I don't prefer either. I view this as a setting design element. Some campaigns (and rule-sets) call for one approach, and others the other approach.
Inherent PC Superiority?
- Thread starter JamesonCourage
- Start date
I don't prefer either. I view this as a setting design element. Some campaigns (and rule-sets) call for one approach, and others the other approach.
Fifth Element
Legend
I think you might be putting the cart before the horse. PCs with high stats and magic items and cool powers are far more likely to survive that fight with the dragon. So PCs are superior to NPCs because they survive these fights far more often, which is a result of their PCness in most games.
When we begin a campaign it is essentially anything could happen. You are not guaranteed to make it level 30, 20 or whatever. I have noticed that 4th edition is more about the player's winning than anything else and we don't really care for that.
We liked to be dropped in a world and let us decide where we want to go. We will use our various knowledge checks about what lies in either direction and we will decide where to go from there. We don't like game that make us feel like we are in a novel where we just happen to find such and such artifact to help so and so who just happen to be in trouble when we just happen to show up, like the whole thing is rigged. If I want that sort of thing I will watch a movie or read a book.
We liked to be dropped in a world and let us decide where we want to go. We will use our various knowledge checks about what lies in either direction and we will decide where to go from there. We don't like game that make us feel like we are in a novel where we just happen to find such and such artifact to help so and so who just happen to be in trouble when we just happen to show up, like the whole thing is rigged. If I want that sort of thing I will watch a movie or read a book.
Fifth Element
Legend
Do you have a page reference for that? If not, please keep the silly edition-warring out.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Even with a page reference, let's keep edition warring out. This thread is about preferences about how powerful characters are by default when compared to NPCs. Let's keep it to constructive perspectives on that subject as much as possible.
(Just so it's clear, this isn't aimed at Fifth Element. This is just a general reminder. Fifth has been good in this thread so far, I just want to say my piece as the OP before this thread spirals out of control like so many others.)
I think that this superiority of player characters just sort of evolved naturally.
First, there was 3d6. But that led to a large variance as someone could end up with below average stats while someone else in the same group ended up with high stats.
Then we introduced 4d6, drop lowest, to keep the "idea" of 3d6 alive, but reduce variance and the chance of getting stuck with a very low stat. But this also pushed the average roll higher.
Then point-buy came along. Initial point centered around the average tended to have the problem that if you wanted a high stat, you had to balance it out with a weak stat.
So more points were given, and so on.
I think that most people don't really need their character to be greater than average along all dimensions. But they don't like the idea that your strength *must* be balanced by a weakness.
I think that most people would be pretty happy with a character who is more-or-less average in most stats, but has one or two strengths. But that technically is a superior character, especially when you look at the math to get that result.
First, there was 3d6. But that led to a large variance as someone could end up with below average stats while someone else in the same group ended up with high stats.
Then we introduced 4d6, drop lowest, to keep the "idea" of 3d6 alive, but reduce variance and the chance of getting stuck with a very low stat. But this also pushed the average roll higher.
Then point-buy came along. Initial point centered around the average tended to have the problem that if you wanted a high stat, you had to balance it out with a weak stat.
So more points were given, and so on.
I think that most people don't really need their character to be greater than average along all dimensions. But they don't like the idea that your strength *must* be balanced by a weakness.
I think that most people would be pretty happy with a character who is more-or-less average in most stats, but has one or two strengths. But that technically is a superior character, especially when you look at the math to get that result.
For me, it depends on the game.
I started my Champions players as "low-powered superheroes" (150 points + up to 100 from disads) because I wanted them to be much more powerful than an ordinary person, but not so powerful that they can ignore "normal" opponents with impunity.
For my AD&D 1E game, characters roll 4d6 and keep the best 3, giving them slightly better than average stats, and likely some high stats - but not eliminating the possibility of weaknesses. I also allow PCs to have at least the average on their 1st hit die. Since 99% of the populace are zero-level folks with ordinary stats and whatever they rolled on their single hit die the PCs are a cut above - but far from ulta-powerful. An angry farmer with a pitchfork is still a threat to a 1st level PC.
I started my Champions players as "low-powered superheroes" (150 points + up to 100 from disads) because I wanted them to be much more powerful than an ordinary person, but not so powerful that they can ignore "normal" opponents with impunity.
For my AD&D 1E game, characters roll 4d6 and keep the best 3, giving them slightly better than average stats, and likely some high stats - but not eliminating the possibility of weaknesses. I also allow PCs to have at least the average on their 1st hit die. Since 99% of the populace are zero-level folks with ordinary stats and whatever they rolled on their single hit die the PCs are a cut above - but far from ulta-powerful. An angry farmer with a pitchfork is still a threat to a 1st level PC.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
I think there's a positive that can come out of this in terms of this thread so please bear with me. Funnily enough, in early 4e I actually agree that with rules as written and following the "official" modules, my experience was that 4e was focusing on the players as both special (our characters all started as somebodies) and due to the way how death works compared to previous editions, there felt like your character had a few more second chances up the sleeve. I can see how someone might interpret this as focusing on the players "winning".
This style of play is neither objectively better or worse but just different. Some don't care for this approach while others feel it is has dramatically improved their gaming enjoyment at the table. I hope most of us have got to the point where we can analyze these differences without feeling the need to attack or defend any particular style of play or edition. Life is too short and there is never enough time for gaming and the fun it provides.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
.. and to be completely fair; it's entirely possible to kill at least one PC per gaming session just by scaling up the encounters appropriately such that the fights are fair and rely on tactical use of the game board.
The argument that 4e has an unfair player bias is rather weak.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Thank you, Herremann the Wise, for approaching this in such a great way. I can't exp again (obviously), but you should know I appreciate the constructive addition to the thread
Similar Threads
