D5e in that? Because if so, as I've noted before, bringing in 5e distorts any statement about the hobby as a whole by its nature. (This doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong if you aren't including 5e, but with and without that it makes two pretty different statements).

I am. Why the heck would you exclude 5e from that?